Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Elspeth]

Oh, I don't know - Charles grew up in a rather artificial environment with enough emotional problems of his own. At least William is sufficiently older now to have some perspective on things; he was only 15 when his mother died, and he must have been too young to know what was really going on.

 

[Incas]

The last thing I would ever think of in relation to Charles being a bad king is his looks. That is grasping at straws.

FYI, I merely stated an opinion, an "what if" observation, similar to the thread devoted to "what if Charles was the one killed". It was not a comment directed at anyone nor any particular post. There is no need for sarcasm.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think it was meant as sarcasm, just a way of saying that she doesn't agree. It's often the case that good-looking people get an easier ride through life, but I'm sure that isn't the only factor.

 

[ysbel]

It's often the case that good-looking people get an easier ride through life, but I'm sure that isn't the only factor.

I don't know whether Charles' looks hindered him in public perception but I do believe Diana's looks helped her gain sympathy for being the cheated party. The other royal women here whose husband's have allegedly cheated on them (Sophia and Juan Carlos, Anne Marie and Constantine) get mild admiration for how they're holding up, but their husband's affairs are not the subject of such outrage and moral indignation as people seem to get with Charles.

 

[lashinka2002]

I think Charles' looks along with the press' help have held him back in the publics eyes. Look at Camilla, had she been better looking people & the press would not have had such an easy time of making snide remarks about her looks and such. Appereance should'nt matter but unfortunately it does. I don't know if Charles was always considered a dashing young prince I recall many unfortunate taunts about his looks and character throughout his life but some positive as well. Diana had star quality and completely outshone Charles, the press may have propelled her at first but eventually the people saw that she was compassionate, sincere and touchable. Absolutely irresistable, everybody loved that. At first the people loved her for her looks & shyness but once the people go to know her they loved her for all of her other qualities that made her so human and not just a royal figure. The whole world laughed and cried right along with her. I think I've gone on rambling off topic here here....sorry!

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't know whether Charles' looks hindered him in public perception but I do believe Diana's looks helped her gain sympathy for being the cheated party. The other royal women here whose husband's have allegedly cheated on them (Sophia and Juan Carlos, Anne Marie and Constantine) get mild admiration for how they're holding up, but their husband's affairs are not the subject of such outrage and moral indignation as people seem to get with Charles.

It may also be because Sofia and Anne Marie are old school and think they have to suffer with it. However, I have heard that Sofia wanted to leave Juan Carlos and didn't because she would lose her kids.

 

[Warren]

Through thick and thin...

It may also be because Sofia and Anne Marie are old school and think they have to suffer with it. However, I have heard that Sofia wanted to leave Juan Carlos and didn't because she would lose her kids.

And sometimes, perseverance through the tough times pays off. I think King Albert and Queen Paola are a good example of "sticking it out", and ending up happy and contented together. The relationship of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard is another Royal example that comes to mind.
.

 

[lashinka2002]

It may also be because Sofia and Anne Marie are old school and think they have to suffer with it. However, I have heard that Sofia wanted to leave Juan Carlos and didn't because she would lose her kids.

She could leave him now and not loose her kids though couldn't she? They're old enough to understand. I think they hold on tightly to faith and that's what sees them through. Maybe they don't want to set the example of a divorce/seperation for her own children.

 

[iowabelle]

Oh, I don't know - Charles grew up in a rather artificial environment with enough emotional problems of his own. At least William is sufficiently older now to have some perspective on things; he was only 15 when his mother died, and he must have been too young to know what was really going on.

I think William was aware of what was going on between his parents -- at least the positive spin in her favor that Diana chose to put on it. From what I heard about his reaction to Diana's revelation that she had an affair with Hewitt, William might not have realized that Diana had been having the affair (he might have just thought it was a great friendship).

I thought it was very unfair of Diana to make William her confidant about her marital problems with Charles. There are some things about their parents that children don't need to know.

 

[iowabelle]

No problem susan. I actually think he'd make a good king if he could sort some things out for himself. Marrying Camilla was a good start, she seems to give him confidence and he seems to be settling down.

Actually I think he's already taking over quite a few duties from the Queen. He's already doing the investitures and he represents her abroad.

I think he'll turn out alright.

I might get in trouble with my own fellow Diana fans for saying it... but maybe Camilla is the wife that Charles needed to make him successful.

What I'm saying is, Diana was a true star, and Charles felt jealous of her. The successful royal marriages - at least in the House of Windsor - seem to be those where the non-royal wife is content to let the husband be the star and she plays a supportive role. Maybe Camilla gives Charles the same kind of support that George VI received from his Elizabeth.

 

[Alexandria]

I thought it was very unfair of Diana to make William her confidant about her marital problems with Charles. There are some things about their parents that children don't need to know.

I agree iowabelle; I never cared for the fact that Diana made young William such a confidant of her personal problems like he was an adult who could understand such problems. It wasn't just that she confided her very adult problems (eating disorder, marital problems, frustration with the monarchy and its formalities and protocol) in a young boy (as mature as he was), but that she did it with her own son, which put him in a very awkward position as half the people she was having problems with were his family, too. Whatever you feel about your husband, you should never pit your child against his own father, especially a father who was and still is very much part of his life.

I have a friend who is going through a terrible divorce right now. Her husband abused her and even her mom on one occasion. He has called the police on her twice now. But despite all this, and even on the advice of child psychologists, she will never tell her son what a bad person his father is. He can find that out for himself.

I might get in trouble with my own fellow Diana fans for saying it... but maybe Camilla is the wife that Charles needed to make him successful.

What I'm saying is, Diana was a true star, and Charles felt jealous of her. The successful royal marriages - at least in the House of Windsor - seem to be those where the non-royal wife is content to let the husband be the star and she plays a supportive role. Maybe Camilla gives Charles the same kind of support that George VI received from his Elizabeth.

Once again, I agree with you iowabelle, though not completely the point about Diana being a star and Charles being jealous of her. In their marriage the world was certainly more interested in Diana and Charles had very (publicly expressed) strong feelings resenting this. Rightly or wrongly, felt that as the future King of Great Britain he should be the natural star. (Not saying that I agree with this statement, it is just what Charles felt by my impression.)

But, I don't think Diana was all that supportive of Charles in their marriage, certainly not in the same way Camilla appears to be. It's more than just allowing Charles to take the lead (walk two steps ahead of her as it may be) and to let Charles shine. But about being emotionally supportive and encouraging of him. Diana, it seemed to me, especially in the thick of their marriage (not the first few years), was interested in the spotlight for herself. She knew she was a star and that Charles paled to her and she actively sought the spotlight. In some cases it worked to her benefit -- her good causes got good press because of her star power not to mention that it gained her public sympathy as her marriage broke down.

Camilla, in addition to having many of the same interests as Charles (such as the country life), also seems to provide Charles with the support and encouragement and to diffuse any doubts he may have, and allow him to just be himself. With Diana, Charles likely always strived to be more to "compete" with Diana's star power.

 

[branchg]

It may also be because Sofia and Anne Marie are old school and think they have to suffer with it. However, I have heard that Sofia wanted to leave Juan Carlos and didn't because she would lose her kids.

When you marry a future Sovereign, you are marrying a country and agreeing to do your duty as Consort. This is the critical point Diana never understood, which Sofia and Anne-Marie did, which is the marriage is an ultimate sacrifice of your own wishes in order to uphold the Crown as fount of honour.

Every marriage, royal or not, has challenges and tribulations along the way and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage. But when you become a Queen Consort, your duty comes first, regardless of the state of your marriage. This is simply the way it is.

Diana's mistake was to believe she could actually change Charles and that her role as the mother of a future king was more important than a Prince of Wales. She was wrong. She knew exactly what the story was before she married Charles. She knew what becoming Princess of Wales would entail and understood her life of duty. She was determined to make this marriage, despite her own family's reservations about her suitability.

It simply isn't fair to blame Charles for the failure of the marriage and now say he shouldn't be King. He deserves to be King and it is his duty to reign.

 

[Elspeth]

While I think you're right in your analysis of a lot of the situation between Charles and Diana, I also think that it's a little unfair to say that Diana knew exactly what she was getting into. She might well have known that Charles, like many middle-aged bachelors of their class, had a mistress, and she might well have known what was expected of her in terms of duty, but there's nothing like personal experience for that knowledge to start really meaning something.

I really doubt that she had a clear understanding up front of the fundamental reality of what she was getting into. She was also a child of the 1960s and 1970s who had been brought up in an atmosphere where people's needs were important even if they were royal or aristocratic or whatever. I don't think she had the maturity to really know what the situation was, and the tragedy is that her own family seemed to be of precious little help to her.

 

[lashinka2002]

When you marry a future Sovereign, you are marrying a country and agreeing to do your duty as Consort. This is the critical point Diana never understood, which Sofia and Anne-Marie did, which is the marriage is an ultimate sacrifice of your own wishes in order to uphold the Crown as fount of honour.

Every marriage, royal or not, has challenges and tribulations along the way and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage. But when you become a Queen Consort, your duty comes first, regardless of the state of your marriage. This is simply the way it is.

Diana's mistake was to believe she could actually change Charles and that her role as the mother of a future king was more important than a Prince of Wales. She was wrong. She knew exactly what the story was before she married Charles. She knew what becoming Princess of Wales would entail and understood her life of duty. She was determined to make this marriage, despite her own family's reservations about her suitability.

It simply isn't fair to blame Charles for the failure of the marriage and now say he shouldn't be King. He deserves to be King and it is his duty to reign.

I think it is unfair for you to state what Diana did or did not understand at her time of marraige. Nobody really knows what she knew. Excusing Charles' behaviour at the time of the marraige because you think Diana knew everything is unfair as well. Your opinions seemed to be only fueled by fact whereas many live life & speak from the heart. I hope you understand what I'm saying.

 

[iowabelle]

When you marry a future Sovereign, you are marrying a country and agreeing to do your duty as Consort. This is the critical point Diana never understood, which Sofia and Anne-Marie did, which is the marriage is an ultimate sacrifice of your own wishes in order to uphold the Crown as fount of honour.

About branchg's comment - perhaps those are born royal like Sofia or Anne-Marie have an understanding of royal marriage (particularly marriage to a sovereign or heir) that non-royals don't have. And maybe that's an understanding that can't be taught to someone who isn't raised in the system.

I will say something too about Diana versus Charles. Diana was raised in a turbulent family whose members weren't shy about voicing emotion. Charles was raised in a family where displays of emotion were discouraged. No wonder they had difficulty communicating.

 

[ysbel]

Good point about the star power. I remember on Charles' 40th birthday, he and Diana went to a ballet performance where Diana gave her husband a birthday present by going onstage with the company and dancing a number at the finale.

Now it doesn't take a psychiatrist to figure out that Charles is very conservative and is uncomfortable with a lot of flashy display. The whole scene reminded me of Joe DiMaggio's reaction when Marilyn Monroe was photographed with her dress blowing up around her hips. After that Joe still loved Marilyn but his strict Italian-American background couldn't tolerate that type of public display. The marriage was over.

If Diana had thought that Charles would appreciate her 'gift' she must have forgotten that men in general don't like a lot of fuss and display on their 40th birthday. At the time I thought she was just foolish (didn't she see the scene in the movie '10' with Dudley Moore's 40th birthday party and he hated it? ).

But now, I'm not so sure. This was 1987 and if you believe Andrew Morton's book by this point she already knew about Camilla and the marriage was already cracking up. So one wonders whether her dance was a foolish but genuine and heartfelt gift to Charles or whether she had already decided that she didn't care for him and she just wanted to get on stage and dance however uncomfortable it made him feel.

 

[Ennyllorac]

I think it is truly unfair to speculate what either one of them was thinking and feeling at any given time. QUite honestly, I don't think either one really new what they were getting into. Who could have predicted "Dianamania"? It must have been overwhelming for them both.

 

[Alicky]

Wow, I didn't know it was in 1987. Later than I had previously assumed. Definitely puts the scenario in a new light.

 

[branchg]

Diana's family (both the Fermoys and the Spencers) most certainly did understand what marrying the Prince of Wales would entail and both had reservations. Lady Fermoy was a Lady of the Bedchamber and close friend of the Queen Mother for thirty years and the Spencers had served as equerries and confidants to the Crown for centuries. It's not like Diana was some common girl off the street with no idea what she was getting into.

It's been well-documented over the years by numerous biographers that Lady Fermoy, in particular, was adamantly against Diana marrying Prince Charles and warned her granddaughter of what she was getting into. The Spencers had no particular objection, but Diana's father, the Earl Spencer, worried that she was too young for a royal marriage to the heir to the throne and expressed his concern to her.

Diana was later quoted, after the divorce, as saying she did know what the marriage would entail and she knew about Camilla from the start. She told Ingrid Seward that, in fact, she was willing to move on from the affair and continue the marriage, but it was taken out of her hands (and Charles) by the Queen and the Household. She was ordered to divorce and that was the end of it.

I am just pointing out that some people seem to believe Diana was this innocent little lamb thrown to the slaughter by marrying the Prince of Wales and just used every step of the way. I think the truth is she knew what her duty to the Crown was and became too enamored of her relationship with the press and betrayed the monarchy.

 

[tiaraprin]

When you marry a future Sovereign, you are marrying a country and agreeing to do your duty as Consort. This is the critical point Diana never understood, which Sofia and Anne-Marie did, which is the marriage is an ultimate sacrifice of your own wishes in order to uphold the Crown as fount of honour.

Every marriage, royal or not, has challenges and tribulations along the way and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage. But when you become a Queen Consort, your duty comes first, regardless of the state of your marriage. This is simply the way it is.

Diana's mistake was to believe she could actually change Charles and that her role as the mother of a future king was more important than a Prince of Wales. She was wrong. She knew exactly what the story was before she married Charles. She knew what becoming Princess of Wales would entail and understood her life of duty. She was determined to make this marriage, despite her own family's reservations about her suitability.

It simply isn't fair to blame Charles for the failure of the marriage and now say he shouldn't be King. He deserves to be King and it is his duty to reign.

So, a woman is supposed to sit there and accept a cheating husband?? She is supposed to be weak with no backbone?? This is the 21st century and no woman, royal or not, should have to suffer through that!!

 

[love_cc]

I think Diana is a very indepedent person actually. She want people to recognize Diana other than just Princess of Wales or Charles's wife. However Camilla has a very traditional view about her role to support her husband either APB or Charles. After all Camilla and Diana were born in two different ages. What Charles wants is a traditional wife to support husband emotionally and publicly. Unfortunately Diana failed to archieve neither of the goals. This is one of Charles and Diana's conflicts.
I think Diana wanted a very loving husband because she has a unhappy childhood and Charles wants a loving wife because he wants a warm family. Then we all know Diana cannot do that for Charles and Charles he cannot do that for Diana. The strength of Camilla is that she is quite able to give Charles a lot of love that Charles needs. If Diana can love Charles in a way Camilla does, the marriage may be different.

 

[ysbel]

So, a woman is supposed to sit there and accept a cheating husband?? She is supposed to be weak with no backbone?? This is the 21st century and no woman, royal or not, should have to suffer through that!!

Well tiaraprin, there are different ways to go about it when your husband has an affair. What really hurt Diana was that she wasn't able to find an ally within the Royal household in dealing with the problems with Charles. Not everybody in the household was that crazy about Charles and some of his behavior either but she couldn't capitalize on that within the Royal Household.

In contrast to Diana, the Queen Mother excelled in managing relations within the Royal household to make life better for her and her husband. She allegedly said that she was never scared of her father-in-law George V although she knew his own children were terrified of him. For whatever reason, she could manage that relationship very well. George VI had probably more emotional baggage than Charles and being thrust on the throne was a personal crisis for him. I don't think he was able to be that supportive of his wife in dealing with the difficulties of marrying into a Royal family.

Diana had difficulty relating to her own people - the aristocracy and she definitely had problems relating to other royals and the organization that supports them. This is why I think she took her battle public because she wasn't able to win it in private.

 

[susan alicia]

think that turning to relatives, friends, the RH and ultimately the nation about her marital problems is an upward spiraling form of betrayal (even though he was unfaithfull). It is a very fierce opinion that hardly anyone agrees with but I think you should never talk to other people about what problems you have with your boyfriend or your husband.

Well tiaraprin, there are different ways to go about it when your husband has an affair. What really hurt Diana was that she wasn't able to find an ally within the Royal household in dealing with the problems with Charles. Not everybody in the household was that crazy about Charles and some of his behavior either but she couldn't capitalize on that within the Royal Household.

In contrast to Diana, the Queen Mother excelled in managing relations within the Royal household to make life better for her and her husband. She allegedly said that she was never scared of her father-in-law George V although she knew his own children were terrified of him. For whatever reason, she could manage that relationship very well. George VI had probably more emotional baggage than Charles and being thrust on the throne was a personal crisis for him. I don't think he was able to be that supportive of his wife in dealing with the difficulties of marrying into a Royal family.

Diana had difficulty relating to her own people - the aristocracy and she definitely had problems relating to other royals and the organization that supports them. This is why I think she took her battle public because she wasn't able to win it in private.

 

[una]

So, a woman is supposed to sit there and accept a cheating husband??

She did the accepted thing to begin with. When the heir and spare were in place and the marriage broke down, and Charles returned to Camilla, she took a lover of her own. What should have happened next was that she carry on discreetly, doing her duty.

But that wasn't enough for Diana, she felt she had to fight Charles and win.

 

[Mahoogie]

What fueled the wales' separation and divorce was the publishing of the book,"Diana, Her True Story"..Though the marriage was strained,I think the Queen and Prince Charles wanted the marriage to remain intact for the sake of the monarchy's reputation..Its just that Andrew Morton's book upset the Queen and it was unlikely that Charles and Diana should stay together after ugly private matters regarding their marriage was spilled out..Anyway, I think, the marriage wont still work out, unless Charles had given-up Camilla...Back to the topic, I think Prince Charles will reign and he deserves to be the next monarch..He has worked for many causes and he's hard-working crown prince..I think no Europen crown prince of the present time did what Charles did-he had given-up his own personal preference by not marrying Camilla in the early 70's and fulfilled his duty of marrying an aristocrat and deserving future Queen,Lady Diana..Though, it didnt turned out right, I still appreciate what Charles did of fulfilling duty before personal gains and I think he's also like that with other aspects of his public life..

 

[tiaraprin]

She did the accepted thing to begin with. When the heir and spare were in place and the marriage broke down, and Charles returned to Camilla, she took a lover of her own. What should have happened next was that she carry on discreetly, doing her duty.

But that wasn't enough for Diana, she felt she had to fight Charles and win.

I am sorry the "accepted thing" in this situation is not the right thing. Both of them taking lovers and pretending is not a way for anyone to live their life. It is morally wrong and Diana had the courage to stand up against marriage shams. While she did have affairs that I do not condone, at least she realized how stupid and hypocritical it all was. Diana struck a blow for women everywhere that you do not have to stay in a loveless marriage irregardless of the circumstances. You either fix the marriage or you get a divorce. While Diana had ambivalent feelings about divorce IMHO, she knew in the end it was the only way. Kudos to Diana for standing up!

 

[ysbel]

You either fix the marriage or you get a divorce.

For once I totally agree with you tiaraprin. But Diana didn't want a divorce or at least she didn't want to be the one to initiate divorce proceedings. And the situation dragged on for 14 years. This is not standing up for yourself and it's not a good role model for women to follow.

 

[tiaraprin]

For once I totally agree with you tiaraprin. But Diana didn't want a divorce or at least she didn't want to be the one to initiate divorce proceedings. And the situation dragged on for 14 years. This is not standing up for yourself and it's not a good role model for women to follow.

Before Diana and Fergie, how many British royal wives got divorced and kept their heads and had a way to survive?? I will name you one: Anne of Cleves. She only kept hers because she agreed timidly to everything Henry VIII said so she would live. Anne was smart and learned from the recent past about Henry's way of dealing with wives. Anne lived through the shame of Henry saying he couldn't consummate the marriage because she was so ugly. How would you like all of Europe to know that?? Talk about humiliation!

Another two are Margaret and Anne. They came out fine because they were born Royal in the present dynasty! The Royal Family always closes rank to protect their name. Although in fairness, I must say the Queen has always been good to the Earl Snowdon for what he lived through with her sister and for the sake of her niece and nephew.

Diana and Sarah had many centuries of tradition to break through to be free. It unfortunately was not like a commoner marriage.

 

[ysbel]

Before Diana and Fergie, how many British royal wives got divorced and kept their heads and had a way to survive?? I will name you one: Anne of Cleves. She only kept hers because she agreed timidly to everything Henry VIII said so she would live. Anne was smart and learned from the recent past about Henry's way of dealing with wives. Anne lived through the shame of Henry saying he couldn't consummate the marriage because she was so ugly. How would you like all of Europe to know that?? Talk about humiliation!

tiaraprin, Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves lived in the 1500s when marriage was a very different institution - for both royals and commoners alike. Its unfair to compare Diana's situation with Anne of Cleves. They lived in different times with different expectations and married very different men.

I think Charles will be a good king but he's hardly a Henry VIII

 

[branchg]

I am sorry the "accepted thing" in this situation is not the right thing. Both of them taking lovers and pretending is not a way for anyone to live their life. It is morally wrong and Diana had the courage to stand up against marriage shams. While she did have affairs that I do not condone, at least she realized how stupid and hypocritical it all was. Diana struck a blow for women everywhere that you do not have to stay in a loveless marriage irregardless of the circumstances. You either fix the marriage or you get a divorce. While Diana had ambivalent feelings about divorce IMHO, she knew in the end it was the only way. Kudos to Diana for standing up!

Well, given this is the way the aristocracy and the royal family have handled marriage for centuries, I hardly see how Diana's experience was any different and she knew that. It's not like she was surprised, both her parents did the same thing and so did her grandparents.

Diana was adamantly opposed to a divorce and most certainly did not feel "it was the only way out". She shot herself in the foot (again) by conducting the Panorama interview and forced the Queen to take action. She had no choice in the matter.