The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Library

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 06-16-2007, 01:03 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Perhaps if Diana had not married so young, she would have had a chance to develop into a more healthy adult. She went from being a sheltered aristocrats daughter to being thrust into the world's spotlight, married to a much older man who really didn't know what to do with a teenager. There was really so much blame on both sides and the whole matter was just generally unfortunate.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 06-16-2007, 03:17 PM
misselle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Altos, United States
Posts: 218
I've just finished reading the book;Tina Brown has crammed so much information in her work! Both Diana and Charles were/are quite petulant at times. Both Diana and Charles threw things about when angry. That doesn't make them both mentally unbalanced,just uncontrolled and not so smart--
pushing Raine down the stairs was not a good thing to do, neither was terrorizing governesses(which,unfortunately is quite common,the Spencers are not the only children to have done so,and Johnny Spencer should have done something about that).

Since I've been following Diana for years and years,I've known that she was a far from perfect person, but, still a likable person because of her empathy for those battling diseases,injuries,unfortunate circumstances. She could be very difficult with those who disagreed with her... but that is a human failing.

And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 06-17-2007, 06:33 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by misselle
And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.
Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 06-17-2007, 07:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 06-17-2007, 02:54 PM
misselle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Altos, United States
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.
Diana did not want that kind of marriage;being a more modern-thinking person,she didn't want to accept that way of marriage.Not every person thinks in terms of the Queen Mother,that men have affairs,while the wives just accept it. The late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was quite used to men being unfaithful;she saw how her father acted.She saw the womanizing ways of her father-in-law,and knew that he passed those ways onto his sons(maybe not all of them)so she cold-heartedly accepted that her marriage gave her power,security,family,but not marital-fidelity.She didn't like it,but she accepted it as a trade-off.
Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).

Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 06-18-2007, 04:59 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by misselle
Diana did not want that kind of marriage;Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).
You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.
Quote:
Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.
I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 06-18-2007, 06:39 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Casablanca, Morocco
Posts: 4
well she sure doesn't look like her father , and she looks like her grandmother but not really that łuch , maube the hair and the eyes l guess
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 06-18-2007, 03:01 PM
misselle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Altos, United States
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.
I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.
Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.

skydragon,you are entitled to your opinion and I am listening to your side of view and getting lots of information from your posts.Please don't belittle my posts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 06-18-2007, 03:53 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by misselle
Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.
With an average of 1 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce now and not so many less in say 1975, not all of them were aristocrats or royals, the average Mr or Mrs is more likely to get divorced than a member of the royal family. Just because someone wants to sell a book and adds a little bit of sex, affairs etc to sell it, people should not take it as fact, I know many aristocrats who have never taken a lover and become tired of the way it is believed that they all 'do it'. Just thinking of the Queens children, Anne didn't, Andrew didn't and Edward, so far hasn't. Out of all the royals over the past 150 years for instance, how many are alleged to have lovers and how many was it proven actually did?
I don't know how you think I belittled your post, it certainly wasn't intended. I was just stating the facts and hoping you would say how you came by such information. I did look on the net, ask people I know for any statement or indeed comment from Camilla to back up your assertions that she loved APB first, I couldn't come up with anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 06-18-2007, 08:23 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winter Park, United States
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by love_cc View Post
Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.

I just finished the book myself, and I was quite intrigued with the idea that Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress. I really don't know what to make of that. I have always wondered if she married him to "save face" after her divorce from Andrew PB.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 06-19-2007, 08:32 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
I think if Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress then she wouldn't have married him and would have made herself more discreet. Marrying the heir isn't the best thing to do so ... Perhaps at first she saw herself only as Charles' mistress but after his divorce she realised that he was the man of her life (I'm too romantic ). Or maybe she conclued that being his mistress is much more difficult than being his wife : you have to hide from everybody and you have to face the tabloids and the people in the morning .
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 06-19-2007, 11:48 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panicgrl
I just finished the book myself, and I was quite intrigued with the idea that Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress. I really don't know what to make of that. I have always wondered if she married him to "save face" after her divorce from Andrew PB.
If she had wanted to 'save face', it would have been too late after Charles' confession and Diana's attack, they are the two things that caused her embarrasment, IMO. She could have done nothing about either. The divorce would I think have been a relief, APB had been having affairs for most of their married life.
I have serious doubts about her only wanting to be his mistress prior to the wedding. Not only was Charles divorced but his ex wife was dead, so in fact she was his lady friend not mistress.
I find myself agreeing with The Truth, I would imagine being a girlfriend, lady friend or partner is much harder in most formal circumstances than being the wife. Everytime Charles and Camilla were seen in public together, it was headline news!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 06-19-2007, 12:20 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
In fact Diana and Camilla have something in common, their husband were both unfaithful
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 06-21-2007, 11:37 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
I don't like the idea of this Tina Brown book at all. It epitomizes the sensationalism of "the Diana/Charles" story. It's just another pile of rubbish, I'm sure of it. It's another unsourced pile from someone who claims to know what no one can know. Gossip and "he said, she said" from unidentified "insiders", "friends close to the couple", "Palace courtiers", whose words must all be heralded as authority because they know, they just know, so we must believe it.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 06-21-2007, 11:54 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Well we all know how it works, the more sensational the better. People work with money. What sells the book is the 'revelations'. I think Tina Brown thought it would be much better for her bank account to spice up her book ....
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-21-2007, 07:24 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Well yes money makes the world go round, true enough, but Ben Pimlott did fairly well with his bio. of HM without any sensationalism. He wrote a thoroughly, academically respectable account of her reign. I only wish we could have something as respectable about Diana. I really liked Diana a lot and I feel that the current availability of writings on her fail miserably to do her proper justice.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 06-21-2007, 07:30 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
It does amuse me that a book that shows Di in a bad light is automatically an evil and inaccurate tome whereas one that is paints her as a Saint is the gospel truth. Here's my pompous advice - read the book before you comment. By slamming it based on just what you've heard, you equate yourself with book burners and that just makes you look ignorant and foolish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 06-21-2007, 08:58 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
It does amuse me that a book that shows Di in a bad light is automatically an evil and inaccurate tome whereas one that is paints her as a Saint is the gospel truth. Here's my pompous advice - read the book before you comment. By slamming it based on just what you've heard, you equate yourself with book burners and that just makes you look ignorant and foolish.
Diana if you please. You are somewhat right we all should read this book before we judge and thats exactly what I plan do once it arrives in the Library.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 06-21-2007, 09:07 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
If I want to call her Di, I'll call her Di - you're lucky I'm not calling her something else so don't push it. What do you mean, I'm somewhat right? I'm totally right. Ever heard of a little place called Nazi Germany? What we did there is, we heard books were bad and we burned them. And ever heard of a little lady called Mary Whitehouse? Who told people not to read books that contained sex or bad language without her actually reading the books she was so annoyed about? What both of those situations involve is ignorance. You can't offer an opinion on a book unless you've read it. If you haven't read it, you don't know what it contains, you don't know what point it makes and when you say, "This book is really bad" what you're actually saying is "I'm a total fruitloop who lets other people tell me what to think rather than making my own opinions".

This sort of thing really gets up my nose - it's ludicrous that in this day and age, we have people who make statements like "This book is trash" before actually reading the book in question. It's like people who say, "The Tate Modern is full of crap" when they haven't been. I've been there and in my opinion, it's full of crap. My going there doesn't make the opinion right but it does give me the right to make the opinion. It's the same with this book.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 06-22-2007, 12:37 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
This sort of thing really gets up my nose - it's ludicrous that in this day and age, we have people who make statements like "This book is trash" before actually reading the book in question. It's like people who say, "The Tate Modern is full of crap" when they haven't been. I've been there and in my opinion, it's full of crap. My going there doesn't make the opinion right but it does give me the right to make the opinion. It's the same with this book.
Well said BeatrixFan. You make a logical progression between seeing (hearing, reading, watching) and forming an opinion.

It's a bit like politics......if you don't bother to engage and vote, you don't have the right to b***h!

As yet I have not had the chance to read the book, however, I am enjoying reading the informed critics and apologists. Both have heaps to say, and IMO every right to say it. Those in my position have can only query a quote, or a context.

Even so, this thread makes for good reading.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Ruling Families of the UAE current events: 2009 - Elspeth Ruling Families of the United Arab Emirates 32 07-13-2014 05:50 AM
Avatars and Fan Art of the Moroccan Royal Family Humera Royal Family of Morocco 115 06-19-2014 10:48 AM
Diana's relationships with The Queen and other members of the Royal Family Beck Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 355 11-04-2013 09:29 PM
The Duchess of Cambridge's Daytime Fashion Part 7: March 2012 - April 2012 iceflower Archives 393 04-27-2012 02:10 AM
Prince Harry to visit Belize, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Brazil, 2-11 March 2012 wbenson Prince Harry and Prince William 211 03-16-2012 04:44 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication 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 duchess of cambridge 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 palace pieter van vollenhoven poland pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits 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 mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:14 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]