- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,379
- City
- Hermosa Beach
- Country
- United States
I've deleted a number of off-topic posts. This thread is not about Charles and his friends/acquaintances. Let's stick to the topic which is Charles and Diana.
Yes, typical of the thinking of the early 1900s to 1920s. Fossilised by the 1970s! I have to say that I don't know too many young men in that era, in public life and out of it, who would have followed the advice of a very elderly man (however fond they were of him) in picking a suitable bride.
The last time I saw that sort of thing happening was in the film 'The Student Prince' with Mario Lanza that I caught once on late night TV!
:
:
Charles admits he began an affair with Camilla "after his marriage had irretrievably broken down", and yes, I believed him both then and now. Diana sobs on Panorama about her lover of several years "betrayed her". Now here's the kicker, did anyone go "say what! our perfect princess with not one, but several lovers"? Oh no, her fans damned Hewitt and called him a cad and he is vilified to this day, in the same way that Charles was branded an adulterer.
I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
I stand corrected! Kanga was an earlier target.
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.I don't think wer're Fossils Mermaid. I am going to be "perpetually middle aged"!I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
However it is a long time ago and there have been huge social changes since the 1970s.. its foolish IMO to judge Charles for going along iwht the standards of that time.. just as it is foolish to judge Victorians for what they thought in THEIR time..
I don't say I agreed with it, at the time, I was young and "radical minded", and felt that all this double standard was very unfair. but I did come from a conservative Catholic background, and so perhaps I can remember what things were like better. I'm sure that the rest of the "older" royal family, people of the age of Philip and the queen (much less the Q Mother or Mountbatten) would have felt that it was Ok for Charles to gain pre marital experience, but certainly Not ok for his wife to be gossiped about in the papers, or seen as a flighty young woman who had had other lovers.
Ordinary people were starting to live together in the 70s, but I think it was considered "Just about OK" as a pre marital thing, (Of course people had casual affairs and one night stands as they have always done - and the PIll meant that contraception was increasingly safe and easy and foolproof) and I think that generally speaking, it was becoming acceptable for a couple to live together prior to marriage, but usually they didn't have children. By the 80s, sex was getting "free-er" in the time before AIDS came along, and it was increasingly acceptable to have children outside marriage.. and for gay people to be more open abut their sexuality...
But someone like Charles couldn't openly live with a woman, or marry a divorcee or a woman with a chequered past..
when Fergie married Andrew there was some chit chat in the press about her pre marital love affairs and it was said that the RF had felt "well she's marrying the second son and nowadays, most girls of her age are bound to have had a few boyfriends that they lived with.. ".
That's the way things usually go with the RF, usually a minor member "does something unconventional" first, then it moves into the younger members of the main family..
At first only cousins got divorced, then Margaret and Anne's marriages broke up and they divorced. Then the divorce situation happened with Andrew and Charles..
When Edward and Sophie became a couple, the queen allowed them to live together, and Will and Kate were also living together before their marriage but that was not the case for Charles and his serious girlfriends...
And I'd say that the RF held to the old idea that it was OK for a woman to have affairs after her marriage and the production of the "heir and spare".. because marriage gave her status and protection and it was safe for a Prince to carry on such a relationship, discreetly because her being married would mean she was already safely "taken". and in olden days I'm sure the more naïve of the public would be like "Oh Prince So and So can't be doing anyting naughty with Mrs X, she's a married woman"...
well Exaclty. If there was tutt-tutting, for ordidnary people tehre woudl certianly be tut-tutting if Charles had tried it.No baby boomer will ever be old! Sixty is the new thirty for us, and seventy is only middle age creeping up!
As someone who did live with my future husband in those times, I can remember a few raised eyebrows. However, not every girl in those days went to bed with their boyfriends and I'm sure there were still some suitable aristocratic girls out there in the late 1970s who were in their early twenties without 'pasts' who could have become Prss of Wales, without choosing a rather troubled and extremely naive nineteen year old.
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.I meant to say Mermaiid, that I guess I'll just say i was a kid in hte 70s!I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
Not sure what you mean by a delusion? But that was the way most upper class and middle class (and probalby most couples) married prior to the later 20th C. Generally unless it was a very strictly religious culture, (where BOTH sexes were meant to remain virginal till marriage), it was OK for the man to have experience but not for the woman. And marriages probalby worked out Ok.. for the most part. Upper class girls were usually allowed a bit of freedom when they had been married and produced some children..Toworkers were a little shocked yet they seemed to accept the story because "it was fairly close to the wedding" (their words). The press seemed to treat it as a "wink-wink" "nudge-nudge", "maybe the future bride isn't as innocent as we portrayed her", but it all rather blew over quickly while the Palace issued a denial.
The groom with his sowing his wild oats before marriage while the bride had to be innocent and virginal was a carry over from past times especially for the eldest and Heir to the Throne in this case. It was delusion, but that was thinking then for Charles and Diana.
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.
I meant to say Mermaiid, that I guess I'll just say i was a kid in hte 70s!
Is it actually anywhere written in stone that Charles' bride had to be virginal? I've heard that it was assumed that was the case and the press sure did a number suggesting a pure, white, virginal and untouched Shy Di of 19.
Is it really written somewhere or are we assuming this was the way it was. Curious minds want to know.
THere isn't an exam for fertility. All that tests can do is see that you have the appropriate parts and that they work OK.. but it does not guarantee that you will have children.Oh my, I have socks older than some of you. It was the year of my 75th birthday. But with that being said, the standards were there. She had to be a pristine, aristocratic and no baggage bride. She also had to be fertile. There was an exam for that. Their real problem was that she wanted a marriage and all that went with it, he was fine with that to a point. insecure.
Diana was a wonderful Princess of Wales, irreplaceable and precious, however there's no way I'll ever believe she really loved Prince Charles.
Ever hear of the saying, 'You protest too much my dear'? Well, Prince Charles protested his lack of love too much and Diana insisted on her undying love too much, and there may have more truth in the reverse than anyone suspects.
If Charles was not Prince of Wales, would Diana have ever been interested in him? In real life, has anyone ever seen anyone like Diana marrying a common man like Charles, with the exception of Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovitt of course? Charles is really too geeky and prissy to inspire such undying passion.
So I believe Diana was in love with the idea of marrying the Prince of Wales, she was in love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales, she was in love with the idea of the Prince of Wales being in love with her, she was in love with the idea of being the queen of hearts, cherished and beloved by all. And she deserved all of that, but not because she had a deep and profound love for Charles.
so someone "geeky" can't inspire passion?You believe! That's all that is really!
I've always been drawn to intelligent, quiet guys. Geeks work for some of us.
Prince Charles offered Princess Diana different choices for her thirtieth birthday on July 1, 1999: lunch, dinner, a ball. Diana refused all of these.
I dont think that it is true to say that the queene doesn't interfere, I think that nowadays she IS more pro active in terms of her grandchildrens' love life. it is said that she has advised young couples in the RF to be in a relationship with anyone they are serious about, for about 5 years.I rea
H
It's well known that the Queen never interferes with the love lives of any of her children (or grandchildren.) Doesn't do it now, didn't do it in the 1970's. So who laid down this edict to Charles that 'No, a girl who has had previous boyfriends or a serious relationship is completely unsuitable. Your wife HAS to be a virgin (and therefore very young).'
Whd previous boyfriends?