The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2001  
Old 09-04-2016, 09:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post

Charles also had this deep insoluble bond with another woman, Camilla. The primary reason he had doubts before the engagement, IMO, was because he in his heart knew he belonged to Camilla heart and soul. Diana didn't know that. She was wrapped up in this fantasy of true love with Charles for ever and ever, and white knights and castles, and never having a shattered marriage.

Much is made of Charles' devotion to Camilla; I think that is true now, but back then?
There were many, many other women in his life, it's not like Camilla was the one and only.
The rivalry and hostility between Camilla and Kanga Tryon was notorious in that circle.

Plus there were others, like Whiplash Wallace, Jane Wellesley, and Davina Sheffield.

So I really don't think it was Charles' love for Camilla that sabotaged his marriage to Diana. I believe the problems in the marriage drove him back into Camilla's arms, but before that, I think he and Diana simply didn't mesh the way they'd hoped.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2002  
Old 09-04-2016, 09:40 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I really would like to know where this story that Charles 'had to marry a virgin' came from? People have been spouting it for years on Twitter and all sorts of forums and I've never been able to track the original source....
JMO but I think this was a strongly held belief rather than an edict with a source. The press and public bought into this idea that his choice could not be loose. I think many, many people believed that as well. And as adultery is technically treason, the logic would be that purer is better, even if, technically, fooling around before one is married is not treason. I think there is also a bit of the Divine Right of Kings at play here - because why would God want the ruler to marry a wanton woman?
I'm typing all this with more than a bit of tongue in cheek, because it seems ridiculous now. But back then, people really were concerned that his future bride have the appearance of being a good girl and there was always speculation about the previous sexual activity of anyone with whom he was linked. And I think Charles and the family knew it would be an unwise PR move to marry anyone who had been known to shop around.
Perhaps the spectre of Wallis Simpson was still hanging about in Charles's pre-married life. Heaven forbid another future king make such a lousy choice - love match or not.
__________________

__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #2003  
Old 09-04-2016, 10:17 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I'm sure you're correct, AdmirerUS. I've no doubt that the Press would search for every bit of dirt on every girlfriend who looked like a serious contender.

However, I'm not suggesting that the Powers that Be in Buckingham Palace were having nightmares about Charles falling in love with girlfriends of Wallis's background or even with predatory women with lesser but still colourful reputations, but whether they or members of the BRF or Charles himself were determined on virgins only for the POW.

Not everyone of Charles's romances were with bed-hoppers. Why has an insistence grown over the years on Charles 'having' to choose a (very young) virgin? Why has that scenario played a role in the inevitability that people insist on of Charles proposing to Diana, (as if there was no other choice,) when there were probably dozens of aristocratic women in their early to mid twenties around in 1975-1980 with only a couple of mild romances in their pasts?
Reply With Quote
  #2004  
Old 09-04-2016, 10:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
I think a lot of the "pure" virgin tag on a female that is a possible for marriage into a royal family probably stems back hundreds of years ago and how women were viewed at the time. Remember in Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" how the whole family stood to have its reputation in tatters due to Lydia's ruination by running away with Mr. Wickham? Unmarried females were always chaperoned while in the "marriage market" and to go off alone with a man was scandalous.

Some things die hard and are like cockroaches when you spray them with Raid, they come back for a second dosage for lunch. I think a lot of the idea that Diana was a virgin when she married stems to the fact that it was reported that, before the wedding, she did visit her gynecologist but I'd bet my last pretzel stick it wasn't to have a certified document claiming her to be virginal. It used to be that the "evidence" of virginity used to have be shown after the wedding night and also, when a child was born into the line of succession, the birth had to be witnessed to assure there was no swapping kids or whatever.

I really rather doubt that the question was even ever asked about Diana's virginity. By the 1980s, I really don't think it mattered that much. We have DNA now to prove any paternity.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2005  
Old 09-04-2016, 11:57 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,108
I think that the many state that the heir/royal men have to marry virgins as if it is a long-standing edict or tradition and it is not. From the Hanovers up until the late 19th / early 20th century the criteria seemed to be that royal marriages had to be among equals and even that was not strictly enforced since Mary of Teck came from a morganatic line.

The virgin / no romantic past requirement seemed to be mostly associated with Charles' great uncle Louis Mountbatten, he sought to set up a new standard of the type of woman a modern royal should marry since the equal marriage / royal-to-royal marriage was no longer de rigueur. It seems like he was aware that things were more socially liberated and he thought that Charles should sow his wild oats but actually marry a woman that had "no past" and therefore would not be fodder for the press to run stories about the future queen's pre-marital adventures.
Reply With Quote
  #2006  
Old 09-04-2016, 12:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Yes, it would be like Earl Mountbatten to press that sort of fossilised thinking on his great-nephew. After all, he was born in 1900 and had married only a few years after World War One, (and his marriage was such a raging success.) Exactly the sort of advice Charles should have been seeking!
Reply With Quote
  #2007  
Old 09-04-2016, 01:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
No it was for real. The RF ddn't want the papers picking into the past of a girl that Charles was dating, or esp the future Queen having ex boyfriends who talked about her sexual history. Charles was the First POW who was dating in the age when upper and middle class girls COULD have a sexual past before marraige.
Until the "dating times" of Charles and Anne, there didn't NEED to be a "royal rule" that his wife had to be a virgin. Upper class girls usually were, until they married.. they might have affairs after marraige but usually prior to ti they held on to their virginity...

Even so I think that it was still considered a bit louche esp if a woman had several boyfriends she was intimate with..

When Ferg and Andrew married, he was the second son, so it was considered Ok for her to have had a past..
But it is as with all social processes a gradual change.
It wasn't until the time of Kate and Will dating that it was SO utterly commonplace and so much a part of modern courtship for a couple to spend a long time as a sexually engaged couple and live together... that people wouldn't bother to talk about it...
Charles said more than once in the 70s to reporters, that he "couldn't live with a girl" like they could prior to marriage and get to know her well.. he had to get it right...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
I think that Charles and Diana had an up and down marriage but the earlier years were more up than down. There are plenty of pictures showing them looking at each other with affection, and to my recollection Charles often looks more into her, you see him put his hand over hers, try to get her attention, be playful. etc.

To
That is probably true Queen Claude that it wasn't bad ALL the time in the first few years and that at the time of their split up, both of them remembered the bad times exclusively and dwelt on them and put that story of complete misery out to the public.
I think they both loved the children and had some happy times when they were small, and it wasn't all a show in public, there was a genuine feeling between them...
In the aftermath of Charles' Dimbleby interview one of the journalists who had followed them on holiday in the early days and snapped them kissing in the water, unaware that they were being photographed.. and siad "Did my camera lie"? when Charles had intimated that he never loved Diana...

However I do think that from early on, there were a lot of problems and while to be fair to both of them I think they DID both try to adapt it was realy trying against the grain for them both. She was jealous of Camilla, and I would imagine that when they had had a row or things weren't great she woudl beleive he was seeing Camilla on the sly or phoning her.. and accuse him..and he would probably longingly think of how good natured and easy Camilla was..
And he found the bulimia and the mood swings it caused hard to put up with, who wouldn't? I think she was not miserable all the time but when she was, she was very bad, and moody and while she could hide it in public she was angry and upset in private..

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
JMd that his future bride have the appearance of being a good girl and there was always speculation about the previous sexual activity of anyone with whom he was linked. And I think Charles and the family knew it would be an unwise PR move to marry anyone who had been known to shop around.
Perhaps the spectre of Wallis Simpson was still hanging about in Charles's pre-married life. Heaven forbid another future king make such a lousy choice - love match or not.
Indeed it was. Mountbatten and others in the RF were worried in the 1970s that a left wing govt mgiht want to get rid of the monarchy, so it was very important that the RF be seen to be behaving well, to be respectable and give value for money to the public, and for Charles to get married in due course to a nice ladylike girl, who did not have a scad of lovers in her past.. and to settle down and have a family.

He told Charles off about being selfish and thoughtless, reminding him of how his uncle David had become a selfish spoiled man, who didn't think of others...
And Im sure they were worried that if it got out that Charles was involved with a few married women, the public might think of him as a cad who interfered in marriages or as someone who might go and marry a divorcee like David had done.. so they were keen when he hit around 30, that he was seen as marrying well and NOT being involved in an on and off affair with the married Camilla.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I'm s
Not everyone of Charles's romances were with bed-hoppers. Why has an insistence grown over the years on Charles 'having' to choose a (very young) virgin? Why has that scenario played a role in the inevitability that people insist on of Charles proposing to Diana, (as if there was no other choice,) when there were probably dozens of aristocratic women in their early to mid twenties around in 1975-1980 with only a couple of mild romances in their pasts?
Becuase even one romance was enough. Davina Sheffield was apparently someone that Charles was very fond of, but once her boyfriend talked, it was all over. And I dont beleive that Charles would have dated Diana, at 30 plus, just because she was a pretty girl. He was I think genuinely attracted, but his preference was for older girls who were experienced socially and sexually. SO I think that at the time he met her, he knew he was getting to the age when he really should marry, and here was a girl who was sweet nice and very pretty but amazingly seemed to be completely free of any past, or even any real boyfriends...
AND she was from the right background, had relatives who were courtiers and was into country life etc. He problaby was so thrilled ot find such a prize, even if she wasn't his usual kind fo girl,that he was "ready to love her."
Reply With Quote
  #2008  
Old 09-05-2016, 12:58 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
One of Diana's closest friends, Lucia de Lima never doubted that Charles was the love of Diana's life. As probably her first love and the one she married, quite likely. She was still a teenager when she got engaged after all!

Disappointment set in fairly quickly.

Prince Charles was the love of Princess Diana's life, her close friend claims
I dont know if Lucia de Flecha LIma coudl be described as one of Diana's closest friends. She was n't in her life THAT long.. but she probably did hear a lot from Diana about her intimate thoughts.
but I think that yes in a way Charles was Diana's first love and she never really got over him. I think she loved other men, but there was always soemthing pulling her back to Charles.. even when she wanted to leave him, and wanted to marry someone else, she sitll I think longed for him to love her and for their marriage to work out. Sarah Bradford said that Diana pretended that she had gotten over the marriage and didn't mind Camilla's role in Charles' life, but that she did really...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, it would be like Earl Mountbatten to press that sort of fossilised thinking on his great-nephew. After all, he was born in 1900 and had married only a few years after World War One, (and his marriage was such a raging success.) Exactly the sort of advice Charles should have been seeking!
I think that his marriage was reasonalby successful in its way. And Mountbatten wanted the best for his great nephew. He was IMO quite right in believing that Charles' wife would have to be a girl with no past, for public consumption AT THAT TIme.
He was probably wrong in thinking that it was best for C to marry someone very young but Im sure he meant well in that he believed that a young girl would not have any experience of the outside world and would fit in better and adapt to married and royal life..
Reply With Quote
  #2009  
Old 09-05-2016, 03:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
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!

And Mountbatten himself was said to have stated that he and Edwina spent half their marriage in someone else's bed. Maybe my definition of a successful marriage is somewhat different!
Reply With Quote
  #2010  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:01 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,519
I am forever surprised by the twists and turns in the rewriting of the story of Charles and Diana. People tend to forget that it was Kanga that Diana thought Charles was going to marry after having her murdered in a so-called accident! What? you say, what about Camilla? Well for that part of the marriage she was merely one of many men and women that comprised Charles friends. Diana hated them all with a passion and resented any time spent with them rather than her.

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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2011  
Old 09-07-2016, 02:06 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,542
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2012  
Old 09-07-2016, 05:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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!

:
sorry but no not "fossilised" at all. I'm sure if Charles had asked advice of his paretnts, (who weren't exactly Edwardians) he would have been told the same. yes have relationships, get experience iwht women but the future queen must be someone who has not had any previous relationships.

I am not that old but I remember the 70s fairly well. I came from a conservative religious background, and that was the conservative thinking at the time..
It was only just being challenged that women with a sex life were "promiscuous", whereas men were just having a normal life. Ordinary couples were just starting to live together prior to marriage and generally It was only just becoming acceptable to have children out of wedlock.
For a prince, like Charles, it was not possilble to have an open "live in relationship".
I don't believe that Charles was following Mountbatten's advice per se - like most people he followed advice when it suited him and didn't if it didn't suit him...
he was doing what was generally considered in the RF circles to be the acceptable thing.. ie he could have a pre marital sex life, but his wife had to be inexperienced.
He said to journalists that "you chaps can live with a girl and get to know her, before marriage. I can't do that. I have to get it right first time."

I wont comment on Mountbatten's own marriage because I think that is really OT for this thread..
But IMO it was true that in the 70s, Charles' bride was going to have to be a virgin, I read it in articles and papers at the time.. and that meant that there was likely to be an age gap...
Reply With Quote
  #2013  
Old 09-07-2016, 05:07 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
:

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.
As I recall Diana felt that Charles was going ot marry TIGGY not Kanga, and she didn't "hate Charles' friends".. she just had nothing much in common with them.. and she did resent them as time went on because she felt that she was getting on badly with Charles and they were still close to him.
And she didn't have "several lovers".
I really do wonder at times why people seem to act so horrified by what is IMO a normal love life...
Diana didn't have the pre marital relationships that most women have, she did not have any serious boyfriends, and when her marriage broke down, she made up for lost time.
She had Hewitt certainly, but she didn't get involved with him until after Charles and Camilla had resumed their affair. And later, when her relationship with him broke down and her marriage was clearly completely finished, she had other relationships. what was wrong with that? These affairs took place after her separation from Charles. He clearly didn't care tuppence what she was doing, he didn't suffer any pain or jealousy. She may have hurt other women..wich was selfish of her but she certainly wasn't hurting Charles...
She may well have thought that as Oliver Hoare was not faithful to his wife, she was a sophisticated woman who didn't care about his affairs, and at first Di was probalbely only looking for a little affection. Later, I think she fell for Hoare and wanted to marry him.. and thought that he would be wiling to leave his wife for her.. And yes she was wrong there to try and pressure him. but please don't lets be sayng that she was hurting her husband in having one of these "many affairs..."
They had nothing to do with the breakdown of her marriage, they were the consequence of its being a failure.
Charles had "Only one affair" because he had done his sowing wild oats. He had had many pre marital relationships, and when his marriage failed he had settled on the woman he was happy with and went back to her...
As for Hewitt, yes he is a cad. He did betray her. They had an affair, it ended, and he for money sold his story. He went on selling it even after she was dead and betrayed or made up confidences she had given him in private. If that's not caddish behaviour I don't know what is.
Reply With Quote
  #2014  
Old 09-08-2016, 02:14 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,519
I stand corrected! Kanga was an earlier target.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2015  
Old 09-08-2016, 05:51 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,304
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well. [QUOTE=Denville;1922145]

I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
Reply With Quote
  #2016  
Old 09-08-2016, 09:32 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I stand corrected! Kanga was an earlier target.
I don't know what you mean by a target, she wasn't IMO really considered as a serious rival by Diana..
Reply With Quote
  #2017  
Old 09-08-2016, 09:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
[QUOTE=Mermaid1962;1922388]You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post

I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
I don't think wer're Fossils Mermaid. I am going to be "perpetually middle aged"!
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"...
Reply With Quote
  #2018  
Old 09-09-2016, 12:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2019  
Old 09-09-2016, 01:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,856
To me, the prospect of Charles marrying a young beautiful girl who was a virgin and without the label of having a "past" was the fairy tale dream of the romantic public and the press. I remember my co-workers at the hospital who were in their Fifties and early Sixties, terribly old to me at the time, but which age I now have arrived at ;-), thought this was also a "role model" for the younger generation. Here was a young woman "waiting until marriage" and this is the ground for the long and happy marriage. In the US women's magazines there was also this implication although very tacit.
When the story came out at the time, incorrectly as we all know, of a young blonde woman leaving the Prince's train early in the morning and it was implied that the woman was Diana, my co-workers 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2020  
Old 09-09-2016, 01:24 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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.
well Exaclty. If there was tutt-tutting, for ordidnary people tehre woudl certianly be tut-tutting if Charles had tried it.
I'd say that most upper class girls did have a sex life by the time they were inot their 20s. So the closer they were to charles' age, the more likely they were to be ineligbile. and Charles was attracted to Diana. I think she was so sweet and pretty, that he certianly didn't go inot the marriage in a cold blooded spirit. He was fond of her, he didn't know she was troubled. how should he? She came across as a charming sweet inexperienced but grounded young girl. (in the sense that she didnt' seem to hae any airs and graces, was easy going and pleasant, had a nice litlte job and a quiet circle of friends...)
He was harldy to know how messed up she was emotionally, i think that only came out when she was engaged... and married.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


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
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 449 10-11-2019 12:46 AM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 09:35 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british royals chittagong countess of snowdon crown princess victoria diana princess of wales dutch dutch royals family tree future games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history house of glucksburg imperial household interesting intro israel jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewelry jumma kids movie king salman king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing maxima monaco history nepal nobel prize norwegian royal family prince charles prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen louise queen maxima royal balls royal events royal jewels royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spain speech spencer family sweden taiwan thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×