The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2021  
Old 09-10-2016, 01:32 AM
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 meant to say Mermaiid, that I guess I'll just say i was a kid in hte 70s!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2022  
Old 09-10-2016, 01:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
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.
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..

But I think that it was a bad idea for the Diana/Charles marriage in that she was SO young, and inexperienced in general. She didn't seem to have had any serious boyfriends, had little experience of the world, and she hadn't made up for that lack of experience by doing well educationally.
She could have been a virgin - as was considered necessary, and still been a more savvy and educated young woman than she was...
There have been biggish age gaps like 12 years between other modern royal men and their wives, but usually the woman wasn't as young as 19 or 20 and usually seems to have had an education. (For Example Q Mathilde of Belgium is several years younger than Philippe but she was about 26 not 20 when they married).

And another problem I think that was that Diana was not all that willing to learn. Not exactly that, but she was stubborn in her resistance to being "told what to do". She did learn in her own way, but she didnt want to read books, because I think she feared her ignorance or lack of abilty to learn well being exposed. She got cross and resistant when C's aides tried to educate her, and shied away when Charles himself wanted her to share his reading... She did learn her job but she would have probably saved herself some stress at the beginning, had she already been better informed, or had she been willing to do what the aides suggested...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2023  
Old 09-10-2016, 02:41 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,304
It's more that my beliefs about marriage and sex are seen as "fossilized", although I certainly don't believe in different sexual standards for men and women. I just don't comment on Charles' and Diana's extramarital relationships because I'm usually accused of being too old-fashioned. No one needs that. BTW my birth year is part of my username.


[QUOTE=Denville;1922796]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #2024  
Old 09-10-2016, 04:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
But it's not really their extra marital affairs that are at issue here? Its the fact of Charles being expected to marry a virgin.. which WAS the case in the 1970s, and IMO its not fair to blame him for going along with it and believing that if he fell for a girl who had a lively past, he woud have a hard time getting permssion to marry her..and the papers would problaby zestfully go on about it.
I think he knew he had to marry a virgin which basicaly meant looking at girls who were several years younger than him.. and his preference IMO was a for an experienced woman who was his own age or a bit older, becuase he was rather shy and awkward.. and I dont think he really wanted a shy young thing. I think that Diana was "bouncy" enough, on her good days to convince him that she was not a shy little mouse that he would have to look after...but modest and young enough to please the public and his family..
And she was very pretty and sweet and seemed to be really fond of him.. so I think taht all those factors made him feel "well I know I can't marry someone of 30 witht a past, and so if I have to pick a young girl, Diana is almost perfect..."
so while he wasn't exaclty in love with her, he was fond of her, and charmed by her and "willing to fall in love"...
But I think that over the time of thte courtship and perhaps after they got engaged, he began to get a bit nervous and wondered if she was really as down to earth and cheery as she had originally seemed..and perhaps he began to feel that he was "pushing himself" to be in love... and so he had doubts..]
But what coudl he do? He could not IMO stand out against the fact that he was now over 30 and it was time to get married.. and that the public liked Diana and if he ditched her, he had to start all over again...
I think it is unfair to blame him for being fooled by Di's seeming to be a perfect bride who shared his interests.. or for going along wit the convention of the time that his wife could not have a past and that he coudl not "live with a girl" to get to know her...
Reply With Quote
  #2025  
Old 09-10-2016, 04:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
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.
__________________
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
  #2026  
Old 09-10-2016, 06:12 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,304
I think that it was just social convention, not something that was in a rule book for picking future princesses.
Reply With Quote
  #2027  
Old 09-10-2016, 06:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
What does written in stone mean? Of course there is not a law or a rule book, but as I've said and one or 2 seem to agree with me, at the time, yes it was generally felt that the future Queen had to have no past. There is no written constitution in the UK and there is no law saying "the Princess of Wales has to be a virgin on her marriage..."
But there are lots of things in the UK and other societies that aren't "written down" but they are conventions that a majority of people adhere to, at least in theory or give lip service to.
I can remember the 1970s, so can Mermaid and others. As I've said at tedious (I'm sure) length, ordinary people were only just beginning to live together then. Safe reliable contraception had come in with the 60s and that meant that for the first time, young women could engage in "easy guilt free sex".. without the fear of pregnancy...So when Charles started dating around the late 60s, for the first time a Prince of Wales was dating "nice girls" who were now free to have premarital relationships... Prior to that, nice girls DIDNT do this, so had Charles been around dating in say the 1940s, his upper crust girlfrends would have been almost certainly virgins.
Conservative people still disapproved of the trend for young people to go on holidays together and sleep together or to live together in trial marriages..and generaly royals are behind the times with social trends.
People were behaving more freely, but for Charles, he was still stuck in the 50s.. in that it was seen as allowable for him to have his fun but no one wanted the future Queens exes being persuaded to talk to the press about her past, or for Charles to set up house with his latest girlfriend...
I dot think I'm that old but I can remember a time when it was felt that a woman having a sex life meant she was promiscuous, whereas a man was "just being a man".
In fact in around the early 90s when Edward got together with Sophie, the queen allowed them to lvie together in Buck Palace, and there were conservative religious commentators who disapproved...
Reply With Quote
  #2028  
Old 09-10-2016, 06:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
Gotcha and what you've said makes a lot of sense but I do think that by the time the 70s rolled around, after the major societal changes of the 60s, dating which included intimate relationships were more the norm than not. Maybe it wasn't that way in the upper circles in the UK but all I have to go on is what I experienced myself during that era.

What it boils down to really is that Diana was the perfect Princess Bride on paper and at first, it seemed to both of them to be a solid, grand idea to go ahead with the marriage. I would wager my last corn flake that had they lived together for a year before marriage, the wedding would never have happened. I advised all of my kids to live with their intended before thinking about marriage. It worked.
__________________
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
  #2029  
Old 09-10-2016, 07:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
I think that its not really that simple. People live together, nowadays, spend years courting or sharing a house and a life and is the divorce rate any lower? No.
Of course it helps to know your intended well, but I tink esp if one party wants to get married very badly, they will try their damnedest and make sure that the marriage takes place.. even if it ends in divorce some time later.

The thing is, we're not talking about upper class circles in the UK.
From what I know, they did often live together as well, by the later 70s...
but Charles was not just upper class. He was the future King,. he was a public figure. So he was held to a differnet standard. Have you heard the phrase that the "royal family are ourselves but behaving better?"
I can't recall who said it, but that's what the idea was, that the RF were people who in return for thteir privileges had to at least TRY to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
So divorce for the POW or King was out.. though there was no legal ban on it. The only King who got a divorce was George I and he never remarried so he didn't break the rule really...
So Chalres knew that his marriage was supposed to last.. that he was not allowed to get a divorce..and that he could not just marry anyone, she had to be suitable in terms of breeding, upbringing and hopefully fertility.
Had he been just Charles Earl of X, he could have married the girl in the corner shop, even if he just liked her for her looks.. and if the marriage went pear shaped he could get a divorce.. or he could have lived with her outside marriage. But Charles POW in return for his privileges, had to stick to certain standards that were beginning to be seen as old fashioned.
It was the same with Ed VIII and Mrs Simpson. There was no legal bar to his marrying a divorced woman. The only legal prohibition was on his marrying a Roman Catholic. And it wasn't unknown at the time for upper class people and even middle class ones to get divorced, though it wasn't that common. but Edw as King was expected to go by the stricter standards of the C of E.. that he could not marry a woman with "2 husbands living" and that if he married a "suitable bride", he could not get a divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #2030  
Old 09-10-2016, 07:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
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. He had a mistress, lots of princes had mistresses. The problem was he truly loved his. And all the other stuff is collateral damage. No, woman wants to be married to a man who loves someone else. Yes, she could have been Queen Alexandra and ignored everything, but she was immature and insecure.
Reply With Quote
  #2031  
Old 09-10-2016, 08:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
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.
Of course they hoped she would be fertile, that's one reason they wanted a young wife.. but if she hadn't been, if she and C had married for 10 years and had no children.. that just would have to be lived with.
And the problem was not that he had a mistress.. It was a part of it, but only a part. The main problem was that Diana wasn't what she appeared to be. She was volatile, nervous, over sensitive and also very stubborn.
I think that Charles could have fallen in love with Diana, maybe not in the same way that he loved Camila, but it would have been OK.. However the problem was that within a few months of the marriage, she was miserable, sick and depressed and it was obvious that she was not coping with married life or with being a Princess.
She abruptly gave up seeming to enjoy the things she'd enjoyed, it had seemed before her marriage. She was losing weight, bulimic and while she still was able to dazzle the public, she was very difficult in private. She feared all the public attention, but in a way she responded to it.. it gave her something that she realised was special... and that she could use to make people happy and she got something back from them. But she was still afraid of the press and the whole hoopla.
Charles tried to cope with her, but he realised that she was very depressed and unwell.. but I'm sure the more jealous she got, the more she pushed him to think longingly of Camilla...
Reply With Quote
  #2032  
Old 09-11-2016, 05:27 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by lala22 View Post
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.
You believe! That's all that is really!
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2033  
Old 09-11-2016, 05:29 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Here we go again!

I thought these two split up years ago?!

Are they only getting divorced now?

Princess Diana's rock selling family home to fund divorce | Celebrity News | Showbiz & TV | Daily Express
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2034  
Old 09-11-2016, 05:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
You believe! That's all that is really!
so someone "geeky" can't inspire passion?
Reply With Quote
  #2035  
Old 09-12-2016, 03:56 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,304
I've always been drawn to intelligent, quiet guys. Geeks work for some of us.
Reply With Quote
  #2036  
Old 09-13-2016, 06:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I've always been drawn to intelligent, quiet guys. Geeks work for some of us.
Well there's a place for everyone. I think that Diana was in love with Charles but she was deluding herself. She DID admire him for beign so clever, as she thought of it, and he was the POW and he was an older man, and her father had let her down a lot... all these things drew her to him. But she began to find the "clever talk" incomprehensible and boring..and I think as she got more fed up with him, she began to feel that her own practical knd of intelligence was just as good if not better...
Reply With Quote
  #2037  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:23 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
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 assume you mean 1991. Considering the state of their relationship at that time, I'm not surprised she refused to be part of that sort of fake exhibition of unity. As it is, she had a lunch at the Savoy in aid of the Rainbow House Hospice, and a dinner in a function room at the Natural History Museum. There is a video on YouTube of her attending the lunch, but there were no photos at the dinner. Apparently Charles spent the day in the country.

Here's an interesting little contemporary article by Washington Post staff writer Roxanne Roberts, that suggests Hewitt may have celebrated Diana's birthday with her: washingtonpost.com: International Special Report: Princess Diana, 1961-1997
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2038  
Old 09-14-2016, 03:20 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Mistake.. I wonder was it turning 30 that made her decide to out the troubles in the marriage? that she felt she was getting older nd could not put up with being in a mrraige with a man who didn't care for her much longer?
Reply With Quote
  #2039  
Old 09-22-2016, 03:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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?
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 think that one reason it was so long before Will and kate got engaged was that noone wanted him to go into a marriage like his father's. They wanted him to be as sure as one can be, that he was happy with Kate.
THe queen also allowed Edward and Sophie to live together in the years after Diana's death, at B Palace, because I think she now realised she HAD to get involved a bit more in her family's marital lives to make sure that no more dramas and scandals occurred.
And she didn't NEED to say this to Charles "Remember your wife has to be a virgin". It was a given..
That was why Philip DID chivy Charles along when he was courting Diana, saying apparenlty "If you dont get on with it, soon there wont be anyone left".
By the time of Andrew and Sarah in the mid 80s the social climate had changed. It was a LOT free-er, and as Andy was the second son, it was possible for him to do somethig that Charles could not do.
And with Edward, she went a step further and clealry siad to him "Live with Sophie before you get engaged."

Then in the next generation, AFAIK, pretty much all the young couples who married, Like Will and Kate, or Zara Phillips and her boyfriends, were live in couples for a while before they married.
Reply With Quote
  #2040  
Old 09-22-2016, 05:21 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,519
In your opinion! Statements of fact need to be backed up by a credible source and your allegations about Charles, his parents and his subsequent marriage are not.

As far as I'm aware Charles wife didn't have to be a virgin . . . she just didn't have to have "a past" that could come back to haunt them. Charles knew he would have to marry . . . that's a no-brainer, but HM and Prince Philip's words are your own.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
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 02:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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