Charles and Diana

[Pranter]

but they weren't going to. Diana wanted to marry Charles. He wanted to get married, because he felt it was time and there was pressure. I don't believe that a longer relationship would have made any difference.

Absolutely it would of...if they had seen each other more than 13 times before he proposed (like dated for a year even) they would of never made it to proposal stage. The differences/issues would of ended things.



LaRae

 

[Denville]

Absolutely it would of...if they had seen each other more than 13 times before he proposed (like dated for a year even) they would of never made it to proposal stage. The differences/issues would of ended things.



LaRae

I don't think so. they both had tehir reasons for wanting to marry. Diana was in love in a very "childlike" way. Charles was feeling under pressure to marry. They both wanted to marry and ignored the signs that there were problems. Some of his friends did tell him tht they thought Diana wasn't the right one for him.. that she wasn't "up to his weight", but he ignored the suggestions because he wanted to get married. She also ignored any signs that there might be a problem - just as she did later, with other lovers. If people want to marry, they will do so.. and wont listen to advice or see what might be obvious warning signals.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think so. they both had tehir reasons for wanting to marry. Diana was in love in a very "childlike" way. Charles was feeling under pressure to marry. They both wanted to marry and ignored the signs that there were problems. Some of his friends did tell him tht they thought Diana wasn't the right one for him.. that she wasn't "up to his weight", but he ignored the suggestions because he wanted to get married. She also ignored any signs that there might be a problem - just as she did later, with other lovers. If people want to marry, they will do so.. and wont listen to advice or see what might be obvious warning signals.

Yes I know they had reasons..however a year of dating would of over ruled those reasons. They were ready to back out before they married. If they had more time part of those reasons would of ended the relationship.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Yes I know they had reasons..however a year of dating would of over ruled those reasons. They were ready to back out before they married. If they had more time part of those reasons would of ended the relationship.


LaRae

I don't think so. I think they had doubts once they had gotten engaged though Im not sure how much they really wanted to back out. I think that Charles, seeing more of Diana, began to get the vibes that she wasn't relaly a simple jolly soul. I think she was uneasy, and scared, once she found herself living in a Royal palace, being more and more followed by the Press, and became worried and depressed and that showed up, frightening Charles. But he knew he couldn't back out of the wedding.
I think if they'd dated for a year, Diana would still have gone on with her belief that she was madly In love with Charles, and that she really wanted nothing more than to marry him and live in the country, watching him fishing... and have babies. and she would have acted accordingly.. so Charles would not have had any idea that things were not what they seemed.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think so. I think they had doubts once they had gotten engaged though Im not sure how much they really wanted to back out. I think that Charles, seeing more of Diana, began to get the vibes that she wasn't relaly a simple jolly soul. I think she was uneasy, and scared, once she found herself living in a Royal palace, being more and more followed by the Press, and became worried and depressed and that showed up, frightening Charles. But he knew he couldn't back out of the wedding.
I think if they'd dated for a year, Diana would still have gone on with her belief that she was madly In love with Charles, and that she really wanted nothing more than to marry him and live in the country, watching him fishing... and have babies. and she would have acted accordingly.. so Charles would not have had any idea that things were not what they seemed.

We will just have to disagree on this one.


LaRae

 

[Sandy345]

I think a couple should look for things they have in common Charles wanted to "mold" Diana even giving her philosophy books to read on the honeymoon and expecting her to go hunting. I think it is not up to the woman to try to be interested in everything the man is interested in and the man not even trying to see what the woman likes and is interested in. The whole world then knew Diana did not ride since she fell off a horse. Diana did go to the country places and polo matches for years until the separation. Charles should have been more flexible as well. There needs to be compromise. There are really happy marriages where the woman attends with her boyfriend football games when they are dating (and it bores her) and after the marriage stops attending. It does not mean the marriage is doomed.

 

[TLLK]

Absolutely it would of...if they had seen each other more than 13 times before he proposed (like dated for a year even) they would of never made it to proposal stage. The differences/issues would of ended things.



LaRae

I agree. If they'd spent more time together in different situations, they would have likely come to the understanding that they were not well suited and a proposal wouldn't have happened. Each could have gone their separate ways and found different partners who hopefully would have been a better match for their personalities, interests and viewpoints.

 

[Sandy345]

Mountbatten advised Charles to find a young woman of no experience. He wanted Charles to court this woman before she had any serious relationships. He meant the woman for Charles to be his granddaughter Amanda. Charles probably was keeping Mountbatten's advice in mind when he courted the younger Diana.If it had not been Diana he probably would have sought a woman in Diana's age range.

 

[Lee-Z]

Diana's agerange would not necessarily have been a problem, as long as it was someone who was a bit less dependent and a bit more open to learn about all aspects of what it meant to be a royal and part of "The Firm"
(anyone who thinks they can outshine The Firm is imo mistaken)

 

[Osipi]

Although there were so many "red flags" surrounding this couple before they even got engaged and so much in the public domain about both parties in the marriage, what is missing is the actual knowledge of how these two people actually thought and what they expected from each other heading towards the altar and afterwards.

With Charles and Diana, there were so many forks in the road during their relationship that it could fill multiple "parallel universes" should one road have been taken instead of the one actually taken. Having a courtship that lasted more than being together 13 times before getting engaged is, to me, the first fork in the road that could have made a difference. Each fork in the road of their lives together could have created different results. We'll never know which fork would have been best to take all around.

Each had their own positive and negative qualities that figured into the success or lack of success in the marriage. It just didn't work out for them and they were like mixing oil and vinegar. Then again, some recipes taste the best when those two ingredients are used together. Without this marriage though, there would have been no William and no Harry.

I just wish that Diana had found the happiness she sought for and never really found. Charles did with the second time around and its served him well.

 

[Somebody]

Diana's agerange would not necessarily have been a problem, as long as it was someone who was a bit less dependent and a bit more open to learn about all aspects of what it meant to be a royal and part of "The Firm"
(anyone who thinks they can outshine The Firm is imo mistaken)

If we would apply the 'rule of thumb' (no idea where it comes from) that the younger partner should at least be half the age + 7 years, the 'minimum age' for Charles' potential partner at the age op 32 (engagement+wedding) would be: 16+7 = 23, not 19 or 20.

 

[Denville]

If we would apply the 'rule of thumb' (no idea where it comes from) that the younger partner should at least be half the age + 7 years, the 'minimum age' for Charles' potential partner at the age op 32 (engagement+wedding) would be: 16+7 = 23, not 19 or 20.

I can't imagine whose idea that was, or what scientific theory is behind it....

 

[Sandy345]

At the outset, DIana was very insecure and I don't think she was thinking in terms of outshining anybody. She just wanted to do the work expected of her well. When she started out she was a young woman barely out of her teens. This was all very new and it involved lots of public scrutiny. In her first tour, DIana was scared to leave the car but she did her work, she appealed to the public and they took to her. It was something she could not really control I think the public liked her which is a good thing. Charles unfortunately got jealous and was surprised that the public took to her. This was something that really should have been Charles responsibility. He should not have thought negatively and thought of her as being a complement to him. Charles may have considered women in their early twenties but perhaps they already had been in serious relationships or married. He rejected Davina Sheffield because her ex showed up and told the media they lived together. She was a lovely young woman and I think would have succeeded.If this happened today,I don't think it would have mattered if she had been a live in relationship.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I think Charles and Diana were just very mismatched as a couple. Charles had a more shy and reserved character, whilst Diana was more the opposite; so they had different personalities for a starters. Sometimes opposites attract, but there needs to be some level of mutuality in a relationship for it to work - it takes two to tango. I can imagine Diana would've been much happier as a member of the landed gentry or minor nobility - she seemed to have had a similar sort of relationship with the press as Harry does now.

 

[Denville]

I think Charles and Diana were just very mismatched as a couple. Charles had a more shy and reserved character, whilst Diana was more the opposite; so they had different personalities for a starters. Sometimes opposites attract, but there needs to be some level of mutuality in a relationship for it to work - it takes two to tango. I can imagine Diana would've been much happier as a member of the landed gentry or minor nobility - she seemed to have had a similar sort of relationship with the press as Harry does now.

Diana was a member of the landed gentry/nobility. Her father was an earl. I don't think she would have been all that happy, married to an English country squire as most of her post Charles romances were with men of different classes and cultures. Her mother had made a marriage to an English country gentleman and found herself bored and restless... and left him. with regard to the Press, I agree that she did tend to play with the press and then complain that they pestered her and made her life hell.. but over many years, she was pretty good at hanlding them. I think her touch began to desert her in the last couple of years...

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Diana was a member of the landed gentry/nobility. Her father was an earl. I don't think she would have been all that happy, married to an English country squire as most of her post Charles romances were with men of different classes and cultures. Her mother had made a marriage to an English country gentleman and found herself bored and restless... and left him. with regard to the Press, I agree that she did tend to play with the press and then complain that they pestered her and made her life hell.. but over many years, she was pretty good at hanlding them. I think her touch began to desert her in the last couple of years...

I knew someone would try to correct me like this so that’s why I said minor - she would have all the comforts of aristocratic life without the press attention.

 

[Denville]

I knew someone would try to correct me like this so that’s why I said minor - she would have all the comforts of aristocratic life without the press attention.

I don't think it would matter whether it was "minor" nobility or Dukes..tehre isn't that much press attention on the upper classes these days. Its the RF that get the press coverage and interest. And Diana while she did date "chaps" before Charles who were upper class/upper middle.. I don't know if she was serious about marrying any of them.. or how well it would have worked out if she had. It wasn't just the mad press attention that cuased problems in her marriage to Charles, it was also the "rural huntin' and shooting lifestyle" that the RF mostly went in for.. and which she found boring. When she got a bit older, and mixed with different people, its notable that many of her new friends and boyfriends weren't English, evene if they were livng in London.. there Was Lucia de Flecha, who was from S America.. I think Elsa Bowker was foreign. She was friendly alos with Americans... and quite a few of her more serous boyfriends were foreign..Hasnat Khan, Dodi Fayed... She did have a relationship with Oliver Hoare but he led a fairly international lifestyle, buying Islamic art, and she fantasised bout living abroad with him. I think as she grew and developed, English gentlemen were not what she wanted...

 

[Osipi]

I believe that Diana also held some pretty "fairy tale" ideas of "happily ever after" and expected more than what she got from Charles. The reality of Charles being gone a lot with duties and responsibilities and work (even then, Charles exhibited signs of being a workaholic) and that made Diana feel like she was secondary in his life and not the princess on a pedestal adored happily ever after. She expected more than Charles was ever prepared or able to give.

Charles on the other hand, probably never figured that anything about his life would have to change and Diana would just fit nicely into the puzzle that made up his life at the time. He most likely expected his wife to mold to his lifestyle, be complacent and agreeable. Its painfully obvious that Charles had never had the experience before of living with a woman in a close relationship.

Dating and courtship is a far cry from living day to day with a person where all aspects of one's self comes out. She expects romance and flowers and happily ever after and ends up with underwear on the floor and burps at the dinner table and oft times, a couch potato with a remote in hand. As expressed by one of my favorite comic strips, the Lockhorns, it shows Leroy in his recliner in his underwear with remote in hand and Loretta at the ironing board with a pot steaming on the stove in the background. Caption reads her stating "who is going to do all this when *WE* retire?"

I think both Charles and Diana had a rude awakening after they married.

 

[Denville]

Of course he hadn't had the experience of living with a woman. Neither of them had. At the time in the 70s, young people were starting live together but it wasn't possible for a prince and Diana was very young and didn't have much experience of dating or men, much less living with one.

And its not all that long ago, that most couples married without living together or having any sexual experience of each other. THey got married, and had to figure things out, how to adjust to life together, how to get on.

 

[Osipi]

I married for the first time in '72 and, as you said, it wasn't the "norm" to live together before marriage at that time for the most part. The difference between dating and being engaged and actually being married *was* a huge rude awakening for both of us. The marriage did last for 20 years but, like Charles and Diana, different forks in the road pulled us apart more than brought us together. Like Charles and Diana though, we raised some great kids.

The thing is that with Charles and Diana's marriage, we're not exactly filled in on each and every little fork in the road they faced. We see the result of some of them. Its like putting together a 2500 piece jigsaw puzzle with a vast amount of pieces missing. ?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Diana was a member of the landed gentry/nobility. Her father was an earl. I don't think she would have been all that happy, married to an English country squire as most of her post Charles romances were with men of different classes and cultures. Her mother had made a marriage to an English country gentleman and found herself bored and restless... and left him. with regard to the Press, I agree that she did tend to play with the press and then complain that they pestered her and made her life hell.. but over many years, she was pretty good at hanlding them. I think her touch began to desert her in the last couple of years...

Diana lived through a different era, one in which social media & the global Internet did not exist. Her family was not there for her; former friends could not help her; new friends did the best they could to provide comfort and counsel; secret romantic partners betrayed her even as her husband continued to betray her. She and Charles never understood each other, and he was never truly in love with her. Her family ultimately did not help her in times of personal need and confusion.

Her rebellious chutzpah was all she could muster to stay afloat. But staying afloat is not a resolution. To avoid drowning in the gilded cage/ goldfish bowl, she reached out to the only lifeline available: the media. And dealing with the media presented dangerous challenges and risky shoals as well. She had to figure it all out on the fly, even as she was learning who she was as a woman and a grown-up. She'd been thrown in the deep end without a life vest at the ages of 19-20. Even though she was a good diver and a decent swimmer, she barely stood a chance.

I look back at Diana walking down the aisle at St. Paul's Cathedral in that voluminous overly frippery dress that was wearing her, and I realize she was like a lamb heading to slaughter. Of course, it didn't seem like it at the time. Little did any of us know.

 

[Leopoldine]

Diana did go in for country life at Balmoral until the separation. She enjoyed the time with her sons there. Diana liked long walks in the country but not the hunting. There are photographs of Diana going on these country walks and it is documented.

Well, that would have been the point, being photographed.

 

[Curryong]

Except on very rare occasions, when the royal family is holidaying at Balmoral Press photographers are not allowed on the estate. It's very wild and inhospitable countryside. Therefore it's debatable that Diana would have known they were there.

 

[Denville]

Photographers do manage to get some shots of the Royals at Balmoral at times. but Diana went for country walks because she was there for long periods and she didn't enjoy it.. she didn't want to shoot, fish or ride.. but was expected to take part in some activity while she was there… so wlalking with or without Charles was probably the best option. we know she did things like go to Balmoral, or watch Charles playing polo.. but she didn't really want to do it. It was part of the royal routine at the time.. and she had to join in...

 

[Elan]

Diana went for country walks because she was there for long periods and she didn't enjoy it.. she didn't want to shoot, fish or ride.. but was expected to take part in some activity while she was there… so wlalking with or without Charles was probably the best option. we know she did things like go to Balmoral, or watch Charles playing polo.. but she didn't really want to do it. It was part of the royal routine at the time.. and she had to join in...

Other than the occasional ski holiday at resort locations, they didn't really have an outdoor activity that both were passionate about. Diana seemed more enlivened by distant 'remote' places and cultures than Charles. Her deciding in '91 to visit Peshawar, Pakistan, near high mountain vistas must have pleased her, the beauty of them, and her willingness to travel to the Rockies, undetected by the press.

Chitral, Pakistan, is next door to the most challenging mountain sites. But when she was there, the marriage was already on the rocks. Climbing was too dangerous a sport for either party, but she probably treasured the stark quiet and solitude found in such places..

 

[Denville]

Other than the occasional ski holiday at resort locations, they didn't really have an outdoor activity that both were passionate about. Diana seemed more enlivened by distant 'remote' places and cultures than Charles. Her deciding in '91 to visit Peshawar, Pakistan, near high mountain vistas must have pleased her, the beauty of them, and her willingness to travel to the Rockies, undetected by the press.

Chitral, Pakistan, is next door to the most challenging mountain sites. But when she was there, the marriage was already on the rocks. Climbing was too dangerous a sport for either party, but she probably treasured the stark quiet and solitude found in such places..

I don't think that Diana was ever one for the great outdoors. If she went to America, as I recall it was because she felt it was a better place to have a private holiday with friends who were willing to lend her a big ranch where she could take the boys and let them enjoy their sports.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think that Diana was ever one for the great outdoors. If she went to America, as I recall it was because she felt it was a better place to have a private holiday with friends who were willing to lend her a big ranch where she could take the boys and let them enjoy their sports.

Except in her own words she said she loved the country. She wasn't a fan of some of the country sports.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Except in her own words she said she loved the country. She wasn't a fan of some of the country sports.


LaRae

She was bound to say that when she was marrying Charles. He loved the country and it is a British "thing" to love it.. If she had said that she hated dreary cold British weather and country life, I think he would not have been too keen to marry her. She said to Rosa Monckton when On holiday with her that the boys were "out killing things" while she was away on a sunshine holiday... and that it was the way she was brought up, but she had little interest in It as an adult.

 

[Pranter]

She was bound to say that when she was marrying Charles. He loved the country and it is a British "thing" to love it.. If she had said that she hated dreary cold British weather and country life, I think he would not have been too keen to marry her. She said to Rosa Monckton when On holiday with her that the boys were "out killing things" while she was away on a sunshine holiday... and that it was the way she was brought up, but she had little interest in It as an adult.

She said this after she married him...the country wasn't the issue. 'Killing things' is a country pursuit ...not the same thing as the country itself.



LaRae

 

[Sandy345]

During the courtship Charles was said to ask Diana to take walks with him. When they were caught by the paps, she was watching him fish.