The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2141  
Old 03-21-2017, 05:57 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
he was dating, like most men do. he had a few affairs with married women like a lot of men do. Every woman that he took out was nto a serious candidate for marriage, and didn't have to be.
Dating is not the word for having affairs with your friends wives.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2142  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Exactly!! That is so very true!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2143  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
Dating is not the word for having affairs with your friends wives.


It's not nearly as simple as an affair.

People like to classify it as just an affair, but the dynamic between Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla, and Charles was not an affair.

There is a longstanding tradition in the British upper classes of men and women marrying based on status, then having extramarital relations with individuals that they were actually attracted to - both men and women did this. There is also a longstanding tradition of Princes of Wales having mistresses who were married; this ensured that the mistress wasn't likely to expect to marry the PoW, provided a "father" for any children from the relationship, and reduced the scandal to the woman (she wasn't an unmarried woman sleeping with a man). The husbands provided a degree of cover for the wives within society, and typically benefited from their wives' status.

Also, reducing Camilla to the status of simply being Charles' friend's wife completely ignores that she had a friendship and sexual relationship with Charles that predated her marriage. Andrew wasn't a friend who's wife Charles was sleeping with, Andrew was the man who was married to the woman Charles had a relationship with.

Camilla's relationship with Charles and Andrew, through the 1970s and up to her divorce, could very likely be described as a Poly one, where in she was with Andrew as a "primary" partner, but with Charles as a "secondary" partner, that in time lead to Charles becoming the primary in what we assume is now a monogamous relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #2144  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:05 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
Really? Do you classify Kanga in the same way?
Reply With Quote
  #2145  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I know of the upper classes 'tolerant' attitude towards marriage Ish, and in my view it's adultery whichever way you cut it.

Also, some partners of upper class adulterers seem to have been left out of the convenient 'well, everyone does it and always has' equation.

I always remember reading that Deborah Duchess of Devonshire was absolutely devastated when she found out about her husband Andrew's first affair. As the marriage went on and there were more women she described coping with it by progressively 'anaesthetising' herself so that the hurt ceased and 'it didn't matter any more'.

I would suggest that when Diana discovered just how her husband felt about Mrs Parker Bowles (whether during her engagement or early marriage) her reaction would have been more akin to Deborah Cavendish's than just airily waving her hands in the air and saying 'Well, we have the two boys now, so go for it Charles! After all, it's the accepted thing for men and women to sleep with each other's spouses, isn't it?'
Reply With Quote
  #2146  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:58 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
One thing about the Parker Bowles that does need to be mentioned is that the both of them were close friends of Charles and Charles was even godfather to their oldest son Tom. Andrew wasn't known to be overly chaste while he was away from Camilla and the relationships that these people made were acceptable to them all. Its how things worked in the PB marriage.

Both Camilla and Lady Dale Tryon were not just having affairs with Charles and bouncing around. They were his truest and most trusted confidantes outside of Lord "Dickie" Mountbatten. The intimacy between Charles, Camilla and Dale was on other levels besides having an "affair". They both "got" Charles, understood him and instinctively knew what he needed. That's what best friends do.

This is why I say that the thing that drove Diana absolutely batty wasn't so much that Camilla and Charles had a love affair thing going at one time but also she knew just how close Camilla and Charles were and how much he valued her opinion and input on things and even had "inside jokes". That actually was the real threat that Diana felt was threatening her marriage. She really wanted to have that kind of a relationship with her husband but had absolutely no clue how to go about getting it. In hindsight, I think they were too different kinds of people to mesh and be "soul mates". Oil and vinegar are never going to mix no matter how hard you want them to.
__________________
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
  #2147  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:14 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,815
Let's get back on topic...this thread is about Charles and Diana.

We are not doing the triangle or rectangle relationship discussion [i.e. Camilla/Charles/Diana or Charles/Diana/Camilla/Kanga] here.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #2148  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I agree with all that you have written, Osipi. However, my contention is that Charles at 32 knowing how he felt about Camilla PB, should have been man enough to realise that he and Diana weren't soul mates in that way. Also that his wife (whoever she might be) deserved more than a tepid 'hoping love would grow' response.

Diana was just twenty and was in love with him. He was 32 and not in love with her, not to the depth that she was, anyway. I just find it pretty appalling actually that someone in their thirties didn't have the ability to realise this and the intestinal fortitude to resist the pressures to marry, and yes I know there were great pressures.

Look, I hold no brief for King Edward VIII who was a dreadful individual in so many ways. However, he at least didn't go to the altar with some 'suitable' young girl while in love with another (married) woman. That is what Charles did and he did it at 32, not as an immature and easily influenced and pressured 21. If he had resisted that pressure to marry what misery and heartache would have been prevented!
Reply With Quote
  #2149  
Old 03-21-2017, 09:09 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,687
But Charles WAS immature and easily influenced at 32 !
If he was man enough, If he has resisted, if he was a the real prince charming, if , if if, ...With these ifs, we put Paris in a bottle.
It was an arranged marriage. Period. Like thousand and thousands in history. It didn't work, well like thousand and thousands of marriages. He had an affair ? Big deal she had affairs too. He was aloof and distant ? She was demanding and self destructive. He was a victim, she was a victim and this marriage was a huge mess of biblical proportions. The best things in their marital life were their children and their divorce.
End of the story.
It's really time to get over it and try, oh just try, to move on after 35 years !

Can we just stop the hypocrisy and say the things as they are : Charles will be always some kind of a villain because he's alive and well , and, the horror, hapilly married. Diana had never the chance to find happiness. That's utterly sad but that's life !
Things are as they are, and studying this couple like a forensic autopsy will not change the past nor the future.
Reply With Quote
  #2150  
Old 03-21-2017, 09:10 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
I don't think Diana was in love with Charles. I do think she was in love with the idea of being a Princess and future Queen.

She didn't know Charles as a person so she couldn't have been in love with him. Had she really known him she would never have agreed to marry him unless she really was a gold-digger, social climber wanting to take the Spencer family to the top of the tree.

She had no real experience of love so didn't know what it was which was another reason why her family should have encouraged her to walk away. She was infatuated that an older man was paying her some attention and not in love with him.

Both were wrong to go into that marriage. Both were adults. Both were pressured by their families and both suffered as a result in a marriage that failed.
Reply With Quote
  #2151  
Old 03-22-2017, 12:21 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I know of the upper classes 'tolerant' attitude towards marriage Ish, and in my view it's adultery whichever way you cut it.
I'm going to try to phrase this carefully because I don't want to get into the triangle or get into a fight, and I pre-emptively apologize if what I write ends up crossing the line and needs to be deleted as being off topic.

I agree that when Charles and Diana had their extra-marital affairs that they were adultery. While Charles may have had a different attitude towards monogamy within a marriage than Diana, the pair did not agree to have an open marriage and neither one of them consented to the other's affairs. I would not be surprised if Charles was okay with Diana's affairs and would have been fine with an open marriage by the standards of the upper class, but Diana most certainly did not and that in and of itself makes both Charles' actions and Diana's actions adultery.

That being said, I disagree immensely that all extra marital affairs are in and of themselves adultery; there are certainly many cases of of upper class relations being adultery (that in the Wales' marriage, that in the Cavendish marriage, and so on), but there are also cases where it is not - it is instead a polygamous relationship. Polygamy is different from adultery in that it is in its core based on consent between adults; two people in a relationship consent to one or both of them having relations outside of their relationship. Any relations outside of that relationship that follow whatever rules they make are not adultery. Polygamous relationships can have adultery in them - if John and Jane Doe are married and have an agreement that casual sex with others is okay, but that long term relationships are not okay, then if John gets into a long term relationship with Sally he's committing adultery. They can also start with adultery - if John and Jane Doe have a monogamous relationship, then John has an affair, that's adultery, but if he and Jane then discuss it and she agrees to have an open relationship, future relations outside of the marriage aren't adultery.

Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten are an example of such a marriage. So are Wallis and Ernest Simpson. There are examples outside of the nobility as well - Neil Gaiman and Amanda Palmer have openly described themselves as in a poly marriage, while other couples have hinted at it (Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, Rachel Ray, Mo'Nique...).
Reply With Quote
  #2152  
Old 03-22-2017, 01:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
^ Yes, agreed, Ish. But we are talking about the Wales marriage and, whatever Charles may have assumed or wanted or believed Diana would later accommodate, I do not believe that a marriage that was akin to the Mountbatten ménage was what Diana had in mind when she accepted Charles's proposal.
Reply With Quote
  #2153  
Old 03-22-2017, 02:25 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that Diana gave him the impression that she thought he was terribly clever and that she loved to hear him talk about things, and he not unreasonably felt that she was very young but that she was at an age where she would problaby like to learn about things of the mind, even if she hadn't taken much interest in school.

Diana DID speak of Charles as being very "deep" and brainy, so I think that Charles thought that she might not have done well at school but that she was intelligent enough to learn and that their honeymoon would be a good time to get to read up on stuff.

They had several weeks not just a week or 2 and I don't think that it is unreasonable that Charles believed Diana's admiringly saying "oh you're so brainy" and that it meant she was receptive to sharing his interest in reading. Just as she had watched him shooting and fishing, so he thought that she liked the outdoors and country sports, yet when they were married she abruptly went off this which had seemed like a shared interest.
Good points. Hadn't thought that Diana possibly gave Charles cause to feel that she was interested in his ideas, in the same way she seemed interested in being at Balmoral, or fishing or living the 'country life'. Interesting. New twist.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2154  
Old 03-22-2017, 02:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
The majority of people, when they first start dating, bounce ideas about films, literature, art, etc off each other. With works such as Jung most people interested in the subject who believed their girlfriend was too, would ask 'Hey, what do you think of this particular point...?'

If the questioner gets a wide-eyed response and no coherent answer after the first couple of times, I think they would come to the conclusion that the young woman they were asking the question of, wasn't really interested, (however adoringly goo-goo-eyed they looked) especially if there hadn't been a 'My goodness, that's intriguing. May I borrow that book, if you you don't mind?'

Unless of course the particular person concerned with Jung and false prophet van der Post enjoyed the sound of his own voice droning on and on, without any sort of meaningful response from his listener.
Reply With Quote
  #2155  
Old 03-22-2017, 03:21 AM
royal_sophietje's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the border..., Belgium
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
But Charles WAS immature and easily influenced at 32 !
If he was man enough, If he has resisted, if he was a the real prince charming, if , if if, ...With these ifs, we put Paris in a bottle.
It was an arranged marriage. Period. Like thousand and thousands in history. It didn't work, well like thousand and thousands of marriages. He had an affair ? Big deal she had affairs too. He was aloof and distant ? She was demanding and self destructive. He was a victim, she was a victim and this marriage was a huge mess of biblical proportions. The best things in their marital life were their children and their divorce.
End of the story.
It's really time to get over it and try, oh just try, to move on after 35 years !

Can we just stop the hypocrisy and say the things as they are : Charles will be always some kind of a villain because he's alive and well , and, the horror, hapilly married. Diana had never the chance to find happiness. That's utterly sad but that's life !
Things are as they are, and studying this couple like a forensic autopsy will not change the past nor the future.
It wasn´t an arranged marriage. If it was, Diana would have told Andrew Morton or the spiritual coaches she had. Heck, she might even had told Hewitt at some point. What I am trying to say, is that Diana was quite the tell-all to people she trusted, especially in the period she was at her most vindicative.

They married out of love, but because they didn´t knew each other well it quickly fell apart. Staff, family and friends taking sides and leaking stories or helping cover up didn´t help them both. It defintely rasied the anxiety and paranoia in Diana. And that she felt out of place with his smart friends didn´t help her insecurity either.
__________________
All Things Royal (Dutch/Nederlandse website)
Reply With Quote
  #2156  
Old 03-22-2017, 03:27 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The majority of people, when they first start dating, bounce ideas about films, literature, art, etc off each other. With works such as Jung most people interested in the subject who believed their girlfriend was too, would ask 'Hey, what do you think of this particular point...?'

If the questioner gets a wide-eyed response and no coherent answer after the first couple of times, I think they would come to the conclusion that the young woman they were asking the question of, wasn't really interested, (however adoringly goo-goo-eyed they looked) especially if there hadn't been a 'My goodness, that's intriguing. May I borrow that book, if you you don't mind?'

Unless of course the particular person concerned with Jung and false prophet van der Post enjoyed the sound of his own voice droning on and on, without any sort of meaningful response from his listener.
This was her husband for goodness sakes. She had already affirmed her interest and admiration while dating (pre-engagement). She was in love (so you say). I'd be enthralled (if I were in love). Something doesn't add up with the story. Don't you see that? There's some fibbing going on, and it's not Charles.

You make Charles' overtures sound unappealing, like spoilt meat, like Charles is some impossibly old codger, with the same derisive tone Diana took years later, essentially laughing at him (in her ignorance), and getting others to do the same (who knew no better). It's unkind. Plain and simple. Don't you see that?

The scale of immaturity and cruelty Diana was displaying towards her new husband is appalling imo.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2157  
Old 03-22-2017, 05:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I was talking about the courtship period; as I said in the first paragraph of my above post, when people first (note I said first,) date, they throw likes and dislikes, opinions on film, books, literature into the air between each other, noting what the other likes and dislikes.

We don't know whether Charles read Jung or van der Post to Diana when they were first dating. However, as I noted, most people who like and are attracted to each other talk about favourite topics.

If they are taking note of the other person's reactions to what they are speaking about and there's no answering spark, no desire to discuss the subject in question from that person, they then move on. There may be disappointment but most people can accept when another is not interested in a favourite movie, book, intellectual pastime etc.

If Diana had been interested then she would have borrowed books from him and others, made notes on what interested her about them and discussed various aspects of the books with him.

Again, this is the pre-engagement period we are talking about.

As we take it that she didn't do so, (and I've never read otherwise,) then I should think Charles would have known within the first couple of weeks of dating that this girl did not share his intellectual interests, however prettily she smiled at him while he talked on them.

If all that Charles got from Diana when he talked deeply of philosophy and psychology were wide-eyed, if admiring looks but no questions, no borrowing of books, no intellectual sparks, I would have thought that a person with any common sense would have said to themselves 'This girl is just being polite. She is not absorbed by what I'm saying. Therefore, she does not share my interests in philiosophy, psychology, Jung etc'

As I have said, and I'll repeat it, this would be in the 'getting to know you period' before the engagement and certainly before marriage.

As for your other points, Diana wasn't the only unkind person who derided and put down their spouse in that marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #2158  
Old 03-22-2017, 06:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
We know that Diana told him she liked the outdoorsy life at Balmoral so why assume she didn't ask questions and borrow books on these topics? We know she was an accomplished liar but that is excused due to her age - why?

Why put the blame on Charles and assume that she made no comments when Charles is no idiot. Diana may very well have asked questions and borrowed books - which she wouldn't have read - we know she was given books to read to help her with her duties which she refused to read so it is possible she borrowed books and then put them away having kept her eyes on her prize - Charles the future King (not Charles the man but Charles the position - that is what she wanted).
Reply With Quote
  #2159  
Old 03-22-2017, 06:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,981
My goodness this just goes on and on the number of posts about Diana saying she liked the outdoors etc must be enormous and usually the same people then say we should move on. How can people that don't like her continue to talk about her.
Reply With Quote
  #2160  
Old 03-22-2017, 08:19 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
My goodness this just goes on and on the number of posts about Diana saying she liked the outdoors etc must be enormous and usually the same people then say we should move on. How can people that don't like her continue to talk about her.
good point, but how can people that don't like him continue to talk about him?
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism biography british brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up emperor fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent king salman list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima monaco history nepal nepalese royal family nobel 2019 norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn prince daniel princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress saudi arabia spain startling new evidence stuart swedish queen swedish royal family taiwan thailand tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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