The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2601  
Old 07-28-2017, 07:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
He did marry a commoner. That mould was broken with the QM, although of course no one knew that at the time.
I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2602  
Old 07-28-2017, 09:36 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.
I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.
__________________

__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2603  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.
No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.
Reply With Quote
  #2604  
Old 07-28-2017, 05:17 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I think Charles could of gotten away with marrying a woman with a past as long as she had been very discreet and the other party wasn't the type to go public.


LaRae
Unfortunately there is really no way to judge that. Some people you think you can trust turn on you to make a quick buck by selling their story to a tabloid. And it's sad because the woman's possible marriage future is in the hands of an ex. I have never read the story that was printed by Davina's ex but was it really so bad that Charles had to break it off?

Thank you for shutting down the Camilla posts, it's unfortunate we the posters couldn't stop bringing her up ourselves.

Imo if you have "lady" in front of your name you're not a real commoner. The real commoner CPs and Queens were Sonja, Silvia, Mary, Camilla and a commoner Crown Prince was Daniel.
I personally also think there should be a distinction between the 8th in line to the throne marrying a commoner and the 1st in line marrying one.
Reply With Quote
  #2605  
Old 07-28-2017, 05:33 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Yeah it's a crap shoot...but really even if a woman hadn't been intimate someone could lie just to get the attention (money). Kate has a 'past' but no one cares in this day and age.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2606  
Old 07-28-2017, 07:04 PM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.
Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2607  
Old 07-29-2017, 12:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
This is an amusing little article reprinted from 1976 when it was thought that Davina Sheffield might well become Princess of Wales.

Queen Davina? London Gossip Says Charles Is Smitten at Last

She was a statuesque blonde, nearly six feet tall. The trouble was that she had been seriously involved with James Beard, who was some sort of speed boat champion, when she first caught Charles's eye.

Davina broke it off with James and dated Charles but, just when it looked as if it was getting serious, (Charles was 29 she was 25) a reporter sought James out. He burbled on about what a fantastic girl she was even though apparently he had been upset when she broke it off, said what a great princess and queen she would make, then dropped the bombshell in conversation that they had happily shared a cottage together when they had dated. (They were almost engaged.)

I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!
Reply With Quote
  #2608  
Old 07-29-2017, 02:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
The He had met Diana in person some years previously over a country weekend (where else and whilst sitting on a bale of hay; they may have met previously as he had dated her sister, but this was our first introduction). The then 16 year old caught his attention, but it was going to be another three years before he considered the 19 year old as someone with possible marriage prospects.

The rest as the saying goes is history.
he met Diana "in a ploughed field" at Althorp when she was 16 and he was dating Sarah. Later he met her at a party and was taken with her. but he did have to get married. It didn't matter that there were other sons, it was he who was expected to carry on the family line.
I don't know wher you get that "other proposals" were rejected. AFAIK he only ever proposed to his 2 wifves and to Amanda Knatchbull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!
I dobt it. He must have know that talking about their preivous love affair was going to scupper her chances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.
She was legaly a commoner. In the UK, the only member of a family who has a noble title, is the title holder. All of his children are commoners. Lady Diana has a ring to it, but she was still a commoner.
Reply With Quote
  #2609  
Old 08-05-2017, 03:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
So am expecting you totally agree with my post!?!
sorry what post?
Reply With Quote
  #2610  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:04 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,004
I have been wondering lately about what would have happened in Diana and Charles's marriage if the circumstances of Diana's upbringing had been different. I know we could also discuss Charles' upbringing too. However, I am looking at it from Diana's side because she said she loved him, but he said he never loved her. From that stand point, unfortunately, she would have had to do most of the giving in and made most of the sacrifice, since Charles was so set in his ways. If her parents had been happily married and raised her lovingly so that she developed confidence in herself with a good self-esteem, I wonder if, when she began having suspicions about Camilla, before the marriage, if she would have had the strength to break off the engagement with him? Or, I wonder if in view of the throne, she would have sought to align herself more with his interests and maybe they could have found some common ground. She would have probably had to have done the most giving in the give and take due to his being set in his ways. Just thinking out loud. Please don't misinterpret that I am placing the burden of having made the marriage work on Diana. It takes two, but unfortunately in their situation, it would have taken mostly her due to his lack of love for her. Or, I wonder if she had had a good, stable upbringing if she would not have been attracted to him at all? I tend to think she would not have been attracted to him.
Reply With Quote
  #2611  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Diana would have been an entirely different person had her background been different, wouldn't she, so who knows! A person with bags of self confidence might well have not had an eating disorder, may have passed all her exams at school, got an excellent job or even gone to university, may have had a longterm romance before, might have liked horse riding and so joined the Beaufort Hunt, so cutting off one of Charles and Camilla's main trysting locales.... All sorts of things!

I still think Diana may have been attracted to Charles and dated him. Whether one of this alternate Diana's main ambitions would have been to marry young and have lots of babies is debatable though.

I tend to think that a strong and confident young woman would have asked questions about Charles's past love life long before the engagement and wouldn't have married him after only thirteen or so dates. IMO the whole process would have been slowed down.

Diana would have wanted about a year before she made up her mind and if, during that time she felt any hint that Charles was still in thrall to another woman she would have broken it off as Anna Wallace did, though perhaps not in the same way!

It's interesting to speculate, but I do think Diana liked town life anyway, and they might not have suited each other considering Charles's devotion to the country and country pursuits.
Reply With Quote
  #2612  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:34 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
First off, I don't believe Charles ever said he never loved Diana and I do believe that he loved her. Perhaps he wasn't "in love" with her totally at the time of their marriage but there was enough there to make Charles think that he could grow to being in love with her and they could have a happy marriage. I also tend to believe that on Diana's side, her concept of loving someone was far from mature and a huge part of Charles' attraction for Diana was that he was The Prince of Wales. I can't believe that these two people knew each other well enough at the time of their marriage to actually be able to say that they loved each other unconditionally. Unconditional love is a big factor, I believe, in a solid, loving marriage. They both had different expectations of what a marriage should be like and both expectations mixed like oil and vinegar.

Now, to play the "what if" game that Diana grew up in a stable, loving environment with a happy, carefree childhood. I do think she would have had more self confidence in herself but her concept of a good marriage would be drastically different. That was one point about her marriage to Charles that stands out in just about every biography I've read. She saw a marriage to Charles as one where a divorce could never happen. I do believe that if Diana had been more self confident in who she was, she may have come to see things differently in the marriage. Perhaps there wouldn't have been so many perceived threats. Perhaps she could have embraced that in marriage, one also keeps and maintains one's individuality and the marriage wasn't always CharlesandDiana as one entity. She seemed to want Charles' attention to be on her and her alone hence all the demands she made that started a lot of their problems.

I also think that a lot of Diana's character traits would have remained the same regardless of her childhood but maybe some of them wouldn't have had such an impact on her adult years if had been able to address them and balance them as she grew to maturity.
__________________
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
  #2613  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:04 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
I think Charles cared for her, was fond of her but I'm not really sure he 'loved' her as most of us would expect our spouse to do. I don't think they ever got to a emotionally stable enough place for things to develop past that initial stage.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2614  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:09 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,401
The problem is, none of that happened in reality - Diana had the upbringing she had and Charles had the up-bringing he had.

I do think need to be wary of speculating "what if" scenarios because speculation will lead us nowhere, especially since we are now 37 years past the event.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #2615  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:34 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
The problem is, none of that happened in reality - Diana had the upbringing she had and Charles had the up-bringing he had.

I do think need to be wary of speculating "what if" scenarios because speculation will lead us nowhere, especially since we are now 37 years past the event.
True, but it is interesting to wonder.
Reply With Quote
  #2616  
Old 08-18-2017, 10:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
I have been wondering lately about what would have happened in Diana and Charles's marriage if the circumstances of Diana's upbringing had been different. I know we could also discuss Charles' upbringing too. However, I am looking at it from Diana's side because she said she loved him, but he said he never loved her. From that stand point, unfortunately, she would have had to do most of the giving in and made most of the sacrifice, since Charles was so set in his ways.
The actuality was that he did give up a lot in the early months of the marriage - friends, pets etc.

She wasn't asked to give up her friends or things like that by him but she demanded he give them up for her and he did.

However - very early on - he realised that no matter how much he gave up it was never going to be enough for her. She asked him on occasions to not go out on official duties but to be at home with her.

Rather than Diana giving things up because Charles was set in his ways the opposite happened until he reached the point where nothing he did was enough and so he went back to what made him happy as he couldn't make his wife happy and she certainly wasn't making him happy.

The reports from 1981 - 82 show this very clearly with his friends commenting that he was so much 'in love' with Diana that they were dropped for her and also reports of him getting rid of long-term faithful staff etc - at her insistance.
Reply With Quote
  #2617  
Old 08-18-2017, 11:50 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
Diana was very possessive. To her, how much a person loved her was shown by what he'd do for her, give up for her and should be there attending to her every whim. Giving something up herself never crossed her mind or thinking of what Charles needed to make him happy didn't enter into the picture much either. Everything external that took him away from her, she perceived as a threat to her marriage and did her best to eradicate them from their lives.

Marriage doesn't work that way.
__________________
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
  #2618  
Old 08-19-2017, 01:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Osipi, wasn't there something on another thread that I posted a little while ago in a discussion on Diana's mental health that comprised a scale of external pressures that can cause a person to suffer mental breakdown ? Diana's points in that scale were off the chart. I remember you commented on it.

They included marriage pregnancy, change of job/occupation, change of residence, change of friendships, change in family circle, etc etc. In this context, in this thread, did the twenty year old Diana not make sacrifices in the entire changing of her way of life?
Reply With Quote
  #2619  
Old 08-19-2017, 01:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
a bit of speciulation is interesting but not if it is about people being WILDLY different from what we know that they were. Diana's nature would problaby have been the same, had she had a happier upbringing. but she might have had more self discipline, and possibly while she would still have wanted to marry early, she might have achieved more pre marriage.. and been less eager to marry "well". But I think she might still have rushed into early marriage because she was an impulsive not very clever girl, who wanted to "get married and have babies".
Charles I think would still have been a shy clumsy man and still loved country life.. and been dutiful.. and he would have had the same obligation to make a suitable marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Osipi, wasn't there something on another thread that I posted a little while ago in a discussion on Diana's mental health that comprised a scale of external pressures that can cause a person to suffer mental breakdown ? Diana's points in that scale were off the chart. I remember you commented on it.

They included marriage pregnancy, change of job/occupation, change of residence, change of friendships, change in family circle, etc etc. In this context, in this thread, did the twenty year old Diana not make sacrifices in the entire changing of her way of life?
but these are changes that any woman getting married into a royal family makes.. or did at that time.
And Diana wanted to make those changes. If she had been told "You'll have to give things up like easy access to your friends, or giving up your cosy flat and your nice little job with the kids.. - and have to make friends with a bunch of different people".. do you think she would have said "oh dear no." She wanted to marry Charles, she knew that it would mean various changes in her life, and she wanted those changes. She wanted to be married, she wanted a family early.. I think.. and I'm sure that while ti wasn't the first thing she thought of, she liked the idea of being a princess.
but I think that once she had become engaged to him and began to realise what the changes were like in practice she did get stressed out. and when she was at Balmoral on the honeymoon it really really hit her that this was her life form now on and there was no going back...t hat she was now part of a very formal old fashioned family who mostly enjoyed things that she didn't enjoy.. and that she was going to have to participate in their way of life in private and public from now on. That Charles wasn't as fascinating up close as he had seemed in her dreams...and that he had feelings for another woman who seemed to be very different to Di herself so that she problaby felt how can I win his deeper love?"
I think from then on although they DID Both try to adjust, ti was very difficult for them to find a half way house. Charles did cut down on seeing his friends. He tried ot get involved with "home and babies", and took her on sunshine holidays.. but he was who he was.. the RF was the way it was and they didn't see any Reason to make adjustmetns in their lifestyle in private or in public, to please a 20 year old girl.
But there were so many issues, and Diana I think while she would have insisted that she DIDNT mind giving up her old life to marry, found that in practice her new life was very stressful and the only real compensation it held apart from her children was the adoration of the press and public,.
Reply With Quote
  #2620  
Old 08-19-2017, 01:58 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Osipi, wasn't there something on another thread that I posted a little while ago in a discussion on Diana's mental health that comprised a scale of external pressures that can cause a person to suffer mental breakdown ? Diana's points in that scale were off the chart. I remember you commented on it.

They included marriage pregnancy, change of job/occupation, change of residence, change of friendships, change in family circle, etc etc. In this context, in this thread, did the twenty year old Diana not make sacrifices in the entire changing of her way of life?
All those things are stressful on anyone going into a marriage. Things just become so totally different and the transition between being a "me" and becoming a part of an "us" takes work together to adapt and conform to the new way of life. The "in love" googley eyed, rapid heart beat upon seeing each other quickly can take a hike as the realities of the actual loving someone takes over. Its compromise, its trust, its sharing, its being able to get through those "I love you but I don't like you very much right now" days that always happen. Its being able to communicate and from all I've read, Charles and Diana were rarely on the same page about things.

Maybe Diana's problem was that with stars in her eyes, she envisioned that once married, she could change things and change Charles. The rigors of a very demanding public role that Charles had did play a huge part in Diana's discomfort in early marriage. She wanted him home with her. He couldn't do that although he did try as best as he could to placate her. As Iluvbertie stated a bit ago, Charles realized that it was a full time job making her happy and it got to be impossible.

I think that if these two people had just been Mr. and Mrs. Charles Windsor, the marriage would have ended by the mid 80s and they'd have gone their separate ways.
__________________

__________________
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
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 02:52 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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