The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2741  
Old 02-25-2018, 11:51 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
Perhaps it was a distraction to pull focus away from Diana basically doing the same thing that she was derailing Charles for. If the focus remained more on Charles for his faults than pointing out that Diana had the same faults, it put her in a better light to garner sympathy. Damage control.
__________________

__________________
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
  #2742  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:51 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,856


I don't know if the Morton book was so much of a distraction by Diana, but more of way to gain more sympathy from the public.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2743  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:15 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
The Morton book was published in 1992 and at that time, Hewitt was back from his tour of duty in the Gulf War and there were rumblings in the press about his and Diana's affair. Up until the end of 1992, Charles and Diana were not yet separated.

With Hewitt returning in 1991 and it was rumored that people were getting a whiff of the romance between Diana and Hewitt, the Morton book could have the reasoning behind it that along with gaining sympathy for herself from the public over Charles' mistreatment of her, it gave the public something directly (in a round about way) from the horse's mouth so that the focus was on Diana and what Diana wanted to put across for people to think about and it deflected from the rumors of the Hewitt affair.

Charles and Diana officially separated a short while after the Morton book was first published. It wasn't until the Panorama interview that Diana, herself, acknowledge the affair and gushed on how much she "loved" Hewitt.
__________________
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
  #2744  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:37 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes you have to live apart for 2 years, for a no fault divorce. I agree that it wasn't a given.. I think the queen hoped to keep the marriage tecniclaly intact, but hoped that if C and Diana did not have to live or work together they would be less fraught and there wouldn't be the same obvious tension between them or leakages to the press.
As for affairs, Charles was having an affair, so I'm not sure why Diana's affairs are "inappropriate" and his isn't?
I don't think that the issue was that Diana behaved inappropriately vis a vis Charles, rather that her engaging in affairs would be seen as inappropriate on its own and would tarnish her image, so she tried to control the narrative. Diana did not acknowledge her affairs in the Morton book, but she succeeded in painting Charles, his family and their courtiers as the bad guys so when it finally did come out that Diana herself had an affair, affairs actually, the hit to her image was lessened because by then, many felt that she was in such a bad situation that it was understandable that she sought comfort elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #2745  
Old 02-26-2018, 03:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
well i agree that in the Royal world, unfair as it is, her being engaged in an affair or affairs would be seen in some ways as "worse" than Charles' doing so.. He was male and the royal partner.. She was only married into the RF and of course there are double standards. But I think that to say her behaviour was "inappropriate" is very unfair, if his isn't being seen as inappropriate.
But I don't know if Diana was really so calculating. True she didn't tell about her afairs until later on, DHTS focussed on charles' faults as a husband, selfish, unfeeling, unfaithful, etc.. and Di's own feelings that the RF were also cold and over formal. but then in an autobiographical work, one doesn't usualy lead with one's faults.
I think that chalres only addressed the affair with Camilla in his biography because he really HAD to..
I just don't know if Diana was really calculating in "doing" Diana her True Sotry. I can't help thinking it was partly an attempt to knock Charles, partly perhaps an attempt to get a divorce and partly just a confused painful lashing out, without a coherent plan.
Reply With Quote
  #2746  
Old 02-26-2018, 03:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Diana's affairs were inappropriate for one major reason - she wasn't just committing adultery but treason.

The Treason Act makes it treasonable for any man, other than her husband, to sleep with the wife of the monarch or the wife of the heir to the throne. As she didn't cry rape she was aiding and abetting that crime thus making herself equally guilty.

The Treason Act doesn't apply to any man but to the wife of the monarch, the wife of the heir to the throne and the daughters of the monarch. Knowing who the father of those in the line of succession is regarded as important.

For admitting she committed Diana was given 17 million pounds, lost her HRH and was divorced. Others were locked away or even executed in earlier times.

Diana knew she would lose big time if it came out that she was having affairs before it was known Charles was so she put her narrative out first. She knew she was in the wrong big-time for having the affairs so had to manipulate the public to her side (just as the press had to manipulate those same people to blame the royals rather than the press when she died).
Reply With Quote
  #2747  
Old 02-26-2018, 11:26 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
I highly doubt the BRF suddenly saw Diana’s affair as being inappropriate in 1992 - her affair with Hewitt began in 1985. It doesn’t take 7 years for the BRF to decide that’s inappropriate.

Diana’s inappropriate behaviour in 1992 was her involvement in the Morton book. The scandal that followed is what pushed the Queen to allow a separation.
Reply With Quote
  #2748  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.
Reply With Quote
  #2749  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.
IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #2750  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.
And if Diana had had affairs and would have gotten pregnant? (what would have involved in consequence, doubts concerning the paternity? Now we have genetic tests, which didn't exost previously).
Reply With Quote
  #2751  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
It isn't unheard of for members of the aristocracy in the UK to accept their spouse's 'love child' and even have them take their name. At least after the heir was born. So I would imagine that would of been up to C&D to work out how they would handle any pregnancies after they went their separate ways but remaining married.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2752  
Old 02-26-2018, 05:03 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.

If I remember correctly, it was the Morton book that first revealed the Charles/Camilla affair; previously it had been known among certain circles that both Charles and Diana had strayed, and it had been rumoured publicly that the marriage was unhappy and that Charles was having an affair, but I don’t believe anything was concrete or that Camilla’s name was known to the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
And if Diana had had affairs and would have gotten pregnant? (what would have involved in consequence, doubts concerning the paternity? Now we have genetic tests, which didn't exost previously).

Paternity tests actually go back to the 1920s, when scientists first determined that blood types are inherited. More accurate genetic tests go back to the 1960s, and the test that is now the standard method for paternity testing was developed in 1983.

Had Diana gotten pregnant, the issue wouldn’t have really been the paternity of the child. In order to do anything about an illegitimate child, Diana’s affair would have had to become public knowledge. As British law establishes the legal father of a child as the husband of the mother, in all likelihood a theoretical child of Diana and James Hewitt would have simply been treated as Charles’ son, unless Diana wanted to make her affair public knowledge. It would have been a bit harder to cover up a child with one of her later lovers - Dodi and Hasnat Khan both being Middle Eastern - but Diana’s relationships with them didn’t begin until her divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #2753  
Old 02-26-2018, 05:21 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.
Yes, but Charles' infidelity was not treasonous, by law. Stupid law, anyway. Not enforced because it is often both sides cheating and the whole bunch are just hoping the press does not catch on.


EDIT. And re: blood tests, I could find an online reference (however dubious) that Charles is O-, Camilla is reptile (which actually made me laugh because it is such internet trash) and Diana and Wills were also something RH -. BTW, if you want to descend to the lowest level of internet sliming, look up anyone in the BRF + Blood type. Goodness gracious there is some awful stuff out there.

But the only blood type not possible for the boys if Charles really is Type O is AB. Were Wills or Harry AB, it would be clear that Charles was not their father.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #2754  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 9,111
From what would a simple person know their blood type? Such a thing only their doctors know.
Reply With Quote
  #2755  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:31 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
From what would a simple person know their blood type? Such a thing only their doctors know.
In the US most adults know their own blood type. And parents usually know their childrens' blood types.

I seem to remember Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, in the course of supporting a charity, was asked if he gave blood. He said that Royal Family members don't give blood.
Reply With Quote
  #2756  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:36 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
It would surprise me if they did. Too much risk for someone to get hold of it and use it for their own purposes.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2757  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:52 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,519
To me what adults do behind closed doors is their business and, if it leads to divorce, so be it. You've worked for it, you've earned it and have nobody to blame but yourself. Diana broke all the rules but to me the Morton book and the Panorama interview were unforgivable. She was such a self-obsessed woman that she gave no thought whatsoever to the welfare of her children.

I didn't envy Harry at school, particularly Eton. Kids are mean and cruel when they want to be and they take no prisoners. I'd bet there were those that referred to him as a royal bastard because of the whole red-haired thing. For all the reassurances from his father that he was his son, I'd bet my best jewellery that Harry had a DNA test as soon as he was of age. He'd have to Know for himself.

What a horrible thing for a boy, teenager and young man to always have that sneaky little doubt that he wasn't his father's son and that William wasn't really his full brother. And just to rub it in, the media speculated annually and he never knew what that other red-headed git was going to say in the next paid interview.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2758  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:58 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
IIRC didn't Hewitt even hint at it early on ..trying to stir the pot?



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2759  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Hewitt first made the suggestion after the Morton book - once Diana had dumped him. He, I suspect, didn't feel that it should all be on Charles when Diana started cheating in 1986 - the same year Charles returned to Camilla.

Don't forget there had been the rumours about Mannekee as early as 1983 so there were stories circling about Diana being unfaithful even earlier then that Charles was. 1992 confirmed that they were both adulterers and had been so for many years. What subsequently came out was that Diana was a serial adulterer over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #2760  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
In the US most adults know their own blood type. And parents usually know their childrens' blood types.
I didn't have in mind family members, but average Brittons.
(From what should they know their Royals' blood types?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
I seem to remember Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, in the course of supporting a charity, was asked if he gave blood. He said that Royal Family members don't give blood.
It seems to me that I heard Crown Princess and Crown Princess of Norway during their post-wedding trip gave their blood for the victims of 9/11.

The recipient does not know who the donor is, this is anonymous.
__________________

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
abdication baby names bangladesh biography bridal gown chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dna dragons dubai dutch royal family earl of snowdon facts fantasy movie future general news thread george vi hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hill historical drama history house of grimaldi intro italian royal family jewellery jumma languages list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark mbs mountbatten nepalese royal jewels nobel prize northern ireland norway norway history palestine prince dimitri princely family of monaco princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family settings snowdon thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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