The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2821  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't buy that it would have been an arranged marriage. Even if it was, arranged marriages are still the norm in many societies. Charles had been in love with Camilla, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't eventually moved on. A marriage can be happy even if the parties aren't in love in the beginning. .
So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? In other words, men cheat because their wives are not good enough to them ? How typical !
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2822  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:30 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? How typical !
I think you have massively mis-read what Royal Watcher wrote. Nothing of the kind was suggested. You have 'read into' some text what is not there. Royal Watcher did not write what you claim.

You are assuming that no matter who Charles married he would have cheated with Camilla. That's a huge leap.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2823  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I think you have massively mis-read what Royal Watcher wrote. Nothing of the kind was suggested. You have 'read into' some text what is not there.

You are assuming that no matter who Charles married he would have cheated with Camilla. That's a huge leap.
Royal Watcher said that, even though Charles was in love with Camilla, he might have moved on if he had married Amanda because Amanda would have been a better wife/ better match for him than Diana. The logical implication of that rationale is quite obvious to me, i.e. Diana is the one to be blamed for not being able to make Charles forget Camilla. Quite frankly, I find that line of reasoning preposterous and demeaning to women. And I say that as someone who happens to be male.
Reply With Quote
  #2824  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Charles didn't love Amanda as he didn't love Diana. It would be just another arranged marriage and there is no reason to believe it would be a happy one. Amanda might have put up with Charles' infidelity though in a way Diana did not, because of her royal ancestry.
There's no reason to believe it would have been an unhappy one. And there's also no reason to believe he would have returned to Camilla.

I think Charles did intend to give his marriage a chance. It failed because he and Diana had nothing in common, no shared interests on which to build a closer relationship. With Amanda things may have been different.
Reply With Quote
  #2825  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? In other words, men cheat because their wives are not good enough to them ? How typical !
It's obvious that you don't have an answer if you have to resort to mischaracterizing the other person's words. I wasn't talking about an affair, and you know it. I don't think there was an affair at first. Charles was obviously not in love with Diana, but she was not in love with him either.

Regardless, it could have worked out if both of them had committed to working it out. They didn't. Both of them had affairs--no one knows who strayed first. I doubt if Charles knows for sure when Diana started to sleep with others (including married men).
Reply With Quote
  #2826  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Not so. Charles and Amanda were well known to each other (across years) and in many ways, that being the case, they had a foundation upon which to build a loving marriage (the same as Elizabeth and Philip, or Victoria and Albert). Friendship is important in marriage, I have found, and sustains. Friendship means there is respect and goodwill. One cannot equate Amanda and Diana. The most relevant objection to the Amanda/Charles match that I have read was that the two were more like brother/sister, meaning very good friends. In my book that could have blossomed into something more. However, it didn't and the rest is history.

[P.S. These statements about 'love' have almost become code. What is love, after all? Caring, wanting the best for someone, tenderness, sharing, humor: these things go far to create the ambiance in which love can grow.]

Keep in mind that Diana very happily put up with Charles' infidelity for an entire decade. Plus Charles' infidelity (when it finally happened) was with (in the end) only one woman. It's not like Charles was out there playing the field, siring babies, and having wild parties. His indiscretions were so discreet that to this day we have very little knowledge of what took place, whereas with Diana she was so indiscreet that the tabloids were going to blow the whistle on her, and did.
Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it was somehow better that Charles was actually in love with Camilla. There was a study many years ago that found that men cared more about physical infidelity and women care more about emotional infidelity.

I believe Charles when he said that he was faithful until the marriage irretrievably broke down. However, I think that before that point, Charles began using Camilla for emotional support, rather than Diana. (I also think that he may have assumed that she was sleeping with Barry Manakee and decided that the marriage was over.)

The lack of emotional intimacy must have been painful for Diana. On the other hand, Diana was so insecure, she couldn't give Charles the support he needed. They both wanted someone to take care of them, but neither were wired that way. They were simply incompatible.
Reply With Quote
  #2827  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:56 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Regardless, it could have worked out if both of them had committed to working it out. They didn't. Both of them had affairs--no one knows who strayed first. I doubt if Charles knows for sure when Diana started to sleep with others (including married men).
We have evidence that he did know about the Barry Manakee situation. He definitely knew about James Hewitt. It is likely Charles knew about everything simply because of his position: it would have been reported to him. JMO.

We have no evidence that he confronted Diana about any of it, though on one thread it was suggested that according to Diana she and Charles discussed their liaisons with each other. (Hmmm...) I view that little bit as Diana's canny way of inserting that she obtained Charles' 'permission' to have affairs, thus absolving her of the technicality of having committed treason (very archaic but there you go, Diana had no way to know how the establishment would come down on her for her indiscretions). I'm not sure I believe Diana on this one bit but I also have found that though Diana lied her lies tended to have the contours of truth. It may be so that Charles and she reached a point where they did openly discuss their lives, which makes her betrayal of those confidences all the more cutting.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2828  
Old 04-29-2018, 10:59 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Royal Watcher said that, even though Charles was in love with Camilla, he might have moved on if he had married Amanda because Amanda would have been a better wife/ better match for him than Diana. The logical implication of that rationale is quite obvious to me, i.e. Diana is the one to be blamed for not being able to make Charles forget Camilla. Quite frankly, I find that line of reasoning preposterous and demeaning to women. And I say that as someone who happens to be male.
No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible with no common interests. In addition, neither one could satisfy the other's emotional needs or even understand what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love. With Diana that wasn't going to happen.

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.
Reply With Quote
  #2829  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:14 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it was somehow better that Charles was actually in love with Camilla. There was a study many years ago that found that men cared more about physical infidelity and women care more about emotional infidelity.
I am not sure where in my text you see me saying that. Have I said that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I believe Charles when he said that he was faithful until the marriage irretrievably broke down. However, I think that before that point, Charles began using Camilla for emotional support, rather than Diana. (I also think that he may have assumed that she was sleeping with Barry Manakee and decided that the marriage was over.)
Recall that Diana had Charles banish his circle of friends (which included Camilla) which he did. He complied with her wishes to the point of his dismissing his dog. Good grief! (Though if the dog was growling at her or being disagreeable in some other way, I could see doing that myself, especially when children are involved ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
The lack of emotional intimacy must have been painful for Diana. On the other hand, Diana was so insecure, she couldn't give Charles the support he needed. They both wanted someone to take care of them, but neither were wired that way. They were simply incompatible.
How do we know there was a "lack of emotional intimacy". Serious question. I know we have fairly decent evidence that they had a pretty rousing sex life in the early years. They certainly argued and that requires intimacy.

That is the key: Diana was insecure. She had one relationship she was able to sustain across years, the one with James Hewitt. That's it, and it's longevity had more to do with Hewitt's loyalty than hers. As loyal and devoted as he was, she was still not able to maintain loyalty to him, cheated on him (for goodness sake) and in the end kicked him to the curb. Not a good reference point. Her template for a successful relationship seems to be to perhaps have utter loyalty from the man while she played the field. Then she could feel secure.

Now look at Charles: he evidences considerable loyalty to friends and discretion with lovers: plus he has never spoken ill about Diana to this day.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2830  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible and neither one understood what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love.

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.

If they were incompatible, he should not have married her in the first place, as he did on his own free will. One doesn't marry another person on the hope that their potential "shared interests" might eventually "develop into love" (whatever love means). Marriage is not to be taken that lightly.

In the end, all the previous posts are a rehashed variation of the same usual anti-Diana theme: Charles could never have loved her because she was not right for him. Other more aggressive posters would go further and add "because she was mentally disturbed", or "because she was unfaithful herself".

The broader picture is that, for hundreds of years, women have put up with unfaithful husbands and felt guilty about it on the premise that, if their husbands were having extra-marital affairs, it was because they were not good enough wives to please their men. It is unfortunate that this PoV resurfaces again, from time to time, even in the 21st century.
Reply With Quote
  #2831  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:26 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible with no common interests. In addition, neither one could satisfy the other's emotional needs or even understand what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love. With Diana that wasn't going to happen.
A good summary of the dilemma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.
Have to agree with you 100%. If ever there was a cautionary tale regarding how important it is to choose one's marital partner judiciously, it is Charles choosing Diana. What a mistake!

What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2832  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:31 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The broader picture is that, for hundreds of years, women have put up with unfaithful husbands and felt guilty about it on the premise that, if their husbands were having extra-marital affairs, it was because they were not good enough wives to please their men. It is unfortunate that this PoV resurfaces again, from time to time, even in the 21st century.
This pov has not surfaced in this most recent conversation except in your posts. Fact is we cannot know who strayed first (though we have good evidence pointing to how it may have unfolded). We know what Diana claims. That is all. That is what she used to justify her own rather energetic extra marital career. It was absolutely essential that she convince the public that she was the victim of an unfaithful husband. She succeeded wildly. But what is true? Who knows.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2833  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I am not sure where in my text you see me saying that. Have I said that?
Sorry, I was trying to condense my remarks and it came out wrong. I think that the reason Charles didn't have a string of affairs is because he was in love with Camilla and didn't need to look farther.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Recall that Diana had Charles banish his circle of friends (which included Camilla) which he did. He complied with her wishes to the point of his dismissing his dog. Good grief! (Though if the dog was growling at her or being disagreeable in some other way, I could see doing that myself, especially when children are involved ).
As I said in an earlier post, Charles did try to make his marriage with Diana work. As you indicated, he made some major changes in his life in effort to please her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
How do we know there was a "lack of emotional intimacy". Serious question. I know we have fairly decent evidence that they had a pretty rousing sex life in the early years. They certainly argued and that requires intimacy.

That is the key: Diana was insecure. She had one relationship she was able to sustain across years, the one with James Hewitt. That's it, and it's longevity had more to do with Hewitt's loyalty than hers. As loyal and devoted as he was, she was still not able to maintain loyalty to him, cheated on him (for goodness sake) and in the end kicked him to the curb. Not a good reference point. Her template for a successful relationship seems to be to perhaps have utter loyalty from the man while she played the field. Then she could feel secure.

Now look at Charles: he evidences considerable loyalty to friends and discretion with lovers: plus he has never spoken ill about Diana to this day.
I don't think that sex indicates that they were truly intimate. Diana was very insecure and I don't think that she was able to offer the emotional support he needed. At the same time, he couldn't offer her the support she needed. The difference is that I don't know that anyone could have provided enough support for her--she was suffering from a serious mental illness.
Reply With Quote
  #2834  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.
He should have weathered public disapproval and broken it off. I think his in a difficult situation. The only way for him to avoid looking like a complete jerk would have been for her to dump him or for him to fall in love with her. But he is the one who asked her out in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #2835  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:50 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Sorry, I was trying to condense my remarks and it came out wrong. I think that the reason Charles didn't have a string of affairs is because he was in love with Camilla and didn't need to look farther.
Understood. We do know (anecdotally) that there were other lovers for Charles once the marriage broke down. It appears it was not Camilla whose arms he fell into at once (though that is the myth). Once Camilla came back into his orbit they 'settled down' with each other but they were only together for a couple of years when Diana was about to be thrown under the bus by the tabloids. She needed a scapegoat, and there was Camilla (the former supporter and confidant).

I am one of the few who believes Diana basically created her worst fear: by destroying Camilla's marriage (and Diana did do that) she assured that Charles would circle the wagons around Camilla. I think the touted 'true love' came about through the adversity of those years dealing with Diana's public war against Camilla. Charles would not abandon Camilla after that and the 'true love' myth was well-and-good sealed. I am not saying they are not 'in love', but that love took years to come to, and was forged in the very adversity Diana fomented. It has it's irony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't think that sex indicates that they were truly intimate. Diana was very insecure and I don't think that she was able to offer the emotional support he needed. At the same time, he couldn't offer her the support she needed. The difference is that I don't know that anyone could have provided enough support for her--she was suffering from a serious mental illness.
You are correct: sex and love are distinct. Yet good sex can open up the portals to true love, I believe. It happens. So I just meant they had some openings but it never took hold.

As for the last bit: sadly, yes. People stressing that 'if only' Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2836  
Old 04-29-2018, 11:57 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Understood.

People stressing that if only Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.
I don't know that Diana would have strayed if Charles hadn't been confiding in Camilla. She probably suspected they were sleeping together, even if they weren't. But, regardless, even if they had both been faithful, the marriage wouldn't have worked out. Not only were they too different but Diana was suffering from depression and bulimia. Charles was not able to handle that.

And for those who will jump up and say that she was only depressed and bulimic because of Charles, the evidence is against that. Diana's sister had similar problems and her brother married a woman with similar problems. Her issues probably had more to do with her family growing up than with Charles.
Reply With Quote
  #2837  
Old 04-30-2018, 12:00 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Understood. We do know (anecdotally) that there were other lovers for Charles once the marriage broke down. It appears it was not Camilla whose arms he fell into at once (though that is the myth). Once Camilla came back into his orbit they 'settled down' with each other but they were only together for a couple of years when Diana was about to be thrown under the bus by the tabloids. She needed a scapegoat, and there was Camilla (the former supporter and confidant).

I am one of the few who believes Diana basically created her worst fear: by destroying Camilla's marriage (and Diana did do that) she assured that Charles would circle the wagons around Camilla. I think the touted 'true love' came about through the adversity of those years dealing with Diana's public war against Camilla. Charles would not abandon Camilla after that and the 'true love' myth was well-and-good sealed. I am not saying they are not 'in love', but that love took years to come to, and was forged in the very adversity Diana fomented. It has it's irony.



You are correct: sex and love are distinct. Yet good sex can open up the portals to true love, I believe. It happens. So I just meant they had some openings but it never took hold.

As for the last bit: sadly, yes. People stressing that if only Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.
Spot on for me!
Reply With Quote
  #2838  
Old 04-30-2018, 12:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Coastal California, United States
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
...
What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.
Not quite. Assuming Charles had had no children, then the next oldest brother - Andrew and his line would be next - and since Andrew has no sons it would have been Queen Beatrice.
If Andrew had had no children then it would have been Edward followed by his son James.
If Edward had had no children then it would have been Anne followed by her son Peter.
If you look at Queen Elizabeth’s father, George VI had surviving younger brothers Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester who had 2 sons and Prince George, Duke of Kent who had 2 sons - yet Elizabeth II became Queen before the sons of her father’s younger brothers.
Now it’s all changed and there’s no shuffling Princesses to the back of the line behind their brothers.
Reply With Quote
  #2839  
Old 04-30-2018, 01:03 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post

What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.
No - Andrew and then his girls before Edward, James and Louise.

Andrew is the Queen's second son and Edward the third.

Just because Andrew's children are girls doesn't mean they are behind Edward and his son in the line of succession.

If Charles has no children then the line would be:

Charles
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Isla
Zara
Mia
David
Charles
Margarita
Sarah
Samuel
Daniel
Richard - Duke of Gloucester (who, if the idea that if there was a male in the line he would take precedence of girls would be the monarch as in 1952 his father was the first male (not descended from a female) in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #2840  
Old 04-30-2018, 01:13 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
I think people who look at this marriage and lament Charles' inconstancy, or inability to be unpriced [good grief: what was the word I was trying to type before auto-correct took over? ] to love in the face of the 'beautiful Diana', I think they are the romantics of all romantics. Dear Hearts!

They want Charles to have been as W. Somerset Maugham wrote in 'The Painted Veil'. When love hits it's very much like this. Love is very rare. But what is love? Is it this?

Quote:
“ 'I had no illusions about you,' he said. 'I knew you were silly and frivolous and empty-headed. But I loved you. I knew that your aims and ideals were vulgar and commonplace. But I loved you. I knew that you were second-rate. But I loved you. It's comic when I think how hard I tried to be amused by the things that amused you and how anxious I was to hide from you that I wasn't ignorant and vulgar and scandal-mongering and stupid. I knew how frightened you were of intelligence and I did everything I could to make you think me as big a fool as the rest of the men you knew. I knew that you'd only married me for convenience. I loved you so much, I didn't care. Most people, as far as I can see, when they're in love with someone and the love isn't returned feel that they have a grievance. They grow angry and bitter. I wasn't like that. I never expected you to love me, I didn't see any reason that you should. I never thought myself very lovable. I was thankful to be allowed to love you and I was enraptured when now and then I thought you were pleased with me or when I noticed in your eyes a gleam of good-humored affection. I tried not to bore you with my love; I knew I couldn't afford to do that and I was always on the lookout for the first sign that you were impatient with my affection. What most husbands expect as a right I was prepared to receive as a favor.”
With such a bar, can we say Diana loved Charles? I think not.

We will always have Charles' prescient statement: 'Whatever love means."

I am always amazed at how personally people take Charles' failure to abide with Diana, however difficult.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
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 02:00 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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