The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3501  
Old 11-28-2021, 11:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,264
In the mid-1980s, it was still unthinkable that the Prince and Princess of Wales should divorce. So they were going to have to work together somehow. There's a long history of royal and aristocratic couples remaining married whilst leading separate lives, but it was always going to get awkward once the media learnt of their other relationships. And, because of their position, they were still going to have to make a lot of public appearances together, go on tours abroad, welcome visiting heads of state, etc. I don't know what they thought was going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #3502  
Old 11-28-2021, 11:27 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,001
True. Because Di was so popular, also there was more interest in the couple than if they had been Anne and her husband. I think that on some level they or tat least Charles felt that the only way they could go was to quietly lead separate lives, and if they took lovers to find someone ultra discreet. so he may have felt that he and Camilla could manage to keep an affair quiet....
Reply With Quote
  #3503  
Old 11-28-2021, 11:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Diana is now an historical figure and her life will be dissected for the rest of time.

The idea that we let her 'rest in peace' doesn't work when so many historical figures aren't allowed to 'rest in peace' but have their lives dissected and new 'information' discovered all the time.



I agree and considering that in the past few years starting in 2017 with the 20th anniversary of her passing along with the televised and film stories relating to her life, there is a renewed interest in the late Diana, Princess of Wales. An entire generation has been born and grown to adulthood in the years since her death, so for many of them, this is the first time many have had heard of these stories. . The findings of the inquiry into the Panorama Interview also revealed the background into how Diana was manipulated into participating in it and so again this brings a fresh perspective for longtime and newer royal watchers.



The Tudors and Plantagenets routinely have documentaries, films and television series produced about them so I don't expect that the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #3504  
Old 11-28-2021, 01:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
I agree and considering that in the past few years starting in 2017 with the 20th anniversary of her passing along with the televised and film stories relating to her life, there is a renewed interest in the late Diana, Princess of Wales. An entire generation has been born and grown to adulthood in the years since her death, so for many of them, this is the first time many have had heard of these stories. . The findings of the inquiry into the Panorama Interview also revealed the background into how Diana was manipulated into participating in it and so again this brings a fresh perspective for longtime and newer royal watchers.



The Tudors and Plantagenets routinely have documentaries, films and television series produced about them so I don't expect that the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
I blame the Crown.....
Reply With Quote
  #3505  
Old 11-28-2021, 02:30 PM
Rayal's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Liberty, Missouri, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I blame the Crown.....
If there ever were a series that needed a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode, it would be 'The Crown' (assuming you did indeed mean the Netflix series). It should say, "Not based on history, not based on fact, but the use of historical characters' names." Unfortunately, I could not finish watching it as it was too fictional for my taste and, at times, even ridiculous.

I would also like to mention that since Diana's 20th anniversary of her death, there was a significant uptick in forum threads and posts and one of the reasons it drew me here. However, since the pandemic, it seems to have died down. I would check every day, and no bold high-lighted posts had appeared. So for a while, I was disappointed, but then I realized that there was no new news after the unveiling of her statue.

Millions still love her and miss her, and in our lifetime, we won't forget her. My point is that we will probably go over different aspects and events in her life. We will discuss it, define it, but also give our opinions. So, yes...may she rest in peace, but I like to think she is up there looking down on this and thinking it is all quite exciting and, in some cases, hilarious.
__________________
2021 and beyond..."Stay happy, stay healthy, and stay safe."
Reply With Quote
  #3506  
Old 02-08-2022, 03:02 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 4,167
Several posts have been removed as they were off topic to the thread and speculative. Further posts along those lines will also be removed.

A reminder that the rules of these forums prohibit speculative or insulting posts, and off topic posts are always subject to removal.

Let's move on.
Reply With Quote
  #3507  
Old 02-08-2022, 04:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,264
I saw a comment in a newspaper letters page today from someone saying that they would never feel loyalty to Camilla as their loyalty would always be to Diana, "the true Queen-in-waiting", as if they were saying that they'd never swear allegiance to William of Orange rather than James II, or Napoleon rather than the Bourbons, or George Washington rather than George III. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but I do find that idea difficult to get my head round. Charles and Diana's marriage did not work out, and they got divorced. No-one staged a coup or an invasion. But, as I said, each to their own.
Reply With Quote
  #3508  
Old 02-08-2022, 04:44 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,598
The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.
Reply With Quote
  #3509  
Old 02-08-2022, 04:55 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.
To add to this, it should be noted that the titles of wives are do not denote that they *hold* the title. They're "courtesy titles" extended to the spouse of the peer or royal that actually holds them.
__________________
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
  #3510  
Old 02-08-2022, 05:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.
Exactly. It's no different to a woman who marries Mr John Smith being entitled to call herself Mrs Smith.
Reply With Quote
  #3511  
Old 02-08-2022, 09:12 PM
roseroyal's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rose Bush, United States
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
To add to this, it should be noted that the titles of wives are do not denote that they *hold* the title. They're "courtesy titles" extended to the spouse of the peer or royal that actually holds them.
OK that makes sense. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me. Happens to me folks.
Reply With Quote
  #3512  
Old 02-08-2022, 09:14 PM
roseroyal's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rose Bush, United States
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.
That makes sense now. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me.
Reply With Quote
  #3513  
Old 02-08-2022, 09:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseroyal View Post
That makes sense now. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me.
This is why these threads are so valuable for educational purposes. It's also why I seek to check off my "learn something new every day" box. Sometimes it pays to be wrong about something because then through intelligent discussions, you learn just *why* you were wrong.

An intelligent person is one that isn't afraid to change their mind about something because they've learned something.
__________________
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
  #3514  
Old 02-08-2022, 10:13 PM
roseroyal's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rose Bush, United States
Posts: 5,348
I was wrong because I let my emotions rule. I’m wrong because I thought a title was about a person- not a role. And I’m not afraid to say I was wrong.
BTW my opinion about titles changed. I still have strong opinions about the people. I’m sorry if that’s judgmental.
Reply With Quote
  #3515  
Old 02-13-2022, 04:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.
When they remarry though they would not hold the titles, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #3516  
Old 02-13-2022, 05:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
When they remarry though they would not hold the titles, correct?
Correct. They would take their titles (if any) from their current spouse.
__________________
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
  #3517  
Old 02-13-2022, 06:17 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 10,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Correct. They would take their titles (if any) from their current spouse.
When some people here in the States have spoken of the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, they did not know that she was actually Lady Diana before the wedding.
Reply With Quote
  #3518  
Old 02-13-2022, 06:54 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
When some people here in the States have spoken of the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, they did not know that she was actually Lady Diana before the wedding.
Also, a lot of people do not know that Diana was *never* Princess Diana. Diana would often correct people that addressed her as such. She was either The Princess of Wales or she was Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce from Charles.
__________________
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
  #3519  
Old 02-13-2022, 07:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Also, a lot of people do not know that Diana was *never* Princess Diana. Diana would often correct people that addressed her as such. She was either The Princess of Wales or she was Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce from Charles.
I was in my 5th grade (first year of a new language at school then) when in my English textbook we got a text about someone meeting "Princess Diana". You can imagine how complex the text was - it was meant for kids who were just starting with the language. But it reinforced both the wrong style AND her star quality.

It didn't have a picture, though.

It was a British textbook, I think. We didn't get American ones at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #3520  
Old 02-13-2022, 07:44 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
I have to admit that it was 2008 before I knew that "Princess Diana" was not who she was. Of course that was added to a bazillion other things I learned since I joined here looking for silly Ascot hats.

And people wonder why I have a "learn something new every day" box. Most days, I check it off here.
__________________
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: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 58 12-31-2022 07:13 PM
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 449 10-11-2019 01:46 AM




Popular Tags
africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed history india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials silk spain spanish royal family state visit switzerland visit william woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises