Charles and Diana

[Mermaid1962]

Some people have trouble accepting that a human being ends up acting like a human being, whether discussing anyone in this all-too-human tragedy.

 

[Nico]

Charles had PLENTY of his own baggage brought to the table

who said the opposite ?

 

[Queen Camilla]

Well Charles may not have used his sons to cover his affair, he certainly used any house any one of his friends or relatives would allow, as clearly delineated in their own words on tape.As we have previously discussed Camilla made regular briefings to the Sun's Stuart Higgins on "Charles' side". As we have previously discussed, Charles spent the night before the first wedding with Camilla, which to me is beyond the pale, and shows such a complete lack of good faith at the wedding in the mooring. Charles had PLENTY of his own baggage brought to the table.

More fiction from the Diana fanclub.
Stuart Higgins said Camilla DID NOT contact him and she rarely gave any information about anyone.
Charles was not with Camilla the night before his wedding.

Diana brought her lovers to KP & Highgrove.
(C&C had enough class not to sleep at KP and not to sleep together at Highgrove until after Diana's death.)

Maybe the Diana fanatics consider facts to be bashing their Sainted One.

 

[Roslyn]

I think one of the things that causes a bit of friction on this topic is the question of when people consider the marriage ended. Some consider it was not over until the formal separation, and that Charles should be criticised for being a cruel, cheating husband until then, but I consider that the marriage relationship had ended by 1986, both of them having tried to make it work.

By then I think Charles had given up but I don't think Diana had, though I think she had some totally unreasonable and unrealistic expectations, and the difference in their attitudes and expectations after that gave rise to a great deal of conflict. They were essentially living separately and apart under the one roof, and that rarely works; both parties have to be of the one mind about the situation otherwise it is intolerable. I think it is a great shame that they did not separate then, and I blame Charles and the RF for this. I think the Queen buried her head in the sand over it and hoped it would go away; I understand she has a habit of avoiding confrontation in respect of family issues.

I consider that they were both responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Charles should never have asked her to marry him so soon. He should have made a point of getting to know her better and should have made sure she really would fit into his life the way she was expected to. They didn't spend enough time together and Charles seems to have blithely accepted Diana's word about loving the things he loved. Because of Diana's youth and naivety the onus was on Charles and the RF and I primarily blame them for the fact Charles proposed far too soon because they clearly had little in common and should not have married. I think they had children too soon and were both carried along with the momentum of their lives and learning to be parents, and both enjoying that aspect of their lives, for the first few years and their huge differences did not become apparent.

In my opinion once the marriage had broken down a different set of rules applied. I do not criticise Diana for having affairs, I criticise her for her hypocrisy about the subject.

 

[scooter]

More fiction from the Diana fanclub.
Stuart Higgins said Camilla DID NOT contact him and she rarely gave any information about anyone.
Charles was not with Camilla the night before his wedding.

(C&C had enough class not to sleep at KP and not to sleep together at Highgrove until after Diana's death.)

Really? Perhaps you should tell Tina Brown and Sally Bedell, who disagree on your assessment of Camilla's 10 year press briefings to Stuart Higgins

independant.co.uk - Independant Resources and Information.

Royal Truth: Kate Middleton speaks to the press..again!

Diana reassessed: Part Two | Mail Online.

Tina Brown...The Diana Chronicles.

The source for Charles and Camilla spending the night came from Stephen Barry, the POW personal Valet, one of the very few people to know with certainty exactly who spent the night in the princely bed, describing it as "Certainly incredibly daring, if not incredibly stupid".

ETA: for some reason the link doesnt come up on the first one, but the article is "Ratpack who fought royal publicity war by proxy" by Kim Sengupta. If you google it you should see it.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think one of the things that causes a bit of friction on this topic is the question of when people consider the marriage ended...

You make a lot of interesting points. I agree that they should have divorced much earlier. The Queen and Prince Philip kept pressuring them to work out their differences but it just wasn't possible at that point.

I agree that Diana was young and when she decided to get married, but I don't agree that the onus was completely on Charles and the Royal Family. Diana had parents. After Charles proposed, Diana went to visit her mother. I think her mother (and father) should have talked to both of them about slowing down.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...The source for Charles and Camilla spending the night came from Stephen Barry, the POW personal Valet, one of the very few people to know with certainty exactly who spent the night in the princely bed, describing it as "Certainly incredibly daring, if not incredibly stupid".

I have never seen any proof that Stephen Barry confirmed that Camilla spent the night with Charles before the wedding. This fact was certainly not in either of his books. Barry died in 1986, but that allegation wasn't made until 1992. So why did the person who supposedly heard it from Barry (I can't recall the name at this time) delay this revelation for six years? IIRC, this source also claimed to have tapes of Diana and Charles in their home. The tapes turned out to be hoaxes.

 

[maryr0249]

Why did women who married into the royal family have to be declared virgins before they could marry?

I think it was the only way, although imperfect, to assure the legitimacy of a royal heir before early pregnancy tests, DNA or psychological profiles (would that have helped - hmm).

 

[Nico]

Tina Brown...The Diana Chronicles.

Funny you mentioned this book because it is far to be popular among the Diana's fans.

The most savage attack on Diana EVER | Mail Online

And i wonder why :

"Diana's claim that she tried to commit suicide while pregnant with William was a sympathy-seeking lie".

"Diana was a humanitarian who at one level really identified with the common people, as she thought of them. But she was also a very messed-up woman whose downfall was due to her own insane jealousy and self-obsession"

"The shy Di is a myth," one photographer said. When a Sunday newspaper reported in November 1980 that she had spent two nights on the Royal "love train" with Charles, the Palace and Diana issued stern denials".

"Diana's mother was always suspicious of her daughter's motives in marrying Charles. She feared Diana loved not the man, but the status he could bring her".

"The book says that while her charitable work gave her some of the satisfaction that she was unable to find in her relationships with men, she often deliberately timed her philanthropic appearances to upstage Charles."

 

[Roslyn]

I agree that Diana was young and when she decided to get married, but I don't agree that the onus was completely on Charles and the Royal Family. Diana had parents. After Charles proposed, Diana went to visit her mother. I think her mother (and father) should have talked to both of them about slowing down.

I think the Spencers were absolutely delighted with the prospect that their youngest daughter was going to succeed where her older sibling had failed. I doubt any of them would have said anything that might make Diana doubt the wisdom of marrying the future king.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think the Spencers were absolutely delighted with the prospect that their youngest daughter was going to succeed where her older sibling had failed. I doubt any of them would have said anything that might make Diana doubt the wisdom of marrying the future king.

Roslyn, I'm not arguing with you, but according to Tina Brown's book, her mother tried to talk her out of the marriage. I think her mother should have talked with Charles directly or the Queen and Prince Philip.

Diana's mother may have been worried that Diana wouldn't forgive her if she had. It was certainly a troubled relationship. But I think that is what a parent is supposed to do. Sometimes you have to be willing to let your kids hate you.

 

[Roslyn]

You're most welcome to set me straight if I get one of the facts wrong. It has been a few years since I read all the books on the subject, and some details are getting a big fuzzy. When I said "Spencers" I was thinking father and maternal grandmother rather than mother, even though Baroness Fermoy was not a Spencer. I had in mind that Diana didn't really listen to her mother. Actually, I doubt she would have listened to any of them if they did counsel her against the quick marriage. She had her mind set on marrying Charles.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

You're most welcome to set me straight if I get one of the facts wrong. It has been a few years since I read all the books on the subject, and some details are getting a big fuzzy. When I said "Spencers" I was thinking father and maternal grandmother rather than mother, even though Baroness Fermoy was not a Spencer. I had in mind that Diana didn't really listen to her mother. Actually, I doubt she would have listened to any of them if they did counsel her against the quick marriage. She had her mind set on marrying Charles.

I think you are correct on that, but if Frances talked directly with Charles, it probably would have slowed the process down. It would certainly would have given him an out. I agree that Charles tried to evade responsibility for the marriage by blaming his own parents and the media pressure. He should have been stronger.

I think Charles should have explicitly explained that he wasn't "in love" with her. I think Charles should have said something like: "I was in love with a woman who married someone else. I haven't been able to get over her. I care about you and believe that we could build a good marriage but I don't feel about you the way I feel for this other woman."

I tend to think Diana still would have married him hoping that she could get him to love her--but at least Charles would have been honest with her.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that Stephen Barry could be quite a mischief maker. One writer--sorry, I forget who--had the theory that Barry put the pictures of Camilla in Charles's diary and put out the C & C cufflinks for Charles to wear. Makes sense, because would Charles pick out his own cufflinks? Barry seemed to do everything; and in his first book, he says that the reason he resigned from the Prince's staff was that he was, in effect, redundant because Prince Charles was married. I think that Barry was threatened by the Prince having a wife.

I have never seen any proof that Stephen Barry confirmed that Camilla spent the night with Charles before the wedding. This fact was certainly not in either of his book. Barry died in 1986, but that allegation wasn't made until 1992. So why did the person who supposedly heard it from Barry (I can't recall the name at this time) delay this revelation for six years? IIRC, this source also claimed to have tapes of Diana and Charles in their home. The tapes turned out to be hoaxes.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I completely agree. That he allowed Dimbleby to include criticisms of his parents was cruel to them. Most people, by the age of 40, are past blaming their parents for their problems. Charles came off as whiny in both the documentary and the book. He damaged his own reputation more than he hurt Diana's.

I think you are correct on that, but if Frances talked directly with Charles, it probably would have slowed the process down. It would certainly would have given him an out. I agree that Charles tried to evade responsibility for the marriage by blaming his own parents and the media pressure. He should have been stronger.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I completely agree. That he allowed Dimbleby to include criticisms of his parents was cruel to them. Most people, by the age of 40, are past blaming their parents for their problems. Charles came off as whiny in both the documentary and the book. He damaged his own reputation more than he hurt Diana's.

Oh, I do believe Charles is whiny and hard work, but he has at least proven he can have a long term relationship.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think that Stephen Barry could be quite a mischief maker. One writer--sorry, I forget who--had the theory that Barry put the pictures of Camilla in Charles's diary and put out the C & C cufflinks for Charles to wear. Makes sense, because would Charles pick out his own cufflinks? Barry seemed to do everything; and in his first book, he says that the reason he resigned from the Prince's staff was that he was, in effect, redundant because Prince Charles was married. I think that Barry was threatened by the Prince having a wife.

The allegation that about the cufflinks came from Tina Brown. It does seem as though Barry and Diana didn't like each other much, but I still don't understand why he would reveal that Charles spent the night before his wedding with Camilla in 1986, but that story wouldn't surface until 1992. I just don't believe Barry ever said it because I don't think it happened.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I completely agree. That he allowed Dimbleby to include criticisms of his parents was cruel to them. Most people, by the age of 40, are past blaming their parents for their problems. Charles came off as whiny in both the documentary and the book. He damaged his own reputation more than he hurt Diana's.

I absolutely agree. It's one thing to blame your parents in your early 20's, but to blame them for an action you took when you were in your 30's is ridiculous--and to still be blaming them in your 40's is pathetic. On the other hand, people absolve Diana for things she did in her late 20's and 30's because she was scarred by her parent's divorce.

In 1981, Charles was a full fledged adult. I would also say that by 1986, Diana was a full fledged adult. Both had to take full responsibility for their decisions.

ETA: I will say that I don't think the goal of the documentary and the book was to hurt Diana's reputation. Dimbleby has said that Charles agreed to cooperate on the condition the book not attack Diana or hurt her reputation.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Oh, I do believe Charles is whiny and hard work, but he has at least proven he can have a long term relationship.

There is someone for everyone. It is really sad that Diana couldn't find someone before she died. I certainly don't think it was Dodi. Hasnat Khan seems to be a decent man but I don't think either would have been able to live the other person's life: Khan couldn't live with the attention and Diana couldn't live in Pakistan. It really was unfortunate.

 

[COUNTESS]

This has become amusing. Yes, at some point they were both full fledged adults. Charles was and, probably, still is a whiny, fuss budget. But Camilla absorbs it all. For him, she is the best. He wrote things about his parents, which I think he has felt, to his pity. The queen is a good woman, she is not a mother, certainly not for Charles. Philip is delightful, but not for Charles. Diana could never give him the mothering he needed, which he has received from Camilla. She was insecure and a child in the beginning, had other problems. He does, too. They both failed. One died. The other has put himself in a position bypassing all the royal hypocrisy of marrying a mistress, etc. I give him kudos for pushing himself to this stage. Just "one great guy". But when he should have said I love "her", instead of marrying Diana, he had no backbone. It is also the mystique that when you are royal, you can marry anyone, but continue your life as it was. Diana was the biggest fool on earth.

 

[Argie]

I absolutely agree. It's one thing to blame your parents in your early 20's, but to blame them for an action you took when you were in your 30's is ridiculous--and to still be blaming them in your 40's is pathetic.

I suppose they were both victims:
Charles: a victim of the sense of duty. Of course he must have been pressured by his parents to marry a suitable girl . Only his parents are not ordinary people, they are part of the Establishment. You can say no to your parents, but can you say no to the Establishment? I'm pretty sure Charles was brought up to take full responsibility of his duties. Duty, that's why he married Diana. He knew he could not have married Camilla, who would have been a divorcee. It was 1980, not 2013.

Diana: show me one 19-year old girl who does not fall in love with the idea of being the future queen of Great Britain. One. She must have fooled herself that she loved him, maybe had a crush on him that faded away once married life, duty and the inherent rigors of the Establishment took over. Add to that her native emotional instability and Camilla's shadow lurking in their bedroom and you have the perfect makeup for marital disaster.

I don't blame Charles. He kept himself more in check than Diana did. Throughout the divorce scandal and subsequent behavior, he came out on top.

In a twisted way, the tragedy of Charles' marriage (and Andrew's marriage fiasco, for that matter), modernized the monarchy. Things that seem acceptable for William and Harry today would have never been acceptable for Charles or Andrew.

 

[COUNTESS]

Argie, you are so right. You see the real problems and how they were at the time. Charles has the advantage, because he has lived and can create an image for himself in these years. Diana cannot. Neither were good nor bad. I was 19 years old when I first married. But he was wonderful man who loved me and carried me through the first years, when I was a "child". He died after we were married 28 years, which was 25 years ago. I remarried, and have been married for 23 years, but I was much older at that time. Charles never could, really, give of himself. It was not required. And, he, really did not love her. Neither's fault. And, yes, the whole unseemly mess brought the RF into the new century.

 

[Argie]

Charles has the advantage, because he has lived and can create an image for himself in these years. Diana cannot.

Countess, it's more than that: let's fast forward to our days and imagine Diana would have lived. By now, she would have had her share of romances with men from all walks of life, as she did not seem to be very selective. Or, she would have married Dodi and produced step-siblings of William and Harry with a man of another culture and another religion. I believe she could have been more aware of all the implications of her actions. While she hated the Establishment, she should have remembered that her children were, without any fault of their own, forever part of it.

 

[sarahedwards2]

I don't think there has been much Diana bashing at all on here, if there is any bashing it has been directed much more at Charles then Diana....A failing of a marriage is always 50/50.

Gordon Lightfoot's song "If You Could Read My Mind" is about the breakup of his first marriage. His eldest daughter Ingrid made him change the line "I'm just trying to understand the feelings that YOU lack" to "...the feelings that WE lack". She said "Wasn't it a two-way street, Daddy?" at which he replied "You know, you're right. I can't do anything about the record, but (comforting voice here) for the rest of my life, I promise you, I'll say the feelings that we lack." You could just see a twinkle in his eyes during the interview footage.

 

[sarahedwards2]

I think it was the only way, although imperfect, to assure the legitimacy of a royal heir before early pregnancy tests, DNA or psychological profiles (would that have helped - hmm).

Mette-Marit had a child from a previous relationship when she married Haakon, and it was allowed.

 

[Ish]

Mette-Marit had a child from a previous relationship when she married Haakon, and it was allowed.

Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.

 

[COUNTESS]

Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.

You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Also, Mette-Marit made a tearful statement of regret for her past lifestyle on television. Scandinavia is has been more liberal than the UK, traditionally. I don't think that William would have been allowed to marry someone like Mette-Marit, even in 2010.

Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Charles was just as equally damaging to this marriage and embarrassed the Monarchy (which wasn't perfect in it's self) and caused a great deal of heartache and pain to others. He too made his mistakes and the Camillagate tapes were even worse than Diana's Squidgygate tapes.

Charles also cooperated with a book and admitted on national TV of his adultery. That was embarrassing just as Diana's interview was embarrassing. Charles also had his friends intimidate Diana and some even went on TV to publically criticize her.

Give a break with this one-sided attitude towards Charles & Diana's marriage.

You really just aren't listening now? Just reading the first few sentences and then making a reply. Charles cheated on Diana no one is denying that no one is excusing it! But How Diana dealt with it is what people are criticizing now. There are a number of facets being duscussed here; the affairs and the public attacks are 2 separate issues. I find it very telling that people have posted numerous links to back up their opinions yet Dman never does; just states something is a fact with no proof.
I can't say a man in his 30s shouldn't marry a woman barely out of her teens; I believe it has world for Queen Raina. I think the problem was the individual not necessarily the age. I'm not sure if Diana was older if she would have faired any better.

 

[sthreats]

I have been reading this thread this evening going back the past 5 days. As usual this is a volatile subject. Because of the fanfare about the wedding in 1981 and the strong feelings that P. Diana's life and death brought out this discussion always sounds like a family argument. We talk as if these are two of our relatives that got divorced instead of royals that we have never met. But that is what being part of a global village brings about.
That being said- just a couple of observations.

1. Good parents do argue in front of their children. No one is perfect. My parents didn't argue in front of me everyday but I remember when they did. And I have had arguments with my husband in front of our kids. Couples have different fighting styles- one person is usually the yeller and the other withdraws. That's not grounds for a divorce-just a good marriage counselor.

2. From reading various books, I see that this relationship had problems during the first 5 years. It seems that P. Charles's parents were also trying to intervene/counsel. Parents shouldnt do that. The couple doesn't work it their problems and blame gets shifted to the parents. I have read that Diana was sent for counseling and medication was discussed but I have never read that they went to a family counselor. That would have helped.

3. When P. Charles broke his arm in 1990 the couple was already drifting apart and P. Diana had already had some affairs. I am sure her husband knew that and made a decision (not the best one) to start his own affair. If P. Diana wanted to be at Highgrove with her husband she would have been there. Who was going to stop her? That might have been a good time to reconnect as a couple.

4. I wish people would stop saying he didn't love her. He did. He didn't know her and vice versa. And he wasn't equipped to deal with anyone's problems beside his own. I would say the same about P. Diana. In many ways they both had a messed up childhood. Two people like this should not marry it each other.

5. They did try to be good parents and the princes love both of their parents. I think that's most important. And by the teen years children do not love their parents unconditionally. If a child has an abusive/absent parent, by 14-15 y.o., that child like love goes aware and you have a troubled young adult.

6. Finally I don't think P. Diana was against the Establishment. I think she was at the end against her in-laws and the whole way the Windsor family firm runs on a day to day basis. In a way in their TV interviews P. Charles and P. Diana did the same thing- blame the Queen/Monarchy for their problems instead of putting their big kid pants on and taking responsibility for themselves. They both showed an immaturity that took aware from all of their positive attributes.