Charles and Diana

[MARG]

I think too much emphasis is put on the educational inequalities and achievements of both Charles and Diana. A degree is merely the result of a superior education not a superior intellect. Both Charles and Diana showed that neither of them were exactly slouches when "on the job".

I would cite QEII as a perfect example. She was home schooled (a trend that is returning only with parents instead of tutors), never attended a University and never achieved any educational standard, yet I think there would be very few people who would equate her as simple, uneducated, unskilled or ignorant. She has no trouble meeting the great and the good as well as her more ordinary "subjects". Her Prime Ministers have all attested to her political acumen regardless as to whether they agreed with her stance, and have appreciated her input. She hosts Heads of State, mixing and mingling (without a Whitehall flunky whispering in her ear to ensure she follows the Party line), so I would say her "education" was more than adequate. It is her intellect that makes the difference.

Having said that, I would think Diana's opinion of the reading matter was entirely personal and possibly found the topics as interesting as watching paint dry. She may have seen both the gift and it's content in a different light a few years later.

 

[blauerengel]

A university degree or the level of intelligence does not have much influence on the quality of a marriage. Some successfully married people have good education,some did not have so much formal schooling...
Different levels of formal education can work out very well,if we look at CP Haakon and Mette-Marit from Norway!
I am glad that CP Haakon looked beyond the surface and did not write Mette-Maritoff just because she did not have a good educational background. Personality and character are everything that matters, knowledge can be easily aqcuired when people want & need it later

 

[Mermaid1962]

My father had a Master's Degree and my mother had Junior Matriculation (Grade 11). They were very happy.

A university degree or the level of intelligence does not have much influence on the quality of a marriage.

 

[Roslyn]

Widespread higher education for women is a relatively recent trend, in Australia anyway, and in days past lack of it was not considered an indicator of lack of intelligence or as a factor which was likely to stop a marriage from being happy.

 

[Argie]

Widespread higher education for women is a relatively recent trend, in Australia anyway, and in days past lack of it was not considered an indicator of lack of intelligence or as a factor which was likely to stop a marriage from being happy.

I don't think Europe falls into this trend: my grandmother, born in 1919, went to university and finished with a BA in Languages. Her only sister, born in 1911 had two degrees: Languages and Law. Both worked in their profession (teacher and lawyer), along with their degreed husbands. Both had good marriages and gave birth to 4 and respectively 2 children. Although there was not a large number of girls enrolled in universities at that time, I remember them both visiting former female colleagues from the university.

 

[Roslyn]

Your great-grandfather must have been an enlightened man, Argie. Your grandmother and great-aunt were lucky ladies to have such encouragement.

 

[Argie]

He probably was, as all his seven children went to university. He was an elementary school teacher with a giant Nietzsche mustache

 

[scooter]

I think it was going to be tough going for even a professional counsellor when the 14 year older husband is saying to the teenage wife 'I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress'. I can't imagine any set of circumstances that a statement like that was going to be acceptable to any new wife for any reason , shrink or not. Though I do think Charles would have benefitted by being told no, not ok. Something that would be a real shock to his system .

 

[Lenora]

Is there a proof he really said this to his wife " I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress"?
I doubt he really said these words, even it was going through his mind. It could be said only by a man without any feelings, brains and common sense.

 

[Dman]

I'm not sure Charles ever said those words but its the same line many royal historians, correspondents and authors have said those were his words to Diana.

 

[cinrit]

Only two people know if he really said that, and I doubt Charles would report it if he did. I think it was Diana who reported that he said it, wasn't it? But I can't remember to whom she said it.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Both Charles and Diana should have kept the knowledge of the problems between themselves as much as possible. It's impossible to keep staff from talking among themselves, obviously. However, there was no need to alert the entire world to their problems. There was no need for adultery. There was betrayal upon betrayal by both parties. Both of them were selfish and unable to cope with the other person's "issues." I think that both Charles and Diana were better at helping the general public than helping each other. That's the tragedy.

This. Yes.

If Diana had wanted to save the marriage, going public was the worst thing she could have done.

Also this from Dman:

"They should've kicked their lovers to the side and worked on themselves and their marriage for the sake of their family and Monarchy."

 

[Pranter]

Is there a proof he really said to his wife " I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress"?
I doubt he really said these words, even it was going through his minds. It could be said only by a man without any feelings, brains and common sense.

I think it's entirely possible he said it...however if it was said it was more than likely said during an fight between he and Diana.


LaRae

 

[Roslyn]

I think it's entirely possible he said it...however if it was said it was more than likely said during an fight between he and Diana.

I agree. It's the sort of thing I'd say during a fight. My husband and I have said the most outrageous things to each other in the midst of a heated argument. And we know that Charles and Diana had lots of heated arguments.

 

[scooter]

It's been quoted in several books, all published in notoriously tight on Libel laws UK. I am traveling for the next 10 days and away from my library, but Google is your friend. I just did a search with the key words and there are PAGES of hits on this quote. Would you like to rethink your statement ?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

This is one I'm going to ask what your source is. As far as I know, Camilla has never voiced an opinion on what was going on for public record. She was one discreet lady and for that I admire her..

The source it Tina Brown's 2007 "The Diana Chronicles". I think I mentioned the source in my post.

 

[Roslyn]

It's been quoted in several books, all published in notoriously tight on Libel laws UK. I am traveling for the next 10 days and away from my library, but Google is your friend. I just did a search with the key words and there are PAGES of hits on this quote. Would you like to rethink your statement ?

Since my post is immediately above yours, and noting that yours was posted some hours after mine, I am going to assume that you are responding to mine and, in answer to your question say that no, I would not like to rethink my statement. I can't imagine why you might think I would want to rethink it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just because there are pages and pages repeating the quote doesn't mean it actually happened as the source is still Diana - a notable liar. She has also been dead for nearly 17 years so anyone can attribute comments to her that no one can now disprove.

Charles wasn't interested in suing the mother of his children about anything she said about him and he was and is the only one who could/can - not because they are wrong but because of the damage it would do to his sons who have always been a number 1 priority with him.

I don't see any need for Roslyn to rethink her statement either - Diana claimed that Charles made the comment but gave no context as to the circumstances and yes an argument is the probably situation.

 

[Ish]

It's been quoted in several books, all published in notoriously tight on Libel laws UK. I am traveling for the next 10 days and away from my library, but Google is your friend. I just did a search with the key words and there are PAGES of hits on this quote. Would you like to rethink your statement ?

You can get pages of results when you do a Google search for "Hitler clone on the moon" but it doesn't mean that we have to worry about an invasion of Space Nazis.

Just because Diana accused him of saying it, doesn't mean Charles actually said it. Furthermore, assuming that Charles did say it, context is also important. According to the DM - one of the few online sources I can find that actually discusses the incident around the quote instead of just putting the quote forth (or being a random result that doesn't actually have anything to do with the quote) - the line was said during a fight, presumably about Charles getting rid of his mistress. Yes, he should be criticized for it - if for no other reason than for the historical inaccuracy behind the line - but it gets a bit tedious after awhile for every negative comment about Diana to be responded with some variation of "well, Charles cheated on her."

 

[Lenora]

If it was said during a fight, it's more or less understandable, because Diana could also have adressed unpleasant words to him. But if it was said in a rather calm tone, that's totally unacceptable from psychological point of view.

 

[cinrit]

It's also possible that Charles did say something like that, but not necessarily in those exact words.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I very much doubt Charles said those words.
When did Charles supposedly say them? Before or after Diana affairs?
Was it in 1989?
.

 

[teeyah]

Just because there are pages and pages repeating the quote doesn't mean it actually happened as the source is still Diana - a notable liar

I agree with you, she was a liar, she made things up...(anything to make her a saint) ...and this one was definitely made up, if he said it as she said, where is the proof now that he's cheating on Camilla?

Also as for the Diana Chronicles, that book was Tina Brown giving her opinion on the entire tragedy (like many authors have done) ...really you actually believe Charles was incapable of thinking for himself so much that Camilla made him end his marriage? he ended it, no one but himself because he was miserable and wanted out like so many people do these days.

This was marriage was never going to work because it was built on a bad foundation, which the royal family should have realized and should have never made it happen. Charles was pressured and Diana was too young for it. Overall the couple were incompatible, it shouldn't have happened or should have ended earlier.

 

[Osipi]

This was marriage was never going to work because it was built on a bad foundation, which the royal family should have realized and should have never made it happen. Charles was pressured and Diana was too young for it. Overall the couple were incompatible, it shouldn't have happened or should have ended earlier.

With this statement, perhaps its best to let the marriage issues and the C/D/C triangle rest. During a time of marital discord, the parties involved can and do things that are normally out of character for them. If we only analyze Diana's facets during this time period, we're going to end up with an unbalanced, negative portrait of her.

Strange fact though is that if we discount the years of marriage, there is quite a small bit of time that Diana was in the public eye. Roughly about a year before her marriage to Charles and roughly about a year after her divorce was finalized. They formally separated in December of 1992 so we have about 3 1/2 years of separation until the final divorce.

The more I thought about it, the more I realize what a conundrum we're faced with here. We almost have to include the marriage years, the war of the Wales' and all things during that time period if we're going to discuss and understand everything we know about her. We cannot take other people's and author's quotes as fact as its mostly cases of "he said, she said, I heard and it looks like.." Reminds me of one book I read on Diana that used "a source high up" and "the well titled person close to" constantly in her work. The book was so filled with this you had to know you couldn't believe a word that was written.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

It's been quoted in several books, all published in notoriously tight on Libel laws UK. I am traveling for the next 10 days and away from my library, but Google is your friend. I just did a search with the key words and there are PAGES of hits on this quote. Would you like to rethink your statement ?

If we're going to accept that as the standard, than all of the negative things about Diana that have been published under the notoriously tight libel laws in the UK have to be accepted as fact, including allegations Diana was the first to cheat with Barry Manakee, had an affair with the married Will Carling, had major temper tantrums, threw items across the room, physically assaulted Charles, etc...

 

[Mermaid1962]

We don't know much about Diana from people who were her contemporaries--the people who went to school with her or the people she worked with and for. This is the big missing gap. Other than Mary Robertson and the nanny who wrote about knowing Diana as a young girl, no-one has gone into much detail about her personality during her youth. We know that she was given an award for community service at school, that she excelled at swimming and diving, that she loved ballet and piano--but we don't know much about the everyday details of what she was like to live with in the dorm or what people in the Althorp area thought about her in general.

Strange fact though is that if we discount the years of marriage, there is quite a small bit of time that Diana was in the public eye. Roughly about a year before her marriage to Charles and roughly about a year after her divorce was finalized. They formally separated in December of 1992 so we have about 3 1/2 years of separation until the final divorce.

 

[Dman]

If we're going to accept that as the standard, than all of the negative things about Diana that have been published under the notoriously tight libel laws in the UK have to be accepted as fact, including allegations Diana was the first to cheat with Barry Manakee, had an affair with the married Will Carling, had major temper tantrums, threw items across the room, physically assaulted Charles, etc...

I think the only people who know, who cheated on who first, is Charles and Diana. Diana is no longer here, so Charles knows. Everybody else can speculate.

 

[Osipi]

I think the only people who know, who cheated on who first, is Charles and Diana. Diana is no longer here, so Charles knows. Everybody else can speculate.

Charles is the last person on earth though that I think would ever bring up or say anything negative about his first wife. He's moved on with his life, the boys have moved on with their lives and by now all memories that any of them retain and cherish are the good ones.

 

[Dman]

Charles is the last person on earth though that I think would ever bring up or say anything negative about his first wife. He's moved on with his life, the boys have moved on with their lives and by now all memories that any of them retain and cherish are the good ones.

I agree, everyone has moved on and remember the good and loving times and that's a beautiful thing.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Charles is the last person on earth though that I think would ever bring up or say anything negative about his first wife. He's moved on with his life, the boys have moved on with their lives and by now all memories that any of them retain and cherish are the good ones.

I completely agree. If that was not true, Charles would not have made the sentimental gesture of wearing a suit that Diana favored to her funeral(the dark navy blue one) and he would not have continued to wear his wedding band, which he did until he married Camilla. He and Diana had slowly begun to repair their relationship and to build a friendship. If she had survived and recovered from her car crash injuries there is no doubt in my mind that he would have done everything in his power to help her. He is not a bad man, far from it.

And FWIW, according to Tina Brown part of the reason Camilla talked him out of returning to his marriage to Diana was because she knew it would ultimately make him miserable. And unfortunately, in that case she was right.