Charles and Diana

[Dman]

No one is painting Diana as some innocent person. Diana did her dirty work too. No one has denied that.

 

[Cris M]

No one is painting Diana as some innocent person. Diana did her dirty work too. No one has denied that.

You really see only what you wants to see (or read, in this case).

 

[amaryllus]

Yes... and there is always the famous 'But' in there... But Charles did it first, but the royals were mean to her, but her childhood was rocky, But Camilla schemed against her, but... but... and so on and so some people let her off the hook; Those are explanations but not excuses for her tomfoolery.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Citing Diana's parents truly disastrous marriage as proof that a teen bride and an older man is a good thing...I would leave mention of them out.

There can be no true comparisons when citing marriage to the pow , one of the most well known figures in the world. He was not simply another aristocrat.

 

[Dman]

It's nearly hard to form a balanced opinion in this forum. If you're seen as a Diana supporter, then it means you're making excuses for her and putting her and her memory on a high pedestal.

I'm a Charles and Diana supporter, always have been and always will be. I liked them both and I choose to remember the good time (because there were good times) and try not to reflect on the bad times as much. When I do reflect on the bad times, I try to form a well balanced opinion about the royal couple.

I can't bring myself to tear one person down and build the other up. Both Charles and Diana made some horrible mistakes, but I think it's a mistake to try to place a great deal of blame on one person and go light on the other. It took two to bring that marriage down. On the other side, there were a great deal of rumors about Charles and Diana and their marital issues, that was made up by the tabloids of the day. It's nearly impossible to debunk many of the rumors, and unfortunately, a lot of the rumors stuck over the years.

Charles and Diana were good people and there was love in their marriage. They produced two boys that they loved and cherished. They couldn't make their marriage work and keep their family together. That was sad, but it happens to so many families, well known or not. On reflection, I think it's just better to take a well balanced view on the Waleses, and not a one-sided view, IMO.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana's supporter were complaining that the Queen should have stepped in and prevented the 20 year from marrying her 32 year old son in the same way the Queen's parents requested she wait until she was 21 to marry Philip.

I was pointing out that in Diana's family marrying a much older man was common and blaming the Queen was wrong.

Diana was not a teenager when she married she was an adult who made the decision to marry.

Blame Diana for her decision. Charles and the RF did not put a gun to her head. Charles told her to take the time to think about the proposal and what is was she was getting into. She is the one who readily accepted.

 

[Roslyn]

Diana's supporter were complaining that the Queen should have stepped in and prevented the 20 year from marrying her 32 year old son in the same way the Queen's parents requested she wait until she was 21 to marry Philip.

I was pointing out that in Diana's family marrying a much older man was common and blaming the Queen was wrong.

Diana was not a teenager when she married she was an adult who made the decision to marry.

Blame Diana for her decision. Charles and the RF did not put a gun to her head. Charles told her to take the time to think about the proposal and what is was she was getting into. She is the one who readily accepted.

She accepted far too readily, in my opinion, and considering they hardly knew each other I think it would have been wise for HM to step in and delay the wedding to give them a chance to really get to know each other and be sure before the announcement was formally made. But perhaps the fact she, herself, had been made to wait influenced Elizabeth to let them go ahead. And of course the press were being absolute pests and were hounding Diana at work and everywhere she went. She couldn't be given any protection unless and until she was engaged. Vicious circle.

And things were very different in those days; they couldn't just shack up together like William and Kate could to give their relationship a trial run.

 

[Queen Camilla]

IMO, I think they knew each other a lot better than what was later portrayed.

Diana was raised on the Sandringham estate. During her childhood, she spent part of Christmas with the royal family.

She also stayed at Balmoral and Sandringham prior to her engagement, in fact, she was at Sandringham in January 1978. She was standing next to Charles while he was pheasant hunting.

 

[TLLK]

Charles and Diana did love each other, they just couldn't make their relationship work. Their love produced two fine boys, princes William and Harry. Their shared a bond through William and Harry. Had Charles and Diana formed a friendship before their marriage, things probably would've been different.

Excellent points Dman. They had little in common other than their children when you really compare this couple. Perhaps if they had a longer courtship they might have established a stronger relationship or quietly gone their separate ways.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

[It's nearly hard to form a balanced opinion in this forum. If you're seen as a Diana supporter, then it means you're making excuses for her and putting her and her memory on a high pedestal. ]// quote

Indeed, Dman.

"Balance" to some of these people means agreeing that Diana was a completely evil depraved poseur who stood in the way of True Love. All Camilla and Charles ever did wrong in the entire affair(no pun intended) was not seize their great love early on when they had a chance.

But now the wicked witch is dead, and Charles is living happily ever after with-in one poster's touching description- "his one true love". So terribly romantic.

If only this saga really was such a simple fairy tale fantasy. If only people hadn't ended up dead, and two kids motherless.

 

[royal rob]

Well said


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

IMO, I think they knew each other a lot better than what was later portrayed.

Diana was raised on the Sandringham estate. During her childhood, she spent part of Christmas with the royal family.

She also stayed at Balmoral prior to her engagement, in fact, she was at Balmoral in January 1978. She was standing next to Charles while he was pheasant hunting.

Yes, she grew up around Royals, but the age difference meant that until that party after Lord Mountbatten's murder when Diana was kind to Charles about the loss of his beloved uncle, Charles thought of her as a child; as the little sister of one of his girlfriends, not as a potential romantic interest. They certainly weren't close friends.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

IMO, I think they knew each other a lot better than what was later portrayed.

Diana was raised on the Sandringham estate. During her childhood, she spent part of Christmas with the royal family.

She also stayed at Balmoral prior to her engagement, in fact, she was at Balmoral in January 1978. She was standing next to Charles while he was pheasant hunting.

I don't think that means they knew each other. A 12yr age difference is huge when dealing with a child which Diana was when you mentioned she spent part of Christmas with them. I doubt Charles at 22 would pay much attention to a 10yr old. And I think they needed more time to get to know each other, time that hunting together with a lagre group couldn't provide.
I agree that a young woman marrying an older man does not equate disaster even when royal. Diana was a very young 20, but I doubt Charles knew that.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In January 1978 Diana was not 10. She was 16.

In January 1980, Diana was again spotted next to Charles while he was out pheasant hunting in Sandringham.

Charles and Diana saw each other more than people were lead to believe or want to believe.

Exactly how was Diana a 'young' 20. She was an 'old' 20 as she had been out on her own since she was 16. She has experienced life on her own more than if she had stayed in school and married right out of school. Diana being called a 'young' 20 is a an excuse to shift the blame on others.

 

[Roslyn]

I haven't got time to search through the books to find the actual accounts, but I found this by a quick google. It sets out the circumstances that have been recorded in enough of the books to be accepted, I think, as a fair summary of the timeline:

"The girl next door

Although Prince Charles had known Diana almost all her life, he thought of her as a playmate for his younger brothers. He later dated Diana's older sister, Lady Sarah. Lady Sarah reintroduced Charles and Diana in 1977. "[Diana] taught him how to tap-dance on the terrace," a family friend once told McCall's. "He thought she was adorable … full of vitality (liveliness) and terribly sweet." Charles was struck by "what a very amusing and jolly and attractive 16-year-old she was," Time reported. Diana concluded that the prince was "pretty amazing."

However, Charles thought Diana was too young to consider as a marriage prospect and the romance didn't bloom for another three years. In July 1980 Diana visited the royal family's Balmoral Castle in Scotland to see her sister, Lady Jane, who was married to Robert Fellowes, the queen's assistant secretary. Once again Diana ran into Charles, and the two walked and fished together. Charles was quoted as saying in Time, "I began to realize what was going on in my mind and hers in particular." Diana was invited back in September. Soon afterward, reporters began to suspect the nature of her relationship with Charles and began to follow Diana constantly."

Princess of Wales Diana Biography - life, family, children, parents, name, story, history, school, mother, young

 

[Queen Camilla]

"The girl next door

Although Prince Charles had known Diana almost all her life, he thought of her as a playmate for his younger brothers. He later dated Diana's older sister, Lady Sarah. .Lady Sarah reintroduced Charles and Diana in 1977. 1

However, Charles thought Diana was too young to consider as a marriage 2. prospect and the romance didn't bloom for another three years. . Princess of Wales Diana Biography - life, family, children, parents, name, story, history, school, mother, young

1. I believe as Sarah stated she formally introduced Diana to Charles in 1977.
2. Is heresay and not directly from Charles.

 

[Roslyn]

The Dimbleby biography (page 279, paperback edition) has Charles first meeting Diana at Althorp in 1977 when he was there at Sarah's invitation. "His first impression of the younger sister was that she was, as his friends put it, 'jolly' and 'bouncy', an unaffected teenager who was relaxed, irreverent and friendly. Two years later, after a few more equally casual encounters and without any apparent surge in feeling, he began to think seriously of her as a potential bride."

The "two years" comment is interesting, as the book does not mention any event in 1979 or anything else that year which could mark a turning point in Charles' intentions. It goes on to mention the July 1980 conversation on a hay bale at a barbeque at a country house near Petworth in Sussex, but nothing between 1977 and 1980.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana claimed she didn't like hunting yet she was at Sandringham with Charles while he hunted in January 1978 and January 1980.

Why would Diana who didn't like hunting be standing next to Charles while he hunted if she wasn't his girlfriend or if she wasn't pursing (hunting) Charles?

Here is James Whitaker story from the January 1978 hunting episode.

She was peering at me and a colleague down a long, tree-lined path through a pair of powerful binoculars. As the binoculars were still attached by a strap to Charles's neck, his head was at a curious angle.

Both were laughing uproariously and clearly happy.

I was baffled why Diana should be with Charles

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DIANA%3B+A+personal+tribute+by+James+Whitaker+with+pictures+by+Kent...-a06107435

James Whitaker's original view of Diana was not so favorable as his retelling after her death. His 1981 book is a must read but it is difficult to find.

The Dimbleby biography (page 279, paperback edition) has Charles first meeting Diana at Althorp in 1977 when he was there at Sarah's invitation.... "Two years later, after a few more equally casual encounters and without any apparent surge in feeling, he began to think seriously of her as a potential bride."

The "two years" comment is interesting, as the book does not mention any event in 1979 or anything else that year which could mark a turning point in Charles' intentions. It goes on to mention the July 1980 conversation on a hay bale at a barbeque at a country house near Petworth in Sussex, but nothing between 1977 and 1980.

In January 1980 Diana was at Sandringham, Sarah Spencer was not.

Charles' first meeting was not in 1977, unless Charles did not spend Christmas with his family from early/mid 1960s to 1974.

Albert Spencer died in June 1975.
When did John Spencer and his family move into Althorp?
After the Spencers move from Park House to Althorp were they invited for Christmas/Boxing Day at Sandringham? Were they invited to Balmoral?
We know that Diana was at Sandringham in January 1978 & January 1980.

The 2 year comment and Diana being at Sandringham in January 1980 support my opinion that they were together longer than what we were lead to believe.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The "two years" comment is interesting, as the book does not mention any event in 1979 or anything else that year which could mark a turning point in Charles' intentions. It goes on to mention the July 1980 conversation on a hay bale at a barbeque at a country house near Petworth in Sussex, but nothing between 1977 and 1980.

The event in 1979 that was a 'turning point' for Charles and Diana was Mountbatten's assassination.

There are reports that she made a comment to Charles about how sad he looked at the funeral.

Of course he was also with Amanda Knatchbull during that time period with reports that she turned him down in the middle of 1980 and yet about 6 months later he is proposing again to Diana.

After Mountbatten's death it seems Charles lost one of his major guiding hands and he turned to the idea of 'marriage' as the way to fill the void in his life and so he proposed twice inside of 6 months and the second accepted him.

 

[Dman]

Diana claimed she didn't like hunting yet she was at Balmoral with Charles while he hunted in January 1978 and January 1980.

Why would Diana who didn't like hunting be standing next to Charles while he hunted if she wasn't his girlfriend or if she wasn't pursing (hunting) Charles?

Here is James Whitaker story from the January 1978 hunting episode.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DIANA...s+Whitaker+with+pictures+by+Kent...-a06107435

James Whitaker's original view of Diana was not so favorable as his retelling after her death. His 1981 book is a must read but it is difficult to find.

Charles was fishing and Diana was watching him. Most likely he invited her along.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Charles was hunting pheasants.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, I always thought it was wonderful the way queen Elizabeth's parents tried to make her wait as long as they could to marry. It shows that she was a product of loving and wise parents. If only Diana had had the same instead of a childhood divorce which was in all the papers.
And Charles too, I'm afraid, did not have such a great childhood. He was under pressure and had been to pick a suitable bride.
They were both too immature to marry.
had they been allowed to live together for years as William and Kate, things may have been different.

 

[Mbruno]

At 20, people are allowed to vote, drive and drink in many countries. Being 20 at the time she married is no excuse for the mistakes Diana did.

I can't understand why some people want so badly to portray her as an innocent young girl fooled by an evil "older" man. She was fully aware of what she wanted and of what she was doing.

I doubt she was aware at the time of her marriage that her future husband was in love with another woman and was determined to keep seeing that woman after they got married. Charles did "fool" her when he concealed that piece of information from Diana.

Yes, I always thought it was wonderful the way queen Elizabeth's parents tried to make her wait as long as they could to marry. It shows that she was a product of loving and wise parents. If only Diana had had the same instead of a childhood divorce which was in all the papers.
And Charles too, I'm afraid, did not have such a great childhood. He was under pressure and had been to pick a suitable bride.
They were both too immature to marry.
had they been allowed to live together for years as William and Kate, things may have been different.

Charles was 32 and hardly immature. And the PoW living together with a partner out of wedlock would be unthinkable back then. Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage, which had been the norm for royalty over the centuries. Charles got married out of duty to his family. Diana, on the other hand, was an immature girl who fell in love with the idea of becoming princess of Wales and, later, queen. I don't blame her for that as many girls of her age would feel likewise.

 

[Marty91charmed]

Perfectly said. I know it is easy to see the things today but, an arranged marriage between two very different people didn't have high chances of working... Let alone when there already was the presence of a lover... Of course several nasty incidents happened but I guess that that marriage was wrong from the start...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In January 1978 Diana was not 10. She was 16.

In January 1980, Diana was again spotted next to Charles while he was out pheasant hunting in Balmoral.

Charles and Diana saw each other more than people were lead to believe or want to believe.

Exactly how was Diana a 'young' 20. She was an 'old' 20 as she had been out on her own since she was 16. She has experienced life on her own more than if she had stayed in school and married right out of school. Diana being called a 'young' 20 is a an excuse to shift the blame on others.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that all teenagers who leave home are emotionally rounded and mature people??

A "young 20" means an emotionally immature 20 year old. If, at the age of nineteen, Diana's idea of a fun and reasonable way of getting back at a guy who stood her up on a date was to smear his car with flour and eggs, it's not exactly a screaming endorsement for maturity and sophistication is it? A young 20 year old is someone who insists on sleeping with cuddly soft toys, or who spends her honeymoon fondly reciting nursery rhymes her nanny taught her.

The egg/flour smearing incident is directly lifted from Diana's own words and those of her flatmates in "Her True Story" as is the fact that she still slept with cuddly toys in her own flat. The information about nursery rhymes comes directly from the Prince of Wales himself via the Jonathan Dimbleby biography.

These are FACTS. It has nothing to do with making excuses or shifting blame!

 

[Cris M]

I doubt she was aware at the time of her marriage that her future husband was in love with another woman and was determined to keep seeing that woman after they got married. Charles did "fool" her when he concealed that piece of information from Diana.

To this date, I've seen no reliable evidence that there was a sexual relationship between the Prince of Wales and Camilla from 1971/73 to 1986. (I don't regard the lies Diana told when she was trying to destroy her husband and his Family or "facts" invented by her fanatic whorshippers as realiable evidence.)

 

[Moonmaiden23]

LOL!!

Aren't you the one who castigated another poster for seeing only what they want to see??!

The information about the adulterous affair pre-Diana has never been denied by Charles, Camilla or any of one among their super-protective circle, not to mention their biographers.

How about Jonathan Dimbleby? Is he a "worshipful fanatic"?? How about author Christopher Wilson's "A Greater Love: Prince Charles's Twenty Year Affair With Camilla Parker Bowles" which by the way was written in 1994 before Diana died?


FWIW, I do believe that Charles broke off the affair after the wedding and up to about 1986.

You seem willing to accept the idea that Diana was a madwoman based on information from her detractors, so what constitutes "reliable evidence" for you regarding her adulterous husband and his long time mistress?

 

[Cris M]

LOL!!

Aren't you the one who castigated another poster for seeing only what they want to see??!

The information about the adulterous affair pre-Diana has never been denied by Charles, Camilla or any of their super-protective circle not to mention their biographers.

How about Jonathan Dimbleby? Is he a "worshipful fanatic"?? How about author Christopher Wilson's "A Greater Love: Prince Charles's Twenty Year Affair With Camilla Parker Bowles" which by the way was written in 1994 before Diana died?


Since you are willing to accept the idea that Diana was a madwoman based on information from her detractors, what constitutes "reliable evidence" for you regarding her adulterous husband and his long time mistress?

First of all, don't be pretentious to the point of thinking you can accuse me of see only what I want to see.

I think there's a difference between not denying and confirming. Have they said they were in a sexul relationship between 1973 and 1986? By "they" I mean the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

And Diana herself proved she was a madwoman, she does not need my help.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

In January 1978 Diana was not 10. She was 16.

In January 1980, Diana was again spotted next to Charles while he was out pheasant hunting in Balmoral.

Charles and Diana saw each other more than people were lead to believe or want to believe.

Exactly how was Diana a 'young' 20. She was an 'old' 20 as she had been out on her own since she was 16. She has experienced life on her own more than if she had stayed in school and married right out of school. Diana being called a 'young' 20 is a an excuse to shift the blame on others.

You stated she was with the tlroyals for Christmas as a child. IF she was 16 that does not make her a child it makes her a teenager, so that is your mistake. And just because they were at the same place or function doesn't mean they were spending quality time together that would allow them tone to know each other. I doubt Charles was dating a 16yr old in the 70s.
Plus do not assume what my opinion is on Diana and Charles. Saying she was a young 20 is not an excuse. She was immature and needy and had the emotional and psychological level of a 16yr old girl. She had idiotic Harlequin novel ideas of romance and fell in love with the idea of Prince Charles not the man. Even as she grew.older she still tended to behave like an immature child when it came to relationships. Stalking Hoare, demanding Hasnats attention while he was working, breaking up with James because he went off to war instead of staying with her.

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't see how Charles sleeping with Camilla before ever meeting Diana is relevant to Charles and Diana. Andrew PB was also sleeping around and probably didn't mind his wife sleeping with Charles.

If it stopped when Charles got engaged and only restarted several years later after the marriage breaks down, that would be relevant.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community