Charles and Diana

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Dman

The marriage probably was going to fail no matter what, but at least they could have had the proper help and guidance to resolve their marital issues privately, respectively and with consideration for their children.

I believe that by the time they had affairs, the damage had been done and the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Once that happens there's no point in trying to save it and it doesn't matter whether the parties have affairs or not. It's over and once it's over nothing will fix it. I totally agree with you about seeking guidance, and being offered assistance by family and friends, too. If they had sought counselling and been able to resolve their issues, a lot of the nastiness would never have happened and their sons would have benefited.

It's all over now and no one can go back and do things differently, so none of it really matter anyway.

I disagree on this point. I think it does matter because I think the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them significantly and we'll continue to see the consequences of that.

[CyrilVladisla]

Think of a young Diana on her wedding day.
She had recently had her twentieth birthday on July 1st and 28 days later, it is her wedding day.
Was Lady Diana overwhelmed with all the attention?

[wyevale]

the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them

This is what I find utterly unforgivable about her behaviour, that and blabbing a stream of lies to the press [without care of the collateral damage it would do to the institution into which she married, or to anyone or anything else. To me it negates all her 'good works', and her 'mental illness' doesn't excuse it.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Think of a young Diana on her wedding day.
She had recently had her twentieth birthday on July 1st and 28 days later, it is her wedding day.
Was Lady Diana overwhelmed with all the attention?

Yes, and hadn't that 19/20 year old girl found a valuable bracelet that her fiance planned to give to his mistress? Didn't she find a picture of his mistress among the belongings he brought on his honeymoon?

I don't know about any of you, but I cannot imagine marrying a man who was secretly sending gifts to another (married) woman. Nor can I imagine being able to forget that my new husband had secretly brought a picture of the woman on our honeymoon. Perhaps others expect less of a fiance or spouse?

Twenty years old and presented with hard evidence that her husband was in love with another....

[Mermaid1962]

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

Originally Posted by Dman

Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, could have offered them marriage counseling. Just my thoughts, BTW.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I assume the Queen and Prince Philip also "knew about Camilla". Nonetheless, they encouraged the marriage. Either they assumed that Charles would settle down. or that Diana would manage to live with her husband's infidelity like countless royal consorts before her.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I didn't know that about the Archbishop. Add him to the list of people who let the wedding arrangements proceed full steam ahead despite knowing there were issues.

Everyone was hell-bent on getting Charles hitched to a suitable gel and no-one was brave enough to put a hold on things. Diana agreed too soon and too readily and Charles allowed her to do it. I can excuse Charles a bit since I'm in the camp believe that Charles, and the rest of the RF, had been deceived by her into believing she absolutely adored everything he adored and was the perfect bride for him, when in fact they had little in common. Even when Diana expressed doubts her own sister wouldn't support her and cracked that infamous joke about the pictures on the teatowels.

I wonder what would have happened had Diana put her foot down and said she would not marry a man who clearly - in her opinion, for I do not believe that his close friendship with Camilla necessarily meant that he was "in love" with her, or that he did not go into the marriage fully intending to give it his best shot - loved another woman. Had Diana really been a suitable match for Charles and had a strong love grown between them, I believe his relationship with Camilla would have faded into friendship as his wife would take her place in his affections, but this was not a wife who was suited to him so that transition did not occur. Would the Royals and her own family have talked her out of waiting on the basis the arrangements were too advanced? I'm sure her father would have been apoplectic at the idea that he might not manage to get one of his daughters married to The Prince of Wales and I doubt she would have had any support from him.

I bet there are documents squirrelled away somewhere that will provide some answers, but they probably won't come to light during my lifetime.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I believe that by the time they had affairs, the damage had been done and the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Once that happens there's no point in trying to save it and it doesn't matter whether the parties have affairs or not. It's over and once it's over nothing will fix it. I totally agree with you about seeking guidance, and being offered assistance by family and friends, too. If they had sought counselling and been able to resolve their issues, a lot of the nastiness would never have happened and their sons would have benefited.

I disagree on this point. I think it does matter because I think the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them significantly and we'll continue to see the consequences of that.

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Dman

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe that Charles did the "same thing". I don't believe it is in his nature to, for example, at the last minute change dinner plans to deny Diana the opportunity to see her sons by insisting they eat with him in his private rooms instead of with her.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Dman

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

The Prince of Wales did not do the same thing, no matter how many times you try and create a false equivalency. He never attacked or criticized Diana publicly and there are many credible sources that indicate that he never criticized Diana to their sons.

Originally Posted by ladongas

Yes, and hadn't that 19/20 year old girl found a valuable bracelet that her fiance planned to give to his mistress? Didn't she find a picture of his mistress among the belongings he brought on his honeymoon?

I don't know about any of you, but I cannot imagine marrying a man who was secretly sending gifts to another (married) woman. Nor can I imagine being able to forget that my new husband had secretly brought a picture of the woman on our honeymoon. Perhaps others expect less of a finance or spouse?

Twenty years old and presented with hard evidence that her husband was in love with another....

Diana made those claims, 15 years after the fact and during the breakup of the marriage. I don't believe her because we know that she was not honest about everything that happened during the marriage, including the fact that she had several affairs of her own. At other times, she has said that Charles loved her deeply the first few years. At the time she made those claims, she had an interest in claiming that Charles was unfaithful throughout her marriage.

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I've never heard that the Archbishop claimed he knew about Camilla before the marriage. Do you have a source? I am shocked that a man of God would reveal such private information.

[Mermaid1962]

Here's an article with Robert Runcie's comments. To clarify, I haven't found a source that said that he knew about Camilla before the marriage. He certainly knew before it became public knowledge.
UNITED KINGDOM: FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, ROBERT RUNCIE, KNEW OF PRINCE CHARLES' AFFAIR WITH CAMILLA PARKER BOWLES

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Here's an article with Robert Runcie's comments. To clarify, I haven't found a source that said that he knew about Camilla before the marriage. He certainly knew before it became public knowledge.
UNITED KINGDOM: FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, ROBERT RUNCIE, KNEW OF PRINCE CHARLES' AFFAIR WITH CAMILLA PARKER BOWLES

Mermaid1962, thank you for the link. I'm shocked that the Archbishop would betray the confidence of both Diana and Charles. It's a horrible breach of ethics for a clergyman. I can't imagine how I would feel if my priest were to talk about his knowledge of my husband and me.

Some people fault Charles and Diana for not getting professional help. If they couldn't even trust a member of the clergy, who could they trust?

[Roslyn]

Thanks so much, Mermaid1962.

What great stuff! How unreasonable of Charles, needing a woman to love and be cared for by! *eyeroll* Also interesting that Diana's grandmother was admitting her granddaughter was not in love with Charles.

I never thought I'd want to read a biography of an Archbishop, but I want to read this one!

[Mermaid1962]

You're welcome!

[Skippyboo]

Diana's family really didn't do her any favors. Her sister even dated Charles so she knew what was involved with becoming involved with him. You think they would have intervened or make them date longer before getting engaged.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Dman]

A lot of people knew the real deal behind Charles and Diana's relationship and stuff that went on before they married. The whole situation was crazy from the beginning.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Dman

A lot of people knew the real deal behind Charles and Diana's relationship and stuff that went on before they married. The whole situation was crazy from the beginning.

What happened before they were married doesn't matter. The marriage broke down because they didn't have much in common, they didn't understand each others emotion needs, and they know how to communicate with each other.

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

What happened before they were married doesn't matter. The marriage broke down because they didn't have much in common, they didn't understand each others emotion needs, and they know how to communicate with each other.

And if all that was known before the marriage. Maybe getting married isn't a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[royal rob]

Anyone that has or has had a 19 year old daughter must think why didn't someone who was in a powerful position put a stop to this wedding. She was like a lamb to the slaughter. A 19 no one has the wisdom to take on that huge commitment especially a young girl that has been abandoned by her mother. And if these people knew of Charles affair with Camilla and did nothing Shame on the RF and shame on the Spencer family


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Mermaid1962]

If I had a daughter who had just turned 19, I'd be very concerned if a 32-year-old began to court her--even if he was the Prince of Wales. There's a story that Lady Diana went home to Althorp from Buckingham Palace during the engagement because it was too much for her. I wonder whether her father and Raine Spencer convinced her to go back, or did she make up her own mind to continue with the engagement? Another thing we'll never know, I guess.