Charles and Diana

[Curryong]

Yes, I saw her on that tour, can remember it so well, and people waiting for ages to see her. I saw her and 'stunning and charismatic' doesn't begin to describe Diana. She drew every eye, and the crowds to see her were massive. Aussies loved her, there's no doubt about that!

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yes, I saw her on that tour, can remember it so well, and people waiting for ages to see her. I saw her and 'stunning and charismatic' doesn't begin to describe Diana. She drew every eye, and the crowds to see her were massive. Aussies loved her, there's no doubt about that!

Because she stirred your soul so deeply, what does that mean? It's a serious question. Does charisma translate to virtue? Is being good-looking synonymous with goodness? What does that charisma mean to you?

The phenomenon of being able to stir hearts and minds deeply is an interesting one. Try being up-close-and-personal with such a person: it's never the projection that is revealed. There are those who can receive our projections but few who can live up to the expectations we develop around them. It's an old story.

 

[Curryong]

You are accepting Curryong's claim as reflecting the truth. We simply never saw this take place in public, however, we for sure saw Diana's glee putting Charles down in public in the later 80's. It's on tape. Charles never spoke ill of Diana, ever, never once did he, or has he even to now, spoken ill of her. Plenty have spoken ill of Charles, and many are eager to hear it. Why is that?

It is not MY claim. It is in a biography and I've given the source. This person was interviewed by Bradford. You seem incapable of believing that Charles was capable of resentment or sarcasm or irritability, and think it must be Diana manipulating it.

Charles's own two latest biographies written by two different women have given ample examples of his behaviour towards others which have not placed him in a good light to say the least.

Why should that be any different for Diana if he felt irritable, petulant and hard done by? Those crowds loved her and he in private, when they were in NSW with William, wasn't impressed, and feeling neglected, took his spleen about the situation out on her and she found it upsetting, as she wasn't, in 1984, trying to outshine her husband. I find it very believable.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It is not MY claim. It is in a biography and I've given the source. This person was interviewed by Bradford. You seem incapable of believing that Charles was capable of resentment or sarcasm or irritability, and think it must be Diana manipulating it.

That I did not say, just to be clear.

Charles's own two latest biographies written by two different women have given ample examples of his behaviour towards others which have not placed him in a good light to say the least.

I haven't read the latest but I have read the one previous and I do not recall what you are suggesting. His faults are mentioned, yes, but i don't recall anything said that would lead me to your conclusion that they 'have not placed him in a good light.'

I think we just interpret the evidence differently.

Why should that be any different for Diana if he felt irritable, petulant and hard done by? Those crowds loved her and he in private, when they were in NSW with William, wasn't impressed, and feeling neglected, took his spleen about the situation out on her and she found it upsetting. I find it very believable.

Okay. Understood. Point made and taken.

 

[Curryong]

Because she stirred your soul so deeply, what does that mean? It's a serious question. Does charisma translate to virtue? Is being good-looking synonymous with goodness? What does that charisma mean to you?

The phenomenon of being able to stir hearts and minds deeply is an interesting one. Try being up-close-and-personal with such a person: it's never the projection that is revealed. There are those who can receive our projections but few who can live up to the expectations we develop around them. It's an old story.

No, and several people who have been up close and personal with Charles haven't been overcome by his goodness and virtue either. Diana did do a great deal of good in her lifetime, and I respect that and admire her beauty and grace. No, she wasn't a plaster Saint. She was human, and Charles isn't the repository of all the virtues either. He too is human, AND capable of behaving badly.

 

[Osipi]

I know I've read several places where the times that it showed that Charles was displeased with the attention Diana garnered was obvious. I'd have to pull out all the books and find the incidents. I vaguely remember a quote that Charles made at one time that he needed two wives. One for each side of the street.

I don't think his displeasure with Diana's attention was anything that the waiting public would have grasped on in the beginning but I do believe that it was there and Charles was very unused to it. As I said earlier, there were also times when Charles beamed with pride watching Diana draw 'em all in like flies to honey.

 

[Lady Nimue]

No, and several people who have been up close and personal with Charles haven't been overcome by his goodness and virtue either. Diana did do a great deal of good in her lifetime, and I respect that and admire her beauty and grace. No, she wasn't a plaster Saint. She was human, and Charles isn't the repository of all the virtues either. He too is human, AND capable of behaving badly.

The polarity you invest in is not mine. Just to be clear: that polarity is of your making. You are making of it a contest. Why?

If you believe Diana did a lot of good in her lifetime (and that she was pretty and made a good impression to boot, as though those aspects are character virtues, and maybe they are, they are certainly handy to possess), why do you not say the same of Charles whose accomplishments are considerable, but who perhaps is not graced with as handsome a visage as George Clooney, or as amiable a PR cloak?

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps because whenever anything is posted that involves Diana but puts Charles (in your eyes) in a bad light you immediately come in to challenge it, infer it must be untrue, and want the source/links etc.

I have incidentally, in the thread Charles and the Freemasons, posted pointing to speeches he made on various important topics.

I'm a Diana fan, I would guess considerably older than you, who can remember Diana's first appearance on the scene. I remember her fondly and I don't need to have an inquisition on my feelings.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Perhaps because whenever anything is posted that involves Diana but puts Charles (in your eyes) in a bad light you immediately come in to challenge it, infer it must be untrue, and want the source/links etc.

That's the way you see it and seeing it that way, you are offended? Whether I am actually doing that is another matter, or what I think I am doing. That's beside the point. The animus against Charles is so extreme that it needs countering imo. That's my view.

But why is it about me and not about the issue being discussed? Why does it have to be about me? This is not the first time that a poster who (dares) 'defend' Charles is subject to objections on a personal level, as though doing such counter-arguments is a 'problem'. You go to a personal place and it's really not necessary imo. The discussion can flow effortlessly on the merits of the case rather than on the perceived merits of the poster. Just saying.

I have incidentally, in the thread Charles and the Freemasons, posted pointing to speeches he made on various important topics.

Not sure what you are indicating here.

I'm a Diana fan, I would guess considerably older than you, who can remember Diana's first appearance on the scene. I remember her fondly and I don't need to have an inquisition on my feelings.

Well, I guess we all have our boundaries, not so? Many of my questions are rhetorical, said to the cosmos as an open question, but if you feel that I shouldn't be asking you personally, how about giving me the courtesey of not having my views (which might pop up to counter your views) as an opportunity to go after me as a poster rather than stay on topic? Just a suggestion. It also wastes time and posting space. Irrelevant.

NOTE: You chose to focus on me rather than answer my question on the topic: If you believe Diana did a lot of good in her lifetime (and that she was pretty and made a good impression to boot, as though those aspects are character virtues, and maybe they are, they are certainly handy to possess), why do you not say the same of Charles whose accomplishments are considerable, but who perhaps is not graced with as handsome a visage as George Clooney, or as amiable a PR cloak?

 

[Curryong]

This is not an equal opportunity forum. If I praise Diana I don't inevitably have to do the same for Charles. This is a forum in which we can express our views, including on royals we particularly care for.

Answer to Note: I have already pointed to some of Charles's many accomplishments on the Charles and the Freemasons thread when I wrote of his speeches on architecture, agriculture, alternative medicines etc. Surely I don't have to repeat myself here?

You inferred that what I was saying wasn't true when you asked for the source on Charles's petulance, which I gave. I do feel attacked, and I stand by my views.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Answer to Note: I have already pointed to some of Charles's many accomplishments on the Charles and the Freemasons thread when I wrote of his speeches on architecture, agriculture, alternative medicines etc. Surely I don't have to repeat myself here?

Okay. Understood.

You inferred that what I was saying wasn't true when you asked for the source on Charles's petulance, which I gave. I do feel attacked, and I stand by my views.

On the former point I explained why I was questioning it, and did so at some length across several posts. Thank you for the sourcing. As I already said, and also said I understood (I do believe).

On the latter point, asking for clarity and/or a source is not an attack in any debate/discussion I am usually in. Not sure that my letting you know that i was not intending to attack, will carry any weight with you, as often we do cling to what we want to believe about someone, not so?

It's late here and this posting back-and-forth is pointless except perhaps as a model of the difficulties inherent in this topic of conversation. It's wearying. Off to bed am I. All's well, on a positive note.

 

[Denville]

I know I've read several places where the times that it showed that Charles was displeased with the attention Diana garnered was obvious. I'd have to pull out all the books and find the incidents. I vaguely remember a quote that Charles made at one time that he needed two wives. One for each side of the street.

I don't think his displeasure with Diana's attention was anything that the waiting public would have grasped on in the beginning but I do believe that it was there and Charles was very unused to it. As I said earlier, there were also times when Charles beamed with pride watching Diana draw 'em all in like flies to honey.

for goodness sake that was a JOKE. if you see the video when he said it you see that he said it In a jokey way,...OK I think there were times when he was a bit upset by the fact that people rushed to see her and ignored hm but I think that is perfectly understandable. I think it was Diana who glossed it as "Charles hated her getting attention" and was horrible to her about it. I don't believe he was unkind to her about it, he may have bene unhappy.. but I don't believe he shouted at her afterwards abuot the fact that she was getting allt the attention.
And in the early days I tink he was very proud of her being so beautiful, and getting noticed.. There is a quote in Austrailia of his saying to a pressman "look at her, sin't she lovely, I'm so proud of her..."

 

[Dee Anna]

Is he really? (Real question, I actually didn't know)

I'd have thought these men would have their own means of living by now, inheritance from their mother included.

Who knows what kind of a private relationship Harry and William have with their father, or Camilla. I do remember reading an article about when Camilla met them, or at least Willliam for the first time after her relationship with Charles was finally made official. It went well, but she did feel the need for a large G&T afterwards!

Charles remarrying following his failed marriage with their beloved (and lost) mother was always going to be something of a difficulty, that it would be their mother's nemesis - putting the tin hat on it comes to mind.

Regardless of when the physical relationship resumed, the emotional relationship between Charles and Camilla was always there, before Diana, during her marriage and very obviously after Diana. She knew it back then and that was the problem.

Harry and Wiliam know that, so, a bit of a bridge to build.

IMO, they did build it. Going only on body language alone, there is nothing to suggest a distance between Charles and his sons when seen in public. I suppose it could be argued there is nothing to suggest an especial closeness either! But they all do appear to get along. Which is about as much as can be said about the public persona of any fragmented family group.

I would say they have talked about her quite a bit over the years, long before now. However, he is their father and even if he is a bit prickly, I think that they love him and it is right that they take his feelings into account. he is paying for a lot of their lifestyle after all.

I've done it again!

Thinking I'm replying to the last post when it is actually only the last post on the page I'm on! Previous post in response to this one!

 

[Curryong]

In the Tina Brown book 'The Diana Chronicles' there is a chapter called 'The Upstage Problem' and another called 'Stardust' in which she refers to Diana's effect on the crowds who came to see her and Charles's reaction to it, including quotes from people who were there. It was an unconscious effect by Diana in the beginning, and she did not have the least intention of upstaging her husband. Nevertheless she did, and at times he was ungracious about it and felt ignored (by the crowds.)

Other men , like JFK and King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands have made a joke of the fact that crowds loved their wives and haven't felt aggrieved.

 

[Denville]

yes at times he was bothered by it. Just because some men would not be bothered does not mean that every man (or woman) would not be bothered. Charles is an insecure shy man, its hard for him to overcome his shyness to do his job, but he has made himself do it.. and I can understand that he was at times unhappy that Diana was now getting crazy attention. I don't believe however he was shouting at her in private on the issue, just that it upset him. I know she didn't try to do it at first, she just was attractive to people, and could not help it. later she DID tryr to upstage him.

Is he really? (Real question, I actually didn't know)

I'd have thought these men would have their own means of living by now, inheritance from their mother included.

.

.

I'm not srue what you mean Dee Anna, but I think that if it is about Will Harry and their dad, it problaby is not quite "Charles and Diana", and maybe we should take it ot another thread? I Did say that Charles is paying for Will and Harry, is that what you mean?

 

[Curryong]

Neither I nor Sarah Bradford whom I quoted on this said that he was shouting at Diana. Bradford quoted a member of staff who spoke of 'petulance' and she (the author) wrote of Charles's resentment. The member of staff said that Diana didn't understand (when she was trying so hard on the first Aus/NZ tour) and that she became upset at his reaction.

 

[Dee Anna]

I'm not srue what you mean Dee Anna, but I think that if it is about Will Harry and their dad, it problaby is not quite "Charles and Diana", and maybe we should take it ot another thread? I Did say that Charles is paying for Will and Harry, is that what you mean?

Denville, see my previous last post. I've done it before (and probably will again!!), replied to not the last post. Hope that helps.

 

[Denville]

Neither I nor Sarah Bradford whom I quoted on this said that he was shouting at Diana. Bradford quoted a member of staff who spoke of 'petulance' and she (the author) wrote of Charles's resentment. The member of staff said that Diana didn't understand (when she was trying so hard on the first Aus/NZ tour) and that she became upset at his reaction.

yes he was upset and a bit petulant.. but it was understandable that he might react with some dismay. If he was shouting and yelling at her, I would fault him but I don't think he was. He was used to being the centre of attention, I think it is quite understandable that when he was left with people moaning and saying "Oh dear we've stood on the wrong side and only got HIM", he might be annoyed.

 

[Osipi]

I think too that in reacting to something Charles has said in the past, sometimes we take it out of context years later. One thing I've noticed about Charles over the years is that his sense of humor, at times, can be very self effacing. The quote about wives on both sides of the street is one. Another could be when Will and Kate got engaged and he was asked for his reaction. He quipped "Well, they've been practicing long enough".

To be honest with you all, I haven't read anything in this thread that reeks of denigrating one to glorifying the other. I think all of here have a genuine interest in not only both Charles and Diana, but also the tumultuous period that they both went through with their marriage. We read about it, we discuss it and we've extensively torn it apart, turned it upside down and dug into the various elements of their marriage like the most professional of anthropologists and archaeologists. Its what we do and what we find interesting.

In a marriage such as Charles and Diana's was, there are no blatant good guys and bad guys and to be honest, none of us know the whole story. Only the two involved in the actual marriage do and even those two people had different viewpoints on what was and contradicted each other.

Confucius once stated a curse that goes "May you live in interesting times". One thing for certain is that Diana and Charles' relationship from the get go has been quite interesting.

 

[Denville]

well he obviously mean that remark to be taken as a joke.. whether he was secretly upset and trying to conceal it by humour I don't know. (I wouldn't say he's particulary witty or funny myself),
I think he was unhappy, yes but I don't believe he was angry with Diana or really giving her a hard time.. Mabye a bit of sulking. I think that in Aus when they could be together with William, they were tolerably happy, but unfortuanately that was not the main part of their life.. They were on the Royal duty merrygoround and they had to do their job. And it did create some tension between them. Diana was at first afraid of the crowds, in Wales and had to be coaxed a bit. Charles flet upset when she was so very popular and he was being ignored. But most marriages have problems of adjustment in their early years, and I dont think that Charles was acting like a monster at this stage..

 

[AristoCat]

I've had a relationship with someone like Diana (high strung drama queen) and basically I can't blame Charles for withdrawing from her. Thing is, that Diana was SO determined to be a miserable person some times that she clearly didn't WANT to be happy when she had the chance. When she talked about her sons being her 'men in her life' that was a huge red flag that she clearly wasn't at all healthy. I don't believe that she should be idealized or put on a pedestal by the public or any young person since she was someone who at some point didn't WANT to work to make her life better. It's also not right that she was excused when she was stalking that married man and screaming threats at the wives. Many keep making excuses for a lot of what she did and I did get disgusted with how she had the gall to openly BLAME Charles for the fact that royal life was a way of life where she had to make an effort and actually do things she didn't like or didn't want to and couldn't just shrug it all off.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, and it was the same during 1983's tour of Canada. They appeared to be a happy couple.

He certainly gave the impression of being positively smitten, if not besotted, by his wife on the NZ leg of the tour.

Just to clarify, the tour that I mentioned in my post re "Lady Di" was the tour that Charles made on his own in late March and April of 1981.

 

[Osipi]

I know where you're coming from. A lot of people, when faced with a relationship with high drama coming from the other person, finds it best not to feed into it and walk away which actually does no better as would feeding into a screaming match would be. Charles, I believe, is a man that doesn't handle confrontation well so he was really caught between a rock and a hard place when dealing with Diana's temperament.

What I find that is a blessing is these forums where all aspects of these people come into play. The good, the bad, the ugly and the warts and warps of them are looked at. There's no black and white or saints or sinners but real human beings with very human foibles and very human achievements. Its nice to be able to look at and piece together what could be termed as the whole picture. Of course, we'll never entirely finish this jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Pranter]

Didn't they usually appear as a 'happy couple' until right at the end of things? The trip to Asia (Korea?) was where the gig was up.


LaRae

 

[Mermaid1962]

The body language started telling in the mid-1980s IIRC. That trip to Wales in 1987 to visit flood victims was very chilly indeed.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I've had a relationship with someone like Diana (high strung drama queen) and basically I can't blame Charles for withdrawing from her. Thing is, that Diana was SO determined to be a miserable person some times that she clearly didn't WANT to be happy when she had the chance. When she talked about her sons being her 'men in her life' that was a huge red flag that she clearly wasn't at all healthy. I don't believe that she should be idealized or put on a pedestal by the public or any young person since she was someone who at some point didn't WANT to work to make her life better. It's also not right that she was excused when she was stalking that married man and screaming threats at the wives. Many keep making excuses for a lot of what she did and I did get disgusted with how she had the gall to openly BLAME Charles for the fact that royal life was a way of life where she had to make an effort and actually do things she didn't like or didn't want to and couldn't just shrug it all off.

Well said. It's possible many of us have known a person(s) like Diana and that makes us sympathetic to Charles' dilemma. It's also probable that many have been in relationships where they were bitterly betrayed and that makes them sympathetic to Diana. I have often suspected the latter as the basic reason for the Diana adoration, given all the rationales given regarding the 'ol meanie Charles. Some projection there (maybe).

I particularly resonate to what you said about Diana's stalking and treatment of the wives of men she fancied. She was shameless. Totally working from a sense of entitlement imo. I think she let her whole royal position go to her head, and that started early in the game. She thought she was untouchable and the adoration of the crowd fed all that. (Have I ever seen that at work in people I have known!). Fame and public adulation really can warp a person's sense of reality, especially regarding themselves. It's a disastrous place to be inwardly.

But most curious is to see the disconnect between the public and private personas. It's almost as though the greater the adulation the greater the stress on the person's sense of self, and inevitably (it seems, though certainly not always) there emerges demons in the private life that I don't think would have been there quite so obviously otherwise. Just some thoughts.

Not sure what to make of Diana: haven't decided if she was someone warped by the status and adulation, or did she walk into the situation already tipsy? Can't decide. Might be a combination of both, of course.

 

[Osipi]

I think that is the reason why I liked the Bedell Smith biography of Diana the most. It looked at Diana's life through a psychological viewpoint. How her psychological makeup played a big part in the person we all came to know as Shy Di then The Princess of Wales and then Diana, Princess of Wales.

It kind of explained the why she would do the things she did without denigrating her or putting her on a pedestal or giving her labels such as "egotistical" "victim" "lunatic" or any other appellation we can think of. Its a portrait of a troubled princess as the title denotes but if truth be told, there are aspects of all of us that can be deemed as troublesome.

I think it was the best insight I've had into Diana and will be one I reread often.

 

[Pranter]

The body language started telling in the mid-1980s IIRC. That trip to Wales in 1987 to visit flood victims was very chilly indeed.

Ah...I don't even remember that...I went a few years not really paying a lot of attention to the BRF due to 'real life'.

Any specific pics?

LaRae

 

[AristoCat]

I know where you're coming from. A lot of people, when faced with a relationship with high drama coming from the other person, finds it best not to feed into it and walk away which actually does no better as would feeding into a screaming match would be. Charles, I believe, is a man that doesn't handle confrontation well so he was really caught between a rock and a hard place when dealing with Diana's temperament.

What I find that is a blessing is these forums where all aspects of these people come into play. The good, the bad, the ugly and the warts and warps of them are looked at. There's no black and white or saints or sinners but real human beings with very human foibles and very human achievements. Its nice to be able to look at and piece together what could be termed as the whole picture. Of course, we'll never entirely finish this jigsaw puzzle.

^I"m glad to share my experiences.

I believe that with someone like Diana, it was unfathomable that at some point in her life, people would go off and have lives of their own that wouldn't make her the center of all of it. She would in fact have spent much fo the rest of her life looking to be eternally glorious and eternally put-upon at the same time. She said that she was bulimic and a cutter and someone who threw tantrums and pulled stuff against people that should have landed her in a mental facility, not St. Paul's cathedral as a bride. Bulimia, self-cutting, alleged suicide attempts, the phone stalking, and then that worldwide temper tantrum via Panorama are all signs of someone with SERIOUS conditions. Just being bulimic can get a person committed and in my honest view, she should have been required to prove mental stability before being able to take her sons on trips. Any normal parent would have been denied unsupervised visitation. She never took any responsibility for her life and never blamed herself for one single mistake she made in her life.

The only reason she had problems in life were when she realized that she wasn't some special snowflake entitled to having Charles BE the solution to her problems and be the best of everything and be willing to give it up all the time all for her sake. She then messed with Hasnat and wanted him to quit his day to day life so he could be a world doctor and basically be all over the place where she was. Then Hoare and Carling, she had no excuse for any of that. Third, Dodi was practically engaged to someone else at the time, but she had no problems stealing the guy and got outraged that someone had the gall to call Dodi out on his jilting behavior. She kept getting surprised that she ran into men who weren't going to drop it all, all for her. She ended up in a car wreck since drama became the drug she was addicted to, not booze or drugs, but drama.

 

[Osipi]

What you point out is all too true and pretty much would be the way of things now in 2017. In the early 80s to the mid 90s, it still was the era of depending on "mother's little helpers" to get through psychological problems and of course the stigma was very much there that a mental issue was not something one wanted publicly known about. It was easily shoved under the carpet with the hopes that it would all "go away".

There was also quite a bit in Diana's makeup that was genuine. Her compassion, her ability to connect with people and her conviction of wanting to make a difference. She was loaded with natural charisma which drew people to her. Unfortunately at times, it was this ability that got skewered in her mental processes and I think she did become addicted to how the adulation of the masses made her feel.

Perhaps if there had been a campaign such as "Heads Together" in full force before Charles even met Diana, things may have worked out differently. I don't know. Perhaps Diana's mental issues and the rest of the family's "dysfunctional" issues paved the way for Heads Together. We don't know.