Charles and Diana

[MaiaMia_53]

Let's put our Heads Together shall we, and pray for resolution of our own hurts and traumas.

Thanks for the thought-provoking insights @Osipi.

I don't think we can actually know what we don't know for sure about other people's lives. We have some information that's known and reliable certainly, but we don't know every single detail, nor motivation, nor private interaction. Suffice to say that it was internecine drama played out larger than life. But there seemingly was something positive in their relationship that allowed Charles and Diana to raise two well brought up sons who have decent characters.

It's a wonderful thing not to be taken lightly that neither William nor Harry have seemingly held any grudge against Camilla. They wished for their father to be happy, and they wanted the same for their mother. And now, for themselves. I believe Diana is at peace seeing the lives her sons are leading, and knowing that they will never forget the love she gave to them.

 

[Osipi]

When we stop to think about it, the affairs don't matter. It doesn't matter who sought someone else first. It doesn't matter how many others they had affairs with. It doesn't matter who publicly owned up to misdeeds and who didn't.

Affairs and turning to other people outside of a marriage is like going out to pasture and finding a cow because there's no milk left in the refrigerator. Regardless where the milk comes from, without it, the cereal is too dry to swallow.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Overall, I think this whole thing is best approached as history, and not as a personally relevant story.

We've been watching 'Wolf's Hall' every Sunday night on PBS, and when I think of all the various interpretations I have come across over the years regarding Anne Bolyn, can we expect any less from a complex contemporary situation as Charles and Diana present to us? It's a human story enthralling on those grounds alone, as many have already said.

In that spirit, I think we should value the discourse. I do.

 

[Dman]

Please be aware that HRHHermione was simply supplying the context for an event another poster was questioning.



No, she didn't. She only once admitted to an affair, after it had already gone public. That was the Hewitt affair in the Panorama interview. She never admitted to any other affairs. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.



It's clear from what Charles said that he didn't want it to happen, but I never have read Diana express a similar view. I have never read a quote from Diana expressing regret about her string of affairs while married to Charles. Fact. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

I am someone who has a very outlier view of how Diana entered her royal marriage. She had seen aristocratic marriage close-up with her parents. She understood the 'rules of the game' as a daughter of her class and I think she was relying on it. Diana defaulted to 'lonely and desperate for affection' pretty fast in the marriage: we're talking 2-3 years before she was looking to Manakee and others.



How do we know what they felt? During the late 1980's one sees a distraught Charles in public, but a very happy, almost giddy, Diana. Her affair with Hewitt did not seem to be weighing her down with guilt. She brought her children to her assignations. That is not guilt. [BTW Charles never allowed his sons to see him with anyone else. Statements indicating that Charles subjected his sons to seeing their father with another woman is not borne out in any reading I have done. After the separation is another matter.]



This is a curious complaint often voiced. I am not sure what to make of it. Charles had been pretty well dissed by Diana at that point. His mention of his childhood is brief but he clearly crossed the line from The Queen to his mother. He has not been forgiven for that.



The Morton book was Diana's first 'interview'. She began the cascade. And he never mentioned Camilla. He simply stated that both he and Diana had moved on from the marriage after they both had tried. That's it. People read into that Camilla's name but that's not anything Charles ever stated.



Diana was to blame for making it all public and pretty much a three-ring circus. Rather than handling her private life privately, she made it a public event. It was her choice. In that, as stated, she began the cascade.

I think everyone knows by this time that both Charles and Diana weren't happy about the affairs. It only happened because their marriage was falling apart and not much happens in certain moments.

Yes, they may been kids, I'm pretty sure they knew their father was seeing Camilla too.

There's no evidence that Diana had an affair with Manakee. She may have been fond of him, but no one ever said they had an affair.

Charles pretty much never let Camilla go. Even leading up to the wedding, Charles was still after her. It seems like she even on the Royal Train before wedding too. Diana found this out during their honeymoon. The cufflinks and the phone calls. Princess Margaret even knew the Charles and Camilla thing wasn't over.

Although, I'm not the one for throwing ones parents under the bus and blaming them for my mistakes. The Queen was a distant mother to Charles. His grandmother and great uncle was more of parents to him than his real parents.

Yes, Charles did admit to have having an affair with Camilla in a live interview with Dimbleby in 94. It wasn't something Camilla's father, nor royal family was happy about.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Overall, I think this whole thing is best approached as history, and not as a personally relevant story. ...

In that spirit, I think we should value the discourse. I do.

In many ways history is personal. And instructive if looked at with an open mind.

Eventually, the Charles and Diana saga might become a BBC/ Masterpiece Theatre miniseries. And the interpretation/ re-interpretation of events will likely spark continued debate much like The Crown did for the Princess Margaret--Captain Peter Townsend doomed love affair.

Indeed, polite discourse debated with open minds, is valuable.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of off-topic posts have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/dianas-friends-lovers-and-bodyguards-13135.html thread. There are also separate threads to discuss Hasnat Khan and James Hewitt. Let's get back on topic and discuss Charles and Diana.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Now that's something I'd be inclined to watch, a quality production that would be more historically accurate than the soap-opera-type productions of the 1990s!

Eventually, the Charles and Diana saga might become a BBC/ Masterpiece Theatre miniseries. And the interpretation/ re-interpretation of events will likely spark continued debate much like The Crown did for the Princess Margaret--Captain Peter Townsend doomed love affair.

 

[Dee Anna]

We don't and never will know the true relationship Charles and Diana shared. Even the "facts" ..... springs to mind the saying "there are three sides to every story, both parties and somewhere in the middle the truth"!

 

[Osipi]

What it all really boils down to is that Charles and Diana were no different than millions of other people around the globe. Humans with warts and all. That is why I think there is such interest in the intrinsics insights to this couple. Somewhere, somehow, we find character traits that we resonate with and feel empathy or we see traits that we've despised in our own relationships and put the "villain" mark on them.

Myself? I found myself going through a rather acrimonious divorce around the time Charles and Diana were rumored to be having quite a few problems. Being American and only seeing the tabloid fodder, of course I took Diana's side against Charles. It wasn't until I joined TRF that I really found insight into both of these people's characters and realized how wrong I was to make Charles out to be the villain in the ordeal. Now I realize what I truly am and that is an outsider looking into something very private that should have stayed private and am very, very grateful that there weren't millions of people picking apart my own first marriage.

 

[Osipi]

Totally agree with you. This is one area of royal watching where TRF comes in so beautifully. With intensive discussion and sharing of what we know, what we've read and our own opinions, we learn to look at things from all angles and tend to dismiss tabloid gossip and sensational headlines as being far from what the reality of something is.

And to think I came to TRF originally for silly Ascot hats. Go figure.

 

[Nico]

In many ways history is personal. And instructive if looked at with an open mind.

Eventually, the Charles and Diana saga might become a BBC/ Masterpiece Theatre miniseries. And the interpretation/ re-interpretation of events will likely spark continued debate much like The Crown did for the Princess Margaret--Captain Peter Townsend doomed love affair.

Indeed, polite discourse debated with open minds, is valuable.

In fact it will be the case with the second season of the FX serie "Feud". The First season about Joan Crawford/Bette Davis was outstanding. One can expect a deep, if not critical, aspect of the Charles/Diana saga, far from the cheesy, lifetime movies.

 

[Osipi]

I have a problem with this upcoming program on "Feuds" dealing with Charles and Diana's marriage. With the recent one involving Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, both persons are deceased and it wasn't a feud that involved their intimate life together. With doing a segment on Charles and Diana, we know what they're going to be focusing on is the troubles within the marriage. My problem with that is that Charles is very much still alive and his sons are still very much still alive. Charles is also slated to become, if I could put it bluntly, the monarch in the not so distant future and the head of state for the UK.

My opinion is that airing something like this is going to cause more problems than it would to resolve things and set the record straight. I really wish they'd never thought of making it.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Denville]

I have a problem with this upcoming program on "Feuds" dealing with Charles and Diana's marriage.
My opinion is that airing something like this is going to cause more problems than it would to resolve things and set the record straight. I really wish they'd never thought of making it.

Just my opinion of course.

Is it happening for definite then? I know its the US but it does seem a bit shocking to be digging into the marital troubles of somene who probably will be king in a few years.. and as you say, Di's sons are still very much alive. however I suppose they have become inured to knowing that there will awlay be gossip and TV stuff about their family an their parent' marriage.

 

[Osipi]

All I really know about the show is what has been posted here so if it is to be a reality, I can't really say. I just find it kind of disrespectful not to take the feelings of people who are still living and close to the situation into consideration. As I've stated before, I really wish that the marital problems that Charles and Diana had remained private between the two of them rather than being played out on the world's stage for all to see.

The producers and the directors may think its a grand idea and think it will pull in a big viewing audience but they've gone over the top in my book and I will not watch such a presentation.

 

[Mirabel]

Diana had many friends and could have absolutely created a heathy support network had she been making good decisions. She had access to mental health help. She didn't choose to go that route. It really was enormously destructive.

I don't think Diana really did have many close friends, at least not at the end of her life. She had quarreled with many of the people she knew, even members of her own family, and had cut them off completely.

The people in her life at that point seem to have been charlatans and fortune-tellers and others like that.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sadly that seems very true. She fell out with all or most of her close friends at least once-and was even estranged from her mother and her siblings at the time of the Paris tragedy.

I think the late Lucia Flecha da Lima and Elsa, Lady Bowker were closest to her at the end of her life.

 

[Osipi]

One thing I think is a hallmark of a true friend is that a true friend will tell you what you need to hear rather than what you want to hear. As, to me, it seems that Diana surrounded herself with people that, for the most part, kowtowed to her because they were either staff or employed by Diana, the "what she wanted to hear" played into the friendship more than telling it like it really is. Those that really had Diana's best interests at heart and would tell her things that weren't so palatable to her ears found themselves shut out or ignored as if they would say things that were negative about Diana, to Diana, they weren't her friends and were in the "against Diana" category.

Being in the position that Diana was as The Princess of Wales, she quickly found out that it was hard to separate those that were her true friends and those that deferred to her position and I'd wager my last cheese curl that brought about some serious trust issues. It was far easier to cut people out of her life altogether than take a chance that the person really meant well.

Perhaps that is the reason why towards the end of her life she was most comfortable with those that would tell her what she wanted to hear rather than what she needed to hear. It would also explain why those close to her that suggested getting help on issues were turned a deaf ear to. They wanted to "fix" Diana and in her own mind, Diana didn't need fixing. She needed to be loved and admired and looked up to and those that suggested that things weren't quite right in her life were seen as attacks without love and admiration and that she was being looked down on as not perfect.

This is just my thoughts that have run through my head from reading about this complex person.

 

[Curryong]

But Charles did that with people too. I'm re-reading Bradford at the moment and have got to the part where Charles had given the interview to Jonathon Dimbleby that was so disastrous for him. The Duchess of Westminster was a fellow guest at a house party with Charles at the time.

Charles asked her what she thought of the interview and she told him, politely, that in her opinion it wasn't good. She stated that he refused to speak one word to her for the rest of the weekend. There were also witnesses who remembered the interview being briefly discussed and Charles pointing to his private secretary across the dinner table, and snarling 'He made me do it!' when in fact he himself had been persuaded to talk about his marriage by Dimbleby and it was his decision to go ahead.

Also Sally Bedell Smith has several anecdotes of Charles refusing to listen to advice he doesn't want to hear, and walking off. On one occasion he said 'I have to wash the dog' and left the room rather than listen to something that didn't fit in with his ideas.

 

[Osipi]

Definitely another classic example why Charles and Diana were at odds with each other. They were, in many, many ways, too much alike.

 

[Denville]

well IMO its hardly unusual for people not to want to be told things "for their own good", esp if they are hurtful or critical things.

 

[Mirabel]

well IMO its hardly unusual for people not to want to be told things "for their own good", esp if they are hurtful or critical things.

True.

Plus, deep down people usually recognize these things for themselves, and don't want to hear it rubbed in.

 

[Denville]

True.

Plus, deep down people usually recognize these things for themselves, and don't want to hear it rubbed in.

I think that most people do ask for advice and then only follow it if its what they really want to do.. Charles and Di threw tantrums sometimes when criticised but that's problaby more to do with both of them being spoiled by their rank and the fact that most people tended to suck up to them.. so they couldn't handle it if told they were in the wrong. But most of us would like to get angry when "told something for one's own good" we just don't feel we'd get away with it and pretend to be polite and accept it.

 

[Katrianna]

I have to agree that Charles and Diana's marital problems were the same for millions of couples around our Earth. The tragic difference was their turmoil was played out for all of us around the Globe by an eager press salivating for sensational headlines and the "dirtier" the story the better on both the Prince and Princess of Wales. Unfortunately, both Charles and Diana plus each other's staff used the press to fire salvos at one another. The uglier and dirtier, the better. However, this doesn't make them unique because celebrities have done this for decades and it's still done. What was very unfortunate was it was two Royals high up in the Royal Family chain not a Royal husband and wife way down in the line. It was the Heir to the Throne and the next Queen Consort.
It was the ultimate airing of dirty laundry around the world.

 

[Denville]

W e are all guilty I suppose, but then the 2 of them were foolish in wanting to push their private troubles out to the public..
I think that Diana ddi appear the more sympathetic of the 2, but in time we realised most of us that she was a human being and not a saint and that a lot of the marital prolbems were to do with her as much or more than with Charles.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Here's a quick question:

I was telling my mom about some of the royal houses Diana is related to. That caused my mom to say "So it (Charles & Diana's marriage) was a setup!"
I'm slowly starting to think it really WAS a setup. Because Charles could have wanted a woman who had a more impressive bloodline than he did.
Thoughts?

 

[JR76]

Here's a quick question:

I was telling my mom about some of the royal houses Diana is related to. That caused my mom to say "So it (Charles & Diana's marriage) was a setup!"
I'm slowly starting to think it really WAS a setup. Because Charles could have wanted a woman who had a more impressive bloodline than he did.
Thoughts?

Diana did not have a more impressive bloodline than Charles but if that was what he was after Europe was full of elligible princesses with 1500 years of breeding to chose from. That said although not a complete setup it has been said that their respective grandmothers were pulling a few strings to get the pair together.

 

[Osipi]

I don't actually think that Charles and Diana's marriage was a "set up" in the sense of moving people around on a chessboard to make all the right moves and win a game but if we do look at it objectively, we can see that, at the time, everything that was deemed right and proper was checked off and given the royal stamp of approval.

Diana came from the right background. Diana didn't have much in her past that could come back and bite them in the butt so was pretty much looked at as the "virginal" bride to a future king. Diana and Charles seemed to take to each other well enough that they'd be compatible in a marriage. Diana was young enough that she could "grow" into her role as The Princess of Wales and be advised on how to do it. Charles wasn't getting any younger and knew he had a duty to provide the heir and the spare for the monarchy.

Many marriages around the world have started out with less. With Charles and Diana, no one could have begun to guess that two people who had only "dated" a short time and known each other for a short time could be like oil and vinegar when it came to day to day life as partners. Each had their own perception of what marriage should be like. Both Charles and Diana wanted partners that would be there for them. Diana wanted adoration and a husband that worshiped the ground she walked on. Charles was used to having everything his way and most likely felt that Diana would fall in line with that. There's probably a million other reasons that could be pointed out where they were totally incompatible.

I do think they went into the marriage with the best of intentions but had they perhaps spent more time together and really got to know each other, they would never have married.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I do think they went into the marriage with the best of intentions but had they perhaps spent more time together and really got to know each other, they would never have married.

I now disagree with that. I think Diana was determined to land Charles, and if it took longer, she would have maintained the necessary pretenses to please him. Maybe Charles would have seen the disjunct with a longer courtship. We'll never know.

I have begun to have a radical view of how these two entered the marriage. And it's not flattering to Diana. Keeping in mind that the Diana 'spin' (in the Morton book), that has held such sway in the popular imagination, was intended to deflect attention away from her (by then) numerous dalliances with other men, not to mention the long-standing affair with James Hewitt, I question whether Diana actually did enter the marriage intending to stay 'true' to Charles.

This is something that has just occurred to me as I considered how rapidly into the marriage Diana engaged in serious flirtation. I think (in her immature way) she thought of herself as untouchable (protected by the respect in which the BRF was held) and beyond consequences. She only ever showed distress in public after she was 'caught' or was suffering the consequences of her actions (Morton book - separation; Hewitt revelation and police action regarding phone calls - Panorama interview).

JMO of course but the whole thing makes no sense unless one factors in Diana possibly not being as devoted to monogamy herself. After all, that is what she saw modeled by her parents, and likely all around her growing up. And when one looks at them both through the 80's it is never Diana who looks disquieted. She always looks radiantly happy. It's Charles who looks like he is disillusioned.

 

[Osipi]

I now disagree with that. I think Diana was determined to land Charles, and if it took longer, she would have maintained the necessary pretenses to please him. Maybe Charles would have seen the disjunct with a longer courtship. We'll never know.

Oh I have no qualms about thinking Diana was dead set on landing The Prince of Wales. Not Charles really but The Prince of Wales. She was naive and had fairy tale dreams in her head and the idea of being The Princess of Wales was the predominant factor in her aims to land Charles. I've read in several places that at one time, Diana rode a tricycle through the halls of Buckingham Palace chanting "I'm going to be Princes of Wales". How true that is is not certain in my mind but it sounds like it describes her mindset.

I have begun to have a radical view of how these two entered the marriage. And it's not flattering to Diana. Keeping in mind that the Diana 'spin' (in the Morton book), that has held such sway in the popular imagination, was intended to deflect attention away from her (by then) numerous dalliances with other men, not to mention the long-standing affair with James Hewitt, I question whether Diana actually did enter the marriage intending to stay 'true' to Charles.

To be honest, I'm more inclined to believe that she simply didn't know what the heck she was doing. She applied the tactics she used to win Charles over with basically anyone she met and didn't give any thought to its outcome. She craved attention. She craved acceptance and she had absolutely no moral compass to guide her in these things. I think she basically saw every man she met as a possible Barbara Cartland hero that would sweep her off her feet and fill her lonely hours and rescue her. When things really started going south and her reputation was at stake, it was then that her manipulation skills came into play and she contrived ways to not look like the "bad guy" in anything and be portrayed as the "victim" much like some of the heroines in the same Barbara Cartland romances had to endure. If she had entered the marriage with the intention of not being true to Charles, I don't think the things about Charles that bothered her to the point of obsession would have happened.

This is something that has just occurred to me as I considered how rapidly into the marriage Diana engaged in serious flirtation. I think (in her immature way) she thought of herself as untouchable (protected by the respect in which the BRF was held) and beyond consequences. She only ever showed distress in public after she was 'caught' or was suffering the consequences of her actions (Morton book - separation; Hewitt revelation and police action regarding phone calls - Panorama interview).

I agree with you that she probably thought that she was "protected" and above reproach no matter what she did and quickly found out otherwise that it wasn't the case. This is what makes me think that she maybe had a narcissistic personality disorder in the respect that everything she did was because it felt good at the time and benefited Diana. Outcomes and backlash never really fit into the picture because I don't think Diana was that much of a forward thinker to weigh the causes and effects of what she'd do.

JMO of course but the whole thing makes no sense unless one factors in Diana possibly not being as devoted to monogamy herself. After all, that is what she saw modeled by her parents, and likely all around her growing up. And when one looks at them both through the 80's it is never Diana who looks disquieted. She always looks radiantly happy. It's Charles who looks like he is disillusioned.

I don't think it was a lack of devotion to monogamy or her parents but from her actions, I would be more apt to say that the one person Diana was most devoted to was herself. Although she is cited for her compassion and her affect on the people she met, we have to remember too that the public adoration of Diana fed her self esteem. Diana in public was a totally different person than the Diana in private as I'm really finding out.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

This is a very interesting discussion!
Also, is there any ancestry talk in this "Charles & Diana" thread? If so, can anyone post links to it? I've tried finding even something, but can't find anything.