Charles and Diana

[camelot23ca]

Charles never should have messed around in his twenties. He wasted valuable time and he could have married someone he had something in common with and Diana would have found someone who could have handled her energy and it was a mess. Telling someone to sow their oats and then find a good wife is bad advice all around.

Given that Charles knew he had to marry and have children, and that his wife had to be a certain kind of girl, yours would have been good advice. It probably would have given him the best chance at a truly happy, or at least stable, marriage. If Charles had been a more mature, less diffident man when he was, say, 24 or 25, he might have made a concerted effort to find a suitable young woman in her early 20s with whom he also shared some common interests and they hopefully could have grown together. A 25 or 26 year old man marrying a 22 or 23 year old woman is a much different scenario than a 30 year old marrying a teenager. Unfortunately by the time Charles was 30 women closer to his own age were either married or no longer "suitable" to marry him.

In retrospect Charles and Diana were so obviously mismatched on so many levels it's hard to believe either family allowed the marriage to take place. But I suppose they thought the worst case scenario was that they might have the sort of upper class marriage where each partner, (after children), was free to discreetly live their own life.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't see why Charles shouldn't have dated around in his 20s. I think it's better for both men and women to act like fools in their 20s before they get married. I think there are many people who don't think about marriage in their 20's. Plus Charles apparently found girls in his 20s he proposed to but they turned him down.

 

[Osipi]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that Charles was in active military (Navy) service until Decenber 1976. Being in the service can sometimes really put a damper on relationships and we only have to look as far as Andrew and Sarah for confirmation of this.

So, if we take the time between 1977 and the actual date of the marriage in 1981, it leaves about 4 1/2 years to get out there and find himself a bride. From what I've read, he dated quite a few women that may have been "suitable" but nothing really came of the relationships for various reasons.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don't see why Charles shouldn't have dated around in his 20s. I think it's better for both men and women to act like fools in their 20s before they get married. I think there are many people who don't think about marriage in their 20's. Plus Charles apparently found girls in his 20s he proposed to but they turned him down.

For normal people true. And now for royals like his sons. A 32 year old Harry can marry a woman in her 30s.

Unfortunately Charles was expected to marry a virginal aristocrat. The older he got, the larger the age difference was going to get. Not impossible to find someone you are compatible with that has large age difference, Mathilde and Philippe come to mind, but hard especially with such restrictions. At 25 he was more likely to find a virginal wife with shared goals and interests, then in his thirties.

Thankfully the rules change. Can we imagine Harry finding such a bride? He may have to go younger then his dad. To find a wife with no romantic history now a days would be slim pickings over certain age.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Sarah was the only woman to marry a man fairly close in age to herself (four years difference). Jane's husband is 16 years older. Diana's father was 12 years older than her mother. In those circumstances, marrying a man 13 years older wouldn't have seemed that unusual.

Jane was 21, Sarah was 25 when they married Robert and Neil. Her mother was 18 when she married Diana's father.

 

[Curryong]

It isn't years so much is it though, Mermaid. Sometimes you can get a remarkably mature and grounded 21 years old marrying a very young for their age 30 year old, and vice versa. Some people are very old for their age at 25, (going on 50) some never grow up.

I think Jane and Robert Fellowes were probably on the same wavelength and were both mature. That wasn't the case with Frances Shand and Johnny Spencer. Difficulties come when you get someone who at 32 has always had an oldfashioned outlook on life marrying a 20 year old who was very young for her age. Also, whatever age they were there was very very little in common in hobbies, friends, pastimes, world views, tastes in books, tastes in music...need I go on!

 

[Osipi]

When it comes to a marriage, there's no set equation that can guarantee an ideal match. Age doesn't figure into it as success or failure option. A marriage is two individual people going into a partnership and becoming an "us". It takes work. It takes compromise. It takes a whole lot of "I love you but I don't like you much right now" days. It takes dealing with the ups and downs of life together. It takes communication and sacrifices and sometimes thinking of the other partner first. The "I do" of a wedding isn't a magic spell.

Diana and Charles never had a good solid footing on which to start a marriage to begin with. It looked good on paper but sadly, a marriage isn't based on pedigree like the mating of horses and dogs. Charles and Diana never got to the point of being close, intimate friends before deciding to tackle life together. They hoped though that it would grow to that point sometime after marriage. It didn't happen. They were two different personalities that never really found much common ground between them except when it came to raising their two boys. They were on the same page on that and it shows.

Some marriages, even those based on a close intimate friendship at the very beginning can sometimes fail. People don't stagnate but grow and unless the couple work at growing together, over the years they can gradually go down different roads and no longer identify with each other and the marriage ends.
What works for one couple may spell doom for another.

This is a reason why I believe Charles' statement in the Dimbleby book that he returned to Camilla "after the marriage had irretrievably broken down, us both having tried." He doesn't blame Diana. He doesn't blame himself. He blames the both of them just not being able to make a go of it. I do sincerely believe that sometimes in a marriage, the best way to show love for a partner and to do the best for their happiness, you let them go to be able to find in life what they're looking for and what makes them happy and fulfilled. Its a mature attitude.

 

[Denville]

I doubt Diana would have gotten married in her late 20's, women around her seemed to be married by 22-24; how old were her mother and sisters when they married? Honestly it seemed that all that was left for Diana and girls like her at the time was marriage.

her sisters were around ealry to mid 20s I think an d her mother was only 19 or so. but I don't know what you mean.. all that was left for her?? that was her career and their career. They were reared to marry early and run big houses, help iwht charity work, dabble in the arts..
I tink she would have married aorund early 20s had she not met Charles. but of course, having met him, and attracted him and been in love with him, she was going to wish for an early marriage and so was he.

 

[Mbruno]

For normal people true. And now for royals like his sons. A 32 year old Harry can marry a woman in her 30s.

Unfortunately Charles was expected to marry a virginal aristocrat. The older he got, the larger the age difference was going to get.

Is it really true that Charles was expected to marry a "virginal aristocrat" ? I suspect that there were lots of non-virginal aristocrats who would be considered suitable to marry the PoW had they shown any interest in him and vice-versa. I also think there is a tendency to exaggerate in general the constraints that were allegedly placed on the PoW's acceptable bridal picks (we're taking about the 1970s here, not the 1870s !).

The bottom line I am trying to convey is that, ultimately, Charles married Diana because, for some reason, he chose to do it, not because he was forced to do it , or because, if he hadn't married her, he would not have married anyone else.

 

[Denville]

When it comes to a marriage, there's no set equation that can guarantee an ideal match. Age doesn't figure into it as success or failure option.
, you let them go to be able to find in life what they're looking for and what makes them happy and fulfilled. Its a mature attitude.

Exactly true. There isn't really a guarantee for a happy marriage.. It helps if a couple have a reasonable amount in common, are not too far apart in age or class.. who have a fair amount of similarity in their outlook.. but there are marriages that wok in spite of a lot of differences. and theire are people who seem ideally suited.. who fall out of love or never get into deeper love.. from a

Or people who have a lot in common as young couples, often grow apart as they get to middle age.. their interests change, their outlooks change with getting older etc.
Diana and Charles had very little in common, interest wise. Their outlooks and temperaments were pretty different. She was a young for her age girl, he was an old fashioned, romantic reactionary who liked older people's company.. but other relationships have worked iwht a big age gap or a class gap. a lot of it was that they did try, but IMO they didn't try quite hard enough.. and they were so very different that trying was very much rowing against the current for them.
There were other problems...Diana's difficulties at adjusting to royal life and the RF.. and the press's and public's crazy chasing after her.. which set off some jealously in Charles..
IMO it would have been stranger had their marriage succeeded...but that does not mean that there' aren't other couples with a big age gap who COULD make such a marriage work.

 

[Mbruno]

It is entirely possible that Charles was expected to marry an aristocrat. However, neither Anne, nor Andrew, nor Edward ( the latter much later though) married aristocrats, nor did incidentally the Duke of Gloucester, but all those marriages were approved by the Queen. I have no reason to believe that the Queen would have objected to Charles marrying a commoner if the bride were suitable and Charles insisted on it.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The difference between the Prince of Wales and his younger siblings is that he was, in all probability, going to be king some day. By the time Andrew got married, there were already two new direct heirs to the throne, making Andrew fourth in line and unlikely to be king. When Edward married, after three divorces in the Royal Family, there was a world of difference. Most people seemed to be happy that he was marrying someone whom he really had a chance to get to know.

Off the top of my head, there was probably an idea that a royal bride who was an aristocrat would be more ready to assume the duties--both public and household-related, that being the Princess of Wales required. The thinking might have been that a girl who grew up in the Big House on an estate and went to finishing school would be capable socially and know how to oversee a staff.

 

[Mbruno]

The difference between the Prince of Wales and his younger siblings is that he was, in all probability, going to be king some day. By the time Andrew got married, there were already two new direct heirs to the throne, making Andrew fourth in line and unlikely to be king. When Edward married, after three divorces in the Royal Family, there was a world of difference. Most people seemed to be happy that he was marrying someone whom he really had a chance to get to know.

Off the top of my head, there was probably an idea that a royal bride who was an aristocrat would be more ready to assume the duties--both public and household-related, that being the Princess of Wales required. The thinking might have been that a girl who grew up in the Big House on an estate and went to finishing school would be capable socially and know how to oversee a staff.

Again, I don't disagree that his family would prefer him to marry an aristocrat with the characteristics that you pointed above. What I doubt is that the Queen would have rejected any bridal candidate picked by Charles solely on the grounds that she was not an aristocrat. In other words, I believe that being an aristocrat was desirable, but I don't think the Queen ever considered it a necessary condition for someone to marry Charles.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, you're probably right. The Queen seems to be a reasonable woman.

 

[Dee Anna]

what on earth girl of 17 or 18 doesn't want to be independent and live away from her family???

So am expecting you totally agree with my post!?!

 

[Curryong]

Yes, you're probably right. The Queen seems to be a reasonable woman.

I don't think the Queen set any parameters on who her children were to marry. According to the Dimbleby bio she refused to give her opinion to Charles on whether he should or shouldn't marry Diana. I think in fact that was one time when mother and son could have had a good long and serious talk. Charles could have expressed his doubts about whether it would work, his feelings for Camilla etc and the Queen could have offered her advice.

However, fond though they were of each other, they didn't seem to have that kind of relationship. Communication via notes seems to have been quite usual.

The Queen's 'ostritching' over possibly contentious subjects that might cause family conflict didn't help. She apparently inherited that characteristic from her mother, who incidentally, wasn't too happy about Charles and a possible Mountbatten connection (Amanda Knatchbull) and probably welcomed another candidate (the granddaughter of an old friend, Lady Roche.) Even so, the QM doesn't seem to have been particularly proactive about pushing Diana forward either.

Charles seems to have been left all at sea as far as his family was concerned when it came to the decision to marry Diana, apart from Prince Philip's letter telling him not to take too long in making up his mind, a communication Charles seems to have interpreted as an ultimatum.

 

[Pranter]

I think Charles could of gotten away with marrying a woman with a past as long as she had been very discreet and the other party wasn't the type to go public.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

I don't think the Queen set any parameters on who her children were to marry. According to the Dimbleby bio she refused to give her opinion to Charles on whether he should or shouldn't marry Diana. I .

She didn't have to set parameters, I don't think she would have minded at the time if Charles had married a well to do middle class girl, like Kate...
if the girl had "no past" was intelligent enough to fit in with the RF etc. But Charles knew the rules about that he had to marry someone who was a Protestant, who had no sexual past and was not in any way contentious.. (like say the daughter of a controversial businessman or politican or whatever).
But the queen presumably took the stand that Charles was a grown man, it was up to hm, to choose his own wife and she wasn't going to get involved in telling him whom he should marry.. he knew the restrictions and so long as he kept within them it was his business ot find a woman he could get on with and have a good marriage with.
I'm sure that if Charles had sat her down and said that he was unsure, that he ahd feelings still for Camilla etc.. the queen would have said fairly enough "well you can't marry Camilla, and you wil have to give her up when you're married because we don't want any scandal.. so its up to you to decide if you love or are fond of Miss X enough to make a marriage with her.."

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of posts discussing Camilla, her first marriage and consequential responses have been deleted. It should be known by now that the Charles/Diana/Camilla subject as a whole has been discussed over and over again with nothing new to add. In the past such discussions have ended in in-thread arguments, people taking sides etc etc. Accordingly such discussions are not encouraged and will continue to be deleted.

 

[Dee Anna]

It is entirely possible that Charles was expected to marry an aristocrat. However, neither Anne, nor Andrew, nor Edward ( the latter much later though) married aristocrats, nor did incidentally the Duke of Gloucester, but all those marriages were approved by the Queen. I have no reason to believe that the Queen would have objected to Charles marrying a commoner if the bride were suitable and Charles insisted on it.

He did marry a commoner. That mould was broken with the QM, although of course no one knew that at the time.

The fact of course is that Charles did not actually have to marry - by 1980 the Succession Line was already quite secure in that the Queen had three other children, Anne was already married with a three year old son and another grandchild on the way. Two very eligible and younger brothers waited in the wings.

It was expected that he would and probably found odd if he didn't. A number of scandals had hit the House of Windsor, the abdication of the Queen's Uncle and a lot more recently the divorce of her sister. All eyes and speculation were on the PoW and his imminent choice of bride.

We all know that by then Charles had realised his mistake in letting Camilla go without a fight (probably one he wouldn't have won back then, given her feelings for APB). Being Charles he possibly even thought he shouldn't need to have to put up a fight in the first place, being PoW he was the one to be fought after!

The available GFs of his twenties had evaporated by the time his thirties (his own opinion on the age to settle down) had kicked in. Worse still any proposals made were rejected.

He had met Diana in person some years previously over a country weekend (where else and whilst sitting on a bale of hay; they may have met previously as he had dated her sister, but this was our first introduction). The then 16 year old caught his attention, but it was going to be another three years before he considered the 19 year old as someone with possible marriage prospects.

The rest as the saying goes is history.

 

[Mbruno]

He did marry a commoner. That mould was broken with the QM, although of course no one knew that at the time.

I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.

 

[Dee Anna]

I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.

I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.

 

[Mbruno]

I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.

No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I think Charles could of gotten away with marrying a woman with a past as long as she had been very discreet and the other party wasn't the type to go public.


LaRae

Unfortunately there is really no way to judge that. Some people you think you can trust turn on you to make a quick buck by selling their story to a tabloid. And it's sad because the woman's possible marriage future is in the hands of an ex. I have never read the story that was printed by Davina's ex but was it really so bad that Charles had to break it off?

Thank you for shutting down the Camilla posts, it's unfortunate we the posters couldn't stop bringing her up ourselves.

Imo if you have "lady" in front of your name you're not a real commoner. The real commoner CPs and Queens were Sonja, Silvia, Mary, Camilla and a commoner Crown Prince was Daniel.
I personally also think there should be a distinction between the 8th in line to the throne marrying a commoner and the 1st in line marrying one.

 

[Pranter]

Yeah it's a crap shoot...but really even if a woman hadn't been intimate someone could lie just to get the attention (money). Kate has a 'past' but no one cares in this day and age.


LaRae

 

[Dee Anna]

No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.

Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.

 

[Curryong]

This is an amusing little article reprinted from 1976 when it was thought that Davina Sheffield might well become Princess of Wales.

Queen Davina? London Gossip Says Charles Is Smitten at Last

She was a statuesque blonde, nearly six feet tall. The trouble was that she had been seriously involved with James Beard, who was some sort of speed boat champion, when she first caught Charles's eye.

Davina broke it off with James and dated Charles but, just when it looked as if it was getting serious, (Charles was 29 she was 25) a reporter sought James out. He burbled on about what a fantastic girl she was even though apparently he had been upset when she broke it off, said what a great princess and queen she would make, then dropped the bombshell in conversation that they had happily shared a cottage together when they had dated. (They were almost engaged.)

I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!

 

[Denville]

The He had met Diana in person some years previously over a country weekend (where else and whilst sitting on a bale of hay; they may have met previously as he had dated her sister, but this was our first introduction). The then 16 year old caught his attention, but it was going to be another three years before he considered the 19 year old as someone with possible marriage prospects.

The rest as the saying goes is history.

he met Diana "in a ploughed field" at Althorp when she was 16 and he was dating Sarah. Later he met her at a party and was taken with her. but he did have to get married. It didn't matter that there were other sons, it was he who was expected to carry on the family line.
I don't know wher you get that "other proposals" were rejected. AFAIK he only ever proposed to his 2 wifves and to Amanda Knatchbull.

I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!

I dobt it. He must have know that talking about their preivous love affair was going to scupper her chances.

Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.

She was legaly a commoner. In the UK, the only member of a family who has a noble title, is the title holder. All of his children are commoners. Lady Diana has a ring to it, but she was still a commoner.

 

[Denville]

So am expecting you totally agree with my post!?!

sorry what post?

 

[duchessrachel]

I have been wondering lately about what would have happened in Diana and Charles's marriage if the circumstances of Diana's upbringing had been different. I know we could also discuss Charles' upbringing too. However, I am looking at it from Diana's side because she said she loved him, but he said he never loved her. From that stand point, unfortunately, she would have had to do most of the giving in and made most of the sacrifice, since Charles was so set in his ways. If her parents had been happily married and raised her lovingly so that she developed confidence in herself with a good self-esteem, I wonder if, when she began having suspicions about Camilla, before the marriage, if she would have had the strength to break off the engagement with him? Or, I wonder if in view of the throne, she would have sought to align herself more with his interests and maybe they could have found some common ground. She would have probably had to have done the most giving in the give and take due to his being set in his ways. Just thinking out loud. Please don't misinterpret that I am placing the burden of having made the marriage work on Diana. It takes two, but unfortunately in their situation, it would have taken mostly her due to his lack of love for her. Or, I wonder if she had had a good, stable upbringing if she would not have been attracted to him at all? I tend to think she would not have been attracted to him.