Charles and Diana

[Monika_]

I keep reading about Diana's affairs as if someone is denying that she had any. Yes, she had them. Her admirers recognize that and I don't think anyone has denied it. However, what needs to be remembered is that it was a defensive move, and not an offensive one.

I suspect there would be far less keystrokes on the subject if we all accepted the timeline of the first Wales marriage.

 

[ysbel]

I keep reading about Diana's affairs as if someone is denying that she had any. Yes, she had them. Her admirers recognize that and I don't think anyone has denied it. However, what needs to be remembered is that it was a defensive move, and not an offensive one.

I suspect there would be far less keystrokes on the subject if we all accepted the timeline of the first Wales marriage.

Some people saw Diana's affairs as defensive moves and decided that this point wasn't relevant - they decided that an affair is still an affair whether it is offensive or defensive, and when they see everyone is having affairs then they see just a mess.

For a matter of fact, Camilla's affair was a defensive move against her husband's infidelities also; does she get your benefit of the doubt then? Probably not.

Yeah, so what if Charles had an affair first? It doesnt' excuse Diana's affair and I'll bet you for the wives of the husbands she fooled around with, the fact that Charles fooled around first didn't matter. I didn't blame Diana for having an affair but I did blame her and I still do blame her for creating a worldwide sobstory about being hurt by her husband's affair when she was conducting affairs of her own and other wives were complaining about her wrecking their marriage. Given her affairs and the effects it had on other men's marriages, she didn't have a right to complain about openly being hurt by her husband's affairs. Charles and Camilla didn't have a right to complain either and so they didn't.

I doubt if Diana fans feel much sympathy for Camilla for being cheated on by her husband and I don't think the wives of the men that Diana was fooling around with should have felt sympathy for Diana because she was cheated on by Charles.

So to answer your point, yes I see the chronology of the events and I still think Diana was being a hypocrite and the damage to the monarchy she created by her public sobstory was insincere, full of halftruths, passive aggressiveness and downright nasty. She didn't need to be the first adulterer for me to come to that conclusion.

You place too much importance on the chronology of the events.

 

[Monika_]

You place too much importance on the chronology of the events.

Perhaps because it matters.

 

[kimebear]

Enough please. None of us will ever know for sure who did what when and it can be argued endlessly.

 

[Evenstar120]

I do not seek to denigrate the current marital situation of the Prince of Wales. However I do believe that his going into marriage with Diana was wrong, morally and practically. I believe this because at the time of his first marriage, he was still very strongly attached to and attracted to Camilla with a strong likelihood that he would be unfaithful to his wife. I think that to enter into marriage with that in mind, makes a mockery of his wedding vows. Despite this, I acknowledge that he and Camilla are happily married now, which is a good thing. But, even taking that into consideration, it cannot be forgotten what torment Diana endured because of his pre existing attachment to Camilla. You really have to question whether there was ever any hope of his first marriage ever succeeding because of his predisposition towards infidelity.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Evenstar, you are going into waters full of turmoil here. You know, it is not undisputed who was the first to commit adultery. Like "once she felt she was not properly loved by Charles, she had a right to find "love" some place else". But don't let that disencourage you. These forums are known to rely very much on sources open to all members - you may evaluate them at your heart's delight later. But they are published, so give a base to discussion. Welcome!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I

I suspect there would be far less keystrokes on the subject if we all accepted the timeline of the first Wales marriage.

Problem is that nobody knows the proper timeline. Or do you really believe Diana when she claimed in the Morton-book that Charles "never ended" his relationship with Camilla?

 

[ysbel]

Well I wasn't arguing the timeline.

Both Monika and I agree that Charles committed adultery first. The difference in our opinions is that Monika is under the impression that the fact that Charles did it first takes all the guilt away from Diana for what she did and of course I disagree on that point but that point only but she has refrained from saying why she believes the way she does.

I even said that I did not blame Diana for having the affair but for playing the victim in public when she herself committed affairs against other married women.

So the argument is not whose affairs are worse Charles' or Diana's but rather did Diana give up her moral right to play the victim of her husband's infidelities when she had infidelities of her own.

In my opinion, yes, as soon as she had that affair she gave up the right to complain about Charles affairs.

 

[ysbel]

Perhaps because it matters.

and this is the reasoning you give? This is the way a child talks.

 

[Skydragon]

Both Monika and I agree that Charles committed adultery first.

And yet nobody has any way of knowing who did what with whom first.

 

[COUNTESS]

Actually, I believe and I think that Diana did, too, though, you are right, I can never prove this, that he never stopped his affair. I don't think he thought that was pertinent to his new life. He didn't love Diana, said in the Dimbledy book, he thought he could come to love her. And, in the long run, what is the difference. She dead. Just rehashing of the misery.

 

[ysbel]

And yet nobody has any way of knowing who did what with whom first.

Yes you're right but I think it entirely plausible that Charles started to see Camilla first. Contemporary reports said that he started shortly after Harry's birth and its hard for me to imagine Diana jumping from childbirth into an affair.

Again, I'm not really pointing fingers at either of them for their affairs; they must have made each other miserable so its understandable they were seeking more amenable company. The only blame I cast is Diana playing the victim when she was also a perpetrator in more than one affair and the fact that Charles started his affair first (if he did) does not change the fact that Diana was wrong and deceitful to publically play the victim when she had indulged in the same behavior. Monika_ thinks otherwise but sincerely that's all I meant.

 

[ghost_night554]

We're so going to get in trouble for starting up the who did what first thng but I have to say that, Diana could have remained faithful if she wished to,she didn't she too chose to be unfaithful. Now what Charles did wasn't right either, infact I blame both of them in different ways for destroying the marriage(not that there ever was a proper marriage between the 2) I do beleive the whole cufflinks story, but after that I don't beleive he continued with Camilla until later on. Anyways that's just my opinion. I just feel that like her death people will always see the breakdown of the marriage differently.

 

[ysbel]

You have a point ghost night.

If this had been any other marriage, they would have divorced after six months.

I swear Charles and Diana should have had their heads examined ever to get into a marriage like this.

At first Charles tried to wimp out by proposing to Diana in a way to induce her to refuse. He told her he'd give her time to think about whether or not it would be too awful being married to him (that's not something to inspire a young girl's confidence) and then Diana totally missed that hint and told him yes there was never a doubt in her mind. Well if there hadn't been a doubt in my mind, a proposal like that would put a doubt in my mind.

Oh where were their brains? For that stupidity, I have to admit I think they both got what they deserved.

You're right, enough is enough. There are too many angles on this story for people to agree on all of them

 

[Skydragon]

We're so going to get in trouble for starting up the who did what first thng but I have to say that, Diana could have remained faithful if she wished to,she didn't she too chose to be unfaithful. Now what Charles did wasn't right either, in fact I blame both of them in different ways for destroying the marriage (not that there ever was a proper marriage between the 2) I do believe the whole cufflinks story, but after that I don't believe he continued with Camilla until later on. Anyways that's just my opinion. I just feel that like her death people will always see the breakdown of the marriage differently.

You are quite right.

 

[Monika_]

Well I wasn't arguing the timeline.

Both Monika and I agree that Charles committed adultery first. The difference in our opinions is that Monika is under the impression that the fact that Charles did it first takes all the guilt away from Diana for what she did and of course I disagree on that point but that point only but she has refrained from saying why she believes the way she does.

I've never said or intended to imply that Charles committing adultery first takes all the guilt away from Diana. However, I think that before anyone points a quick finger at her, we should remember WHY Diana ended up looking outside the marriage. I honestly believe she wanted nothing more than to be loved and accepted by her husband. They both had needs stemming from childhood that the other could not meet. And while his reponse 'whatever in love means' and other things indicated that all was not quite "Kosher", I think in the early years of their marriage the real problem was not a mistress (yes I just said that, lol) but rather his inability to come to terms with his wife's popularity. From THAT came other things...

 

[jcbcode99]

Monika, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your summation. They both had needs the other could not fill--because neither had ever had what can be termed as a healthy family life. I think Diana went in thinking that because they both had unhappy childhoods that they would each be able to receive all the attention they wanted--but what turned out was that they each needed to receive all of the other's attention. My parents were divorced, my husband's parents were married for 60 years--but it was a rocky 60 years. We both needed massive amounts of validation and attention from each other and it took us a while to figure out how to do that without someone feeling unloved/left out, etc.. Unfortunantly, Charles and Diana did not really have the luxury of privacy or time to work out those sorts of nuances. I do think they loved each other in the beginning (there is a hopeless romantic beneath the hard nosed cynic that resides in my body) but like Monika said, the attention Diana constantly received just made Charles feel like he was an afterthought--which is probably how he felt with regard to his parents because of their obligations. Here he thought he would have this wife who would dote on him and make him like he was the most important person in the world but when they made public engagements/appearances together, nobody really wanted him. I don't think it was her fault in the beginning--she was a fresh, new face but as the marriage wore down she did use it to her advantage.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't feel it was to do with Diana's popularity, I just don't think she could cope with him putting duty first and he couldn't cope with her tantrums when he did. He expected Diana to enjoy his country lifestyle, she had after all given every indication of loving country life and she thought, as many women do, that she could change all that.

 

[Elspeth]

I think it was both, Skydragon. There have been umpteen reports about how Charles went from being proud of Diana's popularity to being irritated by it when it reached iconic status and his worthy causes were being ignored in favour of her sparkle.

There's also the fact that both of them seemed to go into the marriage expecting things from the other that neither of them could deliver on, but I wouldn't totally discount the effect of her media stardom on Charles.

 

[Monika_]

jcbcode99...

So true... I suppose we're all a product of our upbringing...good, bad or indifferent. Thankfully, most of us have the good fortune to be able to deal with whatever needs dealing with privately.

 

[Skydragon]

I think it was both, Skydragon. There have been umpteen reports about how Charles went from being proud of Diana's popularity to being irritated by it when it reached iconic status and his worthy causes were being ignored in favour of her sparkle.

That is true, but I think he still felt proud but also irritated when she seemed to be encouraging it.

There's also the fact that both of them seemed to go into the marriage expecting things from the other that neither of them could deliver on, but I wouldn't totally discount the effect of her media stardom on Charles.

Again true, perhaps he began to believe that he had been used as a means to an end!

 

[jcbcode99]

I don't feel it was to do with Diana's popularity, I just don't think she could cope with him putting duty first and he couldn't cope with her tantrums when he did. He expected Diana to enjoy his country lifestyle, she had after all given every indication of loving country life and she thought, as many women do, that she could change all that.

No arguments there at all-she was no doubt a bit duplicitious in that regard.

 

[Elspeth]

Or perhaps he really was jealous of her popularity. Not entirely unlikely.

 

[ysbel]

Well I've wondered often how much flak Charles was getting inhouse from the rest of the family about Diana's popularity.

If you think of it as a family business, they had this brand image with the Queen as the star and head of the family and Diana was brought in to fulfill a prominent but not top position. Then Diana seemed to take the business over and send it in directions which the rest of the family weren't quite comfortable with.

With the royal family's penchant for not being direct, I think its entirely plausible that instead of complaining to Diana directly, they complained to Charles which may have put him in a bind. First, he himself was getting annoyed, and secondly if he was catching flak from his family for the very thing he was getting annoyed at, it would make his patience really short with her.

 

[Monika_]

In the beginning, she must have felt a bit awkward about the attention she was getting and uncomfortable about the affect it was having on her husband, ‘a proud man,’ as she called him when she discussed this issue. I think the problem was that Charles never took a page out of Sarkozy’s book; he should have taken great pride in his wife’s popularity. Instead of thinking of her popularity as having eclipsed him, he should have understood that it actually reflected on him. Together, they were a dynamite team. His various interests, combined with her more humanitarian agenda, would have made for an unstoppable future King and Queen. I realize he was brought up to play the leading role and this was uncharted territory, so we can’t fault him completely, but it was a great loss, nonetheless.

I suspect there was quite a bit of resentment brewing at the Palace; other senior royals couldn’t have been very pleased with the circumstances either. I believe Diana ended up feeling so resented by her husband and the very family that should have supported her and appreciated her contribution, that she finally decided she had had enough. I think she got to the point where she no longer cared and, not unlike many young women who have in-laws they feel they simply cannot satisfy, she decided to enjoy the attention and appreciation she wasn’t getting at home. And if it irked them, oh well. That didn’t make her duplicitous, it means she was human.

 

[scooter]

I don't feel it was to do with Diana's popularity, I just don't think she could cope with him putting duty first and he couldn't cope with her tantrums when he did. He expected Diana to enjoy his country lifestyle, she had after all given every indication of loving country life and she thought, as many women do, that she could change all that.

I must disagree. I dont believe that it was his 'duty' he was putting first *cough*. Nor was it his 'duty' causing the tantrums, IMO. Aside from the Obvious Reason, Charles was also the cosseted, self absorbed Heir Who Could Do No Wrong and had never been told no. He had been taught by QEQM that there was nothing he could do wrong, nor was there anything he wanted that he couldnt have. Between these two aspects of his narcissism, there was sure to be fireworks. I might add, that I think QEQM did a disservice to both Charles and the country by encouraging Chales in the spoiled, I'll have what I damn well please and account to no one tone. He was also used to being 'The Star' and did not share the limelight willingly, let alone be outshone by the Diana Supernova.

 

[Elspeth]

In the beginning, she must have felt a bit awkward about the attention she was getting and uncomfortable about the affect it was having on her husband, ‘a proud man,’ as she called him when she discussed this issue. I think the problem was that Charles never took a page out of Sarkozy’s book; he should have taken great pride in his wife’s popularity. Instead of thinking of her popularity as having eclipsed him, he should have understood that it actually reflected on him.

Yes, but it didn't, though, and that was the problem. The press ignored all his work with his charities and his social interests and official duties and just reported on what Diana was doing or wearing or saying or whatever. It did eclipse him - it totally eclipsed him - and unfortunately as the marriage deteriorated and she found how much power she had with the media, she went out of her way to ensure that she eclipsed him at every possible turn. Even before that, though, it was already happening. You hardly saw a word about Charles in the reports of what the Waleses did, and if they had separate engagements you'd be lucky to even hear about what he was doing except via the Court Circular.

I suspect there was quite a bit of resentment brewing at the Palace; other senior royals couldn’t have been very pleased with the circumstances either. I believe Diana ended up feeling so resented by her husband and the very family that should have supported her and appreciated her contribution, that she finally decided she had had enough. I think she got to the point where she no longer cared and, not unlike many young women who have in-laws they feel they simply cannot satisfy, she decided to enjoy the attention and appreciation she wasn’t getting at home. And if it irked them, oh well. That didn’t make her duplicitous, it means she was human.

The trouble was that she should have been supporting the Queen, not vice versa. She didn't join the family to be the star around which the rest of them revolved, she was supposed to be part of the supporting cast. Considering her background, coming from a long line of courtiers, she should have known that. Given that she was so photogenic and that the celebrity age was already on us, there might not have been much she could have done about it, but I really have a hard time believing that she was genuinely surprised about why her superstardom didn't go down well at the Palace. There were times when her popularity was starting to make the Queen appear irrelevant to the British public, never mind making the heir to the throne look irrelevant. And when a constitutional monarch starts looking like an outdated placeholder and people get the idea that a person's perceived value or their popularity or their charisma or beauty means that they should take centre stage, then you have a real problem for a constitutional monarchy. If you want popularity contests, you might as well ditch the system and just hold elections for Head of State.

 

[Monika_]

I'm not suggesting that she wanted or expected anyone to revolve around her. Her family was familiar with the workings of the monarchy, yes, but none of them had taken on such a high-profile public role. Look at the responsibilities she took on at an age when so many of us were still in college questioning our major. She certainly performed her duties flawlessly and I think she should have been supported and guided by her new family, people who were born into the firm. (The Windsors were known to be reserved and it never appeared as if she was truly embraced the way Maxima, Alexandra or Letizia have been in recent years. Or perhaps those royal families learned from Diana's example.)

As for her popularity and it's immediate impact on the RF's coverage, etc...perhaps Diana's addition to the RF simply put a spotlight on a condition that already existed.

 

[ysbel]

There were times when her popularity was starting to make the Queen appear irrelevant to the British public, never mind making the heir to the throne look irrelevant.

There was an article about a year after the marriage about the Queen opening up press communication channels and nobody was interested; they just wanted to see Diana.

So, no, I don't think Diana's popularity enhanced the royal family at all; the only person her popularity enhanced was Diana and this was from the very beginning.

 

[scooter]

Oh please! One year into the marriage, the Diana phenomenon was completely beneficial to the British Royal Family. Glowing, overwhelming popular reviews and press for all concerned basking in the afterglow of the Wedding of the Century and birth of the Heir Apparant. A huge increase in the tourism for Britain and sales in all things British.