Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2

[BeatrixFan]

Everyone in that family is banking on William.

We can't possibly know that. Let's look at it from an outsiders point of view -

Anne and Tim, probably couldn't care less. They'll be in Kensington Palace growing old gracefully.

Edward and Sophie, they could divorce if they really aren't happy and he could be a film producer (and possibly come out if he is gay)

Andrew, could marry Sarah again and open a golf club

Edward and Katherine, She wants to be Mrs Kent so if a revolution happens it'll be a blessing. He probably wouldn't mind if it all went under.

Alexandra, She was raised by Queen Mary - the most Imperial Queen since Victoria. She has her country estate and her grandchildren. As long as she's kept in stockings and gin she'll be happy.

Michael and Marie-Christine, nobody likes them anyway whether its Elizabeth, Charles or William.

Richard and Birgitte, Low key and probably wouldnt mind much what happened.

If the House of Windsor collapsed tomorrow, they would all write books, spread across the world and live as the Romanians, the Germans, the Greeks etc etc have lived. William isn't their last hope. It's the whole lot - they have to work as a team to stay afloat.

 

[love_cc]

From the beginning, I believe that Camilla can survive in the royal family. She knows how to shield her power behind the scences. She did not have any interest to upstage those who were born into royalties. She was bought up in a traditional monarchist way and she likes the style of establishment. I appreciate her tradtional way to be a royal not a celerbity instead. Diana was probably too young and too modern for the royal family. Diana did not know much about the traditional values of royal family I guess.She cannot fit in the royal family's styles.

Finally, I think Camilla is interested in Charles because Charles is much more faithful to her than Andrew Parker Bowles was. Charles depends on her for a lot of things and she likes the dependence. Even Charles may have other women, no one can shake their relationships and she has this kind of self-confidence. Camilla did not let Charles go because Charles needs her and she needs him as well. They two are emotional people and quite selfish to satisfy their own needs first. I guesss Camilla was heartbroken by Andrew's philanding and decided to keep close with Charles which can save her from her marriage pains.

 

[ysbel]

In terms of the emotional support, from what I see....Camilla provides it in spades to Charles.

I'm not so sure of that. She told him she wouldn't go see him play polo any more - it was boring.

She reminds me a bit of my old riding teacher - pleasant but brusque, no-nonsense, doesn't make a big deal out of anything and has no patience if others make a big deal out of things. I imagine she told Charles quite a few times to stop whining.

Actually I do think Charles has indulged in self-pity in the past but he's seemed to move out of it into more self-confidence in the last few years.
I think Charles has become less defensive and more self-confident if only for the reason that Camilla might not put up with him if if kept on feeling sorry for himself. I don't think she has patience for too much of that. Is that giving support? Yeah, in a way but its not what most people think of as support. Maybe tough love? But it works!

I wouldn't read to much in the 60 minutes interview, he basically said it was hard to have an effect because it was easy for people to blow him off for his privileged position. His tone was very matter-of-fact but what he said was the truth; all the Crown Princes have that problem. Fred, Haakon, Willem. Willem gets blown off more than Charles.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Everyone in that family is banking on William.

We can't possibly know that. Let's look at it from an outsiders point of view -

Anne and Tim, probably couldn't care less. They'll be in Kensington Palace growing old gracefully.

Edward and Sophie, they could divorce if they really aren't happy and he could be a film producer (and possibly come out if he is gay)

Andrew, could marry Sarah again and open a golf club

Edward and Katherine, She wants to be Mrs Kent so if a revolution happens it'll be a blessing. He probably wouldn't mind if it all went under.

Alexandra, She was raised by Queen Mary - the most Imperial Queen since Victoria. She has her country estate and her grandchildren. As long as she's kept in stockings and gin she'll be happy.

Michael and Marie-Christine, nobody likes them anyway whether its Elizabeth, Charles or William.

Richard and Birgitte, Low key and probably wouldnt mind much what happened.

If the House of Windsor collapsed tomorrow, they would all write books, spread across the world and live as the Romanians, the Germans, the Greeks etc etc have lived. William isn't their last hope. It's the whole lot - they have to work as a team to stay afloat.

NOW that..is one hell of an interesting way of looking at it...

stockings and gin....I cannot stop laughing...

I picture Marie-Christine saying, "Give me that crown, I worked hard for it and I want to wear it!!!!!"

 

[BeatrixFan]

I picture Marie-Christine saying, "Give me that crown, I worked hard for it and I want to wear it!!!!!"

Darling - MC probably opens a bread-bin and tiaras fall out. She'd be sick of the sight of them!

 

[Zonk]

You know that brings up an interesting point. Someone mentioned that Diana should be ashamed because if she was the betrayed party in her marriage to Charles she shouldn't have done the same thing to other woman (Will Carlings wife, etc.)

Might the same thing be said of Camilla? If she was devastated by Andrew's philandering....why she do the same to another woman (Diana if you are going with the assumption that Charles cheated first)? Or does it not count (committing adultery) if you are in love?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Darling - MC probably opens a bread-bin and tiaras fall out. She'd be sick of the sight of them!

Be still my heart, to have that problem..

 

[BeatrixFan]

Love is the greatest mystery known to man. Whoever claims to understand it can't possibly have known it.

 

[ysbel]

You know that brings up an interesting point. Someone mentioned that Diana should be ashamed because if she was the betrayed party in her marriage to Charles she shouldn't have done the same thing to other woman (Will Carlings wife, etc.)

Why are we keeping score on who has the most blame? Isn't that rather pointless since everybody agrees that all three were to blame?

 

[Zonk]

You are right Ysbel..sorry. I try to rise above the fray. It just sometimes...it frustrating to read some of the posts about Diana. Some members accuse the so-called Diana fanatics of elevating her to Sainthood..yet treat Camilla as if she was the second coming. I just want to know why she is being judged by a different critieria. But I will be good

 

[ysbel]

No need to apologize, Zonk.

I'm analytical, give me a chance and I can be critical of anyone and everyone, and still like the person. That can have its drawbacks on a board like this. I end up reading posts of people complaining about bashing and think, what in the hell are they talking about.

I've probably bashed a half a dozen royals by now without realizing it.

 

[Skydragon]

You know when the can of worms was opened with the media started before we were all even born....when the Queen, spurned on by Prince Philip, allowed the documentary to be made "The Royal Family" in the late 1960's.

I'm not ashamed to say I was about at the time and we were all enthralled by the programme.

 

[Warren]

Royal Family program 1969

I'm not ashamed to say I was about at the time and we were all enthralled by the programme.

Same here, and at the time this program was groundbreaking, and very popular. I still have the book! It was only much later on that certain media pundits declared that this program "started the rot" but I don't see why; it didn't reveal that much. In a way they are saying that because the program piqued the public interest, the public wanted more, thereby leading to the intense media intrusion we have today; ie the Royal Family "brought it on themselves".

I think the reason has more to do with the extremely competitive nature of the British tabloids, the rise of the paparrazzi as legitimate photo sources, and the general public acceptance of media trashing of public figures. (Wasn't Kate Moss done over and hung out to dry?) [pun intended]

 

[Skydragon]

You know that brings up an interesting point. Someone mentioned that Diana should be ashamed because if she was the betrayed party in her marriage to Charles she shouldn't have done the same thing to other woman (Will Carlings wife, etc.)

The point was raised by me to try to debunk this idea you seem to have of Diana, in her upset at believing Charles was having an affair, turning to someone who showed her affection. If as you say she was the 'victim' why would she do the same to all those other women. If she was this caring person that you see her as having been, why would she even look at a man, with a partner or wife (Gilbey, Hoare, Manakee, Dunne etc). You seem to see her as the tragic wife, used and abused, who turned to other men for comfort.
To me she was 10 times worse, because she was clearly not in love with all these men, she just used them for her own gratification. To make herself feel good, love true or not didn't appear to enter into it.

 

[Skydragon]

Same here, and at the time this program was groundbreaking, and very popular. I still have the book! It was only much later on that certain media pundits declared that this program "started the rot" but I don't see why; it didn't reveal that much. In a way they are saying that because the program piqued the public interest, the public wanted more, thereby leading to the intense media intrusion we have today; ie the Royal Family "brought it on themselves".

I think the reason has more to do with the extremely competitive nature of the British tabloids, the rise of the paparrazzi as legitimate photo sources, and the general public acceptance of media trashing of public figures. (Wasn't Kate Moss done over and hung out to dry?) [pun intended]

Years ago, we were grateful for any little bit of news that came out about the royals, we didn't want to know their intimate secrets. Their private life was their private life and it should have stayed that way.
The shameful attack on the Queen, Prince Charles etc when they didn't tear back from Scotland to be seen grieving after Diana died. They weren't even allowed to grieve in peace, to comfort those young boys without the glare of the media.
I just wonder how other people would feel about having a camera stuck under their noses at such a time, or do they all revel in it?

 

[Warren]

The shameful attack on the Queen, Prince Charles etc when they didn't tear back from Scotland to be seen grieving after Diana died. They weren't even allowed to grieve in peace, to comfort those young boys without the glare of the media.
I just wonder how other people would feel about having a camera stuck under their noses at such a time, or do they all revel in it?

My take on this at the time was that the public anger was beginning to build against the paparazzi (those following the car into the tunnel being initially blamed for the crash); by association the tabloids started to feel the heat, and to protect themselves turned the public anger away from their own culpability and onto the Royal Family grieving at Balmoral. Nonsense headlines such as "where is the Queen? Where are the Princes" etc, the ultimate diversion being the hoo-ha over the flag above Buckingham Palace. And before we knew it, somehow the Queen was to blame. It was very ugly.

Similarly Earl Spencer's funeral address. Again at the time I thought it an attack on the press; instead the press reported it as an attack on the Windsors. Perhaps it was a bit of both, but the they certainly had a vested interest in slanting it as anti-Windsor. I don't think Prince William would have applauded a public attack on his own family!

Funerals after shocking events, public and private, bring out a whole range of emotions. For Diana, most of us look back and think "wasn't that extreme?" but it reflected the public mood at the time. And of course there are some who choose to wallow in death and funerals, but that's nothing new.

There are those who are convinced there was no mourning or grief at Balmoral because the TV cameras weren't there to record it. Some would only be satisfied if they could count the number of tears rolling down the cheeks, and then probably decide there weren't enough. Or have it both ways, and claim "they are only crying for the cameras."

Irrationality plays a part: those who bewail that we are "trying to forget" Diana, and claim custodianship of the flame, conveniently overlook the large chunk of this Message Board devoted to her. As always, some prefer to remain locked in the past and assign blame, and some choose to move on. To each their own.

 

[ysbel]

Same here, and at the time this program was groundbreaking, and very popular. I still have the book! It was only much later on that certain media pundits declared that this program "started the rot" but I don't see why; it didn't reveal that much.

I kinda agree with you there Warren. If you compare the BRF with the Danish royals, the Danes have been a lot more open for a lot longer but still there are some things we don't know. We don't know the causes for Joachim's and Alexandra's breakup, we don't know how Margrethe and Henrik patched up their differences when Henrik rebelled and went off to France, etc.

It may be because there is little interest in the DRF outside of Denmark but even in Denmark where there is a lot of interest in the DRF, you don't see that kind of voyeuristic interest.

One reason may be that Britain has a strong republican movement and quite frankly they have an agenda. They're going to use any excuse to tear the royal family down. In Denmark, there isn't a strong republican interest so while everybody is really interested in the Royal Family, there aren't so many people with an agenda against them.

 

[Skydragon]

He has never had a lot self-confidence and likes to play pity, it is evident sometimes in his interviews both today and years ago.

I have to disagree with you there. Prince Charles was always a self confident young man. He was respected and well liked when he was in the navy and again the RAF. He was brilliant at polo, riding and had a go at racing.
He has always been honest about the way people look at him. They brush ideas he has aside, with, a what would he know attitude. Just because he is rich and from a privilaged background, does that make his views any less valid. Do we only have to listen to the disadvantaged within our society. If I have a few thounsand pounds more than you each month, does that make my view any less valid?
I don't believe he 'plays pity', it is just his very British cynical way of judgeing the judges.

 

[Skydragon]

My take on this at the time was that the public anger was beginning to build against the paparazzi (those following the car into the tunnel being initially blamed for the crash); by association the tabloids started to feel the heat, and to protect themselves turned the public anger away from their own culpability and onto the Royal Family grieving at Balmoral. Nonsense headlines such as "where is the Queen? Where are the Princes" etc, the ultimate diversion being the hoo-ha over the flag above Buckingham Palace. And before we knew it, somehow the Queen was to blame. It was very ugly.

Similarly Earl Spencer's funeral address. Again at the time I thought it an attack on the press; instead the press reported it as an attack on the Windsors. Perhaps it was a bit of both, but the they certainly had a vested interest in slanting it as anti-Windsor. I don't think Prince William would have applauded a public attack on his own family!

Funerals after shocking events, public and private, bring out a whole range of emotions. For Diana, most of us look back and think "wasn't that extreme?" but it reflected the public mood at the time. And of course there are some who choose to wallow in death and funerals, but that's nothing new.

.

What a very astute post Warren. I have to admit I had never thought about the press deflecting the blame.
The public were whipped up to a frenzy of grieving after the crash, that's all that was in the papers and on the tv at the time.

I don't deny Diana's existence, I just feel that everyone blames Charles and Camilla for all that happened and I know that most of that is based on Diana's courting of publicity.

 

[ysbel]

Funerals after shocking events, public and private, bring out a whole range of emotions. For Diana, most of us look back and think "wasn't that extreme?" but it reflected the public mood at the time. And of course there are some who choose to wallow in death and funerals, but that's nothing new.

At the time I didn't understand the reaction but later when JFK, Jr. died and the same outpouring of grief happened, I could understand.

When these two public figures died at such a young age, they killed the hope that a lot of people had in them. Many people had placed their hopes on Diana saving the monarchy and earning all the respect and gratitude from the BRF as Princess which people thought she deserved. Many Americans kept the hope that JFK, Jr. would be President. The deaths effectively killed that.

Some of the hope was irrational, JFK, Jr. was never cut out to be President, but people feel a much greater loss when their hopes and aspirations are lost than with other losses.

I myself personally didn't have any hopes for Diana. Some of the changes she brought to the monarchy were good; some I thought were not. So I did not feel the loss of hope that others did. I did nurse a small unrealistic hope that JFK, Jr. would rise to become President but I knew that wasn't going to happen even before he died. But that small wish for him to become President helped me understand the great loss that others felt with Diana.

 

[tiaraprin]

You are right Ysbel..sorry. I try to rise above the fray. It just sometimes...it frustrating to read some of the posts about Diana. Some members accuse the so-called Diana fanatics of elevating her to Sainthood..yet treat Camilla as if she was the second coming. I just want to know why she is being judged by a different critieria. But I will be good

Thank you Zonk!!! The "Self-Appointed Head Keeper of the Flame for Diana" applauds you!! Sometimes the past in some ways is much nicer and prettier than what we are faced with now.

 

[Zonk]

OHHHHH Where do I begin:

1) The public mood surrounding the death of Diana - I think at the the most of it was sincere. Like JFK, Jr. Diana was cut off in her youth and will forever by 36. With the role that the media plays in our world..a lot of people think that they know public figures (in this case Diana & JFK, Jr.) because they essentially saw them mature. In Diana's case from a 19 year old to 36 and in JFK Jr.'s case as an infant to 39 (I think that was his age).

2) Charles and Camilla - Skydragon...with a few exceptions..I don't think most people blame them solely for the disintegration of the Charles/Diana/Andrew/Camilla marriages. There is enough blame to go around.

3) Diana's infidelities - if you cheat does it matter why you did it? Essentially cheating is cheating and there is no excuse for it. And that applies to Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla, Charles and yes Diana. Again, I just find it ironic that Diana's affairs are constanting thrown up...oh..don't forget she cheated him too! No one hasn't said she didn't. I don't know what is worse..finding love/attention/comfort from many people cause you can't get it from your spouse or finding love with your "soul mate" who isn't your spouse.

4) Diana not hanging out with Charles friends - call me crazy. Yes, you really can. BUT if I know my husband is cheating on me with a particular friend, and his group of friends know about and ASSIST him and his mistress by providing covers....well..I am not hangin out at their house either. They are obviously not my friends...so why would I want to spend time with them. But that is just me.

 

[tiaraprin]

OHHHHH Where do I begin...

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO ZONK!! You hit the nail right on the head!!!

 

[ysbel]

I remember the week before Diana died and there was a tabloid feeding frenzy over her vacation with Dodi and her sons. It got to the point that one newsource claimed papers were offering $1 million dollars for just one candid photo of Diana.

A couple of security experts were quoted as saying the situation with the press was so bad she needed to get more security or something bad would happen. Others reported that she was courting danger by being friendly to the papparazzi one day and then shooing them off the next day. There was a lot of talk about the struggle between Diana and the Queen over security for William and Harry during the vacation.

So when it happened, I was taken off guard like everyone else but I could see how she could get to that point of being killed by being chased by the paparazzi. People were describing the danger that resulted in the tunnel accident before it even happened.

edited to add: About Diana not getting along with Charles' friends, if I don't trust my husband's friends, that is a big warning sign. People do not give up their friends for their significant other and if they do, they resent it. But then again, I judge people by the company they keep. If I don't like my significant other's friends, chances are I don't like him either. I have broken a relationship before because I just couldn't stomach who my boyfriend was hanging out with. One obnoxious friend I can deal with, but a whole group? No, no, no.

 

[Warren]

I remember the week before Diana died and there was a tabloid feeding frenzy over her vacation with Dodi and her sons.

And interestingly enough things were beginning to appear to be spinning out of control, and Hello! (of all the media!) actually published a rare editorial warning that the Princess needed to calm things down. This issue of Hello! appeared in Australia on the Thursday; by the Sunday afternoon (our time), it was all over. Very prescient.

 

[ysbel]

And interestingly enough things were beginning to appear to be spinning out of control, and Hello! (of all the media!) actually published a rare editorial warning that the Princess needed to calm things down. This issue of Hello! appeared in Australia on the Thursday; by the Sunday afternoon (our time), it was all over. Very prescient.

Yes, Warren! It was so weird! People had switched from talking about Diana herself to talking about the media frenzy around her! What did it for me was that quote that the tabloids were paying a million dollars a shot for one picture. People go crazy at the thought of an easy million! This was about the same time that she dropped the Royal security. One of the security experts even said the Royal security couldn't handle something like this, they weren't used to dealing with this type of situation.

It all seemed like madness to me!

 

[ysbel]

I think Diana had some idea of the insanity here. Back in the Panorama interview, she mentioned a photographer who was begging her for a picture because with that money he could set up his family for life. She was offended and quite rightly but I don't think she got the implication that if a picture of her can set up someone's family for life, the stakes were already too high.

Did anyone see the Panorama interview when it was shown recently? I don't remember the exact quote about the photographer. It was one of the more interesting things she said in the interview.

 

[tiaraprin]

I think Diana had some idea of the insanity here. Back in the Panorama interview, she mentioned a photographer who was begging her for a picture because with that money he could set up his family for life. She was offended and quite rightly but I don't think she got the implication that if a picture of her can set up someone's family for life, the stakes were already too high.

Did anyone see the Panorama interview when it was shown recently? I don't remember the exact quote about the photographer. It was one of the more interesting things she said in the interview.

I have had that interview on tape since it first aired. The photographer said along the lines of: "Hey Di look up, if you do I can send my kids to a better school and you can laugh it off."

 

[Skydragon]

OHHHHH Where do I begin:

4) Diana not hanging out with Charles friends - call me crazy. Yes, you really can. BUT if I know my husband is cheating on me with a particular friend, and his group of friends know about and ASSIST him

Zonk, what you are forgetting is that Diana did not like his friends and made no effort with them from the word go, so your reasoning is invalid.
You either like the country or you don't. Charles loves horse riding, Diana was terrified of horses, Charles loved his gundog, Diana didn't like dogs. Charles loves opera, Diana loved modernistic musicals.
It stands to reason that Charles's friends also liked the same things as him and if Diana only felt that they should make the effort to change down to her age level, no wonder they never got on.
I can remember the shock when Diana and Fergie arrived at Andrews stag night, dressed as police women. It was such an undignified thing for them to do.
Both Charles and Diana admitted to their affairs starting in 1986 (this date is disputed by one of the male parties involved). So if the only reason in your book was that they knew about his affair and she didn't like them for that reason, what went wrong in the 5 years before the affair?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Thank you Zonk!!! The "Self-Appointed Head Keeper of the Flame for Diana" applauds you!!

What? What on earth are you talking about? Can't you seperate emotion and give a statement on the issue? With all due respect, you're not a self-appointed representative for Diana and I find it ridiculous that you feel by saying you are, you'll somehow have some crusade to wage on those who don't care for Diana.

And before we knew it, somehow the Queen was to blame. It was very ugly.

That was terrible. It just goes to show that public hysteria gives the press carte blanche to do as they please.

Some members accuse the so-called Diana fanatics of elevating her to Sainthood..yet treat Camilla as if she was the second coming.

No - she's a living member of the Royal Family - a future Queen, the wife of the Prince of Wales. She's alive and we're enjoying 'royal watching' her. How can we do that with a dead woman?

Diana's infidelities - if you cheat does it matter why you did it?

It does where Charles is concerned. This is what gets me so annoyed. Charles cheated because he wanted to hurt poor angelic innocent Diana - Diana did it because she was neglected and hurting. Rubbish.

The photographer said along the lines of: "Hey Di look up, if you do I can send my kids to a better school and you can laugh it off."

How funny...