Charles was hunting pheasants.

Yes, I always thought it was wonderful the way queen Elizabeth's parents tried to make her wait as long as they could to marry. It shows that she was a product of loving and wise parents. If only Diana had had the same instead of a childhood divorce which was in all the papers.
And Charles too, I'm afraid, did not have such a great childhood. He was under pressure and had been to pick a suitable bride.
They were both too immature to marry.
had they been allowed to live together for years as William and Kate, things may have been different.

I doubt she was aware at the time of her marriage that her future husband was in love with another woman and was determined to keep seeing that woman after they got married. Charles did "fool" her when he concealed that piece of information from Diana.

Charles was 32 and hardly immature. And the PoW living together with a partner out of wedlock would be unthinkable back then. Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage, which had been the norm for royalty over the centuries. Charles got married out of duty to his family. Diana, on the other hand, was an immature girl who fell in love with the idea of becoming princess of Wales and, later, queen. I don't blame her for that as many girls of her age would feel likewise.

:previous: Perfectly said. I know it is easy to see the things today but, an arranged marriage between two very different people didn't have high chances of working... Let alone when there already was the presence of a lover... Of course several nasty incidents happened but I guess that that marriage was wrong from the start... :ermm:

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that all teenagers who leave home are emotionally rounded and mature people??

A "young 20" means an emotionally immature 20 year old. If, at the age of nineteen, Diana's idea of a fun and reasonable way of getting back at a guy who stood her up on a date was to smear his car with flour and eggs, it's not exactly a screaming endorsement for maturity and sophistication is it? A young 20 year old is someone who insists on sleeping with cuddly soft toys, or who spends her honeymoon fondly reciting nursery rhymes her nanny taught her.

The egg/flour smearing incident is directly lifted from Diana's own words and those of her flatmates in "Her True Story" as is the fact that she still slept with cuddly toys in her own flat. The information about nursery rhymes comes directly from the Prince of Wales himself via the Jonathan Dimbleby biography.

These are FACTS. It has nothing to do with making excuses or shifting blame!:bang:

To this date, I've seen no reliable evidence that there was a sexual relationship between the Prince of Wales and Camilla from 1971/73 to 1986. (I don't regard the lies Diana told when she was trying to destroy her husband and his Family or "facts" invented by her fanatic whorshippers as realiable evidence.)

:previous:LOL!!

Aren't you the one who castigated another poster for seeing only what they want to see??!

The information about the adulterous affair pre-Diana has never been denied by Charles, Camilla or any of one among their super-protective circle, not to mention their biographers.

How about Jonathan Dimbleby? Is he a "worshipful fanatic"?? How about author Christopher Wilson's "A Greater Love: Prince Charles's Twenty Year Affair With Camilla Parker Bowles" which by the way was written in 1994 before Diana died?


FWIW, I do believe that Charles broke off the affair after the wedding and up to about 1986.

You seem willing to accept the idea that Diana was a madwoman based on information from her detractors, so what constitutes "reliable evidence" for you regarding her adulterous husband and his long time mistress?

First of all, don't be pretentious to the point of thinking you can accuse me of see only what I want to see.

I think there's a difference between not denying and confirming. Have they said they were in a sexul relationship between 1973 and 1986? By "they" I mean the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

And Diana herself proved she was a madwoman, she does not need my help.

You stated she was with the tlroyals for Christmas as a child. IF she was 16 that does not make her a child it makes her a teenager, so that is your mistake. And just because they were at the same place or function doesn't mean they were spending quality time together that would allow them tone to know each other. I doubt Charles was dating a 16yr old in the 70s.
Plus do not assume what my opinion is on Diana and Charles. Saying she was a young 20 is not an excuse. She was immature and needy and had the emotional and psychological level of a 16yr old girl. She had idiotic Harlequin novel ideas of romance and fell in love with the idea of Prince Charles not the man. Even as she grew.older she still tended to behave like an immature child when it came to relationships. Stalking Hoare, demanding Hasnats attention while he was working, breaking up with James because he went off to war instead of staying with her.

I don't see how Charles sleeping with Camilla before ever meeting Diana is relevant to Charles and Diana. Andrew PB was also sleeping around and probably didn't mind his wife sleeping with Charles.

If it stopped when Charles got engaged and only restarted several years later after the marriage breaks down, that would be relevant.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I also believe that Charles and Camilla had a sexually relationship at least up until he met or got engaged to Diana. But that does not mean he had a lover after he was with Diana.
On the other hand, wth! Diana egged a guys car? That screams volumes to me more tha. The stuffed animals....never mind I know women who have stuffed animals but they don't sleep with them.

She not only egged James Gilbey's car she laughed and bragged about it, as did her flatmates. They all thought it was the most clever thing in the world.:sad:

One of her lovers during the 80's remembers seeing all the childhood stuffed toys lined up on a sofa in her sitting room. He said it made him a little uncomfortable.(Diana In Search of Herself-auth. Sally Bedell-Smith)

If that doesn't scream emotional immaturity I rest my case.

Diana kept a great deal of stuffed animals, especially on her bed. A lot of them came from children and other well wishers, when she went out on public engagements. Some of the stuffed animals were given to children in hospitals, and some she kept.

I kept some of my stuffed toys in my room during my 20's too Dman, even though I did not sleep with them. I included the information about Diana to support my opinion about her lack of emotional maturity. The idea that has been conveyed by people who were close to her is that she was very attached to them far beyond childhood.

Well, I don't know. I would think, Diana keeping some of her stuffed animals that were given to her by members of the public, meant that she appreciated the things they gave her. I know people who's way older than Diana was, have kept some stuffed animals, that was given as gifts, in their rooms and top of their dressers.

I guess you could see this in different ways.

I'm not talking about the period of her marriage. I am referring mainly to the time she lived in her London flat as a young woman. In her defense, a person's teen years are not that far removed from the nursery. Given the circumstances of Diana's fraught and unstable childhood the attachment to stuffed animals might have symbolized her need for security, as well as arrested emotional development. I am not denigrating her for it, just trying to understand.:sad:

Chiming in
 

I am no Diana apologist or for Charles for that matter.
I think they both did some terrible wrong. I, however, think that Charles started it.

You know, we have those very famous shots of Diana at Polo matches and other events with Camilla supposedly as her escort, helping her out etc. How nice. I think I would have wanted to kill them both when I finally realized what a fool I must have looked to all their "in" crowd. Talk about humiliated and hurt. :eek:

But I think Diana's family bare some blame for the marriage going forward.
Her sisters have to have known all about the CC relationship. Her father probably knew. Did they try to warn her off? We'll never know. If she did go to them with doubts, they needed to support her in calling the whole thing off. I think she wanted to call it off and felt she couldn't.

I have always felt that if Diana were even a year of so older, the whole thing would have played out very differently and she would still be Princess of Wales today. I don't think Diana realized what a power hand she had in the weeks leading up to the wedding if she threatened to pull out.


None of this excuses Diana's chasing after men or trying to destroy the royal family. Or the years that followed where she played the victim card expertly. She was entirely right when she described herself as thick as a plank. She evidently didn't realize that had she been successful in bringing down the monarchy, she would have destroyed William and Harry's future right along with the rest.

This is all just my own opinion.

:previous:Excellent post, Ana von Cleves. I 100% agree with almost every word. The exception is that sadly I do not believe a year or even 2-3 years would have made a difference for that marriage. Diana did not seem to begin to heal and come into herself as a woman until shortly before her death at age 36.

I also keep remembering Charles's infamous response to the question of whether or not he was in love with his gorgeous young fiancée. "What ever love means"?? Really? The look on Diana's face when he said that-and I remember it well-haunts me to this day. She tried to giggle, but for a brief fraction of a second her face fell like a soufflé.:eek:

Granted it was a stupid and impertinent question that should never have been asked, but Charles's PUBLIC humiliation of that girl is something I have never been quite able to understand. If that had been my child I would have done all in my power to break the engagement at that point, Royal wedding and millions of dollars spent be d---ned!:ermm:

Oh, I see.


Diana did not bring down the Monarchy or even tried to destroy it. She and Charles was locked in a bitter separation and later divorce, and they did some crazy things that didn't make the royal family and palace officials happy, but the Monarchy didn't cave under their drama. Historically, the Monarchy has been through a lot worse things and survived.

Storms come and go, but the Monarchy carries on.

Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings ;) it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).