The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/)
-   -   Charles and Diana (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/charles-and-diana-2444.html)

Jacknch 01-05-2015 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1737803)
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

Yes, you are right - Diana felt that there were always three of them in the marriage, but in strict fairness to both Charles and Diana, we only have Diana's word for that too.

My point is that we really will never know 100% exactly what happened and what the situation really was - tensions and emotions were high during this difficult period and much of the breakdown seemed to have been carried out in public, rather than behind closed doors.

US Royal Watcher 01-05-2015 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1737803)
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

You are right that we only have Charles and Camilla's word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Conversely, we only have Diana's word that the adultery happened before that--and Diana had no way of knowing for sure. She never claimed that she caught them together. Some people cite Diana's tale of overhearing telephone conversations, but we only have Diana's word for that too.

We also know that Diana told Ingrid Seward that Charles loved her during the first few years of their marriage. In fact, Diana's story changed several times. Diana failed to disclose her own affairs until she was forced to do so. Failure to tell the full truth is also dishonest. Similarly, Charles denied his affair for several years.

There is no objective proof either way. You can choose to believe either Charles or Diana.

I tend to believe that Charles used Camilla rather than Diana as a confident during the first part of the marriage. That is an emotional adultery and can be very painful. On Charles' side, it is hard to confide and trust someone who is subject to emotional outburst (she claimed she threw herself down a flight of stairs) and he felt deceived that Diana was not the simple, country girl she claimed to be during the courtship.

Cris M 01-05-2015 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1737803)
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

Well, Diana forgot to count her lovers, didn't she? There were at least eight people in that marriage.

Mermaid1962 01-05-2015 04:30 PM

I believe so, yes. The vows are in effect until one partner dies or the marriage is dissolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1737789)
Considering that divorces - during the separation period - often can take between 2 and 5 years to finalise, should one really have to wait for the Decree Absolute before embarking on another relationship?


XeniaCasaraghi 01-05-2015 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1737783)
This reminds me of the teenage cry: "But, mom, everyone does it."

Mom: "Well, if they all jumped off a building, would you do it?"

Yes, many aristocratic, and ordinary, and low-life people, break their marriage vows, perhaps even make those vows with every intention of breaking them.

Some get away with it, some don't, and some ruin their own lives and that of their families.

Still, shouldn't people at least try to be true to their spouses? It never occurs to me to doubt my spouse, but I shouldn't ever have to. Why isn't this the norm?

Why is it so hard for some to stop judging everyone by their own standards. Not everyone thinKS or believ3s the same or will act the same in similar situations. You never cheated thats good for you, but you don't represent everybody. I do not concondone what a Charles or other cheaters did or didn't do. But I just can't stand when people have the attitude, that everyone should think like me and believe like me. The definition of marriage has changed and is still changing. One persons happy marriage may not be the same for another.

I believe Charles aND Diana went into their marriages intending not to stray....but things happen and it didn't end up that way. Over the years it has become apparent to me to take what Diana says with a grain of salt. She decived, manipulated, and chsnged her story to fit her situation. I assume Charles always kept Camilla as a friend and confidant, but that do3snt mEan he was cheating with her before 1986. But to a young naive romantic like Diana it could have been on the same level as a physical affair.

Pranter 01-05-2015 05:52 PM

A person can be unfaithful to their spouse/vows without having a physical relationship.

IMO Charles may not have been physically unfaithful until when he said...however I do think he was probably emotionally unfaithful to Diana. His attentions were divided and his emotions elsewhere.


LaRae

casualfan 01-05-2015 06:29 PM

Firstly, Xenia, I don't think I ever said that Charles was the first to cheat. Good gracious, no, that's laughable.

Secondly, Xenia and wyevale, what about judging people by what they themselves profess to believe? Charles and Diana were CoE, JFK was Catholic, all those randy and hypocritical popes and bishops were Catholic, Jimmy Swaggart was Baptist, etc etc. "Conservative" or "liberal" sects aside, none of these groups officially condone adultery - in fact, they condemn it. So, by that token, Charles, Diana, JFK, Popes, Bishops, Jimmy Swaggart, Marion Barry, MLK - they all failed, spectacularly so, at following what they themselves professed to follow.

I don't care how you slice it or dice it, they failed and they all paid consequences for that, like we ALL do when we violate our personal views and moral compass.

Let's not sugarcoat it - they both failed. And they both hurt a lot of people - and ultimately themselves, too - with their actions.

Roslyn 01-05-2015 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 1737843)
A person can be unfaithful to their spouse/vows without having a physical relationship.

IMO Charles may not have been physically unfaithful until when he said...however I do think he was probably emotionally unfaithful to Diana. His attentions were divided and his emotions elsewhere.
LaRae

This could be another point of difference between a lot of us. I equate infidelity with sex. No sex, no infidelity, IMO.

I can't wrap my brain around the concept of emotional infidelity. Infidelity requires an intentional and conscious act. You don't have any control over what you think, or how you think, or what you like, or what makes you laugh, but you certainly have control over what you do. If you'd rather be with, or talk to, someone other than your spouse, that's pretty dismal for your marriage if you feel that way all the time, but it's not infidelity. Many of us enjoy the company of friends at times and we can have close friendships with them; it only infidelity if you take the next step and make a physical connection with the other person. In my opinion, anyway.

sthreats 01-05-2015 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1737861)
This could be another point of difference between a lot of us. I equate infidelity with sex. No sex, no infidelity, IMO.

I can't wrap my brain around the concept of emotional infidelity. Infidelity requires an intentional and conscious act. You don't have any control over what you think, or how you think, or what you like, or what makes you laugh, but you certainly have control over what you do. If you'd rather be with, or talk to, someone other than your spouse, that's pretty dismal for your marriage if you feel that way all the time, but it's not infidelity. Many of us enjoy the company of friends at times and we can have close friendships with them; it only infidelity if you take the next step and make a physical connection with the other person. In my opinion, anyway.


I have to agree. Having sex equals infidelity. It seems like using Camilla's name was an excuse - he did it so I can sleep with other guys.

MARG 01-05-2015 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casualfan (Post 1737858)
. . . . . Secondly, Xenia and wyevale, what about judging people by what they themselves profess to believe? Charles and Diana were CoE, JFK was Catholic, all those randy and hypocritical popes and bishops were Catholic, Jimmy Swaggart was Baptist, etc etc. "Conservative" or "liberal" sects aside, none of these groups officially condone adultery - in fact, they condemn it. So, by that token, Charles, Diana, JFK, Popes, Bishops, Jimmy Swaggart, Marion Barry, MLK - they all failed, spectacularly so, at following what they themselves professed to follow.

I think the old adage, "The Church is not a resthome for saints, it is a hospital for sinners", is worth remembering.

People of faith strive to be the best they can be, but they are not saints. To quote the Bible, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

We live in an imperfect world, while striving for perfection.

casualfan 01-05-2015 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1737873)
I think the old adage, "The Church is not a resthome for saints, it is a hospital for sinners", is worth remembering.



People of faith strive to be the best they can be, but they are not saints. To quote the Bible, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.



We live in an imperfect world, while striving for perfection.


People of faith also stand up for what is right instead of brushing everything under the rug, as has been done time and time again.

US Royal Watcher 01-05-2015 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casualfan (Post 1737886)
People of faith also stand up for what is right instead of brushing everything under the rug, as has been done time and time again.

I'm a Christian. I'm not perfect. I don't always do the right thing or stand up for what is right. There is nothing in the Bible that forces anyone to publicly confess each and every sin. As a Catholic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to maintain my privacy and practice my religion. Some of the original Apostles and many of the saints were terrible sinners.

I have friends whose husbands have committed adultery but they don't publicize it beyond a close circle of friends. Unfortunately for Charles, Camilla, Harry, and William, Diana chose to air the dirty linen in public. That didn't make her a better Christian.

COUNTESS 01-05-2015 08:34 PM

Better Christian, She never claimed that. He slept with Camilla before he met Diana, when she had a husband and family, did this make him a better Christian, because it wasn't public. I, suspect, he and Camilla never stopped their lives, but were very circumspect. Camilla will never speak about anything. She was the perfect mistress. And emotional infidelity is when your husband, actually, loves someone more than you. I don't know how it feels, but it can't be great. So, Diana's telling her tale was worse than the tale she was living? Charles has been in a position to spin this story a hundred times and his PR office has. It is had to refute anything when you are dead.

US Royal Watcher 01-05-2015 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 1737907)
Better Christian, She never claimed that. He slept with Camilla before he met Diana, when she had a husband and family, did this make him a better Christian, because it wasn't public. I, suspect, he and Camilla never stopped their lives, but were very circumspect. Camilla will never speak about anything. She was the perfect mistress. And emotional infidelity is when your husband, actually, loves someone more than you. I don't know how it feels, but it can't be great. So, Diana's telling her tale was worse than the tale she was living? Charles has been in a position to spin this story a hundred times and his PR office has. It is had to refute anything when you are dead.

Diana didn't claim to be a better Christian, but neither did Charles. My comments were not aimed at them but at the poster who was judging Charles' personal Christian beliefs.

I am not defending Charles' affair with Camilla. Some posters have tried to excuse it. At the same time, others try and excuse Diana's affairs. Adultery is adultery. I think they should have divorced before they slept with other people.

I agree that one can be emotionally unfaithful, and it can be very destructive to a marriage.

Ana Von Cleves 01-05-2015 09:04 PM

You know, if another person of the opposite sex is your closest friend and confidant, not to mention ex lover, any contact would be completely unacceptable. At least to me.

casualfan 01-05-2015 10:50 PM

At the end of the day, my point is that I disagree heartily with anyone who seeks to immortalize or deify any of these human beings, especially when their conduct was reprehensible.

Charles and Diana both made a wanton mess of their lives, with each other and within themselves.

Frelinghighness 01-05-2015 10:53 PM

Wow this is some conversation! For my two cents, committing adultery is breaking one of the ten commandments so it's not Christian, but judeo Christian. It is not a certain kind of marriage to committ adultery but a marriage where you are breaking your marital vows, which is why it was always the number one fault in granting divorce.
Now that the courts have blessedly allowed no fault divorce, which as we can see is the only possible way because accessing blame is always crazy. Both parties are almost always to blame. There are exceptions of physical abuse, bullying, verbal abuse, but not the rule

Pranter 01-06-2015 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ana Von Cleves (Post 1737917)
You know, if another person of the opposite sex is your closest friend and confidant, not to mention ex lover, any contact would be completely unacceptable. At least to me.

Yep I agree...anything past normal social contact would be a no-go.



LaRae

ladongas 01-06-2015 04:14 PM

Charles- and to a much lesser extent, Diana- had a sacred obligation to his country, not just to his marriage. Yes, yes, Edward VII and Henry VIII, and all that, but it doesn't mean that the obligation wasn't there. Certainly HM has never waivered from her devotion to her country.

To put it bluntly, all over the world there are married men who manage to uphold their vows, to keep their pants zipped, and to work diligently to make their marriages strong. Apparently Diana's great unhappiness started early in their marriage. And it had nothing to do with any of her (supposed) lovers. She had reason to believe, and with good reason, that her husband was in love with another woman.

Charles could have made a much greater effort to build his marriage and support his very young bride.

I'm glad that he is happily married now, and that he made "an honest woman" of Camilla rather than humiliating her, also. But some of us can't pretend to forget what he/they did. It's no wonder that it's still controversial after all these years.

Nice Nofret 01-06-2015 04:37 PM

Judging people only by how they conduct their private lives - no only by if they are faithfull or not is quite random to me.

In my books Americans tend to think first of divorce if they have marital Problems - but there are still societies and people who do not think, that divorce is the first and best solution to problems - that you should stand together in good and bad days allike.

I don't think sex is the most important thing in a marriage - I don't think you should judge others by there sex life; and I don't think anyone (not state not religion) should have any say in how we conduct our private sex life.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises