Diana's Legacy: What is left or what will be left?

[Kitty1224]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think Kitty has made it clear that she's talking about soft diplomacy, which Diana was a pro at. The government may have directed her to go to a certain country, but the charm she laid on was not something the government could order up, and it was arguably as powerful if not more than the actual diplomats' work.

Yes that is what I was trying to get my point across. She was a pro at soft diplomacy and you are right it can be a powerful tool. Also heads of states, world and foreign leaders, ect... all wanted to meet Diana and visit her country.

 

[Missjersey]

My first reaction was you have to be kidding......so, i’ll leave it at, JMO, that’s a stretch for me.

 

[cepe]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think Kitty has made it clear that she's talking about soft diplomacy, which Diana was a pro at. The government may have directed her to go to a certain country, but the charm she laid on was not something the government could order up, and it was arguably as powerful if not more than the actual diplomats' work.

I don't think Kitty mentioned soft diplomacy at all in her original comments.

Diana had absolutely no influence on policy soft or otherwise.

There are considerable doubts raised about the power of soft diplomacy and if it does exist it can be wielded by a Monarch and possibly the Heir - the spouse just doesn't do it.

Spouses don't even get to talk to politicans or Monarchs of other countries about serious issues.

 

[Mbruno]

She didn't in the same way even the spouses of Monarchs haven't changed relationships.

The royals have no power between countries - that lies with Government.

She was the wife to the heir to the Throne - no diplomatic power at all.

I agree and disagree at the same time, which is rather confusing. To make myself clearer, I see royals nowadays to a certain extent among a country's top diplomats. When they host a state visit, or pay a state or official visit overseas, or simply accompany a business, cultural, scientific or sports delegation in a semi-official or unofficial visit to another country, they are essentially being diplomats. What has changed , I think, is that they no longer engage in personal diplomacy by themselves (i.e. without government supervision/ advice) as perhaps Queen Victoria or even King Edward VII still did, even though they already lived under parliamentary government.

 

[Kitty1224]

I don't think Kitty mentioned soft diplomacy at all in her original comments.

Diana had absolutely no influence on policy soft or otherwise.

There are considerable doubts raised about the power of soft diplomacy and if it does exist it can be wielded by a Monarch and possibly the Heir - the spouse just doesn't do it.

Spouses don't even get to talk to politicans or Monarchs of other countries about serious issues.

Actually I did mention soft diplomacy. The royals are supposed to be a soft power for the UK and you are telling me that Diana wasn't great at it? Whats the point of royal tours then?

 

[Missy-]

I don't think Kitty mentioned soft diplomacy at all in her original comments.

Diana had absolutely no influence on policy soft or otherwise.

There are considerable doubts raised about the power of soft diplomacy and if it does exist it can be wielded by a Monarch and possibly the Heir - the spouse just doesn't do it.

Spouses don't even get to talk to politicans or Monarchs of other countries about serious issues.

I have read time and time again how when Diana went on royal tours outside the UK, she was great with soft diplomacy, she won people over, she had charm as well. In a sense she was a secret weapon to the monarchy and parliament. Every heads of states, foreign leaders, other royal members, US Presidents, politicians all wanted to meet her. She was in demand. She actually made it seem that UK was bigger than it actually was. She was an economic force boosting tourism in the countries she would visit. Does any of you guys have other examples of Diana and diplomacy?

She was aces at soft diplomacy, she had Ronald Reagan and scads of other high-power people who were totally enamored with her. She influenced diplomacy by making the British monarchy/government more palatable than it had been in a long time. Again, we aren't talking about policy making, we are talking about influence.

 

[Kitty1224]

She was aces at soft diplomacy, she had Ronald Reagan and scads of other high-power people who were totally enamored with her. She influenced diplomacy by making the British monarchy/government more palatable than it had been in a long time. Again, we aren't talking about policy making, we are talking about influence.

Wow I didn't know she made the monarchy and government more palatable. She sure did make GB seem larger than it actually was. Every high power people were drawn to her and wanted to meet her!

 

[VictoriaB]

Wow I didn't know she made the monarchy and government more palatable.

That's because Missy has provided no source for what seems to be just her opinion.

Monarchy and government more palatable to whom and when? That's a huge statement and completely fact-free and context-free.

Four years prior to the marriage the Queen had had a wildly successful silver jubilee and just one year earlier there were public celebrations for the Queen Mother's 80th birthday.

I don't recall the monarchy being in need of a specific public relations boost at that time.

 

[anbrida]

What legacy Diana left? personally, the knowledge that God exists, no doubt about that.

 

[Denville]

What legacy Diana left? personally, the knowledge that God exists, no doubt about that.

what on earth has whether God exists got to do with Diana's legacy...

 

[Nico]

what on earth has whether God exists got to do with Diana's legacy...

slippery slope ...

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I am cross-posting here due to the topic of Queen accompanying Meghan today, straying into reflections about Diana:

I believe Meghan is someone who has a lot fo warm feelings for family and a wish to heal wounds. That's what Harry needs and that what she can give to Her Majesty. I believe the Queen recognizes that, that is deep felt but , due to the facts of her new life, needs to be adapted to a Royal life. They will show her, but they won't try to break her into the Royal mould like they did with her late mother-in-law. And thus far, it seems as if they all delight in her. (You know, there are people like that! Who don't have a bad thought against others without being naive or easily influecible by negative people. I am married to such a man. I am so fortunate!!! As is Harry and his family!)

Regarding Diana: That was a different era, which the royals have learned from. I don't think it was approached as "breaking" Diana though. It was simply assumed that Diana as an aristocrat would know and follow the unwritten rules of that era. However, it failed to be recognized and understood that Diana was young, innocent, needy, headstrong, and full of dreams of happily-ever-after. She had not had the opportunity to find out who she was as a person. That's part of the difference from what we are seeing today.

It was actually Diana's trial-by-fire that brought the royal family into an entirely new era and a different approach to welcoming new brides into the royal family.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It was actually Diana's trial by fire that brought the royal family into an entirely new era and a different approach to welcoming new brides into the royal family.

Actually Diana was given help (she just was too 'headstrong' to accept guidance we now know). We have to be cautious regarding how Diana painted the situation years later to garner sympathy for herself.

What has changed, I think, has been the vetting process for royal brides and the dispensing with the archaic demands of 'purity and innocence'. Love is ruling choices and that is making all the difference. That's the major impact from the experience of Diana, I think.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Actually Diana was given help (she just was too 'headstrong' to accept guidance we now know). We have to be cautious regarding how Diana painted the situation years later to garner sympathy for herself.

What has changed, I think, has been the vetting process for royal brides and the dispensing with the archaic demands of 'purity and innocence'. Love is ruling choices and that is making all the difference. That's the major impact from the experience of Diana, I think.

I disagree that Diana necessarily 'painted' anything. She clearly experienced what she experienced as a young innocent who had not had an opportunity to find out who she was as a person prior to marrying. She did feel isolated and alone particularly as the marriage progressed. In the beginning, she was expected to know how to behave as an aristocrat, and to buck up with a stiff upper lip as the wife of an heir to the throne. There are a number of star-crossed histories of royal brides down through the ages. After Diana is a stark contrast from before Diana, especially as pertains to the modern British royal family.

Help surely was extended to Diana at some point (once it was recognized how hard a time she was having emotionally), but it proved to be too little too late. Diana clearly had emotional issues stemming from an unhappy childhood with battling/divorced parents. Her headstrong rebelliousness was mostly in reaction to not feeling loved, and not being willing to meekly accept that state of affairs. So obviously her emotional unsteadiness and youthful inexperience was not helped by being caught in a marriage in which she realized that her husband loved another woman. That's the biggest difference from what we see today. Also, no one could have predicted the OTT media adulation, which no one was prepared to guide Diana through, much less to protect her from.

Both of Diana's sons learned from their parents' marriage. That's one of the legacies of Diana's life. William and Harry both (in different trajectories of course) were friends first with their respective brides. And most important of all, both were absolutely certain they were in love, absolutely supportive, and absolutely convinced that their brides truly loved them back and could handle living life in a fishbowl as well as being equipped to ace all the requirements of royal protocol and life in the royal firm (minus of course age-old British upper-class spousal unfaithfulness).

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree with much of what you say here, Maia_Mia53; but I have to disagree about Diana not being given help. She began having therapeutic treatment to deal with her problems early in her marriage and saw medical doctors. She was also taken around to TV and radio stations to learn about the media. She even took phone calls, anonymously, in the Buckingham Palace Press Office, before her marriage.

 

[jacqui24]

I agree with much of what you say here, Maia_Mia53; but I have to disagree about Diana not being given help. She began having therapeutic treatment to deal with her problems early in her marriage and saw medical doctors. She was also taken around to TV and radio stations to learn about the media. She even took phone calls, anonymously, in the Buckingham Palace Press Office, before her marriage.

I have to say, the therapeutic treatment Diana supposedly received included giving her pills to deal with the symptoms, but not the actual problem. Ultimately, Diana and Charles' issues stemmed from a really bad combination that made it the perfect storm. But psychology, and thus treatment, in those days were much different than what they are today.

And I think Diana's best legacy are her sons. I also believe William and Harry are Prince Charles' best legacy. Issues change over time, but their pursuit of what they believe is right and the compassion they've offered to those in need are the best thing that their parents have been able to teach them.

 

[Osipi]

I agree about the fact that psychiatry was a whole different ball of wax at the time Diana first started to go down that road. We were barely out of the "mother's little helpers" era and you stated it right on the money, jacqui, when you state they treated the symptoms rather than the address the problem. We've come a long way since then.

Its occurred to me too that during the Diana years, it was also the beginning of the "warts and all" era where all aspects of a royal person were laid bare in the press. When we think about how the David and Wallis affair was barely mentioned in the British press and then look ahead to the Diana years, we see the swing to anything goes when it came to reporting on these people. Warts and all. From one extreme to another.

Now the need for balance is recognized and the work by Diana's sons and the rest of the family to draw the line between what is public and what is private is a full blown attempt to have a middle road. We see the royals as being human beings (warts and all) but the time for airing dirty laundry in the press is hopefully a thing of the past.

Perhaps part of Diana's legacy is the quest for balance.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I disagree that Diana necessarily 'painted' anything. She clearly experienced what she experienced as a young innocent who had not had an opportunity to find out who she was as a person prior to marrying. She did feel isolated and alone particularly as the marriage progressed. In the beginning, she was expected to know how to behave as an aristocrat, and to buck up with a stiff upper lip as the wife of an heir to the throne. There are a number of star-crossed histories of royal brides down through the ages. After Diana is a stark contrast from before Diana, especially as pertains to the modern British royal family.

Everything you state is from what she spun. It's completely her version of her royal life, her claims (and they are suspect as a result in my view because she was in significant hot water when she came up with all that to deflect guilt).

Help surely was extended to Diana at some point (once it was recognized how hard a time she was having emotionally), but it proved to be too little too late.

Not that simple. Diana's behavior was extreme from the get-go, from directly after the engagement was official. Help came in myriad ways. She would have none of it.

Diana clearly had emotional issues stemming from an unhappy childhood with battling/divorced parents. Her headstrong rebelliousness was mostly in reaction to not feeling loved, and not being willing to meekly accept that state of affairs. So obviously her emotional unsteadiness and youthful inexperience was not helped by being caught in a marriage in which she realized that her husband loved another woman. That's the biggest difference from what we see today. Also, no one could have predicted the OTT media adulation, which no one was prepared to guide Diana through, much less to protect her from.

A lot of excuses there for her. Believe it the way you will, but accept that the business that Charles was in love with Camilla is purely Diana's spin, with which Charles and Camilla are endlessly hammered with. It is not fact, it is a belief that Diana's story is the one true version.

Both of Diana's sons learned from their parents' marriage. That's one of the legacies of Diana's life. William and Harry both (in different trajectories of course) were friends first with their respective brides. And most important of all, both were absolutely certain they were in love, absolutely supportive, and absolutely convinced that their brides truly loved them back and could handle living life in a fishbowl as well as being equipped to ace all the requirements of royal protocol and life in the royal firm (minus of course age-old British upper-class spousal unfaithfulness).

I agree with the sum of this, though I would put it less as a legacy of Diana, than of Charles. With Charles' second wife the sons saw what it can look like to have a solid relationship in a marriage. Unfortunately, Diana never modeled that for her sons. Left just to her, they would be hard pressed to know what they could hold out for. You posit a negative cautionary tale from Diana, I posit a positive modeling from Charles. I suppose both can work, though I think the latter is more powerful. Left just with Diana, they could have been terrified of making a mistake. Left with Charles they were shown that a solid marriage could be achieved.

 

[M. Payton]

A lot of excuses there for her. Believe it the way you will, but accept that the business that Charles was in love with Camilla is purely Diana's spin, with which Charles and Camilla are endlessly hammered with. It is not fact, it is a belief that Diana's story is the one true version.


Yet it is a known fact that Charles and Camilla dated and he was in love with her before he married Diana, they carved their initials in a tree if I remember (if that is wrong then I do apologize for my error) and he was according to others what when she married elsewhere he was not happy. And then after the death of Diana they, Charles and Camilla married even though they waited a while. I have nothing against Charles or Camilla yet I do believe that they were destined to be together and that the royal family did not want Camilla for his wife at first, even after the death of Diana.....I think honestly there is something to the story that Charles loved Camilla before, during and after Diana......it happens in life to many other people also and people change and grow in different directions as they get older. I see Diana as an insecure young woman not knowing who she was with no self-confidence or self-esteem and Charles as more worldly and mature and both had very different interests and views of life...even though no one calls this an arranged marriage from all that I have read over the decades, Charles was pressured into marrying by the family and the royal family thought Diana fit the bill for them......they made a huge mistake in that as we have all seen and read.

 

[Denville]

Of course he was in love with Camilla, and probably, it would have been better if he and she could have married in their 20s. But she wasn't interested in public life, she wasn't acceptable as a Princess,then,and at the time she preferred Andrew.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yet it is a known fact that Charles and Camilla dated and he was in love with her before he married Diana

We don't know that they were 'in love'. I'm not splitting hairs. They definitely were good friends, and in the language of the royals Camilla was a 'confidant' of Charles, but he had several confidants in those years leading up to his marriage. The only reason we know about Camilla is because by the 90's Camilla was indeed the primary mistress and the easiest mark for Diana, so Diana went spinning the story regarding Camilla and Charles being 'in love'. A myth was born, and it's been one durable myth indeed.

they carved their initials in a tree if I remember (if that is wrong then I do apologize for my error)

No, what you are recalling is a famous picture of the two of them taken in front of a tree that had carvings. I'm pretty sure their initials were not among the carvings.

and he was [in love with Camilla] according to others what when she married elsewhere he was not happy.

Charles expressed regret and sadness (musing on a might-have-been) when he learned of Camilla's marriage.They had just had their fling and he was fresh in the memory of that idyll with her, but to claim that they were 'in love' is to pretty much disrespect Camilla's life at that time. She was in love with Parker-Bowles and had set her cap for him. Marriage to Parker-Bowles was likely one of her happiest days. I do not believe Diana's spin that Camilla and Charles were 'in love' from way back.

And then after the death of Diana they, Charles and Camilla married even though they waited a while.

Yes, they did that, but after their relationship entered phase 2 in the late 80's, when the Wales marriage was no more a functioning marriage. I believe what Charles says in this regard (we have no testimony stating that Charles has trouble with the truth, Diana we have in plenty in that regard).

I have nothing against Charles or Camilla yet I do believe that they were destined to be together

I don't believe that for a moment. Camilla's 'destiny' was to be the country wife of Parker-Bowles. She was content. Clearly Camilla and Charles were great good friends but I don't think anything that happened beyond friendship was ever destined. That's become the myth, and maybe it is a necessary myth that makes the 'bitter pill' of a failed Wales marriage go down easier. But this I maintain, from all my (unfortunate ) reading on this couple: Charles was Diana's to lose, she held all the cards, and still she managed to throw away her advantages. How to explain that? Maybe the truth is a bit hard to bear? Rather make it about a destined 'true love' that could not be denied rather than a silly young woman too immature to get-a-grip on herself.

and that the royal family did not want Camilla for his wife at first, even after the death of Diana.....

Camilla and Charles were a fling in the early 70's. No mention of marriage. Camilla was dating Parker-Bowles and hell-bent in that direction. And for after Diana's death, I don't know. Maybe you know more about that.

I think honestly there is something to the story that Charles loved Camilla before, during and after Diana......it happens in life to many other people also and people change and grow in different directions as they get older.

That's Diana's spin. How else to explain her own failure at the marriage? This gorgeous woman whom the public adored as 'the all good Diana'? It had to be a condition beyond her control, an evil sorceress, and so it was Diana lit upon the convenience of Camilla.

I will always maintain that Camilla and Charles 'fell in love' during phase 2 of their relationship that began in the late 80's, or at least Charles did. Camilla maybe took more time, we'll never know really, though without question they are a mutually loving couple now. I think Charles is grateful to Camilla to a depth we can only imagine. Camilla really did save him. In effect, Diana threw them together. Diana manifested her worst fear perhaps.

I see Diana as an insecure young woman not knowing who she was with no self-confidence or self-esteem and Charles as more worldly and mature and both had very different interests and views of life...

Yes and no. Diana was a player, Charles actually wasn't. That's the irony. It's staring everyone in the face but none can see the reality: Charles was the one-woman man willing to live a domestic life with wife (Diana), children, gardens, and entertaining. It was Diana who had the itchy feet, unable to focus, seeing no value in anything her recently acquired husband had to offer. (One can only guess at the nightmare Charles found himself confronting 'until death').

It's true, I have enormous sympathy for Charles, far less for Diana who I see as too often purposefully cruel in her self-absorption. I give her very little slack.

even though no one calls this an arranged marriage from all that I have read over the decades, Charles was pressured into marrying by the family and the royal family thought Diana fit the bill for them......they made a huge mistake in that as we have all seen and read.

Seen from Charles' perspective, I am reminded of a quote from the film 'Four Weddings and a Funeral': "Tom: Oh, I don't know, Charlie. Unlike you, I never expected 'the thunderbolt.' I always just hoped that, that I'd meet some nice friendly girl, like the look of her, hope the look of me didn't make her physically sick, then pop the question and, um, settle down and be happy. It worked for my parents. Well, apart from the divorce and all that." It was likely like that for Charles: assumed that a girl from his class would understand what was afoot, and he was right. Diana did know what was afoot. She was one of the girls in the pool of eligible ladies around Charles. She made all the rest up when her wild behavior as the Princess of Wales was being outed. JMO.

 

[M. Payton]

Okay, I will say that the 3 of them really make for a juicy soap-opera don't they. Given all the facts we none of us really know the ins and outs of what went on in their lives. I have read lots of books on them and still get confused to this day, so IMHO I will never know the whole truth of these 3 people. The only thing I do know for sure is that this was a mismatch made in hell for all of them, Yes Diana had her problems as we all can see and for me I see this young girl with no world experience marrying someone who is so far out of her depth at the time as young, inexperienced, and very immature for any man.?

 

[Tsaritsa]

Okay, I will say that the 3 of them really make for a juicy soap-opera don't they. Given all the facts we none of us really know the ins and outs of what went on in their lives. I have read lots of books on them and still get confused to this day, so IMHO I will never know the whole truth of these 3 people. The only thing I do know for sure is that this was a mismatch made in hell for all of them, Yes Diana had her problems as we all can see and for me I see this young girl with no world experience marrying someone who is so far out of her depth at the time as young, inexperienced, and very immature for any man.?

I agree entirely. I see unreasoned dislike and distinct lack of empathy here for a teenage girl, whose main prize for the much older man she married, was her virginity! Who seems to be expected to have had emotional intelligence way beyond the capacity -not of ALL teenage virgins- she was possessed of, because of her own life experience. She appears to be shouldered with the responsibility for her husband straying, ie if the silly child had put up and shut up, as had centuries of her forebears, she'd have kept him? Do women not have the right to expect their husbands to share only THEIR bed? And let's for a moment suppose that Charles' and Camilla's relationship was entirely platonic -and a relationship in which a husband shares secrets with another woman, is emotionally charged, and probably full of sexual yearnings, is FAR more dangerous to a marriage that the odd bonk with willing others- how's the wife going to compete with those intimate gifts passing between husband and girlfriend? How's she going to cope with the in jokes and knowing/meaningful looks which pass between husband and the woman with whom he has a long standing relationship? What I'm talking about here is a TRULY intimate relationship which has stood the test of time. It was the relationship which would have prevented any husband from forming something similar with the woman he was married to.

Charles and Diana both entered the marriage freely. I'm told by her detractors that she loved the title more than the man, but at 19 how much experience of the world -of being in and out of love- did she have. Perhaps we can say that what Charles loved about her was her virginity on one level and her lack of life experience on another. Having availed himself of the former, the chances are, as they were intellectually polarized, the latter may have irritated.

There is absolutely no point in saying he/she SHOULD have. They did or they didn't. I find myself wondering what might have occurred if, instead of Diana going through various therapies alone, if they'd both sought counselling from Relate

 

[Denville]

I think the problems in Charles and Di's marriage would have stumped any counsellor... She was inexperienced.. and that was to be expected but she was also mixed up, immature, and traumatised IMO still by her parents' unhappy marriage. I think when she got married, it brought out again all her own unhappiness as a child.. in that she feared abandonment, she feared that she had walked into a marriage that was doomed to be as bad as her parents..
Charles was fond of her,, its not at all the case that all he prized was her virginity.. but I think that when faced with her lakc of knowledge of many things, coupled with a stubborn side and the irrationality brught about by her bulimia, he realised he had made a mistake...

 

[Curryong]

Yes, and there were Charles's many faults too. Fixed in his ways, stubborn, quite needy, unwilling to see another's points of view, expecting that his young wife would immediately mould herself into his way of life, adopt his friends, etc. making no attempt himself to meet or get to know any of her pals. And unlike Diana with her inexperience, still emotionally bound to another woman....

 

[Denville]

I think that at that time, it was expected that the wife would adapt to her husband and his family, rather than the other way around. But Diana was hardly cut off from her own friends... she was just expected to get on to an extent with Charles' friends. and with the RF. She didn't get on with the RF, within a few months, I think that all of them found her hard to understand... and that she had changed from what she was like during the courtship. I think the queen hoped it was due to pregnancy that she was so emotional and highly strung but it was more than that....

 

[Curryong]

And so none of Charles's flaws or failings had anything to do with the breakdown of the Wales marriage. It was just Diana, Diana all the way, then...

 

[Tsaritsa]

I think the problems in Charles and Di's marriage would have stumped any counsellor... She was inexperienced.. and that was to be expected but she was also mixed up, immature, and traumatised IMO still by her parents' unhappy marriage. I think when she got married, it brought out again all her own unhappiness as a child.. in that she feared abandonment, she feared that she had walked into a marriage that was doomed to be as bad as her parents..
Charles was fond of her,, its not at all the case that all he prized was her virginity.. but I think that when faced with her lakc of knowledge of many things, coupled with a stubborn side and the irrationality brught about by her bulimia, he realised he had made a mistake...

I think we may safely say that, any affection he had for her wasn't entirely unconditional, as possibly can be said of hers, for him once she realized his for her wasn't the all consuming one on one passion that Barbara Cartland novels promised.

 

[Tsaritsa]

And so none of Charles's flaws or failings had anything to do with the breakdown of the Wales marriage. It was just Diana, Diana all the way, then...

I believe we're being encouraged to believe that to be the case, certainly.

 

[Osipi]

A lot of excuses there for her. Believe it the way you will, but accept that the business that Charles was in love with Camilla is purely Diana's spin, with which Charles and Camilla are endlessly hammered with. It is not fact, it is a belief that Diana's story is the one true version.

Even Charles had come out and said "they've turned us into a bloody soap opera".

I do think that Diana sincerely believed that Charles loved Camilla from the get go even before the wedding but perhaps it was a distortion of perspective on Diana's part. Just coming out of her teenage years with a head full of Barbara Cartland romances ideas, with still being quite young, its easy to believe that Diana hadn't reached the mental maturity yet enough to realize that love comes in all different forms.

Because of a fling which ended when Camilla married Andrew, the "romance" part of Camilla and Charles' relationship took on a another form of maintaining a best friend relationship. So, it is very possible to say that Charles continued to "love" Camilla but at that time, it also embraced her husband and Camilla's growing family. Camilla and Charles had an intimate relationship that involved love but I'd compare it to the loving relationship I have with my sister. I love her to the ends of the earth and back but its a totally different relationship than I have with my husband. In some respects, I am able to express myself more openly and honestly with my sister than my husband.

I can kind of echo this triangle in a way by personal experience also. I was married and met a man who became my best friend and confidant during the last years of a ready to be buried marriage. We were not involved romantically at all. In fact, I kind of played "cupid" to help him court and marry someone during this time. He was a port in storm where I could go when I needed to and a calming influence. This is how I envision Charles and Camilla's relationship when they did start seeing each other again when Charles' marriage "irretrievably broke down". Everyone needs a port in storm where they are totally accepted, loved and can be comforted and give comfort.

Like Charles and Camilla, things happened over the years and they both realized they wanted to walk the rest of the way in life together. I did the same with my best friend. 8 years after becoming best friends, being separated from each other (due to other relationships) for a few years, we did the same as Charles and Camilla did and married. That was going on 21 years ago.

Diana, in her perspective, could only see "loving" someone else as a threat to her being loved by her own husband and she wanted, needed and sought to ensure that the only person that Charles loved was her. For me, I think it was due to her age and lack of mental maturity to realize that love isn't confined to just one person or one object or one kind of food. Its tunnel vision when it comes to love. She acted on what she knew.