"The Firm: The Troubled Life of the House of Windsor" by Penny Junor (2005)

[iowabelle]

I was watching The Today Show yesterday when Penny Junor turns up to discuss her new book. From the short interview I guess it's a look at the Royal Family as a business.

The most interesting comment she made IMO was about the triangle of Charles, Diana and Camilla. Penny says that Camilla played no part in the break-up of the marriage. So, I think the logical conclusion is, based on that statement, that if there had been no Camilla, Charles and Diana would still have broken up.

While this might be Penny toadying to Charles and Camilla, reviewers have said that she treats Charles critically in this book.

So what do you all think about that idea? Has anyone read this book yet?

 

[sara1981]

i saw at Barnes and Nobles but i like to read about that between Prince Charles and late Diana,Princess of Wales and Camilla also!

Sara Boyce

 

[auntie]

I was watching The Today Show yesterday when Penny Junor turns up to discuss her new book. From the short interview I guess it's a look at the Royal Family as a business.

The most interesting comment she made IMO was about the triangle of Charles, Diana and Camilla. Penny says that Camilla played no part in the break-up of the marriage. So, I think the logical conclusion is, based on that statement, that if there had been no Camilla, Charles and Diana would still have broken up.

I don't think so, as even if Camilla didn't do anything, her exsistence and history with Charles definitly contributed to the strain on their marriage,, she may have not actively destroyed their marriage, but was a catalyst to their failed marriage, ie: passively contributed to their divorce...

 

[Reina]

She encouraged PCharles to marry Diana too.

 

[una]

Penny says that Camilla played no part in the break-up of the marriage. So, I think the logical conclusion is, based on that statement, that if there had been no Camilla, Charles and Diana would still have broken up.

In the early years of the marriage, Diana incorrectly believed that Charles was still involved with Camilla, and no one could persuade her otherwise. She finally admitted that this was not the case in an 1997 interview with Ingrid Seward.

Throughout her life, Diana was subject to irrational jealousies, Camilla was not the only one, do you know the story of Tiggy and the Christmas party?

Charles and Diana would have broken up anyway. They were hopelessly mismatched, and Diana would have found some other target for her jealousy. Her emotional problems would have made almost any marriage a short one.

 

[Reina]

Your explanation is so one-sided. Charles was immature too. If he was more mature he would have supported Diana. And how do you know that Charles and camilla weren't emotionally broken up?

 

[Elspeth]

I don't remember who it was who said it, but one of the most accurate (in my opinion) commentaries on the Charles-Diana mismatch was by the person who said something like "two emotionally needy people came together and found that they only had demands to make." It's possible that, without Camilla, Charles and Diana would have stayed together, but I don't think it would have been a happy or fulfilling marriage for either of them.

 

[Idriel]

In the early years of the marriage, Diana incorrectly believed that Charles was still involved with Camilla, and no one could persuade her otherwise.

Well Charles famously sported cufflinks spelling his and Camilla's lover nicknames initials during his honeymoon. So maybe they were not lovers anymore, but they were still involved. And I'm not talking about where and with whom he did spend his last bachelor night.

I don't remember who it was who said it, but one of the most accurate (in my opinion) commentaries on the Charles-Diana mismatch was by the person who said something like "two emotionally needy people came together and found that they only had demands to make." It's possible that, without Camilla, Charles and Diana would have stayed together, but I don't think it would have been a happy or fulfilling marriage for either of them.

I totally agree with you. And also with Reina who said that without Camilla, he would maybe have not married Diana in the first place.
This union was doomed from the start anyway.

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

...And how do you know that Charles and camilla weren't emotionally broken up?

I agree; I think they were never emotionally "broken-up". Here's Camilla, though maybe no longer physically involved with Charles, a guest at Diana and Charles' wedding. As an ex-lover, she should have stayed away. On Charles' part, he wore cufflinks Camilla gave him on his wedding night! If those aren't signs of emotional attachment, I don't know what is.

Personally, I think emotional infidelity is just as bad as physical infidelity, if not worse. Your strongest emotional and physical ties should be with your spouse, not with an ex- or with someone else. Anything less than total commitment to each other is making a mockery of marriage as an institution.

On the topic of Penny Junor, I think she's buttering up to Charles and Camilla. I've read a bit of the book and, thought Charles and Camilla don't seem to be the main focus of the book, it's like she's trying to be on both sides of the fence. I guess she'd have to be if she wishes to continue writing about the royals with some degree of first-hand accounts.

 

[Reina]

Yeah. But Diana, towards the end of her life, really started groing up and standing on her own two feet. Perhaps if they were still married she would have matured and maybe that would have helped Charles to mature. Also let's not forget that Charles like the most attention. Diana naturally took the spotlight, which made Charles mad and increased his insecurity.

I don't remember who it was who said it, but one of the most accurate (in my opinion) commentaries on the Charles-Diana mismatch was by the person who said something like "two emotionally needy people came together and found that they only had demands to make." It's possible that, without Camilla, Charles and Diana would have stayed together, but I don't think it would have been a happy or fulfilling marriage for either of them.

 

[Feberin]

I think Charles and Diana would have eventually broken up with or without Camilla. Like others have said they were horribly ill-suited for each other and never should have married.

 

[maryshawn]

And What Role Did The Courtiers Play?

Penny Junor is a supporter of Charles and Diana is no longer with us to give her views of the matter.

Prince Charles was famous for forging deep emotional attachments with married women--Camilla, the lady whose name I can't recall but went by the nickname "Kanga,".....I think one biographer inferred he found them safe, discreet and capable of providing the mothering he felt he needed. And he definitely resented the attention Diana received when she turned almost overnight from a gawky teen sort to a stunning, very personable and popular, "human" royal people clearly related to and liked.

Diana was needy and resented his close friendships with his married female chums and his "horsey" set. Even those who liked/loved her felt it would be difficult to find a man who had all the qualities she needed: successful, always "there" for her, a father figure yet young enough to be fun,......

The marriage was a disaster, undoubtedly. BUT I tend to place blame at the feet of the courtiers who run the Firm. I think I've read almost every book on the marriage and those in Charles and Diana's respective "camps" definitely fueled the fires by "leaking" things, spreading rumors, feeding tidbits to the press, and saying "oh yes, sir or ma'am" whenever Charles and Diana expressed unhappiness with their situation. So the couple's insecurities and jealousies turned into a power struggle--which was essentially a power struggle going on between their "handlers." Now, the behind the scenes lives of the courtiers is the fascinating element in all of this as, at the end of the day, they serve the royal who best serves their own personal interests.

 

[Lady Jean]

maryshawn: Charles' other married lady friend "Kanga" was Dale, Lady Tryon.

 

[maryshawn]

That's it! Thank you. She was a designer whose clothes Diana later wore. I think she died from some terrible illness about 7 years ago.....Seemed like a very nice woman.

maryshawn: Charles' other married lady friend "Kanga" was Dale, Lady Tryon.

 

[iowabelle]

That's it! Thank you. She was a designer whose clothes Diana later wore. I think she died from some terrible illness about 7 years ago.....Seemed like a very nice woman.

Apparently, Charles dumped Kanga rather abruptly and cruelly.

 

[tiaraprin]

I was watching The Today Show yesterday when Penny Junor turns up to discuss her new book. From the short interview I guess it's a look at the Royal Family as a business.

The most interesting comment she made IMO was about the triangle of Charles, Diana and Camilla. Penny says that Camilla played no part in the break-up of the marriage. So, I think the logical conclusion is, based on that statement, that if there had been no Camilla, Charles and Diana would still have broken up.

While this might be Penny toadying to Charles and Camilla, reviewers have said that she treats Charles critically in this book.

So what do you all think about that idea? Has anyone read this book yet?

I work for a major bookstore chain and am starting to read the book. While Diana and Charles were mismatched, Camilla played a big role in making the whole marriage implode. Diana was shy, insecure and kept seeing this woman around who seemed to know more about her husband and what he was doing than her. Charles never gave up his emotional attachment to Camilla and she never gave up hers to him. Charles even got permission from his father supposedly that if the marriage went sour within five years, he could go back to Camilla. Gee, Charles was really positive about his marriage, huh?

Truth be told, I don't think Charles would ever have married and Camilla would have remained a mistress if Charles had the backbone to stand up to his mummy and daddy. He is very much like his great uncle, Edward, looking for maternal affection from safe, married women. Charles was ill equipped to be a husband to any woman at that time--he is selfish, self-absorbed, and surrounded by sycophants. Diana was emotionally wounded from her childhood also. I wish they had never married and Diana lived her life as a commoner. Perhaps she would have found happiness.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wish they had never married and Diana lived her life as a commoner. Perhaps she would have found happiness.

And then we wouldn't even known about her existence and the world wouldn't have her to worship.

 

[Warren]

And then we wouldn't even known about her existence and the world wouldn't have her to worship.

And no Wills and Harry either!

 

[Elspeth]

Nope - we'd be looking at having a Queen Beatrice in the next generation if Charles had never married.

 

[una]

Your explanation is so one-sided. Charles was immature too. If he was more mature he would have supported Diana.

Yes, I see that Charles was somewhat immature too, but I think a fairly "normal" woman could support him. But with Diana, I think only a rare man indeed could have supported her. I don't think we realize just how emotionally demanding she was, and how much support she needed -- living with her on a daily basis would require the patience of a saint. When she was in Buckingham P. before the marriage, she used her footman for support, frequently asking him to stay with her and chat. Here's what he said: "I had night after night talking to her. I would go up at 11 pm to my room exhausted from listening to her. It was terribly mentally draining." And he didn't have the added burden of her mood swings and jealousy.

 

[MariaS]

Interesting speculation. Behind the scenes nonnegotiable camilla was always demanding charles give her lots of attention (telephone calls, visits, parties, and so on) before and after she and the spencers insisted that charles have a "marriage ceremony" with diana and that it be televised wedding of the century (invalid as coercion and forced marriage invalid the legality of such; ditto with Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles insisting on her own public civil union--she is irreverent). Their thinking is that since his union with his spouse was in private and not televised, that if it was not shown on television and no one was told about it then it is not real (as the former Pope would say and some media people, if you don't see it on television then it didn't happen). We are wondering when tagalong will move along. Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles (still wed to Andrew Parker Bowles as no annullment of the Most Holy Roman Catholic marriage til death do them part has been obtained from the Vatican) is with empty title of Duchess (not Princess or Queen with the agreement of Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles) that has no duties, no budget, and no income. She is just there as a nonnegotiable tagalong who the tabloids say is carrying on an affair with her former husband, Mr. Andrew Parker Bowles who is still her spouse. As you know, neither spousal arrangements nor marriages require that any one provide food, housing, clothing, sex, or inheritances to the other person--all that is the business deal side of marriages and is not even broached in spousal arrangements

 

[tiaraprin]

And then we wouldn't even known about her existence and the world wouldn't have her to worship.

I wrote what I did because ultimately Diana deserved to be happy and that is what I most wish for. Her life was short and full of strife. She deserved better, even if we never knew her.

 

[tiaraprin]

Yes, I see that Charles was somewhat immature too, but I think a fairly "normal" woman could support him. But with Diana, I think only a rare man indeed could have supported her. I don't think we realize just how emotionally demanding she was, and how much support she needed -- living with her on a daily basis would require the patience of a saint. When she was in Buckingham P. before the marriage, she used her footman for support, frequently asking him to stay with her and chat. Here's what he said: "I had night after night talking to her. I would go up at 11 pm to my room exhausted from listening to her. It was terribly mentally draining." And he didn't have the added burden of her mood swings and jealousy.

Charles was "somewhat" immature?? That is too funny!! The man is a spoiled, self-absorbed human being who only looks to his comfort and needs. And his biggest need is Camilla, who somehow fufills his lack of emotional security and "love". He has tried to give his sons some of what he lacked, but Charles is not equipped as a father should be.

 

[iowabelle]

When she was in Buckingham P. before the marriage, she used her footman for support, frequently asking him to stay with her and chat. Here's what he said: "I had night after night talking to her. I would go up at 11 pm to my room exhausted from listening to her. It was terribly mentally draining." And he didn't have the added burden of her mood swings and jealousy.

Una, who was the footman? Not Burrell? Curious.

Laura

 

[iowabelle]

Charles was "somewhat" immature?? That is too funny!! The man is a spoiled, self-absorbed human being who only looks to his comfort and needs. And his biggest need is Camilla, who somehow fufills his lack of emotional security and "love". He has tried to give his sons some of what he lacked, but Charles is not equipped as a father should be.

Since the revelations about Charles and his married women, I have come to realize the ironic similarities between Charles and the last Prince of Wales. I hope that Camilla is kinder to Charles than Wallis was to her husband.

 

[Idriel]

Yes, I see that Charles was somewhat immature too, but I think a fairly "normal" woman could support him. But with Diana, I think only a rare man indeed could have supported her. I don't think we realize just how emotionally demanding she was, and how much support she needed -- living with her on a daily basis would require the patience of a saint. When she was in Buckingham P. before the marriage, she used her footman for support, frequently asking him to stay with her and chat. Here's what he said: "I had night after night talking to her. I would go up at 11 pm to my room exhausted from listening to her. It was terribly mentally draining." And he didn't have the added burden of her mood swings and jealousy.

Somewhat immature? Charles is a first class nevrotic. I don't blame him, he had a pretty dreadful childhood.
You tell Diana would spend hours talking to her footman. Well if she had a loving husband next to her and wasn't left on her own, I don't think that would be necessary.
I agree Diana was demanding and had issue (and was at least has much nevrotic than her hubby), but you need to remember that when she married Charles, she was a immature (emotionally and intellectually). Nobody (the RF, Charles, the Palace) even tried to help her. All the doubts, Charles' ambiguous relationships with other women and the loneliness just made her mental state worst.
Would have Charles loved her (or at least pretended), she would have grown up.

 

[Warren]

Shocking revelations!

Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles (still wed to Andrew Parker Bowles as no annullment of the Most Holy Roman Catholic marriage til death do them part has been obtained from the Vatican) is with empty title of Duchess (not Princess or Queen.. who the tabloids say is carrying on an affair with her former husband, Mr. Andrew Parker Bowles who is still her spouse.

aah, if the tabloids are saying Camilla is having an affair with "her former husband Mr Andrew Parker Bowles who is still her spouse" then it MUST be true.

I wonder if Mr APB's current wife is aware he is still married to his first? Surely the Vatican should be condemned for its silence on this shocking state of affairs?
.

 

[Idriel]

aah, if the tabloids are saying Camilla is having an affair with "her former husband Mr Andrew Parker Bowles who is still her spouse" then it MUST be true.

I wonder if Mr APB's current wife is aware he is still married to his first? Surely the Vatican should be condemned for its silence on this shocking state of affairs?
.

. ....

 

[iowabelle]

If the Vatican has anything to say, surely it's only in regard to Andrew PB, the only Catholic in this odd situation. I can't see that any of the Protestants would really care.

And why would Camilla be silly enough to sneak around with her ex-husband (the one that she didn't seem too excited about when she was married to him)?

 

[una]

Una, who was the footman? Not Burrell? Curious.

Laura

His name was Mark Smpson. He was assigned to her throughout her stay at Buckingham P before the wedding. He also said her loneliness at that time was her own doing as she cut herself off. He tells a funny story of how she grabbed him as he walked along a corridor at Sandringham, pulled him into a lavatory and locked the door, wanting to talk to him. "I used to agree with what she said so I could get away". Eventually he got into trouble after she asked him to go for a walk with her, and he tried to stay out of her way after that.