Charles and Camilla - The Early Years (1970s)

[COUNTESS]

Camilla is an opportuntist. Charles had his life carved out for him. He felt he could have both sides of his bread buttered, so to speak. He never worried about how he would conduct his "affair". It never happened before that a Princess of Wales went public. Times change. Diana, actually, wanted a full time husband. In her circumstances and set, that was ridiculous, but there was this insecure, teenager married to the POW. She wasn't sharing, but to her dismay, she didn't have to, he chose, the other woman, who made him feel important, loved and brilliant. Wow!!! She was smarter than Diana, and, certainly, had more experience, with men.

 

[Tyger]

I don't see how Camilla was an opportunist. If anyone was an opportunist it was Diana - a young woman who lies to the man about her interests (she claimed she liked blood sports to Charles) when she and Charles were 'dating' is the 'opportunist'. She saw Amanda Knatchbull decline the 'prize' and she knew now the chance had come round to her - and from all the evidence, she played her hand very well and won what all others had not.

There is no question that Diana suffered some serious self-image problems and for that deserves compassion, not censure - but those problems are part and parcel of control issues. I would not say she was insecure in those early days as perhaps too demanding - from what I gather. She seems to have absolutely believed that she should 'rule' and was discomfited with the reality of couple living - with a man who also was accustomed to be the final word. He had given her everything - by choosing her he had given her status and life-long privileges. He had favored her and in return she made it about herself, rather than him, her husband, from which all her status came.

Diana 'going public' was her attempt to control Charles - and to make it about her, again. Diana 'going public' was the saddest and most awful thing to watch - she had lost her moorings, her sense of 'self'. I winced as the drama proceeded and wondered why no one stopped it.

As best as I can make out, Camilla was as we all are in a loving relationship - supportive - something Diana was not, because it was about her. In that she was very immature. That's what I wind up seeing - I didn't see it at once, but eventually I came to realize what she had done. Camilla, for her part, was the friend of friends to Charles. I find Camilla remarkable the more I consider her.

 

[sirhon11234]

Camilla is an opportuntist. Charles had his life carved out for him. He felt he could have both sides of his bread buttered, so to speak. He never worried about how he would conduct his "affair". It never happened before that a Princess of Wales went public. Times change. Diana, actually, wanted a full time husband. In her circumstances and set, that was ridiculous, but there was this insecure, teenager married to the POW. She wasn't sharing, but to her dismay, she didn't have to, he chose, the other woman, who made him feel important, loved and brilliant. Wow!!! She was smarter than Diana, and, certainly, had more experience, with men.

I agree. Camilla along with being older than Diana was also a lot more mature than her. She was able to fulfill the needs of Charles that Diana couldn't fulfill because she was too emotionally immature and had the same needs that Charles had.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree. Camilla along with being older than Diana was also a lot more mature than her. She was able to fulfill the needs of Charles that Diana couldn't fulfill because she was too emotionally immature and had the same needs that Charles had.

That doesn't make Camilla an opportunist but shows up why the marriage shouldn't have ever taken place - too needy people who should never have been together.

Diana had a romantic belief in life and her family gave her no guidance as they only saw the prize - the throne with a Spencer on it.

Camilla was quite happy being in the background as a friend but Diana had Camilla in her head and sent Charles, as a result back to Camilla's bed. I really do believe that Charles left Diana due to Diana being too demanding, too selfish, and too spoilt to give anything to the marriage as she expected to be spoilt by Charles for the rest of her life but he also understood that there was a duty to perform. By the time she understood that concept the marriage had ended and she had made her story, and her lies, public to manipulate people into believing her 'poor, pretty little me - I have been hardly used and you will all love me and pity me and take revenge on my husband for me'. She was the oppportunist who had it all and threw it away with her lack of trust which also shows a lack of love - which she admits she had as she entered the marriage.

 

[sirhon11234]

I never said Camilla was an opportunist, I should have made that clearer when I quoted Countess's post. I refuse to take sides on this old and tired argument of Charles and Camilla as the innocent victims vs Diana the spoiled evil witch, and that goes vice versa. Its pointless because that triangle is complex and not just black and white. These three people are not victims nor are they villains. All they wanted was to truly be with someone they loved. Yes they made bad decisions trying to get what they wanted but that doesen't make Charles, Diana, and Camilla bad people. At times selfish, definetly, but not bad. Its getting quite old that some feel the need to vilify these three. I see the negative and positive sides to Diana, Camilla, and Charles. The positive out weighs the negative imo.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am sorry that your post about Camilla being an opportunist wasn't clearer as I too tend to keep clear these days believing that most people know my views on these three and all the rest of those in the marriage - Diana's lovers and the two families and the staff and 'grey men' etc.

 

[muriel]

I suspect this conversation may have veered far off the topic of the thread.

 

[Zonk]

Indeed it has....once AGAIN we are not going backwards and discussing
Diana but the early relationship of Charles and Camilla.

 

[scooter]

As intertwined as the 3 stories are, I dont really know how one can discuss one without the others.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Obviously the early relationship has to be pre-Diana - simple.

 

[Zonk]

Exactly.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Zonk may I suggest that the title of the thread add the notes that it is 'pre-Diana' and then people shouldn't be going off topic so easily as it would be clearer about the time period.

 

[scooter]

Just to be clear can we have a cut off year, which might narrow the discussion? Thank you!

 

[Roslyn]

Perhaps the cut-off date could be 3rd July 1973, since Camilla married Andrew on the 4th.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Perhaps the cut-off date could be 3rd July 1973, since Camilla married Andrew on the 4th.

However Charles and Camilla were involved and their friendship was strengthening after that date.

I would suggest the summer of 1980 when Diana started to come on the scene with Charles.

 

[BellaFay]

However Charles and Camilla were involved and their friendship was strengthening after that date.

I would suggest the summer of 1980 when Diana started to come on the scene with Charles.

Diana was invited to Balmoral for the August bank holiday weekend by her brother-in-law Robert Fellowes on behalf of the Queen. Prince Charles's guests were Camilla & Andrew Parker-Bowles (who were considering getting divorced) and Nicolas Soames (with whose sister Andrew was then having an affair). There is no evidence that Prince Charles had any interest in Diana until January 1981 - 1 month before their engagement was announced.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana was invited to Balmoral for the August bank holiday weekend by her brother-in-law Robert Fellowes on behalf of the Queen. Prince Charles's guests were Camilla & Andrew Parker-Bowles (who were considering getting divorced) and Nicolas Soames (with whose sister Andrew was then having an affair). There is no evidence that Prince Charles had any interest in Diana until January 1981 - 1 month before their engagement was announced.

They were on a number of dates before that.

I was in London in December 1980 and she was in the press then and being mentioned as a prospective bride - I still have the papers from then as souvenirs of my trip (I bought a paper every day). They were predicting a February engagement.

 

[Roslyn]

The frenzy started after 7.9.80 when Diana was spotted by Ken Lennox and James Whitaker with Charles while he was fishing in the River Dee at Balmoral. This was the occasion when she walked up to a tree and hid behind it and watched them with a mirror. Her behaviour made them curious and after that occasion her identity was discovered. In October 1980 The Sun had a headline stating Charles and Di would marry the following year.

Don't have time right now to hunt for the actual copy interview with Lennox, but this timing sounds right.

See: frontline: princess and the press: the royals and the press

Maybe the cutoff date for this thread should be the end of summer (i.e. 31st August) 1980, since as at that time there was no hint of a relationship between Charles and Diana.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So in this article it is claiming that Camilla was with Charles prior to the marriage - is this a reliable source? This is Christopher Wilson with the Daily Mail - is it legit? Was the documentary correct?

Charles and Camilla were certainly lovers in the 1970s.

That has never really been questioned.

To discuss that issue further is beyond the remit of this thread.

 

[EmpressRouge]

The frenzy started after 7.9.80 when Diana was spotted by Ken Lennox and James Whitaker with Charles while he was fishing in the River Dee at Balmoral. This was the occasion when she walked up to a tree and hid behind it and watched them with a mirror. Her behaviour made them curious and after that occasion her identity was discovered. In October 1980 The Sun had a headline stating Charles and Di would marry the following year.

Don't have time right now to hunt for the actual copy interview with Lennox, but this timing sounds right.

See: frontline: princess and the press: the royals and the press

Maybe the cutoff date for this thread should be the end of summer (i.e. 31st August) 1980, since as at that time there was no hint of a relationship between Charles and Diana.

I remember that story, too, about when the press first photographed Diana dating (or hanging out with) Charles. I forget which book, but it mentioned the photographers staked out the spot hoping to catch Charles fishing with then-rumored girlfriend Anna Wallace, but instead saw the younger Diana, and that's how the media sensation started.

 

[Tyger]

Have I misunderstood?

Charles and Camilla were certainly lovers in the 1970s.

That has never really been questioned.

To discuss that issue further is beyond the remit of this thread.

Confused - is not the thread about Charles' and Camillia's relationship prior to the advent of Diana? Wouldn't that be the 1970's? Or have I misunderstood it and its really after Charles hooks up with Diana?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Confused - is not the thread about Charles' and Camillia's relationship prior to the advent of Diana? Wouldn't that be the 1970's? Or have I misunderstood it and its really after Charles hooks up with Diana?

Sorry - I meant to discuss further involvement after the advent of Diana - that issue is contentious to its beginning.

 

[Tyger]

Okay, good - because I am seeing from another thread that that is a point of contention. Would love to get all that clarified.

 

[BellaFay]

They were on a number of dates before that.

I was in London in December 1980 and she was in the press then and being mentioned as a prospective bride - I still have the papers from then as souvenirs of my trip (I bought a paper every day). They were predicting a February engagement.

Yes the papers were being leaked stories about Diana from the Palace via Robert Fellowes (the Queen's then assistant private secretary in charge of press relations). Diana's behaviour at Balmoral hiding unsuccessfully behind a tree took place behind Charles's back quite literally! And there is no evidence that Charles actually had anything to do with Diana until after December. What we do have documentary evidence for is that in early December the Queen wrote a letter to a female friend despairing of the fact that Charles had still not made any move towards proposing to Diana. We know this because the letter was offered for sale on ?E-bay sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000 according to an article in the Daily Mirror.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Is this private information? I haven't heard these things, and I've read a fair bit over the years.

Prince Charles's guests were Camilla & Andrew Parker-Bowles (who were considering getting divorced) and Nicolas Soames (with whose sister Andrew was then having an affair).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is this private information? I haven't heard these things, and I've read a fair bit over the years.

I too have read a fair bit over the years and have never heard any suggestion that Andrew and Camilla considered getting a divorce before the Morton book and Dimbleby interviews put their relationship in the public eye. They had a marriage that worked for them at the time, and I suspect that with no Morton book or tit-fotr-tat interviews, they would still be together.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That was my impression, that it was the Dimbleby interview that "outed" Camilla and precipitated the Parker-Bowles divorce.

IThey had a marriage that worked for them at the time, and I suspect that with no Morton book or tit-fotr-tat interviews, they would still be together.

 

[Tyger]

Yes the papers were being leaked stories about Diana from the Palace via Robert Fellowes (the Queen's then assistant private secretary in charge of press relations). Diana's behaviour at Balmoral hiding unsuccessfully behind a tree took place behind Charles's back quite literally! And there is no evidence that Charles actually had anything to do with Diana until after December. What we do have documentary evidence for is that in early December the Queen wrote a letter to a female friend despairing of the fact that Charles had still not made any move towards proposing to Diana. We know this because the letter was offered for sale on ?E-bay sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000 according to an article in the Daily Mirror.

My understanding has been that the Balmoral visit was their third 'outing'. First was at ' a friend's barbecue in July', then Cowes, then Balmoral - with a 'courtship' in the fall - which would have amounted to a handful of 'dates' - some of which were spent visiting friends in his circle, like Camilla and her husband - after which Charles went off on a trip in the winter telling Diana that he would be asking her a question when she returned in January, which wound up being the beginning of February. The 'thinness' of this 'courtship' is really scary - for anyone to make such a serious decision based on such skimpy acquaintance - urg! Brave - or....

Perhaps Charles trusted 'the system'. Diana was after all from a family he knew, dated the sister, 'knew' Diana since 1977 when she was 16. She was part of the 'in crowd' though not among his circle of friends. Doesn't it make sense that Diana would have been acquainted with the 'marital arrangements' of what were her 'set' as much as Charles'? It would have been going on all around her - how could she have not known that married though one might be, dalliances were the norm? When I look at what Diana says about her coming into the Royal Family its like she is saying she was from another planet - when in fact she was particularly within their sphere. I can never get Diana's insistence that she was 'alone' to line up with what must have been quite another reality, don't you think? It just makes sense that people would have been keenly intent on making sure she was okay - especially Charles. She would have been communicated with daily - yet she conveys this impression that she was adrift somehow. I have always felt that Diana, when describing those days of the engagement, is leaving out a whole chunk - because there must have been a whirlwind of meetings about the wedding (with Charles), about dresses and flowers and guests and details too numerous to mention. It has always puzzled me why people really do believe Diana when she says she was just 'left hanging' - that's the way she makes it sound. Was Camilla, as part of Charles' circle, helping Diana then? It would make sense - and was Camilla the only one of Charles' friends to be helping Diana? If Camilla was a significant help to Charles acclimating Diana to her new life - Diana could not admit that she was in fact being helped because it would have been Camilla she would have had to mention. Was there any other female friend of Charles who was helping Diana then?

I really wonder what Charles could have been thinking to be persuaded that Diana was a good bet even without really knowing her? What was there about her - or her situation and his - that led him to believe she was okay? I think it was Diana's eagerness and emotional surety at that time that swayed him, to be honest, up to the engagement. I can't imagine that Charles chose Diana with the intention of not being a good husband - you can see his care of her in those early pictures. I am one who believes Charles - what he says has the ring of authenticity - that he wandered only after the marriage was 'irretrievably broken'. He's saying yes he did, but under these conditions - it rings true. Until then who knows? Who knows when Diana pieced together what she thought was the story.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that Diana was likely keen to show Charles only the positive aspects of her personality during their courtship. Diana had charming qualities, as anyone who watched those videos of her being chased around London could see. She was patient, she was kind, she loved children, she laughed easily, she had fine manners. Her family had served the monarchy for years, and Diana spent many of her growing up years on the Sandringham estate. As far as we know, the Romseys were the only couple who told him that they didn't think that Diana was right for him. Robert Lacey, I believe, was of the opinion that Charles really fell for Diana in Australia, when he realized that he "had a winner" because of how interested in her the Australians were. Perhaps it was a case of "absence making the heart grow fonder." It was in India that he decided to marry her, apparently.

I really wonder what Charles could have been thinking to be persuaded that Diana was a good bet even without really knowing her? What was there about her - or her situation and his - that led him to believe she was okay? I think it was Diana's eagerness and emotional surety at that time that swayed him, to be honest, up to the engagement. I can't imagine that Charles chose Diana with the intention of not being a good husband - you can see his care of her in those early pictures. I am one who believes Charles - what he says has the ring of authenticity - that he wandered only after the marriage was 'irretrievably broken'. He's saying yes he did, but under these conditions - it rings true. Until then who knows? Who knows when Diana pieced together what she thought was the story.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When I look at what Diana says about her coming into the Royal Family its like she is saying she was from another planet - when in fact she was particularly within their sphere.

Shortly after the engagement or wedding she was asked 'what is it like having afternoon tea with the Queen and she replied - nothing unusual I have been doing it all my life' so she did know the system and the expectations about the royal family. She had played with Andrew and Edward as children.