Charles and Diana

[roseroyal]

To add to this, it should be noted that the titles of wives are do not denote that they *hold* the title. They're "courtesy titles" extended to the spouse of the peer or royal that actually holds them.

OK that makes sense. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me. Happens to me folks.

 

[roseroyal]

The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.

That makes sense now. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me.

 

[Osipi]

That makes sense now. I was wrong. Emotions clouded me.

This is why these threads are so valuable for educational purposes. It's also why I seek to check off my "learn something new every day" box. Sometimes it pays to be wrong about something because then through intelligent discussions, you learn just *why* you were wrong.

An intelligent person is one that isn't afraid to change their mind about something because they've learned something. ?

 

[roseroyal]

I was wrong because I let my emotions rule. I’m wrong because I thought a title was about a person- not a role. And I’m not afraid to say I was wrong.
BTW my opinion about titles changed. I still have strong opinions about the people. I’m sorry if that’s judgmental.

 

[Sandy345]

The wife of an Earl is a Countess. The wife of a Prince is a Princess. The wife of a Baron is a Baroness. The wife of King is a Queen.

The first wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The second wife of the Earl Spencer was the Countess Spencer.
The third wife of the Earl Spencer is the Countess Spencer.

There is no judgement on character, morality, religion, previous relationships, whatever. They are what they are: the married female spouse of a Peer or of a royal.

When they remarry though they would not hold the titles, correct?

 

[Osipi]

When they remarry though they would not hold the titles, correct?

Correct. They would take their titles (if any) from their current spouse.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Correct. They would take their titles (if any) from their current spouse.

When some people here in the States have spoken of the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, they did not know that she was actually Lady Diana before the wedding.

 

[Osipi]

When some people here in the States have spoken of the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, they did not know that she was actually Lady Diana before the wedding.

Also, a lot of people do not know that Diana was *never* Princess Diana. Diana would often correct people that addressed her as such. She was either The Princess of Wales or she was Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce from Charles.

 

[Moran]

Also, a lot of people do not know that Diana was *never* Princess Diana. Diana would often correct people that addressed her as such. She was either The Princess of Wales or she was Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce from Charles.

I was in my 5th grade (first year of a new language at school then) when in my English textbook we got a text about someone meeting "Princess Diana". You can imagine how complex the text was - it was meant for kids who were just starting with the language. But it reinforced both the wrong style AND her star quality.

It didn't have a picture, though.

It was a British textbook, I think. We didn't get American ones at the time.

 

[Osipi]

I have to admit that it was 2008 before I knew that "Princess Diana" was not who she was. Of course that was added to a bazillion other things I learned since I joined here looking for silly Ascot hats.

And people wonder why I have a "learn something new every day" box. Most days, I check it off here.

 

[Moran]

An old British friend of my mum's had left her loads of English books when he left. I realized "Princess Diana" might not be who she was when I chanced upon a book featuring (very wrongly, of course) the life at Edward III's court.

My mum just shook her head and said something along the lines of, "I've been begging you to read something in English for years. For YEARS. And when you finally do, you go for the soap opera. Naturally!"

For years, she despaired of my reluctance to learn English. Highly unfortunate for a student in an English language school, I have to admit.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In 1992 Diana had declared that she and Prince Charles had met 13 times and then they had gotten married. Thirteen times does not seem like a long time for a couple to get aquainted.

 

[Blog Real]

Charles and Diana started their relationship how long before they got married?
I think everything would have been different if Charles' relationship with Lady Sarah, Diana's sister, had worked out.
But I also think Charles would have always come back to Camilla.

 

[Osipi]

Charles and Diana started their relationship how long before they got married?
I think everything would have been different if Charles' relationship with Lady Sarah, Diana's sister, had worked out.
But I also think Charles would have always come back to Camilla.

I believe he would have too. The difference with Charles' relationship with Diana was not only did they "court' for a very short amount of time before marriage but they also didn't give the relationship time to develop into a deep, intimate friendship. Mutual attraction fades into dust if there's not something substantial underlining it and checking off the boxes on a piece of paper mean absolutely nothing at all when you're committing to something such as a marriage is. It helps to know one another before you go to the altar.

 

[Denville]

I dont think a longer courtship would have made much difference. I think that both of them were blinded at the time by various things. Diana wanted a splendid marriage.. and she was blinded by that need to give the impression to Charles that she really was happy with all his interests and the lifestyle that the RF led. Diana's sister said that she did not love Charles and was not interested ina serious relationship with him.. and while he was fond of her, I dont know of his being seriously interested in her... so that relationship was never likely to end in marriage. Charles was probalby panicking that he needed to get married, that it was his duty and that he had left it a bit late, as Philip put it, all the eligible girls were taken.. so he convinced himself that Diana was the right choice and nerved himself to make the commitment to her though he had his doubts.
And if Charles had married a woman that he got on with, and had developed a settled relationship with, I dont think he would have returned to Camilla

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think if Charles was more confident back then and more independent minded, he probably would have not married Diana or at least they would have handled things better even after divorcing.

 

[A Tudor]

This was probably already discussed, but I've always considered the 1992's ''separation'' plan somewhat delusional. Maybe the Palace was trying to buy some time in order a reconciliation could take place or whatever, but the chances of that happening were slim to none.



I wonder how different things would be had the divorce be done in 1993.

 

[Stefanie]

I could' ve imagined Charles mentioning Diana in his first speech after the Queen' s death in some way. She didn' t believe him to ever become King after all and now that Camilla is indeed Queen consort there may be a lot of her fans who can' t endure that fact.

 

[muriel]

I could' ve imagined Charles mentioning Diana in his first speech after the Queen' s death in some way. She didn' t believe him to ever become King after all and now that Camilla is indeed Queen consort there may be a lot of her fans who can' t bare that fact.

Not sure why Charles would bring Diana up in any speech now. He was married to her for 15 years, they divorced 26 years ago. He has since been married to Camilla for 17 years.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Not sure why Charles would bring Diana up in any speech now. He was married to her for 15 years, they divorced 26 years ago. He has since been married to Camilla for 17 years.

Seriously. What good would it do? Besides, if there are still people who can't accept that Camilla is queen, well, that's their issue to deal with.

 

[Alison H]

Why would he mention Diana? Their marriage ended 30 years ago. Anyone who still has a problem with Camilla after 17 years of exemplary service needs to get over themselves.

 

[Meee]

I would have a problem with it if Charles predeceased Camilla and she was treated in exactly the same way as The Queen Mother was, since she isn’t the mother of the future King. Obviously they shouldn’t just say thank you for your service, off you go but things like a lying in state and being eligible to serve as CoS in William’s reign in the way that QEQM was (although I understand that that provision was specific to her, so this wouldn’t happen as things stand.)

If anything in recent years she seems to be more popular than Charles himself.

I wasn’t particularly happy that she would be known as Queen (I am not a huge Diana fan or anything) after it was said at the time of the marriage that she wouldn’t, as it feels like moving the goalposts, but I look at it this way: Charles was basically forced to marry as though The Firm were picking a pedigree for the heir. Why Camilla wasn’t suitable I have no idea. Ok, she wasn’t a virgin but Queen Victoria’s mother certainly wasn’t given that she already had two children and that was well over 100 years before. Perhaps a knee jerk reaction to the abdication crisis, and perhaps the RF wouldn’t ideally have approved the then Duke of Kent’s marriage but there was a succession crisis at the time. Maybe they weren’t all that fond of the fact Camilla’s royal blood was illegitimate, but whatever it was, that wasn’t Charles and Camilla’s fault. Diana should never have been dragged in if Charles didn’t have any feelings for her, and I feel that the Queen welcoming Camilla and stating that she wished her to be Queen was her way of saying that The Firm had made a mistake in not allowing Charles to marry her in the first place. She saw how unhappy Charles and Diana were, she saw Margaret unhappy and the man Margaret was allowed to marry turn out to have fathered a child with somebody else behind another man’s back and presumably Margaret’s as well before the wedding. I am glad they are modernising and hope that the Sussexes won’t have put the RF five steps backwards for the sake of other family members’ future happiness.

I don’t blame Diana either - was it any wonder she sought security by marrying the one person who (we thought) couldn’t divorce. The ‘wrong gender’ probably wasn’t put on her sisters to the same extent, as their parents hadn’t lost a son at that point. The Spencers (not those currently living) also have some responsibility for the whole thing. It was a tragedy in more ways than one.

I am of the opinion that no member of the Royal Family should be expected to marry and have children if they don’t want to, and maybe we’ll see that in the future. But if Charles had refused to marry because he wasn’t allowed Camilla, we would now have Andrew as the heir.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Charles and Diana both kept up appearances for as long as possible, according to both of them. They did get together for occasions involving the children.

Do you think that Queen Elizabeth II was happy that Charles and Diana kept up appearances?

 

[Somebody]

I would have a problem with it if Charles predeceased Camilla and she was treated in exactly the same way as The Queen Mother was, since she isn’t the mother of the future King. Obviously they shouldn’t just say thank you for your service, off you go but things like a lying in state and being eligible to serve as CoS in William’s reign in the way that QEQM was (although I understand that that provision was specific to her, so this wouldn’t happen as things stand.)

If anything in recent years she seems to be more popular than Charles himself.
(...)

I don't see why being the 'mother of a king' is more important than being the 'wife of a king'. Camilla is queen (the consort of a monarch) and whether she passes before or after Charles, should be treated as such.

Nonetheless, I don't expect William to ask for Camilla to be appointed as CoS for her lifetime. Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was appointed as such at a much younger age in support of a very young queen. Hopefully, by the time William becomes king, if Camilla is still alive, she'll be well in her 80s or 90s, so it would make more sense to call upon the younger generation at that point.

 

[kimebear]

Why Camilla wasn’t suitable I have no idea. Ok, she wasn’t a virgin but Queen Victoria’s mother certainly wasn’t given that she already had two children and that was well over 100 years before.

I think it was less about her actual virginity and more about the open knowledge of her ongoing relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles at the same time she was seeing Charles. A royal prince could be a known philanderer, but the future wife of the heir to the throne could not be.

The palace wanted young and pure and preferably titled if not royal. Love didn't seem to be a requirement in the equation.

 

[Toledo]

Do you think that Queen Elizabeth II was happy that Charles and Diana kept up appearances?

I assume with all the experience seen how her father and grandmother Queen Mary dealt with Wallis Simpson and king Edward, and her own experience with her sister Princess Margaret and daughter Princess Anne divorces, she probably hoped for the best and that the couple would figure out on their own what to do with their marriage.

 

[Denville]

I assume with all the experience seen how her father and grandmother Queen Mary dealt with Wallis Simpson and king Edward, and her own experience with her sister Princess Margaret and daughter Princess Anne divorces, she probably hoped for the best and that the couple would figure out on their own what to do with their marriage.

I would say the queen was very annoyed that they Did NOT keep up appearances all htat well. Even before things began to get really bad, they rarely worked together and the press knew that they were leaidng separate lives. Then they began to snipe at each other in the papers, and make their unhappiness public.

 

[Ista]

This thread is for discussion about Charles and Diana. If you wish to discuss Camilla and Charles, please move the discussion to that thread.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Sadly I have to agree with you Osipi. While they did sound "perfect on paper," they were two very different personalities with little in common. If they'd spent more time together as a courting couple, perhaps they'd come to realize that they were not well suited to each other.

I do agree that Prince Charles and Lady Diana sounded "perfect on paper". However, had they dated a lot longer, they would have learned about their dislikes. Even if Diana had disappointed her father Earl Spencer by not marrying the Prince, would she have been a happier lady?

 

[Ganon91]

I do wonder how much their marriage troubles and all the drama left a scare on Harry compared to William. I agree that in part the marriage should not be so quick, or allowed to divorce quicker when it was clear they two clashed more than loved. Sadly I think this was an instance where Liz allowed the ghost of her uncle and Wallis drama to haunt her maybe too strongly.