Charles and Diana

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I also believe that Charles and Camilla had a sexually relationship at least up until he met or got engaged to Diana. But that does not mean he had a lover after he was with Diana.
On the other hand, wth! Diana egged a guys car? That screams volumes to me more tha. The stuffed animals....never mind I know women who have stuffed animals but they don't sleep with them.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

She not only egged James Gilbey's car she laughed and bragged about it, as did her flatmates. They all thought it was the most clever thing in the world.

One of her lovers during the 80's remembers seeing all the childhood stuffed toys lined up on a sofa in her sitting room. He said it made him a little uncomfortable.(Diana In Search of Herself-auth. Sally Bedell-Smith)

If that doesn't scream emotional immaturity I rest my case.

 

[Dman]

Diana kept a great deal of stuffed animals, especially on her bed. A lot of them came from children and other well wishers, when she went out on public engagements. Some of the stuffed animals were given to children in hospitals, and some she kept.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I kept some of my stuffed toys in my room during my 20's too Dman, even though I did not sleep with them. I included the information about Diana to support my opinion about her lack of emotional maturity. The idea that has been conveyed by people who were close to her is that she was very attached to them far beyond childhood.

 

[Dman]

I kept some of my stuffed toys in my room during my 20's too Dman, even though I did not sleep with them. I included the information about Diana to support my opinion about her lack of emotional maturity. The idea that has been conveyed by people who were close to her is that she was very attached to them far beyond childhood.

Well, I don't know. I would think, Diana keeping some of her stuffed animals that were given to her by members of the public, meant that she appreciated the things they gave her. I know people who's way older than Diana was, have kept some stuffed animals, that was given as gifts, in their rooms and top of their dressers.

I guess you could see this in different ways.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I'm not talking about the period of her marriage. I am referring mainly to the time she lived in her London flat as a young woman. In her defense, a person's teen years are not that far removed from the nursery. Given the circumstances of Diana's fraught and unstable childhood the attachment to stuffed animals might have symbolized her need for security, as well as arrested emotional development. I am not denigrating her for it, just trying to understand.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Chiming in

I am no Diana apologist or for Charles for that matter.
I think they both did some terrible wrong. I, however, think that Charles started it.

You know, we have those very famous shots of Diana at Polo matches and other events with Camilla supposedly as her escort, helping her out etc. How nice. I think I would have wanted to kill them both when I finally realized what a fool I must have looked to all their "in" crowd. Talk about humiliated and hurt.

But I think Diana's family bare some blame for the marriage going forward.
Her sisters have to have known all about the CC relationship. Her father probably knew. Did they try to warn her off? We'll never know. If she did go to them with doubts, they needed to support her in calling the whole thing off. I think she wanted to call it off and felt she couldn't.

I have always felt that if Diana were even a year of so older, the whole thing would have played out very differently and she would still be Princess of Wales today. I don't think Diana realized what a power hand she had in the weeks leading up to the wedding if she threatened to pull out.


None of this excuses Diana's chasing after men or trying to destroy the royal family. Or the years that followed where she played the victim card expertly. She was entirely right when she described herself as thick as a plank. She evidently didn't realize that had she been successful in bringing down the monarchy, she would have destroyed William and Harry's future right along with the rest.

This is all just my own opinion.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Excellent post, Ana von Cleves. I 100% agree with almost every word. The exception is that sadly I do not believe a year or even 2-3 years would have made a difference for that marriage. Diana did not seem to begin to heal and come into herself as a woman until shortly before her death at age 36.

I also keep remembering Charles's infamous response to the question of whether or not he was in love with his gorgeous young fiancée. "What ever love means"?? Really? The look on Diana's face when he said that-and I remember it well-haunts me to this day. She tried to giggle, but for a brief fraction of a second her face fell like a soufflé.

Granted it was a stupid and impertinent question that should never have been asked, but Charles's PUBLIC humiliation of that girl is something I have never been quite able to understand. If that had been my child I would have done all in my power to break the engagement at that point, Royal wedding and millions of dollars spent be d---ned!

 

[Dman]

I'm not talking about the period of her marriage. I am referring mainly to the time she lived in her London flat as a young woman. In her defense, a person's teen years are not that far removed from the nursery. Given the circumstances of Diana's fraught and unstable childhood the attachment to stuffed animals might have symbolized her need for security, as well as arrested emotional development. I am not denigrating her for it, just trying to understand.

Oh, I see.

None of this excuses Diana's chasing after men or trying to destroy the royal family. Or the years that followed where she played the victim card expertly. She was entirely right when she described herself as thick as a plank. She evidently didn't realize that had she been successful in bringing down the monarchy, she would have destroyed William and Harry's future right along with the rest.

This is all just my own opinion.

Diana did not bring down the Monarchy or even tried to destroy it. She and Charles was locked in a bitter separation and later divorce, and they did some crazy things that didn't make the royal family and palace officials happy, but the Monarchy didn't cave under their drama. Historically, the Monarchy has been through a lot worse things and survived.

Storms come and go, but the Monarchy carries on.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).

 

[Dman]

Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).

It may have worked in the very old days, today, you mess around with someones wife or husband and there's a very high possibility that someone will come up missing. You have to be very careful in playing those very dangerous games.

Aristocracy, upper class or not, messing around or getting the "cookie" from another person other than your partner, could make a person wake up dead on the bottom of an ocean, lol.

 

[casualfan]

Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).

Disgusting. Just appalling. Just arcane and disgusting and appalling. Yikes.

 

[Nice Nofret]

oh well - I don't like prudes and hypocrites ... or this instant-marrying and divorcing some americans do eather Only because You don't share their way of live - no reason to condem them. Maybe you could consider, that there are more than one way to happiness and having a life.

Life isn't just black and white, and you always have to compromise - it's everybody's choice on what exactly you compromise If you are not willing to compromise - you are a wrecking ball to the social fabric.

Every group has unwritten rules you are expected to play by...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It would not surprise me in the least if Camilla and Charles had at least the hope that they could continue their special "friendship" after the wedding. It's probably why Diana was vetted in their circle, to see if she was as pliable as many assumed she would be because of her youth. And she must have initially given them the impression that she was.

How wrong everyone turned out to be on so many levels. The sad irony is that if Diana had been willing to be in a traditional aristocratic marriage with all that implies, she would have held on to both her man and her marriage. With age and maturity, and a certain determined emotional edge, she and Charles might have found common ground. Combined with their mutual and deep love for their children and Diana's undeniable physical advantages, my personal belief is that Camilla would have eventually faded out of the picture. And I have NEVER bought the idea that Charles was Camilla's great love. She loved her husband Andrew deeply despite his betrayals, and didn't really want to ever divorce him.

Charles and Camilla were not an inevitability. Diana virtually handed him over.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It may have worked in the very old days, today, you mess around with someones wife or husband and there's a very high possibility that someone will come up missing. You have to be very careful in playing those very dangerous games.

Aristocracy, upper class or not, messing around or getting the "cookie" from another person other than your partner, could make a person wake up dead on the bottom of an ocean, lol.

Thats a flasehood. There are still rich married couples who live separate lives with different partners in the UK and the US. It is common amongst sports that men sleep around and their wives deal with it in their own ways. I dont condone it, but such practices were not just done in the old days.

 

[Dman]

Thats a flasehood. There are still rich married couples who leave separated lives with different partners in the UK and the US. It is common amongst sports that men sleep around and their wives deal with it in their own ways. I dont condone it, but such practices were not just done in the old days.

It all just seems very unsanitary to me. Why not appreciate what you have at home? If the marriage or relationship don't work out, separate/divorce and move on. I would never sleep around behind my girlfriend/or wife's back. It seems like too much work anyway. Trying to keep up with the one you have at home is enough work. With what's going on all around the world, who have the time and energy to be a 'rollin stone' or 'playa playa from the himalaya'?

 

[wyevale]

Disgusting. Just appalling. Just arcane and disgusting and appalling

NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.

 

[casualfan]

NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.

For this particular monarchy, though, who also profess to be "Christian," shouldn't this attitude be theirs, too?

But putting religion aside-completely aside-what respect for family and your future children does this "well, they should have been friends for his sake" mentality show? I mean, from a completely pragmatic point of view, there are plenty of examples of this producing fairly screwed up and disturbed people.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result isn't the definition of insanity (contrary to popular convention), but it is the definition of stupidity.

 

[Dman]

NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.

Not everyone is hip to that game though. Not even all those who belong to that sort of group. From where I come from, you can go ahead and pull it and play the game, but you may end up walking away with a limp or even worse. These people out there today don't fool around with you.

No member of the royal family should be put through that today. They wouldn't be able to get away with it anyway...not in this day and age.

 

[wyevale]

Casualfan - 'Christian' is a catch-all description encompassing a myriad different definitions of morality.. and the CoE {of which I count myself a member} is amongst the most 'liberal' and least proscriptive of all the sects which compose it.
HM the Queen's definition of the 'sanctity' of marriage would be rather different from that of the late Earl Spencer, or of the late Princess Margaret.. yet they are/were all card carrying members of that sect.
As for 'open marriages', and their offspring, there are many children successfully, and happily brought up within marriages of this kind, just as there are innumerable examples of childrens lives ruined within 'monogamous' marriages.
In short I think it is up to each couple to decide which ethic works best for them, and NOT for others to judge !

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It all just seems very unsanitary to me. Why not appreciate what you have at home? If the marriage or relationship don't work out, separate/divorce and move on. I would never sleep around behind my girlfriend/or wife's back. It seems like too much work anyway. Trying to keep up with the one you have at home is enough work. With what's going on all around the world, who have the time and energy to be a 'rollin stone' or 'playa playa from the himalaya'?

That may be how you see things but not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same road map to happiness or a happy marriage. So I try not to judge others relationships as long as both are on the same page.

For this particular monarchy, though, who also profess to be "Christian," shouldn't this attitude be theirs, too?

But putting religion aside-completely aside-what respect for family and your future children does this "well, they should have been friends for his sake" mentality show? I mean, from a completely pragmatic point of view, there are plenty of examples of this producing fairly screwed up and disturbed people.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result isn't the definition of insanity (contrary to popular convention), but it is the definition of stupidity.

Many of the royals aristocrats and rich iin democracies were also Christians but still were sleeping with someone other than their wife. JFK was a Catholic and cheated with everyone, Edward VII was the Head of the COE and had a mistress. How many Popes, Bishops, Priests had illegitimate children? History is full of religious people stepping out on their vows, and thqts not counting the Catholic Church sex scandal.
Again not condoning thr behavior, but this notion that Charles was the first man to cheat on his wife is based in fiction.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'm one of those Christians who believe (and practice) that adultery is wrong under any circumstance. People vow that they will be sexually faithful when they marry. There are consequences to breaking vows, particularly vows that are made using God's name. Charles and Diana were both wrong to cheat sexually on the other. For whatever reasons they entered their marriage, they made highly publicized vows of faithfulness to each other. They should have realized that breaking those vows would have been a huge disappointment to the world--let alone the nation and commonwealth--who rejoiced on that wedding day in July of 1981. But instead, they both chose the road of selfishness. It was a choice. Neither person was forced into the arms of another. This caused the most suffering to the two people who loved them most, William and Harry. Then, when the War of the Walses ensued, it divided opinion; because, as with most marriage break-downs, people take sides. We all know the tragic events that followed their divorce.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

You know, I am not quite a year older than Diana. I followed the whole thing like a true little groupie. I remember that news conference very well. At the time, I just thought he was being his normal shy self. It wasn't until years later I realized that he just couldn't look anyone in the eye and say he was in love when he wasn't.


Charles was under quite a lot of pressure to marry the right sort of girl. No ex secretaries (Norway), ex beauty queens (Sweden), etc for him. Maybe he too felt he was on a roller coaster he could not get off. I think he would have been quite happy to remain a bachelor.


Still, he was a grown man and should have put his foot down if he felt it wasn't right. My feeling is that he thought that if he couldn't have the woman he loved, anyone will do.


If anything good came of this disaster, it is that it was the final nail in the coffin of "appropriate" marriages. I don't think there would have been a possibility of Katherine without it. It may also have helped pave the way for Mitte-Marrit and all the other very non royal or aristocratic brides and grooms that came after.

 

[Dman]

That may be how you see things but not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same road map to happiness or a happy marriage. So I try not to judge others relationships as long as both are on the same page.

Well, I'm not judging anyone. I just think it's good to appreciate what you have at home, if not, spare the other person and pain and hurt and just try to end things peacefully.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

There can be no true comparisons when citing marriage to the pow , one of the most well known figures in the world. He was not simply another aristocrat.

Frelinghighness, I like your statement that Prince Charles was not simply another aristocrat.
Charles Philip was the eldest son of a sovereign. He was the Heir Apparent. He was His Royal Highness. He was a Prince. He was Royalty.
How can you take the Prince and the Royalty out of a Prince Royal?

 

[Lee27]

There have been rumors of adultry by current kings - King Carl of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Then there also rumors abut Prince Phillip, Prince Bernard and Prince Claus of the Netherlands.

So Charles was not the first to break his marriage vows.

 

[ladongas]

There have been rumors of adultry by current kings - King Carl of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Then there also rumors abut Prince Phillip, Prince Bernard and Prince Claus of the Netherlands.

So Charles was not the first to break his marriage vows.

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?

 

[Jacknch]

If my memory serves me correctly, I understood that it was only after the marriage had broken down irreconcilably that Charles committed adultery. As such, would it not be the case that in the eyes of Diana and Charles (as opposed to anyone else), there was no marriage left to save?
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?

 

[Roslyn]

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?

I am quite sure that both Charles and Diana went into their marriage, and made their vows, fully intending to be faithful. But their marriage was doomed, and it broke down, and once a marriage breaks down irretrievably I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy to have to stay faithful to someone that makes them as unhappy as Charles and Diana made each other. I don't condemn either of them for seeking comfort in the arms of others, but I do criticise Diana for her hypocrisy about it.

 

[ladongas]

I am quite sure that both Charles and Diana went into their marriage, and made their vows, fully intending to be faithful. But their marriage was doomed, and it broke down, and once a marriage breaks down irretrievably I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy to have to stay faithful to someone that makes them as unhappy as Charles and Diana made each other. I don't condemn either of them for seeking comfort in the arms of others, but I do criticise Diana for her hypocrisy about it.

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.