Charles and Diana

[Queen Camilla]

IMO, the marriage failed because Diana lied and didn't try to correct her lie by getting to know her husband through sharing his interests.

She complained about only 13 meeting before getting engaged, yet on her honeymoon she left her husband on deck while she went below to socialize with the male staff.

When she arrived at Balmoral (Craig Gowan) she complained about wanting to go to London. What or who was in London that was more important than her husband? Who wants to spends their summers in London with the tourist when they have a country home?

In 1982, she behaved the same way. When the family arrived at Balmoral Diana complained about wanting to go to London. Why didn't she try to bond with her son & husband? It should not have matter where she was, she had a new born son and he should have been her focus rather than London.

Charles tried to be supportive by flying her girlfriends from London to Balmoral but even after her friends arrives she kept insisting on going to London.

 

[royal rob]

IMO, the marriage failed because Diana lied and didn't try to correct her lie by getting to know her husband through sharing his interests.

She complained about only 13 meeting before getting engaged, yet on her honeymoon she left her husband on deck while she went below to socialize with the male staff.

When she arrived at Balmoral (Craig Gowan) she complained about wanting to go to London. What or who was in London that was more important than her husband? Who wants to spends their summers in London with the tourist when they have a country home?

In 1982, she behaved the same way. When the family arrived at Balmoral Diana complained about wanting to go to London. Why didn't she try to bond with her son & husband? It should not have matter where she was, she had a new born son and he should have been her focus rather than London.

Charles tried to be supportive by flying her girlfriends from London to Balmoral but even after her friends arrives she kept insisting on going to London.

You have stated your views on their marriage many many times almost daily. There is nothing new to add surely. Diana is dead and can't answer back to defend herself let her rest in peace


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

At the end of the day, my point is that I disagree heartily with anyone who seeks to immortalize or deify any of these human beings, especially when their conduct was reprehensible.

Charles and Diana both made a wanton mess of their lives, with each other and within themselves.

This may come off as talking down to you but I do not mean it in that way. Do you know much about historical figures? JFK, FDR, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, hundreds of Kings andmonarchs throughout the centuries. Many are immortalized and revered even though they didn't necessarily live upstanding lives. FDR was a great man and great president despite his long standing affair. Same thing for Bill Clinton, a great man who did a lot of great things but is definitely the poster child for a womanizer. You can admire a person despite their personal or religious failings.
I could go the non adultery route as well, Thomas More is a saint and he burned people to death. Julius Ceasar is a man to be admired even though me killed how many people?

 

[casualfan]

This may come off as talking down to you but I do not mean it in that way. Do you know much about historical figures? JFK, FDR, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, hundreds of Kings andmonarchs throughout the centuries. Many are immortalized and revered even though they didn't necessarily live upstanding lives. FDR was a great man and great president despite his long standing affair. Same thing for Bill Clinton, a great man who did a lot of great things but is definitely the poster child for a womanizer. You can admire a person despite their personal or religious failings.

I could go the non adultery route as well, Thomas More is a saint and he burned people to death. Julius Ceasar is a man to be admired even though me killed how many people?

I have a masters degree in history. So, yeah, I have wrestled with this question a lot. And ultimately my studies have proved to me personally that no human being should be put up on a pedestal.

I absolutely don't disagree with your point that people's individual accomplishments can be admired, but those are just pieces of the puzzle.

If someone chooses to idolize Charles and Diana, they can, but ultimately IMO they would be ignoring the fact that these two failed at their marriage in major, public and ugly ways. Both of them.

 

[Humfrey]

We are forgetting that treason was committed and quite a number of times. I have no reason not to believe the POW when he said what he did, or did not, do and when. Neither do I doubt that his wife thought otherwise. They were both telling the truth as they saw it. They were both victims. Let's leave it now.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Treason? Is it still considered treason to sleep with the wife of the Prince of Wales? Is it still considered very bad form to sleep with a fellow officer's wife? I'm not sure what you mean by "treason" in this case, unless you're speaking of treason against one's marriage instead of treason against a state.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:
There before the altar, Charles stood waiting for her: 'I remember being so in love with my husband that I couldn't take my eyes off him,' Diana recalled. 'I just absolutely thought that I was the luckiest girl in the world.'

Diana may have been the luckiest girl but unfortunately for how long?
Would it have made a difference in the marriage if Charles had granted her every wish?
​

 

[Roslyn]

Treason? Is it still considered treason to sleep with the wife of the Prince of Wales? Is it still considered very bad form to sleep with a fellow officer's wife? I'm not sure what you mean by "treason" in this case, unless you're speaking of treason against one's marriage instead of treason against a state.

The Treason Act 1351 is still in force. It is still treason to "violate" the wife of "the King's eldest son and heir". The maximum penalty is now life imprisonment, not death, but that only changed in 1998, so James Hewitt and Diana's other paramours up till the date of the divorce, were committing a capital offence.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The chances that Diana and her men took were huge.

 

[COUNTESS]

I'm not unsympathetic to your point but there is a major difference between Charles and your rabbi: Charles doesn't have a choice about becoming the head of the Church of England. I think it is safe to assume your rabbi had a choice. Moreover, although Charles attends church, I'm not sure that he goes every Sunday.

Regarding Charles future role, as a Christian, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. Although I don't excuse adultery, I'm also sympathetic to the fact that both Diana and Charles were trapped in a marriage and it took a while for them to accept that divorce was a possibility.

Between Charles and Diana, I think Diana was more of the hypocrite because she criticized Charles without disclosing that she had affairs of her own. As I said, Charles has no choice about his future role as head of the church, Diana did have a choice.


ETA: Diana also had affairs with other women's husbands even as she was criticizing Charles and Camilla. To me that she was as much of a hypocrite as a religious leader who was having an affair would be.

He had affairs with other men's wives, long before Diana. Camilla, is one, so was Kanga, I am sure there were others.. He had no particular scruples. Some had children when these affairs took place. Charles has always been a hypocrite. A pompous one at that.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Good memory COUNTESS. I forgot all about Lady Tryon. Didn't she later become depressed and commit suicide? Poor "Kanga".

 

[Cris M]

He had affairs with other men's wives, long before Diana. Camilla, is one, so was Kanga, I am sure there were others.. He had no particular scruples. Some had children when these affairs took place. Charles has always been a hypocrite. A pompous one at that.

I suppose you also regard Diana a hypocrite. Because, if the Prince of Wales was a "pompous hypocrite", Diana was shameless liar and hypocrite, as she accused her husband of infidelity but "forgot" to mention her own affairs - some of it with married men.

 

[Roslyn]

Good memory COUNTESS. I forgot all about Lady Tryon. Didn't she later become depressed and commit suicide? Poor "Kanga".

She also had some serious physical problems, not just depression. Poor thing was a mess at the end.

 

[Dman]

I suppose you also regard Diana a hypocrite. Because, if the Prince of Wales was a "pompous hypocrite", Diana was shameless liar and hypocrite, as she accused her husband of infidelity but "forgot" to mention her own affairs - some of it with married men.

Both Charles and Diana were doing silly things. A lot of it was done out of loneliness, hurt and pain. They most likely wouldn't have gone down those roads if they got help.

 

[Roslyn]

I suppose you also regard Diana a hypocrite. Because, if the Prince of Wales was a "pompous hypocrite", Diana was shameless liar and hypocrite, as she accused her husband of infidelity but "forgot" to mention her own affairs - some of it with married men.

And don't forget her lying about her role in the Morton book. She totally denied any involvement but it turned out that she had been feeding information for the book to Morton through James Colthurst who acted as their go-between.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There was Canadian Janet Jenkins as well. It's not mentioned in this article, but she has claimed to have been intimate with Prince Charles at Highgrove well after his marriage. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dispute-surrounds-sale-of-prince-charles-love-letters-1.864653

 

[Cris M]

And don't forget her lying about her role in the Morton book. She totally denied any involvement but it turned out that she had been feeding information for the book to Morton through James Colthurst who acted as their go-between.

That's right, the woman was a compulsive liar.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I've read that Charles had affairs with married women before Diana because these women were considered "safe". They were also from a certain social class, not right off the street, where there might have been a danger of someone talking to the tabloids.

But the fact remains, Charles was committing adultery long before Diana was on anyone's radar. Does it excuse her behavior AFTER the wedding?

No way.

But unless someone comes up with evidence that Diana was also helping men violate their wedding vows before she married her husband it is Charles who came into his marriage with an established reputation as an adulterer, not Diana.

It is what it is.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She died of septicemia after being hospitalized. Lady Kanga Tryon¿s daughter Victoria on her mother¿s obsession with Prince Charles | Daily Mail Online

She also had some serious physical problems, not just depression. Poor thing was a mess at the end.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Treason? Is it still considered treason to sleep with the wife of the Prince of Wales?

Yes - the Treason Act that states that is still in force. There was even a question asked about why James Hewitt wasn't charged and it was argued that as they weren't 'caught in the act' they wouldn't be able to prove it.

Is it still considered very bad form to sleep with a fellow officer's wife?

Bad form - and both Charles and Hewitt are guilty of that but...not illegal - unlike Hewitt sleeping with Diana which was treason - and as she didn't claim 'rape' she was guilty as well - of aiding and abetting which is equally treason.

I'm not sure what you mean by "treason" in this case, unless you're speaking of treason against one's marriage instead of treason against a state.

Diana and Hewitt actually committed 'treason against the state' according to the existing Treason Act. One of the reasons why Harry's paternity keeps coming up and is relevant - if he isn't Charles' (and I believe he is) then he is out of the line of succession and all of the benefits that come from being royal as he would be simply Diana's illegitimate child.

No one would be charged now with the offense of sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales - the precedent has been set with letting Diana and Hewitt and her other lovers off but the law is still there.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Thank you, Iluvbertie. I wasn't sure whom Humfrey was referring to in his comment a page previous about committing treason. In the context, he could have been taken as referring to both Charles and Diana as having committed treason, but I didn't think that Charles affair with Camilla was treasonable (although it was 'bad form').

 

[Curryong]

If Charles had really wanted to occupy the high moral ground he wouldn't have given the Dimbleby interview. It made the situation a whole lot worse.

Camilla's name was brought to the fore, resulting in a confrontation between Charles and Camilla's indignant father (an encounter in which Charles burst into tears apparently) and ultimately brought on the Parker Bowles divorce, which I do not believe Camilla wanted.

Charles often has high blown motives for doing things, acts, and then when things go pear-shaped as a result, blames his staff. Well, he couldn't blame anyone else for agreeing to that interview.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

He had affairs with other men's wives, long before Diana. Camilla, is one, so was Kanga, I am sure there were others.. He had no particular scruples. Some had children when these affairs took place. Charles has always been a hypocrite. A pompous one at that.

If true, having affairs would make him an adulterer before his marriage, and we know he was after his marriage to Diana. It wouldn't necessarily make him a hypocrite.

Diana was also an adulterer. She was a hypocrite because she criticized Charles and Camilla for their affair while she was also having affairs.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Agreed. It was that hypocrisy that began my slide of disillusionment. When she admitted that she had been involved with James Hewitt during the Panorama interview, after having presented herself as a lily-white victim in Morton's book, I realized that the other rumours about Diana's involvement with other men, including married men, could be true. If the Hewitt story was true, every other story could be true as well. That's the thing about lying: if a person tells one lie, even by telling a half-truth, everything they say is suddenly brought into question when that lie discovered.

 

[royal rob]

He had affairs with other men's wives, long before Diana. Camilla, is one, so was Kanga, I am sure there were others.. He had no particular scruples. Some had children when these affairs took place. Charles has always been a hypocrite. A pompous one at that.

I agree pompous is a very good word to describe Charles I think it goes along with the way he was bought up
Being the heir and being different to others his age. Thank goodness William and Harry had a different childhood. I think the queen mother would have contributed to Charles having that attitude


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

I've always thought it amusing how Diana confronted Camilla at Camilla's sister's birthday party in the winter of 1989 and told Camilla that she knew what was going on between them and that she wanted her husband back.

This confrontation occurred at about the time James Hewitt had "let her down" by abandoning her by doing what his career required and going to Germany with his regiment for training exercises in preparation for their deployment to Iraq. Oh, and of course this is also just before the infamous "Squidgygate" telephone conversation with James Gilbey which took place on New Year's Eve 1989. In that chatty and revealing conversation she said to Gilbey "I can't stand the confines of this marriage."

Yeah, she really wanted her husband back!

 

[MARG]

I suppose you also regard Diana a hypocrite. Because, if the Prince of Wales was a "pompous hypocrite", Diana was shameless liar and hypocrite, as she accused her husband of infidelity but "forgot" to mention her own affairs - some of it with married men.

Who could forget Julia Carling, married just 14 months and finds her husband betraying her with Diana. But she was educated and media savvy and went after Diana. I can't help wondering how she was dissuaded from naming Diana in her divorce and just who did the pursuading.

And don't forget her lying about her role in the Morton book. She totally denied any involvement but it turned out that she had been feeding information for the book to Morton through James Colthurst who acted as their go-between.

Yes, a lot of people suspected she had some input, but nobody could have suspected the amount until the galleys of the book were shown with her personal annotations.

As a pont of interest I reccomend reading that book and then watch the Panorama interview and try to spot the differences. Very educational.

 

[Queen Camilla]

IMO, the Panorama interview was not in response to Charles' Dimbleby interview.
She was always planning a Panorama type television tell all.

The 1993 Settelen tapes were her rehearsing for a television interview.

This is why she was talking to a stranger about very personal things. It was not to help her with her public engagements. If it was, she would have been talking about one of her charities.

 

[Dman]

IMO, the Panorama interview was not in response to Charles' Dimbleby interview.
She was always planning a Panorama type television tell all.

The 1993 Settelen tapes were her rehearsing for a television interview.

This is why she was talking to a stranger about very personal things. It was not to help her with her public engagements. If it was, she would have been talking about one of her charities.

From what I remember, the tapes were to help her with her speeches and for her to find her voice. Diana had a habit of talking about her personal life, because she had no one else to talk to. She would over share with those who would listen. As Princess Michael once pointed out, Diana had no support team around her. She was left alone to do any silly things she wanted and no one understood what she was going through.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I've always thought it amusing how Diana confronted Camilla at Camilla's sister's birthday party in the winter of 1989 and told Camilla that she knew what was going on between them and that she wanted her husband back.

This confrontation occurred at about the time James Hewitt had "let her down" by abandoning her by doing what his career required and going to Germany with his regiment for training exercises in preparation for their deployment to Iraq. Oh, and of course this is also just before the infamous "Squidgygate" telephone conversation with James Gilbey which took place on New Year's Eve 1989. In that chatty and revealing conversation she said to Gilbey "I can't stand the confines of this marriage."

Yeah, she really wanted her husband back!

My take on what happened is that in 1989, William was at school and Harry was in pre-school. They were becoming more independent. Although small children and babies need a lot of attention, they also give a lot of attention, which is why some women have such a need to keep having babies.

Diana wanted another child but knew it would be very problematic to have a child by a man other than Charles. (I doubt if she was too concerned about being beheaded for treason). She admits that she told Charles she wanted to reconcile by offering to have another baby.

Charles, wisely, declined. Diana decided that if Camilla dropped him, she and Charles would be able to resume their marriage, which is what led to the confrontation.

Regardless of when you think the various affairs began, by 1989, the problem wasn't really Camilla. It was clear to Charles that he and Diana had nothing in common and neither of them were emotionally suited for each other. Moreover, I doubt that Diana would have ever truly forgiven Charles for his affair and it would have continued to be a source of friction in the marriage.

Diana was very hurt by the rebuff and escalated her hysterics, which aliened Charles even more, and the marriage entered into a death spiral. She became very vindictive and really beefed up her campaign in the media, culminating in the Morton book, which completely finished the marriage.

If Diana really had wanted to save her marriage in 1989 she should have tried making a commitment to Charles to try and cultivate shared interests and offering to see a true mental health professional to help them both work through their issues.

We don't know how Charles would have responded. I tend to think that he felt the marriage was over and didn't think it could be saved. Some will blame him for that but by that time, there had been several affairs and a lot of unhappiness. Sometimes it is just better to let things go.

The problem is that they didn't divorce or separate at that time. It wasn't just the royal family, Diana didn't want a divorce at that time. It left Diana in an untenable situation, trapped in an unhappy marriage and wanting to have more children.