Okay, a few more comments.
Totally agree! I wonder if he though her youth and starry eyed naivete would make her blind to it. Does he or Camilla ever contemplate on this part of their past? What a massive impact that made.
If we take out Diana's retrospective coloring of the past, you forget that Camilla was really doing everything to receive Diana into Charles' circle of friends. That's what Camilla was doing, as were other friends of Charles', who were just enough older to be of another generational stream. A gift to a friend for being a friend like he gave to many friends was not a signal of unusual intimacy or significance to those who knew Charles. That circle of friends thought they were receiving Diana into their midst. Little did they bargain that Diana would banish them, and Charles would comply.
What is more likely is that Camilla felt kicked in the teeth. Recall that Camilla (by the time Diana outed Camilla) really was in an affair with Charles, and there had been a confrontation at a party.
Diana was obsessed with what people thought of her. As is always stated, she was a people-pleaser. I have long had the suspicion that Diana's alleged discomfort with Charles' 'whatever love is' comment to be about the crack in the image, not about Charles' real feelings. She knew he lusted for her. She knew she had him in thrall at that point. She didn't like (I think) the suggestion that it was anything else but what she wanted it to appear to the world, her triumph. (It did put the match-up in a strange light, I will grant you that. Charles evidencing a bit of his father's foot-in-mouth disease, methinks). Same with the astonishing confrontation at the party. Camilla with Charles and others drinking and conversing obviously away from her was what scalded, I think. She had banished all the friends, and here they were, back again, and in force, etc..
Because I believe that Charles, given what we know of his character, likely behaved honorably in the early days of the marriage, and because I think the same degree of good sense likely governed Camilla's behavior, too, I don't think either of them have anything to reproach themselves for. IMO.
They didn't spend much time together alone at all before marrying...he either ignored some of the negatives or he thought things would smooth out after all the hoopla was over. Easy enough to write off some of the warning signs as due to the intense media pressure and I am sure that played a role as well.
They spent enough time, especially sexually. Charles could never have cancelled the engagement once it was announced. It's been suggested that Charles had second thoughts. At the altar he definitely showed indications of being stressed. The expressions in general on the faces of the BRF were somber in the extreme that day in the church. No one looked very happy.
I kinda think Charles was probably a selfish and/or self centered person when he was younger...and I think he was way in over his head trying to handle someone like Diana. Easier to just put some distance between you and try to muddle along the best you can. He just didn't reckon with the fact that Diana couldn't handle that.
That's the spin. He is definitely royal. He was the heir, after all. It's unlikely he transcended his upbringing and royal conditioning by the stroke of marriage. He experiences himself as always the center of every action, that has to have a consequence. However, temper notwithstanding, reports about him (from servants) paint him as a man of sensitivity, gentleness and caring. Whatever kind of man Diana married, she had not married a brute.
I think she tried out the 'traditional' upper crust marriage where you have the heirs then are free to pursue you own interests as long as you keep up appearances and are discreet, but it didn't work for her...she didn't marry the only man who couldn't divorce her in order to end up in a pretend marriage. LaRae
I think it's hard to say what was working for Diana since many of her actions, especially vis-a-vis the press, were initiated to protect her image as Princess of Wales. I think she was fine with a 'pretend marriage' until it was in her best interests to spin it otherwise.
I don't think that they entered the marriage with the intent to hurt the other, or to even have reckless disregard for the other.
Exactly so.
If Diana fell in love with Charles it was because he was her ticket to becoming a Princess/Queen, if Charles was just some rich guy in her social circle, Diana would not have given him the time of day.
Afraid so.
(Poor Charles) I am reading a book right now that goes into the fact that Diana was actually 'meant' for Andrew. It was with Amanda Knatchbull declining, and then the fiasco with Anna Wallace, that opened up the possibility of Charles for Diana.
Again there was something there there with Charles and Camilla, but why did Diana feel the need to make public that "there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded" when she did it. She started cooperating with the Morton book in 1991, at that point she had overcome her bulimia, she and Charles had been living separate lives and she had had three extra-marital, although not necessarily sexual, dalliances - the RPO, James Hewitt and James Gilbey. Perhaps she still had a problem with Charles and Camilla but was she as consumed and bothered by their relationship as she wanted people to believe? My theory is that at that point what Diana was really consumed with was her public image, and when it seemed like her extra-marital dalliances or other negative/scandalous things may become public, she made a preemptive strike and exposed negative things about her marriage and life as a royal to lay the groundwork in the event any misdeeds on her part became public and she wanted it to be deemed that she was in an untenable situation and victimized.
Bingo!
That was it exactly. She was laying the groundwork to 'explain away' and excuse the fact that the wife of the British heir to the throne was, in effect, 'sleeping around'. She initiated a diversionary action that proved wildly successful. She gauged the public's gullibility to perfection and calibrated her stories to pitch-perfect delivery. All her life she needed only to smile and she could wrest her way. She did it with the vast majority (or a significant slice) of the British public then, and even still.
1991 was when she dumped James Hewitt so the idea that he could get involved in a 'tell-all' book unless she got her version of events out there first to divert attention from her own affair/s is a good presumption.
The tabloids were circling. Rumors were rife. Royal servants may sign privacy agreements but they do talk amongst themselves. Tittle-tattle made the rounds. It was only a matter of time before the seamy details broke surface.
Thank you, Moonmaidan. 
