Charles and Diana

[Curryong]

And Camilla never dropped poison about Diana in any of her phone calls with the Sun News editor for the ten years she and he were in regular communication? She also constantly praised Diana to Charles whenever they were together? Yes, I can really believe that!

Camilla and Charles adherents are always very good at labelling Diana as a liar and a fantasist while painting Camilla and Charles's adultery as wonderful. Of course it was! Why was it up to Camilla to soothe Charles's brow and give him confidence? Surely the honourable thing to do when he confided in her about his miserable marriage would be to remind him that he and Diana married of their own free will and that it was not up to her to act as a marriage counsellor. Then she should have butted out!

So Diana was NEVER constant to Charles, and she should have been 'grateful' to him for raising her up! Is this the story of King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid ? I don't know about demonising Camilla. There's always plenty of demonising of Diana going on.

The truth is nobody behaved honourably in this situation. Diana didn't, James Hewitt didn't. Neither did Charles. And Camilla, a woman who broke her own marriage vows when she slept with Charles, certainly didn't.

To some it seems that Charles and Camilla's behaviour is excusable because after all Diana was a lying fantasist and made him unhappy and damaged the monarchy and Camilla and he are made for each other and she is so discreet and they are so happy together. Talk about creating your own myths here, people, something Diana fans are constantly being accused of.

Fact-- Camilla was a married woman. She intruded into Charles's unhappy marriage as a third party and slept with him while he was married to Diana. He intruded into her marriage as a third party (even though Andrew Parker Bowles was his friend) and slept with his friend's wife.

That equals adultery in my book. It doesn't matter how you dress it up.

Diana is out of it when we discuss Charles and Camilla's behaviour, as we are all responsible for our own conduct respecting others.

If you consider Charles's and Camilla's adultery, which involved four children and broke two marriages was acceptable, OK, but if what Diana did was terrible in the eyes of many here, don't let's wrap Camilla and Charles's reprehensible behaviour in a pretty pink bow and make excuses for it.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

As I've said several times before: Can't people just try to forget this controversial person who has been dead for almost 20 years and who turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, attacked her husband on television, embarrassed the Queen and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. And I repeat again: Charles wasn't completely innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

I'm dyslexic and I meant to write: Charles wasn't completely innocent, not that he was completely innocent. I've now corrected it.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I would prefer that this not become about fandom. Refusing to demonize Camilla, and to even see her as a decent woman caught in a cross-fire is not to be her 'fan'. I think Camilla is a cool lady but that is far from being her 'fan'. Hope I've cleared that up.

Diana, however, does not have a good track record based upon what people who knew her have to say. I didn't know her, but those who did know her well admit to her lack of integrity. Plus we have endless examples of her propensity to bend the truth, the most glaring example being what she told Charles during the courtship.



You are conflating some facts and telescoping events. Diana effectively made it impossible for the Parker-Bowles' to remain married. The Dimbleby interview did not throw Camilla under the bus. It was Diana who did that.



All I can recommend is that you do more reading regarding exactly what Diana was like. When you do I think your strident defense will be replaced with compassion. However, just a brief scan of some of the video footage available on YouTube should give you the general idea of what Charles was up against with his very immature wife.



Diana had Camilla in her sites because Mr Hewitt was nipping at her heels. She had to come up with something fast to divert attention away from her own serious breach with Hewitt.

I'm not aware Camilla has ever given an interview. It is unknown what Camilla thinks and feels about anything, least of all Tiggy. Though we can certainly assume that she loves Charles.



You are a demonstration of how successful Diana was in her mis-direction. Diana's 'craziness' (like a fox) is (sadly) evident in most videos of her, particularly in interviews, and by her own reports of her actions. Not sure a 'they' had to do much to try to make her out as unusual.



Heavy words. Out of balance. Did you ever read or hear Diana own to the part she played in the break down of her marriage? I haven't. She always painted herself as a victim, as you have just done. Doesn't ring true.

This is all Diana's spin. Look at it carefully because at root is the stirring up of animus against people we really do not know. That in itself should reveal the source playing out.

I've been following Diana since 1980 read many books and watched pretty much everything youtube has on her, so im well versed with both her good qualities and faults. Camillas not a "decent woman caught in a crossfire" she put herself in the line of fire with the role she played in the courtship of D&C, and the contact with Charles throughout the marriage.

Im guessing by the courtship youre referring to country pursuits? Another right up there with the dog, she must be the first woman or man EVER overstate an interest in something the other likes while in a relationship. (more penny junor claptrap)

As for her immaturity, she was only 20 at the time, and Charles was old for his age interest wise. The fact that she didnt love Van de Plost (sp) philosophy novels is not something to fault her for. Charles was 12-13 years older than her, and should have known what he was getting into.

He chose to keep his bachelor life and never gave the marriage a proper chance, palace courtiers were saying at the time, he was a nice enough chap but hadnt given a serious thought as to what marriage would entail. He wanted a young, inexperienced bride for breeding and not having to have anyones "sloppy seconds" and for not being able to figure out what he was up to.

Had they done their research on the Spencers, shown in the documentary on althorp, theyd have realized the number of strong forceful women in that family tree and not miscalculated that Diana would be a meek mouse and turn the other way.

The tantrums, listening at doors, opening letters, the rows were all because of his emotional involvement with CPB and likely others. All the work the palace and others did to make her out as crazy was rendered null and void once Tampax Charlie came clean on his cheating ways.

They isolated her from the start of the engagement, which gave her nothing but time to ruminate on what Charles was doing or not doing, real or imagined.

Id suggest reading more than Junor or Dimbleby in terms of how Diana was.
To be fair they both got a big serving of "be careful what you wish for". She thought shed get a devoted, caring husband, he thought hed get a quiet, baby maker that would be keen to sit in the background.

If you look at how the royal family set up the start of the marriage it was a lot like how a cult brings people in. They isolated her during the engagement and honeymoon, she was alone alot at KP. They overwhelmed her with duties, then William came along. I think they felt it would keep her off balance and manageable, or maybe it was a case of just not bothering to plan for her at all, it often seems that was the case. So in a lot of ways the palace created a lot of the "problems" they had with Diana.

Yes she had her issues with people too, im in the minority in thinking that Hewitt got thrown over rather badly and a lot of the wrath hes endured is undeserved. But Hewitt was known about before the Morton book came out. She was aware of the "squidgy" tapes held by the press but not released at that point, and im sure the morton book was partly to deflect those, but it was also about the fact that here is the other half of the marriage having a well run palace and friends machine supporting his adultery which happened first. He dismissed his second born because he wasnt a girl (so ironic because she was rebuked for not being a boy) and of course the spencer red hair (harry being born 2 years before she met Hewitt).

Camilla was no fan of Tiggy as it was reported she wanted her gone as much as Diana, seems Camilla doesnt want that job vacancy of mistress filled, if she can help it. Im sure she does love Charles, but someone else did too, his first wife, who he promised to love,cherish, etc. FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, cough, cough.

If theres a crazy like a fox award, it has to go to Camilla for selecting with charles a wife they thought would be no bother (turned out to be a big mistake), sought out her interests to see when and where she could spend time with Charles, and either through her contact with him, or because of Charles feeling for her, keep momentos of her around to poison the marriage.

I'll be fair and say yes there were things she did to hinder the marriage, but the reason it seems people treat her as a victim, is that in a large part, she was. It was the PoW that made the offer of marriage, hes known since birth what that life entails and could have prepared her better for it. He chose a young, naive woman who longed for her prince charming. Im sure he pushed that angle as much as she may have said she liked country life.

I think what upsets people is that the balance of power in terms of knowledge and expectations at the time of the engagement and marriage were heavily slanted in Charles's favor, so it makes them more willing to overlook things she did. People see them as her reacting to things Charles knew was coming but didnt share with her, but in some ways they both trapped each other and both suffered for it. I think they call it "duty of care" people felt Charles had a duty of care as the older and royal since birth to support and care for her better, but that again is something I blame his parents for.

He was much older and wiser and should have forseen that such an age gap would be a big problem for compatibility. He was indulged by his mother and father too much to be allowed to have his bachelor life for so long, and he became set in his ways, and then was under pressure to marry.

He didnt do his homework on the Spencer women, and even if he could he could ill afford the time to pass over her, thanks to his stupid remarks about marrying at 30, he put the noose around his own head. he thought he picked a meek woman who would be happy to let he go off and still be a bachelor with no consequences.

The problem was they had to lie to get her to marry him, but then they failed to realize that they were as stuck with her as they though she was with them. Theres a saying, dont trap the burglar in the house, they figured, well she cant divorce, shell pump out a few kids, and have to put up with Charles sleeping around, what can she do? They found out what happens when you corner a mouse^^

 

[Lee-Z]

Can I just say that i hope that Charles and Diana's children and grandchildren never read this thread; if people talked about my parents this way without any of them personally knowing my parents or the complete facts, I'd be really really angry...

just my 2cts

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Amen to that. The lady in question is dead for a longer time than her marriage lasted. Her sons were kids. Now one of them is a bald middle-aged looking dude with two children himself and the once-her-husband is going to his Seventies now. It is al so long ago.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In historical terms it isn't all that long.

Diana will be debated and her life and words discussed and analysed for the rest of time. She is simply a figure in history and should be treated no differently to any other public figure whose life is dissected while they are alive or when they are dead.

If the determinant is that no person can be discussed while they still have living descendants who personally knew them then there can be no such thing as 'Modern History'. Men like Churchill have children still alive and his life is dissected all the time - why not Diana's???

 

[royal rob]

I thought we were meant to show respect on this forum but that never happens when it concerns Diana. I have decided to try and give up posting on Diana threads because of the disgusting things that are said and what I think amounts to bullying. If this is what makes you happy it says more about you than it does Diana.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lee-Z]

Please note that my comment of three posts ago refers both to comments regarding Diana as well as comments regarding P.Charles...

 

[Nico]

20+ years later and still debating on that topic ...
Diana, bless her, was sanctified by death, for better or worse. The better is of course her undisputed human qualities, and no one can deny that. The worse is that you still can't have a decent, and balanced , discussion about her dark side, and let's face it, she had one (like everyone). She was a human being, not a porcelain doll.
On the other side, Charles and Camilla's biggest default is to be alive and well. Seems unfair ? Maybe yes, or maybe not. But that's the reality. They made some mistakes, they have some defaults for sure but they have also many many great qualities.
In a world of black of white, all this story is definitely grey.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The editor of The Sun newspaper disclosed that for nearly a decade from 1982 he would phone Camilla regularly and receive information from Charles's side of things, Charles's POV.

And Camilla never dropped poison about Diana in any of her phone calls with the Sun News editor for the ten years she and he were in regular communication? She also constantly praised Diana to Charles whenever they were together? Yes, I can really believe that!

There is no proof that Camilla talked to the Sun reporter for 10 years. Infact the Sun reporter denied this and never mentioned Diana.

His quote:
I have known Camilla Parker Bowles off and on for the past 20 years. We have met three times and spoken on the telephone an embarrassing number of times. Usually it was me doing the talking and her doing the wriggling.

It is a true testimony to her discretion and to her loyalty that she has hardly ever told me anything. She has occasionally guided me, perhaps misled me and sometimes even pumped me into telling her what was the latest rumour or gossip.

No where does he say Diana or Charles.

Stuart Higgins knew Camilla from the 1970s. Camilla's brother was dating famous women.
Again people keep forgetting about Camilla's family.

Fact-- Camilla was a married woman. She intruded into Charles's unhappy marriage as a third party and slept with him while he was married to Diana. He intruded into her marriage as a third party (even though Andrew Parker Bowles was his friend) and slept with his friend's wife.

Diana is out of it when we discuss Charles and Camilla's behaviour, as we are all responsible for our own conduct respecting others.

If you consider Charles's and Camilla's adultery, which involved four children and broke two marriages was acceptable, OK, but if what Diana did was terrible in the eyes of many here, don't let's wrap Camilla and Charles's reprehensible behaviour in a pretty pink bow and make excuses for it.

Why is Diana out of her own marriage? She cheated on Charles and took 50% of the blame. Yet her affairs which by most reliable people started before Charles'. Her relationship with men were noted in the press through out her marriage long before Charles was linked with anyone.

Can I just say that i hope that Charles and Diana's children and grandchildren never read this thread; if people talked about my parents this way without any of them personally knowing my parents or the complete facts, I'd be really really angry...

just my 2cts

Again what about Camilla's family, children and grandchildren.

A BP staffer saw her open the F&G present, palace staffers arranged the lunch before the wedding, etc...., why did Andrew Parker-Bowles feel the need to get divorced, if not for the public cuckolding he received as a result of the Dimbleby interview?

Again other people have lives. Andrew Parker Bowles wanted to marry Rosemary. Her marriage dissolved in 1991 and her husband remarried.

Prince Charles gave all the people in his life gifts. If he had a relationship with Lady Sarah Keswick rather than Camilla, I am sure we would have found out which gift he had given Sarah and not which gifts he had given Camilla.
Also most people do give birthday gifts to friends. Camilla's birthday is July 17th.

The timeline and reliable sources always point to C&C beginning a romantic relationship in 1988.

Patti Palmer-Tomkinson said she contacted Camilla in 1986 (IIRC it was in November) and told her to get in touch with Charles because he was depressed. Camilla wrote him a letter. Charles and Camilla exchanged letters and then started speaking on the phone before meeting in person and then their relationship turned intimate.

This matches with Gerald Ward's version that C&C were not in touch.

IMO, Charles wanted Camilla and had Gerald and APB help. Andrew was in a relationship with someone else so helping find a suitable partner for his wife was the gentlemanly thing to do.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Can I just say that i hope that Charles and Diana's children and grandchildren never read this thread; if people talked about my parents this way without any of them personally knowing my parents or the complete facts, I'd be really really angry...

just my 2cts

Agreed. It must be so embarrassing, downright hurtful, and infuriating to hear people debate something they have no first-hand experience with and deciding who the 'good' person was and who the 'bad' guy was. I don't believe they do think about it often to be honest.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Camilla had a family, but both her children were sent away to boarding school as children. Tom in particular has said he was sent away early.

Some reports states Laura did not go to boarding school.

The boarding school that Laura went to only accepts children 10 years or older. Laura turn 10 in 1988.

Another thing that points to 1988 as the start of C&C's relationship.

 

[Osipi]

As someone earlier mentioned a book by a valet in service to the PoW and his tenure as a member of the Wales household early in the marriage, the book is "Royal Service: My Ten Years As Valet To Prince Charles" by Stephen Barry.

It keeps cropping up about the fact that very early on in the marriage, Diana did some housecleaning and removed staff and friends that were close to Charles. Not sure about the dog. To me, this action so early on in the marriage shows me that Diana was very insecure in her relationship with her husband and felt threatened by anyone who might have a closer relationship and understanding of a man whom she believed should put her first and foremost in his life about everything. Charles was able to keep and maintain a close friendship with the Parker-Bowles after Camilla married Andrew and IIRC, Charles also enlisted the aid of Camilla to help Diana adjust to the idea of royal marriage after the engagement. Charles' circle of friends was drastically culled after the marriage. Diana resented the staff whose job was to "do" for Charles as she felt it was "her job now". I could stretch this a bit further and say that I've seen evidence that Diana also resented the Prince of Wales job as it took him away from her far more than she liked. In short, I think these resentments from the beginning were the seeds that eventually strangled the marriage. It happens.

Over the years as they grew further and further apart, from experience I can tell you that they became more and more what marriage counselors call "married singles". Each gravitated to their own personal lives and more and more the marriage, in reality, was one "in name only".

There is no fault to lay at any one person's door as they both did what they felt was right at the time although a huge mistake was to let the public in on it. Sometimes I think the "War of the Wales" was perhaps the world's first glimpse into reality shows. Rather than having there be "Diana's side" and "Charles' side" and a cast of external characters playing a role, perhaps we should be as a marriage counselor is trained to be and look at the marriage itself to see where the cracks were.

 

[Lee-Z]

Again what about Camilla's family, children and grandchildren.

I feel exactly the same about/for Camilla and her family, but as this thread is about Charles and Diana, I didn't mention Camilla...

 

[Jacknch]

Could we get back on topic and try to avoid going off onto needless tangents? It would also be appreciated if we could avoid getting snarky with one another by using a discussion thread to promote one royal whilst dismissing another - it dimishes the enjoyment of others reading the thread. Thank you.

 

[TLLK]

I believe that the faculty and staff at the boys' school attempted to limit their access to newspapers, magazines, and television during the War of the Wales. It's a shame that their parents lost sight of the fact that their sons would be impacted by their remarks to the press regarding the state of their marriage.

 

[HistoryGirl]

^True. It really is a shame when parents lose themselves in their own problems and forget that their role as parents should always take precedence when the children are being raised.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I think the most damaging thing was not what she did to the monarchy, even though it was substantial, but the lack of awareness as to what giving that interview and inviting the press into her marriage would do to her children. He media were already speculating, Diana and Charles were both quite immature, in my opinion, for stoking the fires so to speak.

I agree theres lots of blame for both of them there, separation and divorce bring out the worst in people, and royals are no exception. But with the palace & others lying to us for almost a decade about the marriage, it left Diana few options.

I think Charles should have taken a page out of the Queens book and stayed quiet, the Dimbleby book and interview were a disaster for him, the BRF was always playing catch up when it comes to media, and silence would have given them the chance for Diana to make a misstep and shoot herself in the foot.

 

[HistoryGirl]

It is a really tough situation, however, she did have other options. Keeping quiet and divorcing him was one. I think the press would've outed the affair eventually. I can only speak for myself, but I couldn't care less whether they 'lied' about their marriage. I'm rather traditional with that stuff though. I believe that it's not anyone's business what happens between people in a marriage, good or bad. However, I can see that some people feel exceedingly attached to public figures and want to know everything about them.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

It would have been interesting to see if the affair would have been outed before she could have divorced him. People forget sometimes that for most of the marriage it was the opinion that they couldn't get divorced, that it would trigger the whole abdication crisis like Edward the VIII. Also she desperately didn't want to get divorced with her family history, it was the Queen that pretty much forced them into it.

Shame that she hadn't used her regal power earlier in the marriage to straighten them out.

Thats why I think the "War of the Wales" got so ugly, everyone thought they were stuck in the situation, so I think they underestimated how much damage could be done in the press, and it was only at the end, once it as bad as it did, did they determine that divorce had to be better than this.

 

[HistoryGirl]

^Youre right. I think a good rule of thumb to remember is that when it comes to the personal, involving the press is always a bad idea.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Also she desperately didn't want to get divorced with her family history, it was the Queen that pretty much forced them into it.

Source please? Like an actually quote from a book or link to a news article please.

 

[Osipi]

I definitely recall reading in various sources that after the Panorama interview, the Queen had had enough and advised both Charles and Diana to divorce. The one source that I could come up with is from the NY Times dated December 20, 1995.

Queen Urges Prince Charles And Diana to Divorce Soon - NYTimes.com

 

[Mirabel]

I definitely recall reading in various sources that after the Panorama interview, the Queen had had enough and advised both Charles and Diana to divorce. The one source that I could come up with is from the NY Times dated December 20, 1995.

Queen Urges Prince Charles And Diana to Divorce Soon - NYTimes.com

Yes, I read the same thing.
Diana didn't want a divorce but the whole interview backlash backed her into a corner, and the Queen decided enough was enough.

And really, two of her other children (and her sister) had divorced, and the monarchy hadn't crumbled; she was probably right that a divorce couldn't possible make things worse. Everything did calm down once it happened.

 

[Jacknch]

When the prime-minister of the day, John Major, announced in Parliament that Charles and Diana were to separate, I recall his statement saying that there was not plan/intention to divorce and that their constitutional roles remain unaffected:

A Day That Shook The World: Charles and Diana separate | History | Lifestyle | The Independent

Heaven knows what was going on between the separation and the eventual divorce, but for whatever reason Charles and Diana seemed reluctant to take the next step by divorcing until after the Panorama interview when it became quite obvious that the "towards zero" moment had arrived and there was really no option for them.

There were newspaper reports at the time using phrases such as "Queen asks/tells them to divorce" etc and the impression I got was that she was fed up with it all and that it was in everyone's best interests (not least of all the British public suffering under mountains of speculation from the media).

 

[Queen Claude]

Diana did not want the divorce and the Queen "ordered" it but at the same time Diana's actions contributed greatly to the Queen making that decision. IIRC Charles wanted a divorce and had been lobbying his mother for years for her approval to get a divorce, I doubt if Diana was unaware of this. I suspect that Diana thought that she was "safe" from the Queen granting Charles' wish because he was the heir but then it turns out that was a big miscalculation on her part.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thanks Osipi, Mirabel and Jack!

I don't often stray into this discussion

 

[AdmirerUS]

JMO, but at some point I think we all realized there was not a path forward without divorce. Both clearly were heading in directions that had nothing to do with the other and both clearly wanted to have relationships with others going forward.
While the feud between them had abated somewhat, and they were united behind the boys, they were completely out of one another's worlds. They had simply married the wrong person. The Queen's announcement acknowledged that.
And the only way for either to move forward was without the other. A shame that they had married, but there it was.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Diana Charles or both of them impacted their children with the use of the media. I think its telling that William doesn't parade his kids in front of a crop of photographers in his play area. Most of the photos of the kids are taken by their mother or by one person not a large group.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

As former staffers, experts and other members here have said several times: The Queen always tried to help Diana and she took her side over Charles until the famous the 1995 interview.

And when it comes to the divorce in 1996: I saw a pretty reliable documentary for approximately 10 years ago wher a former staffer said that the Queen was persuaded by a bishop who was close to Charles (I don't remember whom) to agree on a divorce.

The Queen then said that she did not understand how Charles could just give it up, but she agreed with the bishop when he told her that Charles and Diana were very different and that the dispute between them damaged the monarchy and the kids. She then sent them the letters.

The same was also said by a former private/press secretary on the BBC during the Diamond Jubilee in 2012.

I don't understand what I'm doing on this thread, and I hope this is my last visit to the Diana section of the forum.