Charles and Diana

[Queen Camilla]

The problem with the marriage was Diana abandoned Charles from the beginning.

While on their honeymoon on Britannia, Charles asked Diana to share his interest in reading, Diana instead when downstairs to socialized with all the male crew.

Diana should have read with Charles. She could have asked Charles to read to her or they could have taken turns reading to each other. After a few pages Diana could have asked Charles to take a swim or a walk or just to talk to get to know each other better but instead Diana abandoned her husband and went downstairs to socialize with a bunch of men.

Diana's supporters blame Charles but Diana physically removed herself from the marriage from the start.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

So, it's completely out of the question that Charles make more of an effort to make his 20 year old bride happy on their honeymoon and try to do the types of things that they could enjoy TOGETHER??

The idea that Diana abandoned Charles on the honeymoon is imaginative bordering on bizarre. There are TWO people in a marriage and on a honeymoon...not one!!

 

[Queen Camilla]

She is the one that left him and went down stairs to talk to the crew.

Diana could have made the effort. I did say only read a few pages before asking him to do something she wanted to do.

She abandoned him.

What do call a bride that leaves her husband on her honeymoon to socialize with other men?

 

[Jacknch]

Well, I for one was not on the honeymoon with Charles and Diana and so have no idea what actually happened on it and can only go on hearsay.
But one thing is for sure: reading a book, taking turns in reading a book or having a book read to me would not be on my top list of things to do.
I guess if my new spouse wanted to do that sort of thing, my choice would have been to either sit there quietly in silence looking every inch the demure, pleasing bride, contemplating where to warm my husband's slippers or I'd have gone off to find someone else to talk to, as I was only 20 years old, never been on a cruise before, never been married before and it was all a little bit too exciting to be cooped up reading a book.
Being an understanding wife is something one has to become after a good few years of marriage, not on a honeymoon!

 

[Pranter]

Er yes...my husband is older than I am and was almost 30 when we married...I was 21...the last thing he wanted to do on the honeymoon was expect me to read Kant (or anything else for that matter).

I figure that in hindsight Charles is aware of how badly he handled things at the beginning of his marriage.

William has learned from the mistakes of his parents.



LaRae

 

[Miss Hathaway]

The problem with the marriage was Diana abandoned Charles from the beginning.

While on their honeymoon on Britannia, Charles asked Diana to share his interest in reading, Diana instead when downstairs to socialized with all the male crew.

Diana should have read with Charles. She could have asked Charles to read to her or they could have taken turns reading to each other. After a few pages Diana could have asked Charles to take a swim or a walk or just to talk to get to know each other better but instead Diana abandoned her husband and went downstairs to socialize with a bunch of men.

Diana's supporters blame Charles but Diana physically removed herself from the marriage from the start.

So, Charles bored his bride to the point that she had to seek the company of the staff. A 32-year-old man, on his honeymoon with the most famous, sought after young woman in the world, wants to read rather than, oh, take a bubble bath together, feed each other grapes, cuddle, make love, etc. No, he wanted to read a book.

 

[muriel]

Does this thread really need to exist?


The War of the Wales' is long over: the couple in question divorced nearly 20 years ago, one of them has been dead for nearly 18 years, the other one has been happily married for over 10 years, the children of the first marriage seem to have adjusted well to the situation. There is really no new information coming through, just a rehashing of heresay, and any conjecture from books and articles.

 

[eya]

Wherefore their marriage did not go well because of a book? What a misfortune

Please remember that this is a discussion forum for royal watchers, and as such....people still have a desire to discuss the marriage of Charles and Diana. As previously discussed, its a part of the British royal history. We still discuss the Abdication of 1936, the War of the Roses, Henry VIII and his wives, the Princes in the Tower, etc.

I do agree that we tend to go round and round but its also worth noting, that there are those who were not around for the actual marriage and are just discovering Diana via her sons and grandchildren.

Its also a free will forum. No one is forced to read or post in a particular thread.

I totally agree with you.

 

[cepe]

Does this thread really need to exist?


The War of the Wales' is long over: the couple in question divorced nearly 20 years ago, one of them has been dead for nearly 18 years, the other one has been happily married for over 10 years, the children of the first marriage seem to have adjusted well to the situation. There is really no new information coming through, just a rehashing of heresay, and any conjecture from books and articles.

That is the most sensible comment I've read on this subject.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does this thread really need to exist?


The War of the Wales' is long over: the couple in question divorced nearly 20 years ago, one of them has been dead for nearly 18 years, the other one has been happily married for over 10 years, the children of the first marriage seem to have adjusted well to the situation. There is really no new information coming through, just a rehashing of heresay, and any conjecture from books and articles.

Amen! I can not believe that even the honeymoon and the fact that the one maybe wanted to read a book and the other wanted to do something else has been dragged in all this...

 

[Mermaid1962]

It's not really hearsay, because Prince Charles wrote a letter to one of his friends about how he was enjoying Van der Post novels while Diana went around talking to the sailors. It's quoted in the Dimbleby book.

Well, I for one was not on the honeymoon with Charles and Diana and so have no idea what actually happened on it and can only go on hearsay.

 

[royal rob]

Does this thread really need to exist?


The War of the Wales' is long over: the couple in question divorced nearly 20 years ago, one of them has been dead for nearly 18 years, the other one has been happily married for over 10 years, the children of the first marriage seem to have adjusted well to the situation. There is really no new information coming through, just a rehashing of heresay, and any conjecture from books and articles.

I made this point a few days ago but there are posters who hate Diana and won't let a chance go by where they can make the hate known.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Binny2]

I made this point a few days ago but there are posters who hate Diana and won't let a chance go by where they can make the hate known.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I enjoy reading about the Charles and Diana marriage and learning new bits of information. It puts Diana in perspective and really make clear what a incredible change she brought to the Royal Family and more importantly, how she managed to damage the monarchy to such a severe extent that, I think, it is in irreversible decline. One can see the bit by bit chipping away at the institution through this marriage. She never learned how to be a team player in either her personal relationship with her husband or as part of a larger organization.

It is too bad that you think that is hate.

 

[royal rob]

I enjoy reading about the Charles and Diana marriage and learning new bits of information. It puts Diana in perspective and really make clear what a incredible change she brought to the Royal Family and more importantly, how she managed to damage the monarchy to such a severe extent that, I think, it is in irreversible decline. One can see the bit by bit chipping away at the institution through this marriage. She never learned how to be a team player in either her personal relationship with her husband or as part of a larger organization.



It is too bad that you think that is hate.

But there is nothing new and there never will be so what is the point of repeating the same over and over.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Binny2]

But there is nothing new and there never will be so what is the point of repeating the same over and over.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It's new to me. The passage of time, the world is moving further and further away from the media propaganda of the nineties. This will allow for better analysis of that period in history. As I wrote before, it will put the Diana time period in perspective and give more insights to the real person that was Diana and the disastrous response or non-response by the royal family.

 

[Mermaid1962]

As the years go by, there's less interest in Diana. That's the way history works. I fondly remember the 'fairy tale years' of Charles and Diana, which in my memory lasted until 1987. That was the year of the Welsh Disaster visit, when the troubles in the marriage really came out in the open and it seemed everyone was commenting about how much time the Waleses had spent apart over that summer. The next year was Prince Charles's 40th birthday, and I remember a few biographies came out which were generally pretty devastating toward Diana in particular. That followed the summer of 1987, the first full year of the Fergie Phenomenon, and the time when Diana really broke out of her 'perfect princess' mode publicly. There was the time Sarah and Diana dressed up as policewomen and tried to crash Prince Andrew's stag night. There was the time Diana and Sarah pushed each other around at a skiing photo-call. The Princess and the Duchess infamously acted up at Royal Ascot. It was hard to believe that all this was actually happening when it happened, because that wasn't the way Diana presented herself in public. The times I really like to talk about are the early years, from 1980 until perhaps 1986--the time before everything seemed to start to crumble before our eyes. This is also the time that people don't remember unless they were born in the early 1970s or before--the time when there was still 'magic' in the aura around Charles and Diana. I know people who saw them on their tour of Atlantic Canada in 1983. People were enchanted.

 

[Ish]

Does this thread really need to exist?


The War of the Wales' is long over: the couple in question divorced nearly 20 years ago, one of them has been dead for nearly 18 years, the other one has been happily married for over 10 years, the children of the first marriage seem to have adjusted well to the situation. There is really no new information coming through, just a rehashing of heresay, and any conjecture from books and articles.

This is history. What's more is that this marriage, it's decline, and the consequences are actually a hugely significant part of late 20th century British royal history. Having a thread on this is as significant as having a thread on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the abdication, or the Wives of Henry VIII, or the Princes in the Tower.

It might not be interesting to you and/or you might not want to be involved in such a discussion and that's your right. But provided those of us who want to have this discussion are doing so civilly why shouldn't this discussion continue to exist?

 

[grevinnan]

I enjoy reading about the Charles and Diana marriage and learning new bits of information. It puts Diana in perspective and really make clear what a incredible change she brought to the Royal Family and more importantly, how she managed to damage the monarchy to such a severe extent that, I think, it is in irreversible decline. One can see the bit by bit chipping away at the institution through this marriage. She never learned how to be a team player in either her personal relationship with her husband or as part of a larger organization.

It is too bad that you think that is hate.

The royal family were going through plenty of bad news in addition to the Wales' problems so perhaps Princess Diana just became the face of it. It may not have damaged the royal family as much as it shook it up. The Queen had to join the wider world and her family were not as elevated above the rest of the people as they may have liked. .... happens even in royal families.

 

[soapstar]

I've edited and deleted a few posts. Please remember that insulting comments about your fellow members are not permitted. We expect our members to treat each other with respect, even when you have a difference of opinion.

 

[Ish]

So, Charles bored his bride to the point that she had to seek the company of the staff. A 32-year-old man, on his honeymoon with the most famous, sought after young woman in the world, wants to read rather than, oh, take a bubble bath together, feed each other grapes, cuddle, make love, etc. No, he wanted to read a book.

I don't think Charles necessarily "bored his bride to the point that she had to seek the company of staff" nor do I think Diana "abandoned" her husband by not wanting to read with him.

I haven't read the book or the letter(s) in which this story is recounted, so I can't comment on the exact circumstances of the event, beyond the fact that at some point in his honeymoon, Charles wanted to read, asked Diana if she wanted to join him, she declined and let him do so while finding another form of entertainment.

A few points:
1. Some people enjoy reading, some people don't. Neither one is necessarily right or wrong in their behaviour. What's more is that people who enjoy reading enjoy reading different things, and sometimes people who do like to read don't feel like reading.
2. A mature couple should not be expected to share every hobby, like, or dislike. What's more is that they should not be expected to spend every moment together, even if they're on their honeymoon.

Now not knowing the circumstances I don't want to nitpick things too much, but it seems to me that if Charles was insulted that Diana didn't want to read with him he should have grown up a bit. If he wanted to do something with Diana at that moment and she didn't want to do what he wanted, he could have easily suggested something else or asked her what she wanted to do. Likewise, if Diana wanted to do something with Charles at that moment she could have suggested something else.

I don't think it's a problem that at some point they weren't together on their honeymoon, or that Charles liked to read while Diana may not have (or may have preferred a different type of literature). I do see a problem in that Diana is typically described as having misrepresented her interests prior to her marriage. If she told Charles during the courtship how she loved reading Kant, then waited until after the wedding to tell him how she can't stand German philosophy then she misrepresented herself and tricked him.

In Diana's defense though, I don't think Charles was the only one being tricked during the courtship. Diana does seem to have portrayed herself as having been someone she wasn't, but Charles' intentions in the marriage were also misrepresented. I tend to believe that he went into the marriage intending on being a faithful husband, but I do think Diana was lead to believe that this was a fairy tale marriage - that Charles was her Prince Charming who would save her from her life - while Charles was viewing this as more of an arranged marriage - he was obligated to marry and Diana was the type of girl he had to marry. I don't believe Charles intentionally tricked Diana in this regards - I do think her family did so intentionally, and it's likely that people involved with the BRF did so as well - but she was tricked nonetheless - and she let herself be tricked, turning a blind eye to the signs that her reality was not what she thought. Despite that though, I think Charles should be held more accountable in this regards than Diana. Diana was practically a child, and he should have made it clear to her that theirs wasn't a love match or a fairy tale before marrying her.

 

[Binny2]

The royal family were going through plenty of bad news in addition to the Wales' problems so perhaps Princess Diana just became the face of it. It may not have damaged the royal family as much as it shook it up. The Queen had to join the wider world and her family were not as elevated above the rest of the people as they may have liked. .... happens even in royal families.

The problem with trying to make a royal figure more knowable and accessible on a human level is that it endangers the whole point of being royal. Royalty, on its on own terms, is supposed to be better, more noble, more graceful than an ordinary person. The Charles-Diana saga completely shattered that illusion.

Sure, all Britons know the rational truth that the individuals with royal titles are almost all of them ordinary people, but the British people were willing to subscribe to the notion of royalty for reasons of tradition and a desire for a sense of stability that comes with smooth continuity with their country' s history. Ideally, royalty means higher standards of propriety, decorum, decency and most of all dignity.

It's almost all gone. We know too much. Diana was the raging bull in a china shop. All the goodwill and trust of the people doggedly built up by the Queen has been frittered away step by step. The Prince of Wales' dedication to duty and his general unwillingness to play the media game against Diana tried to mitigate the damage done by the Diana philosophy, but it wasn't enough. The mystery has been pierced.

 

[royal rob]

The problem with trying to make a royal figure more knowable and accessible on a human level is that it endangers the whole point of being royal. Royalty, on its on own terms, is supposed to be better, more noble, more graceful than an ordinary person. The Charles-Diana saga completely shattered that illusion.



Sure, all Britons know the rational truth that the individuals with royal titles are almost all of them ordinary people, but the British people were willing to subscribe to the notion of royalty for reasons of tradition and a desire for a sense of stability that comes with smooth continuity with their country' s history. Ideally, royalty means higher standards of propriety, decorum, decency and most of all dignity.



It's almost all gone. We know too much. Diana was the raging bull in a china shop. All the goodwill and trust of the people doggedly built up by the Queen has been frittered away step by step. The Prince of Wales' dedication to duty and his general unwillingness to play the media game against Diana tried to mitigate the damage done by the Diana philosophy, but it wasn't enough. The mystery has been pierced.

Oh dear what can I say !! Sadly nothing !!!!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The problem with trying to make a royal figure more knowable and accessible on a human level is that it endangers the whole point of being royal. Royalty, on its on own terms, is supposed to be better, more noble, more graceful than an ordinary person. The Charles-Diana saga completely shattered that illusion.

Sure, all Britons know the rational truth that the individuals with royal titles are almost all of them ordinary people, but the British people were willing to subscribe to the notion of royalty for reasons of tradition and a desire for a sense of stability that comes with smooth continuity with their country' s history. Ideally, royalty means higher standards of propriety, decorum, decency and most of all dignity.

It's almost all gone. We know too much. Diana was the raging bull in a china shop. All the goodwill and trust of the people doggedly built up by the Queen has been frittered away step by step. The Prince of Wales' dedication to duty and his general unwillingness to play the media game against Diana tried to mitigate the damage done by the Diana philosophy, but it wasn't enough. The mystery has been pierced.

Oh, the PoW, aided and abetted by his mistress and their friends, did indeed try to play the "media game" against his former wife. He simply was not as good at the game as she was. She made mincemeat out of all of them.

I do agree that whatever "mystery" the BRF had is a thing of the past but that's hardly all Diana's fault. An aging blowsy Princess Margaret cavorting on Mustique with her lovers in the late 70's certainly didn't seem better or more noble than the rest of us and neither did her Uncle David and his shady twice divorced wife in the 1930's.

In fact, none of the European RF's have any real mystery or magic anymore. It's simply a sign of the times.

 

[Queen Camilla]

My point bringing up her behavior on her honeymoon shows she was not really in love with Charles.

She may have said she was in love with him but her actions say otherwise.

 

[royal rob]

My point bringing up her behavior on her honeymoon shows she was not really in love with Charles.

She may have said she was in love with him but her actions say otherwise.

Ha what about Charles his behavior showed he was not in love with her but I guess he gets a pass because he didn't know what "in love " means


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Exactly. Poor innocent misled little donkey Charles. Nothing to do but fly back to the comfort of his very married mistress.

I don't know what is so hard to accept about the fact that both Charles and Diana were-to some level-victims here. They should never have married but got caught up in a complex situation.

There was no real bad guy here.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In Diana's defense though, I don't think Charles was the only one being tricked during the courtship. Diana does seem to have portrayed herself as having been someone she wasn't,

but Charles' intentions in the marriage were also misrepresented.

Charles did not misrepresent his intentions.

I tend to believe that he went into the marriage intending on being a faithful husband,

but I do think Diana was lead to believe that this was a fairy tale marriage - that Charles was her Prince Charming who would save her from her life -

No one led Diana into the marriage or led her to believe it was a fairy tale. Charles told her to take her time to decide. He told her that she was not just marrying a man but a position.

while Charles was viewing this as more of an arranged marriage - he was obligated to marry and Diana was the type of girl he had to marry.

It was not an arranged marriage, Diana chased after Charles for years.
Charles was not obligated to marry Diana or a woman like her.

I don't believe Charles intentionally tricked Diana in this regards -

I do think her family did so intentionally, and it's likely that people involved with the BRF did so as well - but she was tricked nonetheless -

No one tricked Diana.
Not her family nor anyone in the Royal Family. She chased after Charles. She used her family and her connections to get invitations to wherever he was. She wanted to marry Charles since she was 13. When Charles was dating her sister, Diana said she was better for Charles than Sarah. She got herself invited to Sandringham and a ski trip while he was with Sarah.

When he was dating Anna Wallace, Diana used nearly every member of her family and Amanda Knatchbull. (sp) to get her invited to events and the RF homes. She used her sisters, her brother-in-law Robert Fellowes, her grandmother.

and she let herself be tricked, turning a blind eye to the signs that her reality was not what she thought.

No one tricked her.
Charles told her the reality of being married to him and her mother and grandmother tried to educate her about life as a wife and member of the royal family

Despite that though, I think Charles should be held more accountable in this regards than Diana.

Diana should be held more accountable as she was the one who chased him. She was the one who lied. She was the one who was deceptive.

Diana was practically a child, and he should have made it clear to her that theirs wasn't a love match or a fairy tale before marrying her.

Diana was not a child. She was not a little girl. She was not practically a child. She was an adult. She was a woman of the world. She had quit school at 16 and married at 20.

Diana was responsible for the failure of her marriage.
She is the one who rushed into marriage.
She is the one who chased Charles.
She is the one who wanted the title more than the man.
She is the one who was always interested in the media and not the man.

 

[royal rob]

In that whole rant I would have liked to see one IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Queen Camilla]

Oh, the PoW, aided and abetted by his mistress and their friends, did indeed try to play the "media game" against his former wife.He simply was not as good at the game as she was. She made mincemeat out of all of them.

Poor innocent misled little donkey Charles. Nothing to do but fly back to the comfort of his very married mistress.

I don't know what is so hard to accept about the fact that both Charles and Diana were-to some level-victims here. They should never have married but got caught up in a complex situation.

There was no real bad guy here

No one aided and abetted the Prince of Wales. He behaved honorably while dealing with a backstabbing, hypocritical wife.

Diana was Barry Mannakee's very married mistress.
She was the mistress of many many many men.
(See the inquest transcript and her own words recorded in 1997.)

Diana and her supporters always tried to deflect blame to others.

In the tapes recorded in 1997 she suggest the RF is/was upset with her about her many affairs.

Diana never one to own up to her own problems/mistakes make the comment 'calling the pot black'.

 

[Mirabel]

I haven't read the book or the letter(s) in which this story is recounted, so I can't comment on the exact circumstances of the event, beyond the fact that at some point in his honeymoon, Charles wanted to read, asked Diana if she wanted to join him, she declined and let him do so while finding another form of entertainment.

A few points:
1. Some people enjoy reading, some people don't. Neither one is necessarily right or wrong in their behaviour. What's more is that people who enjoy reading enjoy reading different things, and sometimes people who do like to read don't feel like reading.

Barbara Cartland once said that Diana never read any books except hers, which weren't good for her.

I did read that Charles would often suggest Diana read some books he wanted to discuss with her, but she always refused and seemed to resent the suggestion.

(Personally I don't understand people who don't enjoy reading; it's like saying you don't enjoy breathing!
Mark Twain once said that the man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read).