Charles and Diana

[royal rob]

I think a lot of people who read a lot consider them-self to be better than others. To me that is what happens a lot in this thread. People that think they know every detail of the marriage and have every book about it and love to quote

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[soapstar]

Once again I've had to delete a few posts. Please remember that this thread is not about your fellow posters, nor is for debating why this thread exists. Let's keep it on topic.

 

[Nico]

I think a lot of people who read a lot consider them-self to be better than others. To me that is what happens a lot in this thread. People that think they know every detail of the marriage and have every book about it and love to quote

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...

 

[royal rob]

Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...

Great idea, even better unless you were there when it happened you can't post it . That should put an end to this thread for good

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...

I agree, however we all interpret things differently through our own special glasses tainted by our agendas and earthly experiences. Which of us have met or have anything to do with any royal member of any of the current families in the world? We would have to terminate this site if we were to meet all the criteria required to make our opinion any closer to the truth.

In any case, who can say that ANY source quoted would have a true depiction of what really happened? I am certain even Charles and Diana would not be entirely truthful or at least would have their own version of events...tainted by their own agendas and earthly experiences.

 

[Mermaid1962]

For myself, I tend to distrust the gossipy books or the ones that have a lot of speculation--those that presume what a person is thinking, for example. I prefer the ones that have quotes from letters and diaries and/or are written by people who are serious biographers and have access to the people who would have real information. If I remember a particular source, I will include it. However, I can't always remember where I read something or which documentary I saw it on. Even someone who was in Charles and Diana's circle wouldn't know everything. Even a protection officer wouldn't be with both of them all of the time. They even had their own staff and their own offices. All we can really discuss is what's already in the public sphere. I'm sure there's still much that's unknown.

 

[Zonk]

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.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Those of us who are in our 40s and 50s and have lived through the Fairy Tale years, the War of the Waleses, the Divorce, the Death, etc., might be tempted to think that we know it all and there's nothing more to be said. As Zonk says, there are people who are just learning about Charles and Diana by reading up or watching documentaries about William and Catherine, George and Charlotte, and Harry. For those who come here to learn more, it must be intimidating to run across people with very definite ideas, particularly when we take the attitude of "I know more about it, child, than you ever will." There's sharing information and a point of view, and then there's the effort to make this into sort of a classroom where naive students are put in their place. We all, at one time or another, first started Royal Watching. Charles and Diana are part of serious history. They aren't celebrities who are here today and gone tomorrow. Their actions impacted the way the British Royal Family are viewed today.

 

[royal rob]

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.

The difference between Diana and the royal history you mentioned is that Diana's sons are alive if they should see the hatred that is posted here it would be shocking.
Also how many threads is there in here about Diana ? Diana and the Queen , Diana and her step mum, Diana and Sophie etc etc so clearly this forum is Diana obsessed
If posters said things about living royals in the manner and using the words that they use about Diana they would be deleted at the very less
At the same time posters are afraid to say William is like is mum
Anyway my thoughts which I'm sure are welcome


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'd imagine that William and Harry know that their mother is controversial, which isn't to say that they wouldn't find comments hurtful. I don't like the way some people express themselves, either on the very negative side or on the extremely positive side. To see either Charles or Diana as some near-demonic presence or, on the other side, as some kind of purely good, heroic, human being is to miss the mark IMO. I find both options hard to take. However, because I like to talk about Charles and Diana, I have to see them occasionally. One factor is that a deceased person can't be legally defamed, because a deceased person can't sue. That's why comments can be made about those who are 'gone' that can't be made about the living. Would anyone call Edward VIII a Nazi sympathizer were he still alive or call Wallis a hermaphrodite? Would anyone post that George III was insane were he still living? Not if they didn't want to be banned from this board. If someone is part of history, it's different. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. I enjoy your comments, royal rob.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

And I enjoy your comments Mermaid1962

 

[royal rob]

Thank you mermaid 1962 I've been staying away from this tread ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Binny2]

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.

He was not as good at the game because he did not go for the jugular like she did. He tried to protect the monarchy and his sons as much as he could despite great provocation. He could have destroyed her public image in a matter of months if all her affairs were publicized, especially the first one early in the marriage with Barry Manakee, her married bodyguard. Reporters would have been interviewing Mrs. Manakee for all the sad details on how a glamorous princess with the world at her feet seduced a married man in her employ.

He could have released video of her screaming at him calling him all sorts of nasty names and denigrating his fitness for the throne. Someone could have audiotaped her when she was abusing her staff. I think plenty of people would have been shocked at what a nasty person she was. Read the Housekeeper's Diary and see how awful she was to her dresser who she often reduced to tears.

In her Her True Story and the Panorama interview, she openly argues for skipping Charles and depriving him of his birthright. Charles never once directly states in his book or the television interview that she was unfit to be the Princess of Wales and a future Queen. He never brings up her numerous affairs including those with married men. He never discusses her obssessive behavior such has her frequent hang-up calls to James Hewitt, Camilla, and of course, Oliver Hoare who eventually needed to involve the police. He could have easily painted her as a possessive, selfish mother who exposed her sons to many of her lovers, particularly James Hewitt, whom they would later find out on television was, in fact, having sex with their mother.

Princess Margaret was 5th in line to the throne and not a future Queen Consort. Margaret's tawdry behavior was an IED in comparison to Diana's nuclear blast. Diana was such a selfish person. By attacking Charles, she was attacking the monarchy and the future kingship of her son, but she did not care as long as she was hurting Charles and the Royal Family. I do not see her as some sort of PR genius. Consumed with vengeance, she won the media war because she had no conscience about causing any collateral damage. Although she did not realize it at the time, her media war created lasting damage to her reputation, her marriage, her children, and the institution that made her, the monarchy.

I don't know much about the other European monarchies to be able to comment.

 

[Princess Mara]

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.

Exactly! Thank you, Moonmaiden.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I don't think that Diana ever considered the long-term implications of what she was doing, in the same way that I don't think that Prince Charles considered the long-term fallout of Dimbleby's book. That book and interview were mistakes, as much as the Morton book and the Bashir interview. Diana's attempt to blacken Charles' future was inexcusable, I agree. However, I think that the Dimbleby involvement did Charles no favours either.

By attacking Charles, she was attacking the monarchy and the future kingship of her son, but she did not care as long as she was hurting Charles and the Royal Family. I do not see her as some sort of PR genius. Consumed with vengeance, she won the media war because she had no conscience about causing any collateral damage. Although she did not realize it at the time, her media war created lasting damage to her reputation, her marriage, her children, and the institution that made her, the monarchy.

 

[Binny2]

I don't think that Diana ever considered the long-term implications of what she was doing, in the same way that I don't think that Prince Charles considered the long-term fallout of Dimbleby's book. That book and interview were mistakes, as much as the Morton book and the Bashir interview. Diana's attempt to blacken Charles' future was inexcusable, I agree. However, I think that the Dimbleby involvement did Charles no favours either.

The Morton book and the Dimbleby book are not equivalent in my opinion.

I agree that the Dimbleby book was not the most flattering biography, but overall, it was pretty anodyne. He publicly complains about his parents which is not becoming to a man his age. This was the low point of the book. The long-term fallout of the Dimbleby book was to make him look kinda whiny, but he did not damage the monarchy to the devastating extent that Diana had.

The Dimbleby book and documentary did not hurt Diana with the public and were not created with the intent to be harmful towards her. Charles does not attack Diana in his book, but attributes many of the problems in the marriage to incompatibility. According to Charles, the marriage did not fall apart due to malice or a lack of integrity in the other person as Diana does in her book and interview.

The Morton book and Bashir interview were a scathing attack on Charles and the Royal Family. Diana clearly was out to damage her husband and his family. Sadly for her, her forays into media manipulation led to catastrophic consequences; namely, divorce and loss of position for Diana.

I recall watching this entertainment show in the early 90's (I think it was called Extra) that interviewed Andrew Morton a few years before the Her True Story came out. The interviewer asked him what would happen if Diana went for a divorce. He snorted and said that would be the "ding dong of the century."

I agree with you. She truly could not work out the long term consequences for her actions. I don't know why she thought she was invincible.

 

[COUNTESS]

Poor Charles the Victim. Had no control, could do nothing, just waited in the wings, hoping to save the monarchy, his sons and the world. Frankly, a poor excuse for a husband. He knew what the repercussions might be. Remember, Camilla was non-negotiable. He played his hand and the chips fell where they did. Diana was difficult and she had a childish view of marriage to her husband. She thought he would be her husband exclusively, not primarily.

 

[Binny2]

Poor Charles the Victim. Had no control, could do nothing, just waited in the wings, hoping to save the monarchy, his sons and the world. Frankly, a poor excuse for a husband. He knew what the repercussions might be. Remember, Camilla was non-negotiable. He played his hand and the chips fell where they did. Diana was difficult and she had a childish view of marriage to her husband. She thought he would be her husband exclusively, not primarily.

But, she was cheating on him almost from the first starting with her bodyguard Manakee. She was not an innocent. She wasn't exclusively his wife for almost the entirety of the marriage. I don't think there was ever a period of time when she wasn't not having an affair.

How could she expect Charles to come back to her if she was already sleeping with other men? It sounded in some ways like an open marriage, but Diana wanted it both ways: to be the poor, cheated upon wife and also the free spirit who could pursue any man she wanted (whether he was married or not) with no repercussions from her spouse. I think Charles withdrew from her once it became apparent she was cheating constantly.

It probably did not help that Charles was very happy with Camilla becoming increasingly devoted to her while she was floundering from one affair to the next.

 

[Osipi]

From all that I've read over the years, I have serious doubts that there was an affair going on with Mannakee. I do however think that there was a closeness and an intimate friendship which makes sense because at the time, he was Diana's protection officer. Later on, she was to be pretty close with Paul Burrell but I don't think I've ever heard it insinuated that there was an affair there.

With Charles tied up quite a bit of the time with his duties and roles as Prince of Wales and his own interests, I think Diana found herself alone more often than she thought would happen and it wasn't what her idea of what a marriage should be at the time. Thinking about this, she probably did spend more of her time with Mannakee than with Charles but that doesn't automatically denote that there was an affair going on.

Things could have been very different if Diana had the insight to use her focus and her energies into constructive ways to use her time when apart from Charles rather than dwell on the negatives both real and imagined. As has been stated, she knew from the beginning that she was not only marrying a man but also his position. Charles didn't have the luxury of the choices William has today of being able to put more focus into his home and family and perhaps if more consideration was given to this issue, things might have been different. Its looking at this scenario where it seems quite plausible that Diana didn't want to spend the time she she did have with Charles with his friends and that became a major issue.

There are many "if only" and "what ifs" surrounding this marriage and probably a whole lot that's never made it to the public domain that we can only look at what we know in hindsight. We'll never have the full story as that rests between one that sadly has left this earth too early in life and another who has put the past behind him and has moved on.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?

The Dimbleby book and documentary did not hurt Diana with the public and were not created with the intent to be harmful towards her. Charles does not attack Diana in his book, but attributes many of the problems in the marriage to incompatibility.

Agreed. No named source has ever confirmed there was physical intimacy, and although I think that Diana had a 'crush' on him, and he was supportive to her, she herself denied an affair.

From all that I've read over the years, I have serious doubts that there was an affair going on with Mannakee. I do however think that there was a closeness and an intimate friendship which makes sense because at the time, he was Diana's protection officer. Later on, she was to be pretty close with Paul Burrell but I don't think I've ever heard it insinuated that there was an affair there.

 

[Binny2]

I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?

It's been a while since I saw the Dimbleby book. I don't have a copy with me now. What did Charles authorize in the book about Diana?

Agreed. No named source has ever confirmed there was physical intimacy, and although I think that Diana had a 'crush' on him, and he was supportive to her, she herself denied an affair.

Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.

 

[Thumbahlina]

I wouldn't want my past all known by strangers who really have no business knowing, so I wouldn't open a book and read about some personal details of someone's marriage, really it has no relevance in my life. From what media I have seen by chance, Dianna was ill, Prince Charles is a royal with a big role, they split up because during that time divorce was quite common and they had their reasons. It wasn't a surprise, it was news, you couldn't help but hear about.

 

[Osipi]

Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.

I can attest to the the fact that it is very possible to have a close, solid, intimate yet platonic best friend relationship with a member of the opposite sex that has no bearing or effect on a marriage as I had a similar best friend relationship with a man for years while still married to my first husband. It was only years after my divorce that my friend and I resumed contact with each other and to both of our surprise, it turned romantic and now we've been happily married for going on 18 years.

So yes, it is possible. Not all close relationships are based in the physical.

 

[Thumbahlina]

Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.

Sounds like matters of the mind, if she adored someone, really, the psychology of that could be complex.
Those tapes were like a therapy session, or came across that way, I saw a bit, they bored me, but were easy to get attention drawn to given the mind state of Diana. Everyone needs someone they can share emotions with to just talk about it, whatever it is it was like mirror time with an audience and someone to talk to for her. She just seemed like what she had going on was a matter of medical significance. Not really something for the public but like she reached out to those who suffered the same condition and non-compliance to treatment, like she wanted others to get help, like that was her true motive, not belittling Prince Charles.

Mannakee was with the royal protection squad, so his eduction suited the position most likely and listening to Diana was part of the job. Maybe she was smitten with him, I doubt it. Perhaps she didn't care for Prince Charles in a way she liked or felt she could trust, perhaps she liked Mannakee better in a way she could handle, like a friend and felt like she was in control that way with a lifestyle that rich that seemed out of control to her. The thing that matters out of all of it is that through her struggles, she reached out to people even if it wasn't the best thing. Buying a bunch of published personal information about Royals is ridiculous. It is only history to their immediate family.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Dimbleby described Diana as extremely unstable and hysterical. Prince Charles is presented as more-or-less a victim of a loony wife. Prince Charles actually comes across as a rather passive person, marrying because the country and his family wanted it and not because he really wanted to. The fact that he didn't love Diana is made pretty obvious.

The book was as authorized biography. Prince Charles had the chance to review it before it was published.

I do think that Prince Charles is basically an honourable person who wants to do the right thing. I'd like to think that he regrets the liberties that he gave Dimbleby.

As for Manakee vs. Camilla, I think that Diana was morally unformed when she married. She refers to herself as 'keeping herself tidy for what lay ahead.' That suggests to me that any decisions she made about 'keeping herself' for Prince Charles weren't based on morality but on more practical matters. Once she was married to Prince Charles, she perhaps didn't have the same ideas about fidelity that she had about 'tidiness'. Just because I don't think she was intimate with Manakee doesn't mean I think she was innocent. She was hypocritical when she found fault with Prince Charles being close to Camilla during the same period, even if only emotionally close.

Dimbleby claims that Prince Charles had virtually no contact with Camilla until the mid-80s, only meeting her randomly at social events where others were present, and that he called her only once before that, to tell her about the birth of William. (That seems rather odd to me. Surely everyone in Britain knew about the birth of William ad nauseum.)

It's been a while since I saw the Dimbleby book. I don't have a copy with me now. What did Charles authorize in the book about Diana?

 

[Mermaid1962]

The public relations war between Charles and Diana impacted the country. People were divided into who supported Charles and who supported Diana. They were going to be the King and Queen one day, and so what was said about them and people's reactions to them had the possibility of how they viewed part of their country's leadership--the monarchy. The royal family aren't just rich people living in big houses, after all. The monarch represents the nation. He or she takes the same role in the UK as the phrase 'The People' or the flag in the United States.

Buying a bunch of published personal information about Royals is ridiculous. It is only history to their immediate family. Otherwise it is what the big achievements in society for everyone the royals made that makes the history books.

 

[Binny2]

I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?

If you don't mind writing more, what exactly did he say about her? I don't recall the exact details.

I don't think the book was necessarily harmful to her, but more a confirmation of the many rumors of mental instability surrounding Diana. He pulled the curtain on the many severe symptoms she was having for, I suspect, her sake as well for his. And, he made certain that his picture of Diana was motivated by more than just the current rancorous state of their marriage. He gave Dimbleby access to over 10,000 of his letters, journals and personal diaries to document his experience of the marriage. The portrait that emerges from the letters must have been much more damning than him simply saying "she's awful." I don't remember what Dimbleby wrote about Camilla. How bad was it?

Charles had other motivations. He was desperate to keep his good name that was being trashed by his wife in the media. She was running a very effective, shrewd, ruthless campaign against him. He was fighting for his survival as a viable future king. Certainly, he couldn't turn to his monarch for help who responded with her usual Ostrich routine.

Although both parties may not have been consciously seeking a divorce with their respective books, they at least wanted the British public know about their suffering.

 

[Binny2]

I can attest to the the fact that it is very possible to have a close, solid, intimate yet platonic best friend relationship with a member of the opposite sex that has no bearing or effect on a marriage as I had a similar best friend relationship with a man for years while still married to my first husband. It was only years after my divorce that my friend and I resumed contact with each other and to both of our surprise, it turned romantic and now we've been happily married for going on 18 years.

So yes, it is possible. Not all close relationships are based in the physical.

What a lovely story!

 

[Binny2]

Dimbleby described Diana as extremely unstable and hysterical. Prince Charles is presented as more-or-less a victim of a loony wife. Prince Charles actually comes across as a rather passive person, marrying because the country and his family wanted it and not because he really wanted to. The fact that he didn't love Diana is made pretty obvious.

The book was as authorized biography. Prince Charles had the chance to review it before it was published.

I do think that Prince Charles is basically an honourable person who wants to do the right thing. I'd like to think that he regrets the liberties that he gave Dimbleby.

Sorry about my previous post; I see you were already answering my request for more detail in the Dimbleby book.

IMO, Charles presented the truth of Diana's behavior which was verified by other people in the vicinity. Whether it was wrong to put this out in the public is not clear. As I said earlier, he must have felt desperate. He must have been sick of the fairy tale as was Diana.

I have to read the book again. I got that he was being pushed into marriage, but not necessarily that he didn't love her. He was fond of her and found her lovable. She was willing to accept a faint love if it allowed her to be the Princess of Wales. I don't think he regrets what he allowed to be written about Diana in his authorized biography.

I agree that he is basically an honorable man who has lived his entire life in a very constricting role. Expressing his true feelings publicly must have been the most liberating act of his life. He probably wouldn't give that up for anything. On the other hand, maybe he regrets putting it all out there because it likely hurt his children.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.