Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
corazon said:
a fact, charles and diana was in the expo canada 1986, somedoby remember?
diana have a faint in public, charles ignored her completely, I have the tape.
I think in 1986 he couln't stand her anymore. Poor man.
 
diana have a faint for the bulimia and charles go on with if nothing happend.
You remenber, how diana was dressed?
 
you know something about bulimia?
 
It was nothing to do with bulimia. It was an obvious prat fall. It was an attempt to get attention.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I think I remember seeing that. The girl deserved an oscar. She must have been trained by Gerry Cottle.
She deserved a treatment and she deserved Love, not an oscar. That's not a very nice thing to say about someone who had a faint in public. It could happend to everyone.
 
when a person noy eat for days (or eat bad) the body lost energy, (i have some similar but for depression). the faint happend when the body no have energy.
 
when charles fell of the horse was deserved 3 oscars
 
Look - I may not be an expert in medical matters but I do consider myself I bit of an expert when it comes to professional trips and falls - Norman Wisdom is the master of them. Fainting and falling, tripping etc so that it looks totally real but if you know what to look for you can tell its a prat fall. Diana did a prat fall - not a good one, but it'd pass for a faint. Of course, its attributed to Bulimia but I'll bet my false eyelashes that that was a prat fall.
 
think you want think, the charles's actitud are the importat.
 
If he recognised it was a prat fall he had no need to worry did he?
 
think you want think.
 
Look, I'm trying to put a different point of view across so don't get a strop on. That doesn't add anything. IMO, as an actor and a frequent 'faller', I though her faint was a prat fall. If Charles knew that it was a prat fall as well, he would be less likely to show concern that if it was a real fall. Makes sense to me.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Look, I'm trying to put a different point of view across so don't get a strop on. That doesn't add anything. IMO, as an actor and a frequent 'faller', I though her faint was a prat fall. If Charles knew that it was a prat fall as well, he would be less likely to show concern that if it was a real fall. Makes sense to me.

Please drop it Beatrixfan! We all know Diana was suffering from bulimia- a very serious potentially fatal disease. The undernourishment could well have caused her to faint, whether you think it actually did or not.
 
I'm not saying she didn't suffer from bulimia - I'm not a monster. She has my sympathy on that level but I don't believe that that 'faint' was genuine and I am putting that belief forward.
 
Regina said:
But, as far as I know, this ex-girlfriends leaved him when he got engaged.

Remember Anna Wallace who refused to kowtow to Charles. Several books, including The Windsor Knot by Christopher Wilson, states that Anna would not tolerate Charles' selfishness and his "friendship" with Camilla. Supposedly, Charles wanted to marry Anna and proposed not long before he did to Diana and she wouldn't do it because she was older and mature enough to see what was going on. Unfortunately, Diana couldn't.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I'm not saying she didn't suffer from bulimia - I'm not a monster. She has my sympathy on that level but I don't believe that that 'faint' was genuine and I am putting that belief forward.
We will never know for sure. What we do know is that Diana was capable of histrionics as a cry for help and attention. One example is when she threw herself down the stairs while pregnant with William.
 
Yes - and when she through Raine Spencer down the stairs. And the liberal use of mascara in Panorama so that only the slightest water would make it run. The batting of the eyelashes - she was a generally good actress but then most of the Royal Family are.
 
dakodas said:
We will never know for sure. What we do know is that Diana was capable of histrionics as a cry for help and attention. One example is when she threw herself down the stairs while pregnant with William.
sorry, you thinf that a women can whanted lost her first baby for histery?
 
corazon said:
sorry, you thinf that a women can whanted lost her first baby for histery?
I apologize but I do not understand your question.
 
corazon said:
In show ROYALTY A-Z in E!

sorry but I'm in shock here, your main source of information is a TV program!!!! One where there is minimal serious research done and is made as a populist program for an entertainment channel! And yes the books that have been written about "the war of the Wales" do base their information on the book by Andrew Morton that Diana contributed to.
If you want something more credible to read, read the archival newspaper and magazine articles from the late 70's to mid '80s. Also read Stephen Barry's book "Royal Service" which when first published was banned in the UK. Stephen Barry was Charles' valet and accompanied him everywhere, including his honeymoon. The book was published in 1982 and Stephen Barry died before the marriage of C & D disintegrated. He was on the royal train and clearly states that the woman wasn't Diana, not Camilla either. On the honeymoon Diana had a great time, she wasn't upset, there were no pictures of Camilla. Charles didn't do anything for himself, the valet organises and packs everything, he would have seen pictures if there were any. Also Stephen woke Charles the day of his wedding, no Camilla anywhere near him so that's a false story too. Stephen Barry did state that it was impossible for Charles to have women sleep over at Buckingham Palace as Charles' rooms were along a corridor (no interconnecting doors) and there was no way for a night-time partner not to be noticed by the staff. He also stated that in the 12 years he worked for Charles and his first job in the morning was to wake Charles, he was always in his bed alone. The cuflink story also has no credibilty as Charles' staff would have been the ones to order them and buy them, it didn't happen. This story is attributed to Diana. Please do some serious research ( not just populist TV programs or books with no historical research, look at the sources they use).

Charles had 2 very close woman friends, Camilla and Dale Tynan. Both are mentioned throughout his dating days, he introduced his girlfriends to both and socialised with both. Convienently Dale Tynan has been airbrushed out of the picture by the "bad Charles brigade" but Charles was just as close to Lady Tynan whom he called Kanga as he was to Camilla. Lady Tynan later had mental health problems but did state before she died that they had been close but there was never a sexual relationship.

Not true also that Charles broke off contact with his former girlfriends, he is still friends with Lady Jane Wellesley whom he dated in the early '70s she was invited to both his weddings. Other former girlfriends are still friends besides Lady Jane, a few were invited to his wedding to Camilla.
 
you think that a woman can want to lose his baby by hysteria?
Diana need help, and charles ignored her.
 
Charlotte1 - how fascinating. I have heard of the book but on principle have never bought it. But maybe I should. Do you recommend it?
 
Charlotte1 said:
sorry but I'm in shock here, your main source of information is a TV program!!!! One where there is minimal serious research done and is made as a populist program for an entertainment channel! And yes the books that have been written about "the war of the Wales" do base their information on the book by Andrew Morton that Diana contributed to.
If you want something more credible to read, read the archival newspaper and magazine articles from the late 70's to mid '80s. Also read Stephen Barry's book "Royal Service" which when first published was banned in the UK. Stephen Barry was Charles' valet and accompanied him everywhere, including his honeymoon. The book was published in 1982 and Stephen Barry died before the marriage of C & D disintegrated. He was on the royal train and clearly states that the woman wasn't Diana, not Camilla either. On the honeymoon Diana had a great time, she wasn't upset, there were no pictures of Camilla. Charles didn't do anything for himself, the valet organises and packs everything, he would have seen pictures if there were any. Also Stephen woke Charles the day of his wedding, no Camilla anywhere near him so that's a false story too. Stephen Barry did state that it was impossible for Charles to have women sleep over at Buckingham Palace as Charles' rooms were along a corridor (no interconnecting doors) and there was no way for a night-time partner not to be noticed by the staff. He also stated that in the 12 years he worked for Charles and his first job in the morning was to wake Charles, he was always in his bed alone. The cuflink story also has no credibilty as Charles' staff would have been the ones to order them and buy them, it didn't happen. This story is attributed to Diana. Please do some serious research ( not just populist TV programs or books with no historical research, look at the sources they use).

Charles had 2 very close woman friends, Camilla and Dale Tynan. Both are mentioned throughout his dating days, he introduced his girlfriends to both and socialised with both. Convienently Dale Tynan has been airbrushed out of the picture by the "bad Charles brigade" but Charles was just as close to Lady Tynan whom he called Kanga as he was to Camilla. Lady Tynan later had mental health problems but did state before she died that they had been close but there was never a sexual relationship.

Not true also that Charles broke off contact with his former girlfriends, he is still friends with Lady Jane Wellesley whom he dated in the early '70s she was invited to both his weddings. Other former girlfriends are still friends besides Lady Jane, a few were invited to his wedding to Camilla.
no only for a tv show, many book, magazines, etc etc, every said one thing very clear, charles was with camilla before and later marry diana.
 
are the 2 sides of the history charles-diana,
 
tiaraprin said:
Remember Anna Wallace who refused to kowtow to Charles. Several books, including The Windsor Knot by Christopher Wilson, states that Anna would not tolerate Charles' selfishness and his "friendship" with Camilla. Supposedly, Charles wanted to marry Anna and proposed not long before he did to Diana and she wouldn't do it because she was older and mature enough to see what was going on. Unfortunately, Diana couldn't.

But he stayed friends with Anna Wallace, when his marriage was on the downhill slide. Charles and Diana attended a party and Anna Wallace was also there, Charles happily danced the night away with her and Diana was majorly annoyed. Anna Wallace refused to marry Charles because she had attended a party with him and he had spent the time basically mingling with others and very little time with her. They had a public fight about it she wasn't prepared to be the 'woman in the background' . We don't know exactly why they broke up, all books including the one you've quoted, are speculating. Anna Wallace has never spoken to the press or co-operated on a book.
 
the morton's book and the charles's vallet book NOT ARE NEUTRAL OPINIONS
 
All opinions are biased. All sources have bias to them. But the Valet Book has a certain amount of reliability because of Barry's closeness to Charles and Diana. By the same token, Gyles Brandreth's Charles and Camilla book has that reliability because of his friendship with them.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Charlotte1 - how fascinating. I have heard of the book but on principle have never bought it. But maybe I should. Do you recommend it?

Yes because it was written before the whole 'war of the Wales' and it gives a real insight into Charles' life and also his early days with Diana. Stephen Barry stopped working for Charles on April 2nd 1982. He was also 'there'( in Charles and Diana's courtship and early married life) so had inside information which is the reason the book was originally banned in the UK. It's also good to read a book with no benefit of hindsight as SB died I think in 1985.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom