Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2

[BeatrixFan]

Ladies and Gentlemen we will we soon be departing for 'Old Ground' so please fasten your seat belts. There are no emergency exits, however, if you look in the overhead lockers you will find a gun and rope which you may use as appropriate. Please note that in case of turbulence, we recommend a quote from a Paul Burrell book or alternatively, you could make a small cardboard sign which reads, 'Diana - Light of the World' or 'Charles and Camilla - We love you' as you see fit. Thankyou for travelling with The Royal Forums - we wish you a safe and endless journey.​

 

[love_cc]

I believed what Charles said in the 1994 Dimbleby's interview. He resumed his affair with Camilla in 1987 probably. Before that, they had no sexual relationships and kept their friendship like what they did after Camilla's marriage. The friendship was likely to be a plantonic love not a physical relationships. Of course Diana can not stand that but nothing can do with that.
It is known that Camilla and Charles always have very strong sexual attractions for each other. Camilla made Charles blooming in the sexual relationships that created the special bond of intimacy in their life. For Charles, Camilla is always loving, warm, safe, understanding, optimistic and humor and other good qualities attracting him through his soul. Diana always sensed Charles's feeling for Camilla and she became competitive against Camilla because of her possession. In some way, Camilla and Diana were destined to be competitors because they two loved Charles too much in their own way. The way Camilla loves Charles matches his needs and so Camilla has Charles. It is in the destiny.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Oh lord...again, none of them were innocent. They each created their own destinies..

Diana and Charles did not have the best and most emotionally secure childhoods.

She was scarred from her parents' messy divorce. He was never able to make a definitive decision about anything without all the hemming and hawing.

Each one, and for that matter, all their lovers knew what could potentionally, AND DID, happen once they all lit the match on their affairs.

They all got caught....and the disgusting deluge of details, books, articles, interviews, he said/she said, gossip, lies, half-truths, full truths, were the results.

I am so sick and tired of the catty postings for and against all three of them.

NONE of them are saints. She is dead...that is a bit final to say the least. I doubt she will ever be forgotten.

And while certain members on here like to pretend she never did or accomplished anything to help modernize or rejuvenate the monachy..well, not everything was concrete in her results. This old broad of 32 here remembers VERY CLEARLY the impacts, both good and bad, that were made.

Their marriage and divorce also paved the way for the modern marriages in other royal families. Why? They figure better to let their crown princes marry for love or risk what happened to the British Monarchy in their own countries.

Charles, as POW, has done a tremendous amount of genuine good for his country. He is not perfect....but that means he is human.

Camilla, yes, the other woman with the scarlet letter on her chest. But now happily married to her man.

We all have to move on kids...it is not healthy to keep going around in circles.

None of you are right, and none of you are wrong....and that includes me.

 

[corazon]

It would show that the Prince was a poor judge of character, the main difference being that Charles could never get pregnant, it would matter if the woman got pregnant but, she and the child would be supported.
Another thing to remember is that his affair with Diana cost him his career.

the affair with diana don't cost to hewwit his career, her actitud about his affair with diana cost his career. he can have a affair with diana and nothing more, but he make this public for money.

 

[corazon]

Weeeelll!!! I've been reading with all my attention and respect all the opinions of this Forum members and I would like to express my point of view!!! and I'm sure that the shaddows are already there!!!Thanks for reading me!!!

well, here still some people defend diana0s memory (thedianatrio, especially he he) and I only will say a word about your post...........AMEN.
i am totally with you and I not the unique!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Margrethe II]

One would think that everyone would at least agree on one thing, that they ALL (those concerned) contributed to the outcome!


"MII"

 

[Charlotte1]

I'd like to read this too if I could get hold of it. Do you know why Barry stopped working for Charles--did Diana have anything to do with it?
Charles denies sleeping with Camilla before the eve of the wedding, but not having a body in the bed in the morning is not proof of it.
The cufflinks were thought to be a present from Camilla, not bought by Charles' staff. If you mean the bracelet bought for Camilla, that is in Dimbleby's book.

Here's the relevant parts of S Barry's book as to why it was impossible for Charles to have slept with Camilla the night before his wedding.

"The Prince is rarely alone. Buckingham Palace was totally unsuitable to anything secret to take place. His rooms (Charles') were in a straight line along a corridor. It would have been impossible for a girl to have spent time there without a footman or his policeman or me( SB) not being aware she was there"

"The girl would arrive at the Palace, and I would have given instructions to the policeman at the gate to let her in. I would take her through to his sitting room. She would be given a cold supper, served by the footman. So before he even arrived in his room, two policemen, a footman and I would all know she was there. It hardly made for intimacy"

People don't realise how little privacy the royals do have at their various palaces with staff constantly around. Or how pampered the royals were (are?) doing very little for themselves and that includes buying gifts. Charles' staff bought the gifts he gave out, even with Diana's engagement ring the royal jewellers bought a selection of rings to Windsor for her to choose from and she picked the biggest one! If Charles had bought Camilla the alleged jewellery then his staff would have known about it and probably organised to buy it!

Diana didn't really have that much to do with Stephen Barry leaving Charles' employ, in his book SB gives the reason for his leaving as with Charles' marriage his role had changed. He no longer would be the one to wake Charles in the morning, or bring him breakfast or organise the day's menus or chose the clothes he would wear to that day's engagements. He began to feel superfluous and Diana was doing many of the things he had done previously. Also Charles and Diana had wanted to make Highgrove their principle home, therefore spending most of their time in the country, SB was a city boy who couldn't face spending most of his time in the country. Again quoting from his book

"The chief reason for my resignation was that circumstances had changed, and I must make it clear that I was leaving the Royal Household on the best of terms. People found this hard to believe ..."Did you have a row with her?" I did not have a row with Princess Diana. Nothing of the kind happened. In fact we weren't close enough to quarrel"

 

[Charlotte1]

Which newspaper or reporter would that be?
I can't find anything on him being supported by an older woman, what was her name and where did you get that from?

Rather shamefully I have to admit reading "The International Express" The 2 stories I quoted are from that paper, his relationship with an older woman lasted for quite a while but I don't remember her name. The relationship ended sometime in the last 2 years. ( maybe more as I really can't remember when I last read about him) But the tabloids periodically write up exposes on James Hewitt and there's always something new to write about!

 

[Skydragon]

the affair with diana don't cost to hewwit his career, her actitud about his affair with diana cost his career. he can have a affair with diana and nothing more, but he make this public for money.

Hewitt was 'encouraged' to resign, he was lucky, they could both have been tried for treason!

The floodgates of disclosure were opened when Diana collaborated with Morton and the media and glad to see, the Royal family have settled back into keeping it all private!

 

[Skydragon]

Rather shamefully I have to admit reading "The International Express" The 2 stories I quoted are from that paper, his relationship with an older woman lasted for quite a while but I don't remember her name. The relationship ended sometime in the last 2 years. ( maybe more as I really can't remember when I last read about him) But the tabloids periodically write up exposes on James Hewitt and there's always something new to write about!

From what I hear, they are as un-reliable and lacking in facts as the Mail and Mirror over here. But, thank you for the information.

 

[AgnesK]

No, I don't think many people will ever forget Diana or her life and all the good she did.

I don't remember her because I was to young during her life and I must say that I don't understand all that stuff written about her (for me she wasn't pretty-she was only photogenic). It seems to me that she was one of that histerical cover girls-that's all. And I think that she will be remembered as a former late first wife of the POW. Of course people will be making money out of her-she was famous and she had died in her prime.

 

[Idriel]

Hewitt was 'encouraged' to resign, he was lucky, they could both have been tried for treason!

Sorry I don't get it ...

 

[ysbel]

Thanks Charlotte. That's interesting. Still Charles did sneak around and meet with Camilla in later years but that must be why they needed to do it in other people's homes.

My take on Barry's attitude about Diana stems more from the innocuous comments he left in his books.

Like the comment that she was given a tray of engagement rings and picked the largest one. Its not very nice to say, maybe she just liked sapphires but the way he made it sound, she was like a little kid in a candy shop that wanted the biggest toy. In connection with some other stuff he said, I think for whatever reason, he didn't like her much.

 

[Warren]

My take on Barry's attitude about Diana stems more from the innocuous comments he left in his books.

Possibly it was just resentment of the "intruder". Barry had been with the POW for some time, they would have had a comfortable and close relationship of sorts, and Barry would have seen Diana as an interloper in the relationship with his boss. Resistance to change, nothing new. As it turned out, Barry was correct, and as Diana did more for Charles, Barry was required less, his role changed, he was unhappy with this, so he left.

Similar to Diana and Burrell (but of course to a lesser extent). Assume Diana had begun a very close longer-term relationship with a man; Burrell would not be able to claim that he was Diana's "rock" and would probably cease to be her confidante. How would he have reacted? Graciously in public, but niggling in private? Quietly resentful? Would there have been a couple of conscious or unconscious put-downs in any book he wrote in relation to the third party? Probably.

No-one who has access to the inner-sanctum of an important figure through their employment would welcome being edged further out by the arrival of a new partner.
.

 

[ysbel]

Possibly it was just resentment of the "intruder". Barry had been with the POW for some time, they would have had a comfortable and close relationship of sorts, and Barry would have seen Diana as an interloper in the relationship with his boss. Resistance to change, nothing new. As it turned out, Barry was correct, and as Diana did more for Charles, Barry was required less, his role changed, he was unhappy with this, so he left.

Similar to Diana and Burrell (but of course to a lesser extent). Assume Diana had begun a very close longer-term relationship with a man; Burrell would not be able to claim that he was Diana's "rock" and would probably cease to be her confidante. How would he have reacted? Graciously in public, but niggling in private? Quietly resentful? Would there have been a couple of conscious or unconscious put-downs in any book he wrote in relation to the third party? Probably.

No-one who has access to the inner-sanctum of an important figure through their employment would welcome being edged further out by the arrival of a new partner.
.

Yes, Warren. The British are so much more interesting when they're polite on the surface and the underneath just shows through every now and then.

In a great detective novel, Dorothy Sayers created a wonderful valet character who was quite concerned at the prospect of his boss' upcoming nuptials. The lady of the house traditionally had a say as to the choice of her husband's gentleman's gentleman and the poor man was afraid of losing his job.

But then this situation just makes the enigma of Charles' and Diana's first year of marriage more intriguing. She was putting toothpaste on his toothbrush and he allowed it. Here Charles was supposedly bringing in a mistress into his marriage and he puts up with his new wife hovering around him doing things for him that he has a valet for and a valet that he's known and trusted for years. I can't understand why anyone would want someone else to put toothpaste on their toothbrush but that's beside the point.

I just ordered the book and I'm looking forward to reading it again with a fresh eye (and because we know how the story came out) .

 

[Warren]

... I can't understand why anyone would want someone else to put toothpaste on their toothbrush but that's beside the point.

My understanding of the toothpaste on the toothbrush story is that after Charles had a serious fall from his polo pony, his arm was injured and in a sling. Try doing it yourself at home with one arm behind your back.

 

[ysbel]

My understanding of the toothpaste on the toothbrush story is that after Charles had a serious fall from his polo pony, his arm was injured and in a sling. Try doing it yourself at home with one arm behind your back.

Ah, that makes sense, although I thought he broke his arm later in the marriage. But he had enough falls to break it twice.

 

[una]

Sorry I don't get it ...

Stories about the affair started coming out in the press in 1991 while Hewitt was still in the Gulf, not his fault. As more came out, his career prospects eroded away. The army could ignore the affair if it wasn't public, but couldn't tolerate an officer having a relationship with a future Queen once it was known that they knew about it. Hewitt was up for exams to become a Major in the army. He failed each of 3 exams by exactly 1%, and was demoted and sent back to England from Germany. In 1993 he was made redundant. That's how the army got rid of him.

 

[ysbel]

Did he get demoted before he published the book or after?

 

[una]

It would have been impossible for a girl to have spent time there without a footman or his policeman or me( SB) not being aware she was there"....She would be given a cold supper, served by the footman .................................. If Charles had bought Camilla the alleged jewellery then his staff would have known about it and probably organised to buy it!

Diana didn't really have that much to do with Stephen Barry leaving Charles' employ

Thanks for the description, it's clear Camilla wasn't in his rooms-- love the bit about the cold supper! I don't think she was there either, I only meant that they could have got together somewhere that evening, it wouldn't have to be in his rooms-- so Barry might not know.

As I understand it, the bracelet was found by Di rooting about in Ch's office, where she was being looked after by his private secretaries. It was in a pile of thank you gifts for friends who had helped Ch in the run up to the wedding--so presumably bought by office staff, not valets or footmen. Ch admitted to giving it to Camilla in the weeks before the wedding.

As I read it, Di was jealous of anyone who came between her and her loved ones. She felt Ch didn't pay her enough attention, and the staff came between them. And she had a way of freezing out staff she didn't want. I read somewhere that about 40 staff were laid off in the first years of the marriage.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And she had a way of freezing out staff she didn't want. I read somewhere that about 40 staff were laid off in the first years of the marriage

Thats very true. Brian Hoey says in his book, "At Home with the Queen" that her staff were always walking on eggshells. "One Day she'd kick her shoes off, jump up on the kitchen table and beg for all the latest gossip, four letters words and all. And then she'd ball you out for some imagined error and would become so regal and nasty it was impossible to like her". She often got the staff she didn't like into trouble by claiming they were having affairs with other staff members etc. People wanted to work for Charles because he was so generous but most refused a position with the Wales's because of Diana's temper.

 

[Elspeth]

Sorry I don't get it ...

If you're referring to the bit about being tried for treason, I think it's still the law in the UK that having sexual relations with a queen, wife of the heir to the throne, or monarch's eldest daughter is a treasonable offence. I'm not sure if the woman concerned would also be able to be prosecuted; I assume not in the case of rape, but I don't know about consensual sex.

This law goes back to the Middle Ages but has never been repealed as far as I know. Obviously it's intended to be a deterrent to ambitious men who see a more pleasant way of getting their son on the throne than the rather more dangerous route of starting an insurrection.

 

[una]

Did he get demoted before he published the book or after?

Demoted in 1991 and dropped by Di, redundant in 1993, book in 1994, after both Di and Ch had given their stories to the public.

 

[ysbel]

If you're referring to the bit about being tried for treason, I think it's still the law in the UK that having sexual relations with a queen, wife of the heir to the throne, or monarch's eldest daughter is a treasonable offence. I'm not sure if the woman concerned would also be able to be prosecuted; I assume not in the case of rape, but I don't know about consensual sex.

This law goes back to the Middle Ages but has never been repealed as far as I know. Obviously it's intended to be a deterrent to ambitious men who see a more pleasant way of getting their son on the throne than the rather more dangerous route of starting an insurrection.

Ah how lovely!

The major injust victim of this law was Francis Derham who had a relationship with Catherine Howard before she married Henry VIII. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered while Thomas Culpeper who had actually had an affair with her while she was married received the lesser punishment of being beheaded.

 

[Tzu An]

As I read it, Di was jealous of anyone who came between her and her loved ones. She felt Ch didn't pay her enough attention, and the staff came between them. And she had a way of freezing out staff she didn't want. I read somewhere that about 40 staff were laid off in the first years of the marriage.

It was kind of hypocritical, considering her eagerness to be friends with the staff briefly before her marriage. They called it "Mrs. Wales' Big Freeze." As for Stephen Barry, she didn't feel he treated her deferentially enough. Not to mention she was rather jealous of his closeness to Charles and their history together. Plus when Charles was busy with work and Diana wanted to see him, Barry would block the door and prevent her from entering.

If you're referring to the bit about being tried for treason, I think it's still the law in the UK that having sexual relations with a queen, wife of the heir to the throne,

I believe so too. It was/is seen as a way of destroying the royal line and replacing it with ones' own.

I'm not sure if the woman concerned would also be able to be prosecuted;

They would. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard were executed for adultry. Anne's were trumped up charges, but Katherine Howard's were genuine. It was considered treason to sleep around if on was a female consort.

Another thing to remember is that his affair with Diana cost him his career.

Quite true and at one point it also nearly did. He was going to be sent to Iraq or Germany as part of a career advancement and Diana didn't want him to go. Needless to say he went and Diana dropped him. I always noticed that Diana didn't want anyone to put anything else before her.

often got the staff she didn't like into trouble by claiming they were having affairs with other staff members etc.

One female staff member was dismissed on the unfounded charge that she was a lesbian. Another telling tidbit is that all her clothes had to be ironed to perfection and she would often go over the room, looking for the slightest imperfection. Furthermore her maids had to wash and replace her bedsheets daily since she usually slept with her makeup on, coverup foundation and more. I believe that Barbara Barnes, William's nanny, was somewhat forced to resign since she (Barbara) had recieved a little publicity while attending a birthday party for a celebrity.

 

[ysbel]

I believe that Barbara Barnes, William's nanny, was somewhat forced to resign since she (Barbara) had recieved a little publicity while attending a birthday party for a celebrity.

Barbara Barnes was sacked because William was getting unruly and it was felt that Barbara wasn't strict enough with him. Right before Sarah and Andrew's wedding, Diana took William to a function by herself and had to leave early because he became unmanageable.

 

[ysbel]

Diana may have been high-maintenance but then so were some members of the royal family. Stephen Barry does mention that both Andrew and Anne had a tendancy to yell at their staff.

As an outsider, Diana probably would have been judged more harshly by the staff for her high-maintenance ways than a born member of the royal family which is I think hypocritical.

The upshot of all of this is that Charles and his staff (and the rest of the Royal Family for that matter) had settled into a routine which Diana either advertently or inadvertently upset. She couldn't win either way and then when the public Diana mania started the Royal Family probably thought they lost what little control they had over their existence.

I think this was the real reason behind Charles' dislike of Diana's public attention. On one hand its understandable that the media circus was unbearable; on the other hand, a man can't expect to marry a wife and have his life be the same way as it was before. Things were bound to change no matter who he married.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Princess Anne is apparantly like her mother and father. If a staff member does something wrong, they will shout at them, swear at them and generally make them feel bad. But then its forgotten and they don't sulk. Diana did sulk about things and it made it difficult to work for her apparantly.

 

[pollyemma]

Princess Anne is apparantly like her mother and father. If a staff member does something wrong, they will shout at them, swear at them and generally make them feel bad. But then its forgotten and they don't sulk. Diana did sulk about things and it made it difficult to work for her apparantly.

people who yell and fume and 'get it out of their system' are much easier to deal with than sulkers.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Oh Please.....none of them treated their staff with respect or grace, with the exception of HM. Don't just single out Diana on this one!!

How many have resigned on Charles over the years???