Elizabeth II's staff called to emergency meeting

[Carm_88]

I always kinda felt bad for Camilla. She was the other woman but she didn't make Charles cheat. The only innocent parties in that divorce were William and Harry, despite Diana's claims. 

[louisa05]

9 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

I always kinda felt bad for Camilla. She was the other woman but she didn't make Charles cheat. The only innocent parties in that divorce were William and Harry, despite Diana's claims. 

There is evidence that Diana may have cheated first with a bodyguard. By all accounts, Charles gave the marriage a good try for a few years. 

Diana was, frankly, not a stable person coming into the marriage. Charles tried to get her help multiple times, finding psychiatrists/therapists. She either refused or stopped seeing them after only a few visits every single time until he gave up. 

[tabitha2]

Most reasonable people by now realize Diana was no unblemished saintly victim of Evil!!! Charles and Camilla. The Queen and other senior Royals tried to help her but they had no experience dealing with a person  with Diana's issues. 

[louisa05]

1 minute ago, tabitha2 said:

Most reasonable people by now realize Diana was no unblemished saintly victim of Evil!!! Charles and Camilla. The Queen and other senior Royals tried to help her but they had no experience dealing with a person  with Diana's issues. 

So much this. I have a "friend" with Borderline Personality Disorder. I have seen speculation that Diana may have had it. It is hard to treat. The person usually refuses treatment and doesn't see anything wrong with their behavior. The other issues she had that were documented--anxiety, eating disorders, etc...can all be part of BPD. 

Beyond that, the marriage was such a complete mismatch that it would not have survived even without her mental issues. They were absolutely incompatible. Charles is quiet, cerebral (though perhaps not as smart as he fancies himself), a spiritual seeker...Diana was none of those things and had no capacity to understand those things. He was also grown, done with the party, clubbing stage and all that. She was not yet. He loved the outdoors; she despised it. He loved art, classical music, etc...she cared nothing for those things. She liked television and pop music, he liked older rock (there's the age difference) but not the rest.  A perfectly mentally healthy Diana was not a good match for Charles, nor him for her. I think the breakdown of the marriage would have just been less volatile had she been mentally healthy. 

[FeministShrew]

I think part of the problem was that Diana was so young. She really didn't know who she was yet. I've always thought she bought into the fairytale aspect of it at first, and then realized that it was basically a business transaction. That would have been awful enough even If she wasn't  already emotionally & mentally unstable. Toward the end of the marriage she seemed to me to unabe to keep from presenting herself as the badly used heroine of a romance novel, even as she tried to grow up and became passionate about her favorite causes.

[Carm_88]

I think what makes Diana such a heroine and saint to some people, is that she died tragically and young. I do think that she was a good person, confused and had mental health issues bit still good. However, we don't know what she would have been. 

The marriage was just a mismatch as was stated, they were nothing alike and once the honeymoon period ended; they didn't have anything to go on. They were in like with the idea of each other but not much more. 

[louisa05]

33 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

I think what makes Diana such a heroine and saint to some people, is that she died tragically and young. I do think that she was a good person, confused and had mental health issues bit still good. However, we don't know what she would have been. 

The marriage was just a mismatch as was stated, they were nothing alike and once the honeymoon period ended; they didn't have anything to go on. They were in like with the idea of each other but not much more. 

There was no honeymoon period based on everything I have read from reliable sources. They had literally been together all of twelve times before they got engaged. Many of those in large groups. Charles was trying to please everyone by finally getting married (even though it appears that his parents were not entirely convinced she was a good fit). She was trying to please everyone by grabbing the heir to the throne. 

[FlamingFundie]

On the subject of mistresses, I have been curious for a long time whether William has one/some. I recall a trip (somewhere around the time of his wedding I think?) on which his ex-GF attended--without Catherine. William and Catherine put on such an air of love and seemingly genuine affection that I find it hard to believe William would take a mistress, but I do still wonder. Thoughts? Will he be the one who breaks the mold of having royal booty-calls?

On another note, any thoughts on that book that came out recently, called "Game of Crowns"? I rather enjoyed it, whether it is based on facts or not.

[tabitha2]

The British Aristocracy has never been one to let vows and fidelity stand in the way of having a booty call for either men or women long as they keep it in the down low. Honestly it was probably expected  in those circles Diana turn a blind eye to Camilla and be discreet about her own men. 

That said William and Kate are super conscious of their wholesome family image  and fairytale couple status. I don't think He would risk an affair.

 

 

[Lyle Lanley]

2 hours ago, FlamingFundie said:

On the subject of mistresses, I have been curious for a long time whether William has one/some. I recall a trip (somewhere around the time of his wedding I think?) on which his ex-GF attended--without Catherine. William and Catherine put on such an air of love and seemingly genuine affection that I find it hard to believe William would take a mistress, but I do still wonder. Thoughts? Will he be the one who breaks the mold of having royal booty-calls?

On another note, any thoughts on that book that came out recently, called "Game of Crowns"? I rather enjoyed it, whether it is based on facts or not.

Are you talking about Jecca Craig? She rejected William because she didn't want to marry into the firm. The women William were interested in did not want any part of royal life except for Kate. Kate pretty much fits the bill. Bland. Inoffensive. Sits there and looks pretty. Jecca is doing a PhD right now. She would not have been able to do that as a royal unless she was married to a minor royal.

[FlamingFundie]

10 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

Are you talking about Jecca Craig? She rejected William because she didn't want to marry into the firm. The women William were interested in did not want any part of royal life except for Kate. Kate pretty much fits the bill. Bland. Inoffensive. Sits there and looks pretty. Jecca is doing a PhD right now. She would not have been able to do that as a royal unless she was married to a minor royal.

In that case, it sounds as if being a mistress instead of an Official Public Face would be right up her alley if she and William were still so inclined.

[louisa05]

1 minute ago, FlamingFundie said:

In that case, it sounds as if being a mistress instead of an Official Public Face would be right up her alley if she and William were still so inclined.

Not so sure that it was that much of a romance. He has been with Kate since his second year of university. Jecca was a friend because of family connections that he knew in his teens, presumed by many to have been his first girlfriend. There has never been confirmation that that was the case, though. 

I have seen nothing to indicate that William had any other serious relationships prior to Kate or that he was rejected by anyone and had to "settle". The bio of Charles I just finished today--which is well sourced--indicates that he dated here and there prior to university but nothing serious. It actually implies that William did not have the inclination or temperament to be the playboy Prince that his father was. Harry is a different story. Harry has had young women reject the prospect of a royal life and has had a playboy reputation as well. 

 

 

 

 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

7 hours ago, FeministShrew said:

I think part of the problem was that Diana was so young. She really didn't know who she was yet. I've always thought she bought into the fairytale aspect of it at first, and then realized that it was basically a business transaction. That would have been awful enough even If she wasn't  already emotionally & mentally unstable. Toward the end of the marriage she seemed to me to unabe to keep from presenting herself as the badly used heroine of a romance novel, even as she tried to grow up and became passionate about her favorite causes.

I am two years younger than Diana and I could see it wasn't a grand passionate affair on Charles's part. He wanted needed a young woman from the upper reaches of society to carry the next generation of royals.

 

Diana was force fed the novels of her step-mother's mother. Those seemed to give her an distorted view of marriage(IMHO, judging by how my friends gorged themselves on those kind of books. I read SciFi so I could have the warped view..)

She thought it was a love affair. Every-one around her knew differently.

 

No-one on Charles's side knew how to help Diana adapt. Or possibly even thought they had to help. And the press were only too happy to point out where either or both of them were failing. I'm only surprised they lasted as long as they did.

 

 

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

 

No-one on Charles's side knew how to help Diana adapt. Or possibly even thought they had to help. And the press were only too happy to point out where either or both of them were failing. I'm only surprised they lasted as long as they did.

 

 

That is the narrative that Diana put out there. The reality is that quite a lot of time was invested by several members of the Royal family to help her adapt to the life. The Queen Mother especially spent a good deal of time "showing her the ropes". Princess Margaret attempted to be a mentor to her both in terms of the ins and outs of royal life and in the difficulties of her marriage. The Queen made her own attempts. Diana did not receive that assistance very readily. I was shocked to read in this new bio of Charles that Diana's first solo royal engagement was not until October after their marriage. The narrative that was created later was that she was shoved out on her own instantaneously. Not so. She had plenty of engagements with Charles to ease her into the job, much as Kate did with William in her first few months. 

Diana's trouble was not adapting. I think a narrative has developed that she was very troubled but it was the fault of the royal family mistreating her. She came to them a very troubled, mentally unhealthy person. No amount of mentoring or "helping her adapt" was going to fix that. 

As for the marriage, it was apparently over in all meaningful ways shortly after Harry's birth. So it really did not last that long. They simply were not in a position to end the marriage as a normal couple would have. Although, if they were a normal couple, one or both of them probably would have called it off before the ceremony. 

[tabitha2]

The saddest part is before she died she was becoming a much healthier and happier person and she had made her peace with Charles and the past if only for the boys.

I might add Charles has never ever bad mouthed her in public. If the stories are true he won't let her be spoken Ill of by others close to him either because she was if nothing else his children's mother. 

[Carm_88]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The saddest part is before she died she was becoming a much healthier and happier person and she had made her peace with Charles and the past if only for the boys.

I might add Charles has never ever bad mouthed her in public. If the stories are true he won't let her be spoken Ill of by others close to him either because she was if nothing else his children's mother. 

That's what gives me a tremendous amount of respect for Charles. He could have told stories or let it be ugly, he never did. Things happened, I think he's relatively happy now and good for him. 

[VelociRapture]

16 hours ago, Carm_88 said:

That's what gives me a tremendous amount of respect for Charles. He could have told stories or let it be ugly, he never did. Things happened, I think he's relatively happy now and good for him. 

There's that, plus the fact that he genuinely seemed grieved when she passed. Despite everything they went through, I do think he valued her as a person - if only because she was the mother of his children. I really never believed he was the cruel and evil man he's been portrayed as over the years. He certainly made a lot of bad decisions, but I don't think he ever acted out of malice during the early years of their marriage.

I want to say that Diana once stated that he was a crap husband, but he was a good father to the boys. If she really did say that then I believe it - I don't think she would have really hesitated to use that against Charles.

I think their marriage and divorce is rather interesting from an outsider perspective, in the sense that it gives a fantastic view into how different people manipulate narratives in various ways for various reasons. It should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone witnessing the dissolution of a relationship among their family or friends - you're never going to get an entirely clear picture of what happened.

@louisa05Harry, William, and Catherine are doing a lot of work for a mental health program (I think it's called Heads Up) and Harry actually spoke a bit about his wild years in his early to mid 20s. He indicated that never really addressing the grief he felt over losing his mom at such a young age was a big contributing factor. It wasn't until William really sat him down and urged him to get help that he did. 

I give him a lot of credit for opening up about that experience. 

[Jane M.]

On 7/5/2017 at 1:51 PM, tabitha2 said:

I might add Charles has never ever bad mouthed her in public. If the stories are true he won't let her be spoken Ill of by others close to him either because she was if nothing else his children's mother. 

That's true. He's a true gentleman in that sense. 

I would like to see Prince Harry get back with Chelsy Davy but I don't think she's interested in being a royal.

[FlamingFundie]

@louisa05 I cant seem to find the exact bio for Charles that you have referred to; Id love to read it.  

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, FlamingFundie said:

@louisa05 I cant seem to find the exact bio for Charles that you have referred to; Id love to read it.  

It's brand new. Amazon link: 

ttps://www.amazon.com/Prince-Charles-Passions-Paradoxes-Improbable-ebook/dp/B01KE64YC4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494370309&sr=8-1&keywords=prince+charles+the+passions+and+paradoxes+of+an+improbable+life

Smith tends to favor the royals as much as possible but this is still pretty balanced in how it presents Charles--she doesn't gloss over his weaknesses or mistakes. 

[applejack]

On 5/7/2017 at 1:51 PM, tabitha2 said:

The saddest part is before she died she was becoming a much healthier and happier person and she had made her peace with Charles and the past if only for the boys.

I might add Charles has never ever bad mouthed her in public. If the stories are true he won't let her be spoken Ill of by others close to him either because she was if nothing else his children's mother. 

The other night, I was just watching on YouTube the full five-hour CNN coverage of Diana's funeral. And Bernard Shaw (or someone) brought up that the police had balked at (I think I'm remembering this right, I hope I am) extending the length of her funeral procession by several blocks to give more people the chance to pay their respects as she was wheeled by, and that it was Charles who was like "Okay, sure, fine. You can go ahead and do that, you can go ahead and refuse this. But you're the ones who are going to explain to the world why."

That there, and reading this thread today, gave me a lot of respect for him. 

[ADoyle90815]

On 5/6/2017 at 8:57 PM, louisa05 said:

As for the marriage, it was apparently over in all meaningful ways shortly after Harry's birth. So it really did not last that long. They simply were not in a position to end the marriage as a normal couple would have. Although, if they were a normal couple, one or both of them probably would have called it off before the ceremony. 

Allegedly, Diana did have doubts before the ceremony, and one of her sisters said "it's too late to chicken out, your face is on the tea towels now." At least, that was one thing I remember reading about that marriage. At least, Charles never bad mouthed her in public, as he respected that she was the mother of his children.

[louisa05]

13 minutes ago, ADoyle90815 said:

Allegedly, Diana did have doubts before the ceremony, and one of her sisters said "it's too late to chicken out, your face is on the tea towels now." At least, that was one thing I remember reading about that marriage. At least, Charles never bad mouthed her in public, as he respected that she was the mother of his children.

Smith's bio indicates that he had doubts before the ceremony, too. Pretty quickly after the engagement when she was proving to be rather unstable. But a royal engagement proceeds like a steamroller. I think they both felt trapped once the engagement was public. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

2 hours ago, applejack said:

The other night, I was just watching on YouTube the full five-hour CNN coverage of Diana's funeral. And Bernard Shaw (or someone) brought up that the police had balked at (I think I'm remembering this right, I hope I am) extending the length of her funeral procession by several blocks to give more people the chance to pay their respects as she was wheeled by, and that it was Charles who was like "Okay, sure, fine. You can go ahead and do that, you can go ahead and refuse this. But you're the ones who are going to explain to the world why."

That there, and reading this thread today, gave me a lot of respect for him. 

Some-one told me that as the cortege was traveling through north London towards Althrop, the cameras on several traffic lights took pictures of the procession going through red lights.

 

I'm not sure if that's true or not.