Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Umbelina

Member
  • Content Count

    9.7k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

32.9k Excellent
  1. A skimpy timeline, though with interesting photos (and possibly future fashion for THE CROWN) of the ill-fated Charles and Diana relationship. He did an interview first by the way, admitting adultery, before Diana's Bashir interview. Marie Claire. I keep going back to their ages and experience when I think of this marriage. I believe that Diana wanted, more than anything, a loving marriage and happy family. Her own broken home was devastating to her, and not a picnic for her siblings either, but they were older and perhaps coped better. Her sister famously saying she wouldn't marry Charles as a dustman or a King, while her much younger sister fantasized about a possible "knight in shining armor" that could make all of her dreams of a happy family life happen doesn't seem far fetched for me. Diana's natural kindness and sympathy to Charles after he lost Mountbatten, and the constant pressure on Charles to stop his playboy lifestyle and produce some heirs, as well as a young Diana's romantic dreams resulted in a disastrous union. I agree with others that say they were mismatched, and I do think their AGES were a huge part of that, you just can't ignore the differences and changes that happen to us between the years of 19 and 32. I also can't ignore the differences between a virgin and a vastly experienced playboy who had plenty of sex for many years. I think most of us have been through that, and know how much we change during those years, becoming not only more naturally jaded, but also being away from the family home alone causes us to realize who we are and what we really want. Sometimes those are the same things we wanted as a teenager, but sometimes they are not. I also think we have two insecure people here. One, Charles, at least had years of knowing what was expected of him in that Royal fishbowl, and I think was actually enjoying his playboy reputation as "the world's most eligible bachelor" instead of the awkward, huge ears, unattractive, unhappy, and bullied wimp he had been as a child. Diana, despite her beauty and natural charm, was still basically a kid, and completely out of her depth as far as fame, royal expectations, and certainly the press. She becomes more insecure when finding out Charles wasn't "in love" the way she thought, and found the Camilla gift to Charles. An older, wiser, more secure woman might have had the strength to just call the wedding off, but she was just too young for that kind of action. Again insecurity, this time mostly Charles' rears it's ugly head when Diana starts getting all the press, and most of the love from the adoring public and the press which would print any story that would sell. Diana as Goddess and beloved, at first. The public wanted Diana, the beauty, not Charles anymore, who was back to being the ugly big eared bore or his childhood, instead of the dashing playboy and "most eligible bachelor in the world" he'd enjoyed for more than a decade. Diana, seemingly effortlessly, was achieving things Charles had wanted for years, a "modernizing" of the monarchy, popularity, and she connected with the people where ever she was, in a way that the stiff and programmed Charles never could. Meanwhile, Diana certainly realized that this was happening, and appealed to the crown and her husband for guidance, which reportedly was never given in any significant way. There is no way she could have become less popular, less photogenic, less beloved, in order to prop up Charles' fragile ego, even if she tried. It eventually dissolved into a war for love, for love of the people, the press, and certainly for human love from other people, since there was none between the married couple. They both used the press to "win" this war, Charles with the palace machine behind him, Diana with mostly her wits. I don't think Charles would have ever married Diana, except for his "duty" as future King to produce heirs. It really comes down to that in the end. I do think that Diana, once she finally realized that, and that her "knight in shining armor" and dreams of a "happy family life" had all been a fantasy, and she was simply a means to an end, was devastated. It's a sad tale of two damaged puppets, Charles the puppet of The Crown, and Diana the puppet of Charles. The thing is, if Charles had been able to manage his jealousy of Diana, and been loving and supportive of her, and able to leave his spoiled playboy ways behind? I do think they might have been happy, or as happy as any married couple could be in a fishbowl. Diana was accomplishing things he had reported wanted, modernizing, relating to the people he was to rule, in ways that the stuffy CROWN had always prevented him from doing. The main problem is that HE wanted to do that, to achieve that dream, and instead, he was overshadowed by this pretty nobody. With a decent marriage counselor, they could have been a powerhouse team.
  2. From several sources it seemed that Diana was in love with Hasnat Khan, a serious man, a doctor, not a super wealthy playboy. The Dodi factor could have been another Jackie/Onassis protection deal, but I think it's much more likely he was just a fling/getaway. Also, Diana had a serious crush on Charles as a young teen, and a very few years after that he decided on her as a wife/baby maker. I think she honestly was in love with him when they got engaged. By the time she found out about Camilla, the wedding was only days away.
  3. First of all, sorry for the typo, "lease" instead of "least." How embarrassing. Her virginity, if anything, made it more important for Charles to at least be honest with her, and THEN let her decide with all of the facts in front of her. The CROWN could have tried to be helpful and understanding as well, when she came to Elizabeth and Philip for help/advice over his endless cheating on her. It was a match made in hell, but to me, the blame lies squarely on the OLDER of the two, the blatant liar who knew what being a royal would mean, and who had NO intention of being faithful to her, or of honoring his vows to her, or to God.
  4. Oh poor Charles. blech Charles was nearly twice Diana's age when he married her, OF COURSE she might need more "bolstering up" than the future King who, at lease, was used to all the royal nonsense, and could have helped her along. Or, you know, at least not cheated on her, lied to her, been jealous of her popularity, and continued on fucking Camilla. ETA Who really wants to have an insecure wimp with a record of breaking vows as their King?
  5. The BBC seems to be the most thorough MUCH longer article at link. BBC answers more questions here: (MOSTLY residency, taxes, boring stuff like that.)
  6. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-and-meghan-give-up-hrh-no-longer-working-members-british-royal-family-queen-says-today-2020-01-18/?fbclid=IwAR3PvPJk46pn_7SEyVuNNloCRVsHIfm4cytAsuwsQ0f2tu0aSefIyWytuMQ "No longer use" is interesting wording. Does that mean they are still HRH, but won't say so, or that they are no longer HRH? ETA: Vanity Fair This should shut some press people up: (more at link)
  7. The Queen Has Struck a Deal With Meghan and Harry
  8. The Queen Has Summoned Harry, Charles, and William for a Royal Family Showdown hmmmm
  9. I just took a look at those. I don't recommend it, it made me feel filthy for even looking. My God, how nasty and contrived they are. Rupert Murdoch is an asshole.
  10. Same owner of much of the British press, Rupert Murdoch. Also, the USA is getting a bigger dose from that pig right now, but it's nearly every day in the UK isn't it? Megan (formerly Diana) the ruiner of everything! Certainly not now, and I don't think they are idiotic to have not realized that when this happened things would get worse before they someday get better, after all, they are functioning adults. I think this is just the first step for them, and even more, for Archie, and that if they are no longer accepting money from UK citizens, they can feel at least a bit of freedom from having their every expense criticized. God, what a horrid fishbowl that is, I can't imagine living that way. The perks are amazing, but not if you are miserable, and under attack daily, watched every time you step outside... I have several friends on the island of Vancouver, they told me that when the Sussexes came, there was almost no press hounding them, and they were pretty much treated normally by the people there, allowed to enjoy the peace and beauty there. They loved it. If/when the monarchy dies (as I think it will when they face the prospect of Charles as King) now it will ALL be blamed on Megan, rather than all of the rest of it. Andrew, Charles, "Queen" Camilla, money, and that it's outlived time because of a remarkable and long lived Queen. Megan that black American who seduced Harry away from his family and duty, that Machiavellian witch! They will come up with even more inflammatory headlines though, Murdoch made his fortune on that. ETA About the whole bodyguard thing? I DO think the British government should have to pay for their security. Why? It's quite simple, it's not to protect THEM, it's to protect the crown from duress, blackmail, etc. should they be taken hostage. If they are going to keep having a "crown" then they should protect her/him from things like that.
  11. An article with multiple links to other articles, and neither a completely negative, nor positive take on the Harry and Megan news. It goes on to cover surrounding stories, Andrew for example...thought it might be interesting for some. How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are Achieving Princess Diana’s Unfulfilled Dream The title sounds as if this will be a puff piece praising them, but it's certainly not. It doesn't address the continuation of the Monarchy in any way, by the way.
  12. Or The Sun got more details, and was going beyond "speculation" today. Interesting though. Honestly, "talking" to the Palace was going to be pointless anyway. ETA At the very least, all of this is far more interesting that season 3 of The Crown!
  13. How does that fit with the news that The Sun was about to break the story today anyway though? When Elizabeth took over, it was still an empire. It's dwindled away bit by bit. While England may accept Charles and Camilla as their new King and Queen, will Wales? Will Ireland? Will Canada? Will Australia? Will New Zealand, the various minor islands? Does anyone really need a King anymore?
  14. No. A King and Queen, and all the other royals living on the public dole do not have any rights to privacy. That's one of the reasons Harry is taking this step. It's quite different as Charles is also to be "head of the church." What a randy bunch of royals the Windsors have been. 😉 Anyway, their "affair" might not have been any worse than the Kings and Queens from the distant past, EXCEPT, their telephone calls, were released and everyone heard for themselves just what the future King was really like. Details of their sexual escapades are part of the public record, everyone knows. He lost his own, and I think, the crown's dignity, and for what? His dick. He's also known as a well meaning wimpy nut case, completely tone deaf to the needs of everyday people. Now he's being painted by THE CROWN as some unloved, caring, victim of his mother, denied true love, and furthermore, the same writer produced THE QUEEN which showed them all as selfish overly fussy and out of touch. Now he seems to be disparaging Elizabeth to pump up Charles' image. It was also near the beginning of denigrating Diana (again, some more) which started the "it's all Diana's fault" trend. Must protect the "machine" of monarchy after all, and since we are all stuck with Charles or out of a job? Start the bad press! Will the UK keep the monarchy? Stay tuned. They would have a much better chance at doing that with William than with Charles. As I said, Charles should watch his back.
  15. He chose her for a reason. He's probably wanted out of this nightmare since he was a tiny child, more and more as he continued through life. He could have married any number of women who would tow the Machine's line, and be thrilled with a crown, the young elite that never had a job, or opinions contrary to those the mustaches wanted them to have. He didn't. He chose her. It's not a leap to assume he chose her because, they shared opinions and goals, and even more, because she was not a part of the tired old monarchy set. As expected though, many will blame her for this, rather than credit Harry for having opinions of his own, even though he has demonstrated his desire, and talked about his distaste of "the royal life" many, many times as an adult, and long before he even met Megan. Before that, criticism was about her just wanting to be a princess and using Harry for that. Megan can't win. Personally, I think, and oddly I posted this weeks ago here, that Harry would be quite happy if the monarchy ended. Now, I think he is ending it at least for himself, and this is the first step.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size