Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Roseanna

Member
  • Content Count

    2.1k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

3.3k Excellent
  1. As for Charles's answer to Dimbleby that he did intent to honor his marriage vows and broke them only after the marriage was irremediably broken. The only one who can know for sure what his intentions and feelings were is Charles himself. The best proof is what he wrote in his diary at that time, so after his death the researchers will know as well as it's possible to know. Until then, one can only estimate his words on the basis what we otherwise know about him: is he man who is used to lie? But regarding his actions, he would have been a fool if he had lied about his affair with Camilla for there would have been a great risk that somebody would have told otherwise. After all, he could never meet anybody without the knowledge of several people. On the hand, Diana isn't exactly known for her truthfulness. It's not only that many things she told in Morton's books are told otherwise by others who were present and therefore it's obvious that, looking back, she either deliberately changed things and happenings to suit the story she wanted to present to the world or, to put more kindly, believed it also herself. But she did deliberately lie to Sir Robert Fellowes who was both Private Secretary of the Queen and her own brother-in-law, denying any involvement about Andew Morton's book. Believing her, Fellowes appealed to the Press Complaints Committee. But just after that Diana not only went to meet her friend who had been one of Morton's main sources but also invited the photographers to bear wittness to that they were still friends, thereby confirming what her friend had said. Realizing she had lied, Fellowes sent his resignation but the Quen didn't accept it. It was later revealed that Morton's chief source had been Diana herself who had spoken to casettes.
  2. With hindsight, it would of course been better if they divorced sooner - not only better for them themselves, but their children, their staff, and also monarchy. But one must remember that at that time they both and others believed that dirvorce was impossible in their position. It was the Queen who at last took the initiative. Did Diana really that she could get away with her Panorama interview - or was she unconsciously striven to that solution?
  3. I don't doubt that Diana was in love - but was she love with Charles or her own fantasy? And no doubt Charles wanted a wife who would bear his children, but he also wanted her to be his friend and partner in work and home. After all, f.ex. the marriage of George V and Mary of Teck had been arranged, but it became a success. There are many kinds of love. Here is one way to describe them: First there is "eros", passion that can become negatively mania. Second, there is love that wants help and give: "pragma" that in the strongest form is "agape". Third, there is playing ("ludus") that can develop into friendship ("filia"). Fourth, there is tolerance and open attitude that can develop into appreciation and respect ("timee"). I think that a successful relationship must include all four. Well, a few of Charles's friends did see it but he refused to listen to them. And more people, including Diana's grandmother, saw it but were silent. I agree that the marriage couldn't succeed. Still, the divorce wouldn't have been necessary, if Diana hadn't made the matter public. After all, many couples lived different privately but presented common front in public, like Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles who never even quarrelled in front of their children.
  4. Actually, Charles hadn't plenty of women to choose for the role of his wife and the future Queen. Besides virginity, she had to be a member of Church of England, have a suitable background, know beforehand what it meant to be a member of the royal family, willing to give up her work (if she had one) and share Charles's official duties, give up her privacy for good (not only because of the media, but the royal staff and detectives who were always nearby) etc. If Charles had found such a miracle, why would she have accepted him? Charles proposed at least two times before Diana, but those sensible girls rejected him, because they didn't love him and/or because they realized that the prize was too heavy.
  5. Has there any evidence that Charles even met Camilla in te first years of his marriage? And how could any outsider be aware that Charles confided things to Camilla?
  6. No outsider can know what intentions Charles had. One can't simply believe Diana's version because she couldn't know it either. There are two basic questions. First, did Charles and Camilla have a relationship in the first years of his marriage? As far as I know, there is no evidence that they had. Second, is there any reason not to believe Charles when he said in the interview with Dimbleby that he was unfaithful only after his marriage was irremediably broken? Has he ever lied in public in any other matter? Diana, on ther other hand, isn't known for her truthfulness. Of course Charles was wrong to propose, but he believed in the image Diana presented him in order to catch him. She intentionally pursued him and showed just those characteristics which she know would impress him. When she in their first meeting said how sorry she was about his lonely grief over Mountbatten's murder, with nobody to comfort him, she intentionally gave a hint that she was that kind of girl who would do so. And Diana wasn't just like any girl of 19 years but exceptionally naive, uneducated, full of romantic fantasies, scarred by her parents' divorce, with no plans for study or work, yet ambitious to marry well. Of course Charles did wrong, first not to present Camilla as his ex, and then when Diana found out, to think that she would be satisfied with his assurance that it was past, yet still showing his feelings by using Camilla's present. But he did try to help Diana adapt herself to her public role (when she f.ex. refused to go put from the car) and get the marriage work. Would a normal girl, however disappointed in her marriage, really have reacted like Diana (mood swings, bulimia, incising, suicide attempts)? Probably she couldn't help herself, when even medicine experts hardly understood these kind of physical and mental illnesses. But how many husbands in the world would have endured the situation in the long run? That one does see also Diana's weaknesses doesn't mean that one denies her positive qualities, on the contrary her exceptional ability to connect with people who had experienced hardships was probably born in her own experiences.
  7. How about Dodi who had hired them? Diana never formed a lasting relationship. Doctor Khan undertandably didn't want constant publicity whereas Dodi probably wanted to show off that he had won the most famous woman in the world. Or was it because Diana needed love, admiration and support all the time? Camilla could give those to Charles, in a way "mother" him, but it's much more difficult to find a man like that.
  8. Many have recalled how sympathy towards Harry was born when he walked behind her mother's coffin. But it also created curiosity that he can probably never escape, as little as John F. Kennedy Jr did. I have beginning to think that the Queen was in principle right when she originally wanted (just as the Spencer family) that Diana's funeral would be private. Of course that wasn't possible, as the public demanded a national mourning ceremony. But was it necessary to put the princes in the public eye for so long? If I remember right, it was Prince Philip who persuaded them to do it (as he had of course done it himself in the funeral procession of his sister's family). I can't help but remember that in the civil commemoration of Olof Palme, the Swedish prime minister who was murdered in 1986, the TV never even showed his widow who had wittnessed her husband's murder, still less his children, unlike in the funeral of JFK.
  9. I don't think that the press can be held responsible for Diana's death. She was in a car whose driver was drunk. Diana liked the media attention and she did the error by allowing the press break her privacy in the beginning (when the Palace resented the picture about her pregnant in the bikini, she sent a message that it was OK for her) and later she manipulating the press by telling about intimate details about her marriage in order to revenge on Charles. Of course that's not make the later behavior of the press (f.ex. publicing pictures about the gym) right but it shows that if you open your private life, you can't control the consequences. As H&M are (probably) happily married, live a private life besides charity and business events and choose pictures they publish in Instagram, they have at least some control. Meghan's horrible family of course continues to be a problem. But without their roayl status H&M can sue the press for breaking their privacy as they have already done As for the security, somebody already wrote that it would be a problem if something happened to them (f.ex. kidnappers demaded ransom), so it will still be payed for.
  10. Besides "HRH", also "The" is left out. It's like Diana: she was The Princess of Wales, after divorce she became Diana, Princess of Wales.
  11. I think it wasn't personal but about the ranking inside the instutition: if you are a lieutenant's wife, you don't try to outshine the colonel's wife. The Queen was in the official tour in Northern Ireland and the press was more interested about Margaret's love affair with Townsend's - and even more, he showed clearly to enjoy the spotlight (smiling as if he was already a member of the royal family instead of a mere servant still). And he dared to call her Lilibet before she had allowed him to do so!
  12. I don't think the royal family wants to make Harry and Meghan look like martyrs - that would damage their "brand". And I doubt the Queen, Charles and William, however hurt they are, want to break up family ties with their grandson, son and brother for good. On the other hand, H&M can't on their own decide to have their cake and eat it: use their royal status and make money for themselves.
  13. Madeleine's was married on 8th June 2013 and her first child was born on 20th February 2014, so if she had become pregant just before the wedding, even she herself didn't know it yet. Nor can any other know the truth, as a child quite often comes a week or two earlier or later than expected. Generally, the Scandinavian royal houses have managed with marriages even with foreigners who have to learn the language (Queen Silvia of Sweden and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark) or with commoners whose abilities were doubted (Crown Princess Victoria's husband Daniel) or had "doubtful" past (Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway). And yes, they really show their feelings and the TV shows much more about the weddings than in Britain. Especially Daniel's speech to Victoria is legendary.
  14. You may be right that Harry chose Maghan subconsiously in order to get "out" (just as David chose Wallis). But I don't believe that he could have married anyone. Remember that Charles proposed a few women and only Diana acceoted. Very few sensible persons wants to marry to royalty unless they are so much in love that they want to give up their career and privacy (and to many even love isn't worth to make those sacrifices) - or are ambitious and narcistic. Harry has no particular skills nor profession. He is no artist or peace negatiotor like some ex-royals have been. He has only his celebrity based of his royal status. So charity is the only thing he can do and does it really succeed better without royal status? Or does he think that selling stuffs with the label "Sussex royal" is meaningful life? It's that which I very much doubt. He has no real experience about "normal life" and probably sees it in rosy colors. But whatever good it may bring, it will certainly bring also problems. How does he behave then - is he an adult enough to accept that he can't have all good things at the same time?
  15. Whatever one thinks about the former relationship of Charles and Camilla, shouldn't also they have right to privacy (after all, most of us all have said as silly things in private). In any case, they are no more an adulterous couple since they made a confession in the church and got blessing for their marriage.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size