History Talk: The British Monarchy

[kwnyc]

Quote

Charles took and passed two A-level exams and I think five or six O levels. 

Yeah, but how did he do on his OWLS and NEWTS? 

Speaking of Charles & his regnal name (which was discussed a few pages back), since he's Charles Philip Arthur George, he might HAVE to go with George: not Charles for the reasons mentioned (previous Charleses), Philip unless he's okay with taking his father's name, Arthur...well, no. He can't really be King Arthur. So George it most likely is. William is William Arthur Philip Louis, so I bet he'll most likely reign as William. Prince George is George Alexander Louis, and there's never been an Alexander or Louis on the throne.

[Roseanna]

On 2/2/2018 at 1:33 PM, CousinAmy said:

She was chosen, I believe, because 1. She was a virgin. 2. She was pretty, sweet, shy, and somewhat informed. That's not a knock, it's just that she was young, and at the time seemed malleable. And 3. She was a virgin.

Plus, she was born in 1961 and in the early 80ies Charles was still (b. 1948) single and had to find a suitable woman to marry.

Unfortunately, their age gap was too big - not necessarily in all cases but also their education, character and interests were too different. And because their dating was too short and sketcthy, they didn't really know each other.

One of main reasons why new royal marriages succeed is that the couple try first date in secret and then they live together before engagement. 

On 2/2/2018 at 9:32 AM, Pallas said:

Diana herself implied that she was driven by her sense of her own destiny, for which conventional training seemed to have no purchase. I believe that too. All along, she may have understood what the real test before her was, and left behind the other girls at finishing school when she knew it was time to take the field.  

Actually, conventional schooling and even own career is nowadays a benefit for women who marry royals. Plus, they are adult women who know what they must abandon and what duties they must fulfil.

Diana was only 20 when she married Charles and evidently had a head full of romantic ideas without no understanding that ther expectations and was was expected from her were opposite.

Neither of them knew another. Both had needs that another was unable to fulfill.  

[Pallas]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Actually, conventional schooling and even own career is nowadays a benefit for women who marry royals. Plus, they are adult women who know what they must abandon and what duties they must fulfil.

Diana was only 20 when she married Charles and evidently had a head full of romantic ideas without no understanding that ther expectations and was was expected from her were opposite.

Neither of them knew another. Both had needs that another was unable to fulfill.  

Inarguably. Yet Diana believed what she believed. She saw her goals and not the roles -- "I'm going to marry the Prince of Wales; I'm going to marry for love" -- and she went about it. 

[Roseanna]

17 minutes ago, Pallas said:

Inarguably. Yet Diana believed what she believed. She saw her goals and not the roles -- "I'm going to marry the Prince of Wales; I'm going to marry for love" -- and she went about it. 

Yes, and that makes also her responsible for what happened. She was young and innocent, yes, but she wanted deliberately to marry Charles and she tried everything to catch him, f.ex. showing empathy when he was in the vulnerable mood after the death of his surrogate father Mountbatten.

[PeterPirate]

On 2/2/2018 at 7:32 AM, Pallas said:

I think there's disinterest in academics, then there's dropping out of secondary school at 16, prior to flunking out. Diana didn't score above an F in any "Ordinary Level," despite having her pick of a score of subjects, which in 1980 included Home Economics, Art, Music and Physical Education (where Dancing and Swimming were two of the six curriculum elements). And taking the tests twice. Nor did she put up with the curriculum of a Swiss finishing school for more than a term. Charles was dating Diana's sister Sarah by that time, and Diana implored that she be allowed to return home. 

Diana's floridly failed schooling reminds me of how many angry adolescents act out, and of the many gestures Diana went on to make within and about her marriage. Maybe not so much calculated as clever, and at the same time, self-destructive. Diana herself implied that she was driven by her sense of her own destiny, for which conventional training seemed to have no purchase. I believe that too. All along, she may have understood what the real test before her was, and left behind the other girls at finishing school when she knew it was time to take the field.  

Boy howdy.  That's the Diana I want to see portrayed.  I like to watch a character that I can describe as a "force of nature".  Amy Gardner from The West Wing is one.  Saul Goodman from Better Call Saul is another.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by PeterPirate

[kathe5133]

I scoff at those who consider Diana a "role model".  Yes, if you consider a beautiful, young woman who must have a man a role model......  She couldn't find fullfilment raising her sons or doing charity work.  She needed a man.  The Prince of Wales, a bodyguard, whatever the hell James Hewitt was, some heart surgeon, and finally Dodi.  She was an idiot.  Yes, the Royals weren't very nice to her.  So what?  She was the Mother of a future king, had more money than she knew what to do with, and still needed a man to define her.  Her life was truly sad.  

[justmehere]

Modern sensibilities are fine but even as recently as a few decades ago, it was still quite normal to think women especially needed to be attached to a partner. And maybe there were emotional issues to where she felt that need. I know very little about Diana, but disparaging her for an attitude that prevailed as she was growing up is unfair. Scoff all you like, but know that you're looking at things from a present-day mindset rather than the realities of the time.

[CousinAmy]

1 hour ago, kathe5133 said:

I scoff at those who consider Diana a "role model".  Yes, if you consider a beautiful, young woman who must have a man a role model......  She couldn't find fullfilment raising her sons or doing charity work.  She needed a man.  The Prince of Wales, a bodyguard, whatever the hell James Hewitt was, some heart surgeon, and finally Dodi.  She was an idiot.  Yes, the Royals weren't very nice to her.  So what?  She was the Mother of a future king, had more money than she knew what to do with, and still needed a man to define her.  Her life was truly sad.  

So after her divorce she needed to become a nun? Devote herself to her children and charity work? Don't most young women have a sex/romantic life after divorce? Her affairs were made public, most "unfamous" women do thesame, you just don't know about them.

[Crs97]

Diana didn’t live in the 50’s.  We are talking about the 90’s when it was perfectly acceptable to be without a man. No one said she needed to be a nun, but her boyfriends’ wives might have wished she picked single men to sleep with, especially considering she gave a lot of interviews regarding the pain of having an unfaithful husband.

I think her public charitable work is worthy of praise, but I certainly see her flaws and think there are better all-around role models for my children.

[andromeda331]

Her work with AIDS. I remember how afraid everyone was to be around people with AIDS. But to see someone, a princess working with people with AIDS. Holding babies with AIDs. And she wasn't afraid. 

[Scarlett45]

5 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Diana didn’t live in the 50’s.  We are talking about the 90’s when it was perfectly acceptable to be without a man. No one said she needed to be a nun, but her boyfriends’ wives might have wished she picked single men to sleep with, especially considering she gave a lot of interviews regarding the pain of having an unfaithful husband.

I think her public charitable work is worthy of praise, but I certainly see her flaws and think there are better all-around role models for my children.

Diana was a human being with flaws like the rest of us, but I always thought there was a very specific reason her parents wanted her married off at 20yrs old (which was young in the 1980s even for a woman of her standing), and what better match that the Prince of Wales?

This specific reason is that they probably knew Diana (while a kind and empathetic person) was not ambitious or intellectually curious enough to pursue a “proper” type of career for a woman of her social class, and she was not emotionally stable enough to live “discreetly”. I think her parents wanted her married off to the first suitable guy because her behavior might embarrass them (i.e. stalking, becoming pregnant by someone not her husband in order to blackmail him etc)  

This is a woman who threw herself down the stairs while she was pregnant with Prince Harry because Charles was still seeing Camilla-whom it was common knowledge among every other adult in their circle that he was in love with her- why was Diana in the dark about this? Did her female elders (they had a responsibility to tell her the ways of the world) not think she could handle it? 

I don’t think ANYONE expected Diana to be a nun after her divorce, I don’t think anyone expected her to live as a nun after Harry was born (Charles most certainly didn’t care what she did privately so long as she was discrete) but at times she acted like a pentualant child who wasn’t given enough attention and not an adult woman with more resources than many could ever imagine on top of having beauty, good health, and healthy children.

Diana was a kind person and a loving mother but it’s been shown she suffered from incredibly low self esteem and was very emotionally needy- her pattern of behavior with various men shows us this; why we will never know. It could be that she suffered from undiagnosed depression OR it could be a symptom of what I call “the beautiful woman syndrome”(think Hallie Berry and her pattern of asshole men); when a woman is incredibly beautiful (and rich to boot) 1. She is often not encouraged to be anything else and 2. She often has the perception that’s life is supposed to go her way just “because”, and may for a while, but if she encounters stumbling blocks or obsticales she’s flabbergasted. 

 

People can certainly look to her as a role model due to her charities and giving (not to mention her fashion sense), her devotion to her children etc but I understand exactly what you’re saying.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Scarlett45

[merylinkid]

Diana was very needy.   Her parents divorced when she was young.   The kids became a prize to be won by the parents rather than anyone looking out for the welfare of the children.   Then her father remarried to that hideous Raine woman who was tacky as hell and pretty much pushed the kids away.   So she spent her whole adult life looking for love and stability.   Marrying the Prince of Wales should have given her that.   But he loved Camilla and was not interested in being supportive of her.   

If both of them had been a bit more mature about the entire situation, they might have reached an accomodation.    Diana might still be alive today enjoying her grandchildren.

[Crs97]

Charles did not force her into Dodi’s car that night; he bears no responsibility for her choices after their divorce.

[kassygreene]

It can not be said enough: Diana read too many Barbara Cartlands, and did not have a realistic view of the marriage she was making, or the man she was marrying.  Deep, abiding, faithful love & marriage was supposed to happen, because it always wound up that way in a Cartland romance.  Cartland, who was Diana's step-grandmother, always maintained that Diana only read her books and they weren't good for her.  As someone who read far too many Cartlands herself (in spite of the fact that the heroines always needed to loosen their corsets because they always spoke in very breathless ellipses and always made me nuts), I can see how the sillier expectations would be set.

[andromeda331]

Wasn't she like 19 or 20?  Do many girls that age would have a realistic view of marriage or life? Let alone what life would be like marrying the Prince of Wales? He would have been better off marrying someone who was older and had matured.               

[CousinAmy]

40 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Wasn't she like 19 or 20?  Do many girls that age would have a realistic view of marriage or life? Let alone what life would be like marrying the Prince of Wales? He would have been better off marrying someone who was older and had matured.               

Well, he had to have someone who was not very experienced, and it was getting hard to find a suitable young lady. He played around for too long - should have gotten married, sired the kids, and carried on a decade earlier.

[merylinkid]

I think Barbara Cartland is doing a bit of self-promotion there.    Diana had unrealistic expectations yes, but I doubt it came from reading her step-grandmother's novels.   Considering the feelings towards the step-mother, I doubt Diana would bother to promote that family by reading the novels.

When the engagement was announced, my first thought at 14 years old was "That is far too young to marry."   Given her insecurities, she needed to grow up a bit first.   

Charles did not force her into the car with Dodi.   But if they hadn't divorced, she might not have been involved with Dodi at all.   If they had reached an "accomodation" they could have stayed together.   But Charles was less than discrete about Camilla instead of realizing how such a public relationship with his "true love" would be perceived by his WIFE.   Charles made a commitment too.   

[anna0852]

I think it can safely be said that mistakes were made on both sides of the marriage. And that Charles and Diana were serious mismatch from the beginning. It does appear that their boys took those lessons to heart as both waited much later in their lives than their mother did to marry but not as late as their father.

As much as Diana was a glamorous woman doing high-profile charity work, she was also a woman with a lot of problems and issues that were never adequately dealt with.

Edited February 5, 2018 by anna0852

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

Speaking of Charles & his regnal name (which was discussed a few pages back), since he's Charles Philip Arthur George, he might HAVE to go with George: not Charles for the reasons mentioned (previous Charleses), Philip unless he's okay with taking his father's name, Arthur...well, no. He can't really be King Arthur. So George it most likely is. William is William Arthur Philip Louis, so I bet he'll most likely reign as William. Prince George is George Alexander Louis, and there's never been an Alexander or Louis on the throne.

I am interested to see what he chooses to do when the time comes. My prediction is that he sticks with Charles (and William and George will likewise rule under their given names). I think Elizabeth changed the game as it relates to regnal names, and since she's reigned for so long and times are so different that to call Charles, as a 70-something year old, anything else at this point seems quite odd. My loooooong shot idea if he does shed Charles is Louis, after his beloved Uncle Dickie (Louis was his given name). Charles seems like a kind of guy who wouldn't be scared to kick things off as Louis I.

Quote

 

I think it can safely be said that mistakes were made on both sides of the marriage. And that Charles and Diana were serious mismatch from the beginning. It does appear that their boys took those lessons to heart as both waited much later in their lives than their mother did to marry but not as late as their father.

As much as Diana was a glamorous woman doing high-profile charity work, she was also a woman with a lot of problems and issues that were never adequately dealt with.

 

And yes. Exactly this. It continues to amaze me that some cannot see this whole, complicated picture and instead continue solely to villainize or canonize, depending on point of view.

[JessDVD]

16 minutes ago, hendersonrocks said:

I am interested to see what he chooses to do when the time comes. My prediction is that he sticks with Charles (and William and George will likewise rule under their given names). I think Elizabeth changed the game as it relates to regnal names, and since she's reigned for so long and times are so different that to call Charles, as a 70-something year old, anything else at this point seems quite odd. My loooooong shot idea if he does shed Charles is Louis, after his beloved Uncle Dickie (Louis was his given name). Charles seems like a kind of guy who wouldn't be scared to kick things off as Louis I.

I would be more surprised if Charles, William, and George rule under a regnal name, than if they kept their own names. I think that with Elizabeth having reigned so long with her given name that the vast majority of the public may not even realize that regnal names are a thing, or if they do only as sort of a "thing that they once did", being that over 1/2 of the people alive, have been born since her coronation. Charles has been Charles in public for a very long time also and I have a hard time seeing him change that once (if he ever does) he becomes king.

[dubbel zout]

Charles could call himself Eadwig II if he wanted. (Spoiler: He won't.) The regnal name is the sovereign's choice.

13 hours ago, anna0852 said:

As much as Diana was a glamorous woman doing high-profile charity work, she was also a woman with a lot of problems and issues that were never adequately dealt with.

I always wonder what sort of person she'd have been had she married someone who wasn't the Prince of Wales. That  situation brought out a lot of behavior specific to that relationship. Things wouldn't have been all smooth sailing had she married someone else, of course, but maybe had she been in a marriage that was more equal and loving, some of her problems might have stayed latent.

[andromeda331]

11 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Charles could call himself Eadwig II if he wanted. (Spoiler: He won't.) The regnal name is the sovereign's choice.

I always wonder what sort of person she'd have been had she married someone who wasn't the Prince of Wales. That  situation brought out a lot of behavior specific to that relationship. Things wouldn't have been all smooth sailing had she married someone else, of course, but maybe had she been in a marriage that was more equal and loving, some of her problems might have stayed latent.

Probably. It makes a huge difference being married to the right person and not the wrong person. They both probably would have avoided a lot of problems had they both married someone else.              

[dubbel zout]

10 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

It makes a huge difference being married to the right person and not the wrong person. They both probably would have avoided a lot of problems had they both married someone else.      

Yeah, you can see how much more relaxed Charles is now that he and Camilla are together. I read the Sally Bedell Smith bio of him, and during the worst of the Diana problems, she was always bucking him up emotionally and telling him how wonderful he was. Frankly, it all sounded exhausting to me—he certainly wasn't helping the situation—but it seems as if they're each other's lobster, so good for them. It's just too bad Charles was such a ditherer back then when it came to romance.

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I always wonder what sort of person she'd have been had she married someone who wasn't the Prince of Wales. That  situation brought out a lot of behavior specific to that relationship. Things wouldn't have been all smooth sailing had she married someone else, of course, but maybe had she been in a marriage that was more equal and loving, some of her problems might have stayed latent.

I doubt that Diana was mature enough to marry anyone. If there had been a man capable to give her love she hadn't got at home, it wouldn't be an equal relationship, but that of a parent and a child.  She needed to have a therapy before she married anyone.

Of course, Charles was the worst choice because also he wanted love he hadn't got as a child and was used to be doted by his staff.

[CousinAmy]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I doubt that Diana was mature enough to marry anyone. If there had been a man capable to give her love she hadn't got at home, it wouldn't be an equal relationship, but that of a parent and a child.  She needed to have a therapy before she married anyone.

Of course, Charles was the worst choice because also he wanted love he hadn't got as a child and was used to be doted by his staff.

I was engaged at 19 and married at 20 (1969). I know it sounds absurd now, but it was very common among my college friends to get married either in college or right after graduation. We were already in marriage counseling before the year was up. (We made it to 3 years; if we had had children we probably would have stayed married longer. I'm so glad we didn't.) 20 is so young to make such a huge decision. I can't imagine anyone is all that mature at 20. Like Charles and Diana, neither of us had had a full time job! (My fiance got his Masters in the summer, got a job by October, rented an apartment in November, and had a huge wedding in December.) 

[Roseanna]

On ‎7‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 6:56 AM, CousinAmy said:

I was engaged at 19 and married at 20 (1969). I know it sounds absurd now, but it was very common among my college friends to get married either in college or right after graduation. We were already in marriage counseling before the year was up. (We made it to 3 years; if we had had children we probably would have stayed married longer. I'm so glad we didn't.) 20 is so young to make such a huge decision. I can't imagine anyone is all that mature at 20. Like Charles and Diana, neither of us had had a full time job! (My fiance got his Masters in the summer, got a job by October, rented an apartment in November, and had a huge wedding in December.) 

People are different: my sister-in-law was 20 when she married my brother who was 21 but they had dated since she was 13 and he was 14. 

Diana and Charles didn't know each other at all and they had no possiblity as Charles was pressured to make his decision at last by his father and the press. He was in the vulnerable state after the death of Mountbatten and believed the image Diana presented of herself whereas she had a very romantic idea about marriage and the desperate will to show her worth by catching the ultimate prize in the marriage market.

All in all, they were unlucky to live in the age where some of the old norms and habits (virginity) were still demanded but another old habits were no longer allowed (keeping a mistress). Luckily, their sons live in an age where they can live together before marriage.  

[Pallas]

On 2/11/2018 at 3:35 AM, Roseanna said:

All in all, they were unlucky to live in the age where some of the old norms and habits (virginity) were still demanded but another old habits were no longer allowed (keeping a mistress). Luckily, their sons live in an age where they can live together before marriage.  

I love this observation. My question is, was the vetting of Diana on mostly irrelevant points really the fault of the age -- there was more than a decade between the 1960's and 1980 -- or the fault of the old guard? Did anyone in the realm give a hoot, other than Diana's Fermoy relations: her maternal uncle of the idiotic public statement, and her maternal grandmother, the Queen Mother's lady-in-waiting?  The grandmother who had already twice sold Diana's mother Frances down the river: first in setting up her daughter's marriage at age 18 to Johnnie Spencer, and again in testifying for Johnnie -- the future Earl Spencer -- and not her daughter in the brutal custody trial that came 15 years later? 

Her son Lord Fermoy's statement to the press -- to the press! -- following Diana's gynecological exam in the spring of 1981, did center upon her virginity. But was the uncle's statement a Palace-nudged leak, or a Fermoy miscue? The exam was held several months after the engagement had been made public. Can it have been anything more than what used to be known as a "routine pre-marital gynecological exam," including an assurance that the heir apparent's future wife might reasonably be expected to conceive?  

Lord Fermoy attended the royal wedding; three years later he committed suicide by shotgun, at age 45. "He had long suffered from depression," said The Times. I wonder if his mother knew.

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Pallas said:

My question is, was the vetting of Diana on mostly irrelevant points really the fault of the age -- there was more than a decade between the 1960's and 1980 -- or the fault of the Palace guard and senior Windsors?

I vote the latter. I know Charles himself (and his social peers/contemporaries) would’ve had no issues marrying a woman that wasn’t a virgin. (Of course it’s not my business but I doubt Anne was a virgin at marriage) I don’t think the general public would’ve cared either. The senior Windsors had a certain ideal in mind for Charles’ bride and that was that.

Me being me, I didn’t expect the senior Windsors to give Diana the score- where were the Spencer female elders?!!! They had a responsibility to tell Diana exactly what she was signing up for (and I don’t think they did). 

[Pallas]

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

where were the Spencer female elders?!!! They had a responsibility to tell Diana exactly what she was signing up for (and I don’t think they did). 

By 1980, the older women in Diana's family were dead, disqualified or discounted, or dead-set on the match. Dead: her grandmother, Countess Spencer. Disqualified or discounted: her mother Frances and step-mother Raine (Raine on principle), if either woman had a thought of opposing it. Dead-set on it: her other grandmother, Lady Fermoy. Also dead-set on it? Lady Diana, who may have been the most willful among them all. 

Meanwhile, Charles was fondly regarded by the women in his circle, as a slightly-lost, serious and sensitive young man with a smattering of academic interests, as well as country affinities. They had reason to think him a decent fellow as well as the catch of the Kingdom; no more likely to be unfaithful than any of his peers (and perhaps less), and absolutely committed to standing by the marriage. Savvy women may have perceived his need for admiration and a confident, light touch, and imagined that any good woman would find the dear boy easy enough to manage. 

The problem was that even the women in Diana's family probably knew Charles better than they knew her. They had paid him more attention, and he was much more of a type.

[katie9918]

The portrayal of Philip as so difficult in this series and the response to it amuses me sometimes.

 

One only has to look to the real-life antics of Princess Margaret and Lord Snowden and then go forward a generation to Charles and Diana, Anne and Mark Phillips, and Andrew and Sarah to realize how much worse Philip really could have been for the Royal Family if he’d actually set out to be difficult rather than simply chafing at some of the unprecedented restrictions placed upon him and his role at the time.

 

If anything, Philip may have been a difficult, moody, self-involved jerk (and I really think this series has likely embellished his flaws without enough attention to the lifetime devotion), but he’s a model citizen compared to some of those who came after him.

[Inquisitionist]

An interesting profile of Charles, from about a year ago in The New Yorker.  Seems like he was always thrust into roles for which he was not really suited, but was determined to handle as best he could.  The psychological toll of "duty" can be crushing.

Quote

One of the chief marital shocks for Charles was Diana’s lack of deference. He had assumed that the slightly vapid teenager he was settling for would at least be docile, but she turned out to be the biggest bully he had encountered since Gordonstoun. She taunted his pomposity, calling him “the Great White Hope” and “the Boy Wonder.” She told him that he would never become king and that he looked ridiculous in his medals. When he tried to end heated arguments by kneeling down to say his prayers before bed, she would keep shrieking and hit him over the head while he prayed.

[merylinkid]

31 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

An interesting profile of Charles, from about a year ago in The New Yorker.  Seems like he was always thrust into roles for which he was not really suited, but was determined to handle as best he could.  The psychological toll of "duty" can be crushing.

Diana is not here to discuss these alleged incidents.   Charles should take the high road and just not discuss it.   He can say "we were not suited for each other.   I wish my children still had their mother" and be done with it.   By letting things like this get out there he is still clearly playing "woe is me" and trying to one up Diana in the attention stakes.   Neither one was perfect.   But one is dead now.   Let her rest in peace.

[anna0852]

I don't know that I agree with that. Yes, Diana is dead and cannot defend herself. But at the same time she certainly didn't shy away from criticizing Charles and his family while she was still here. I'm not saying Charles needs to go around constantly trumpeting how awful she was to him but it was apparently a very turbulent marriage and if occasionally comments or speaks about it then I don't see a problem.

Particularly when you consider that in this specific narrative the view is still very much of Charles as the bad guy, who cheated on the lovely Diana. Which is simply not true as stated by both sides of the issue. Why should he have to continue to take the heat when Diana did apparently contribute just as many problems to the marriage?

Edited February 12, 2018 by anna0852

[andromeda331]

I don't like him trash talking Diana. I didn't like it when she was alive and they both would trash talk each other and casting themselves as the innocent party or victim. Are there still people who blame him? I thought as time goes by and with all the specials and interviews it becomes clear the marriage was doomed from the start. They didn't know each other when they got married, they both were very different, they both went into the marriage with different expectations, different needs and things they needed from their husband/wife. They were too different and both had issues that the other was ill equip to handle. Had they dated longer they would have realized it. Diana's age is another thing she was too young to have any real understanding of what being married to the Prince of Wales would be like. Why did he or who ever pointed him to Diana think it was a good idea to marry someone so young? Or such a big age difference? Watching the early interviews its clear they don't really know each other. The only good thing to come out of it besides the two boys was they learned from it and the next generation was the couples were given plenty of time to get to know each other, spend time together and time to build a solid relationship.          

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Diana is not here to discuss these alleged incidents.   Charles should take the high road and just not discuss it.   

Has Charles really done it after Diana's death or is this new book based on what he said before it and which new authors can use? 

It was Diana who opened their marriage in public, via friends in Andrew Morton's book. Charles thought that he would get justice by doing the same but even then it it was a mistake. A woman is pitied, a man is ridiculed. 

[ooh.boo]

On 1/10/2018 at 3:47 PM, CousinAmy said:

What does William call her? Catherine? Such a formal name. 

How is Catherine such a formal name? 

[dleighg]

31 minutes ago, ooh.boo said:

How is Catherine such a formal name? 

I'm very good friends with a Katherine. Never anything else.

[Inquisitionist]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Has Charles really done it after Diana's death or is this new book based on what he said before it and which new authors can use? 

It was Diana who opened their marriage in public, via friends in Andrew Morton's book. Charles thought that he would get justice by doing the same but even then it it was a mistake. A woman is pitied, a man is ridiculed. 

Indeed, the New Yorker article that I quoted above seems largely based on a book that had recently been published:

Quote

How this enthusiastic and diligent person, who has frequently stated his desire to be a good, responsible monarch, managed to incur such opprobrium is the central question that the American writer Sally Bedell Smith sets out to answer in a new biography, “Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life” (Random House).

I'm not aware of Charles "badmouthing" Diana after her death, so I also would infer that the paragraph I quoted from The New Yorker article is drawn from this book, which in turn is based on things Charles said earlier (perhaps to friends who then spoke to Sally Bedell Smith.  In any event, I thought that paragraph had a particularly compelling insight about how Charles had experienced deference from almost everyone he'd encountered in life before Diana, but I'd urge everyone to read the entire article.

[ooh.boo]

7 minutes ago, dleighg said:

I'm very good friends with a Katherine. Never anything else.

Exactly! Catherine is a family name in my family, and no one goes by a diminutive. It’s not an unusual or difficult name. 

[Pallas]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It was Diana who opened their marriage in public, via friends in Andrew Morton's book.

Not only via friends and family (the photos from her childhood) but by taped interviews: Morton sent her questions; Diana answered; friends such as James Gilbey ferried the tapes across town. In this way both Morton and Diana could truthfully maintain that they had never met.

Meanwhile Charles's friends and sycophants -- frycophants? -- have long and clumsily tried to tell his side of the marriage, serving as sources to biographers and select journalists, beginning before the separation (Tina Brown's notable 1985 article,  "The Mouse That Roared"). Their efforts are about as nuanced as any other state apparatus, plumping for its chief. Their motives likely range from support of a badly married man with fewer options even than Diana, to propping up the establishment and future king. Their tone ranges from concern, to contempt, to malignant misogyny.  The marital anecdotes highlighted in the Smith biography can only originally have come from Charles, but how long ago and through how many hands?  

The White Feather Faction seems unable to accept that head-to-head, in every battle, Diana won the PR war. In part because this was her genius; in part because she was waging a charisma offensive against an unarmed opponent; and in part she had no qualms about overshadowing anyone, or in seeking affection from the public. And for the press, there was a fortune to be made in selling her, spinning her image this way and that to give it new sheen. Just as there was royal favor to be had for the courtiers, and a sense of protecting one's own for Charles's sympathizers (maybe a better word than friends).

[Inquisitionist]

Another New Yorker article, this time from 2007, confirms a lot of prior thread comments about Diana.

Quote

 

Diana did have a plan: she knew from early on that she wanted to marry Prince Charles. She grew up on the Queen’s private estate at Sandringham, in Norfolk, where her family let a house, and she was, after all, a Spencer, so this wasn’t such an odd or implausible ambition, though it did have a component of fantasy. As her step-grandmother Barbara Cartland (her daughter married Diana’s father) said, with devastating trenchancy, “The only books she ever read were mine, and they weren’t awfully good for her.” The absence of intellectual resources was to be a real problem for Diana later, all the more so because she did not acknowledge it; she had other ways of filling her time and making her own entertainment, many of them damaging. Katharine Graham, who met her in 1994, asked her whether, now that she was alone, she’d had any thoughts of going to college. “She found my question hard to believe,” Graham recalled, “and commented with irony, ‘I’ve already had an education.’ ” In retrospect, it’s clear, Diana would have been better off with a mug of cocoa and an art-history book than with jetting around Europe with Dodi Al Fayed.

But education—this seems to have been her youthful calculation—might have put a royal suitor off. So would having what was known as a “past”; i.e., ever having had sex. Diana referred to her virginity as keeping herself “tidy,” and she seems to have been much more aware than anyone else that this was an indispensable qualification for a future royal bride. Many potential rivals disqualified themselves by having boyfriends, but she hung in to be the last woman standing. This may have had unfortunate consequences. Her inexperience, the Waleses’ sexual incompatibility, and Charles’s feelings for Camilla were a combination that no marriage could have survived.

Class was, again, a big part of this. Men of the British upper class seem to regard sexual fidelity as being somehow middle-class. They certainly don’t go in for it much, not once the wife has produced, in the classic formula, “an heir and a spare.” Before his marriage, Charles had an extensive sex life with married women. The husbands seem—creepily, to the middle-class reader—not to have minded. “The reflected honor of royalty’s trust outweighed such déclassé emotions as jealousy, humiliation, and a sense of proprietorship,” Brown writes.

 

I'm very curious to see how this series depicts Diana.  If it falls into the saintly victim mode, I'll be very disappointed.

[dubbel zout]

I don't think Charles has badmouthed Diana since her death—or the divorce, for that matter. It's everyone else who keeps bringing up stuff. Before she died, Diana and Charles were on decent enough terms that she felt comfortable asking him for advice that had nothing to do with William and Harry.

As @Pallas mentioned, it's still very lucrative to fan the Charles vs. Diana wars, and she's been dead for more than 20 years.

[Minivanessa]

On 2/13/2018 at 10:56 AM, dubbel zout said:

I don't think Charles has badmouthed Diana since her death—or the divorce, for that matter. It's everyone else who keeps bringing up stuff. Before she died, Diana and Charles were on decent enough terms that she felt comfortable asking him for advice that had nothing to do with William and Harry.

As @Pallas mentioned, it's still very lucrative to fan the Charles vs. Diana wars, and she's been dead for more than 20 years.

I agree. BTW the New Yorker article cited above, discussed Tina Brown's (then newly published) book, The Diana Chronicles. I read the book back then, and re-read it last year. IMO it's time well spent if you're interested in Diana. Brown neither sanctifies nor vilifies Diana (or Charles), and I think much of the book was very insightful. Lots of detailed info about Diana's family of origin, among other things. The Spencers are a much older family than the Windsors in terms of British history.

And, AFAIK, as @dubbel zout said, Charles didn't trash talk Diana after the divorce, or after her death. I recall Brown in that book mentioning that one day at his country house (after Diana's death) Charles was raking leaves and someone commented on the nice sweater he was wearing. He said, "Diana chose it." And words to the effect that she was good at things like that. 

[dubbel zout]

I read the Tina Brown book and found it pretty balanced too.

5 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Charles was raking leaves and someone commented on the nice sweater he was wearing. He said, "Diana chose it." And words to the effect that she was good at things like that. 

She apparently had some jackets made for him (while they were married) that he still wears. 

[Roseanna]

Quote

Diana did have a plan: she knew from early on that she wanted to marry Prince Charles.

This seems pretty strange: because of their age gap (born 1948 and 1961) Charles would have normally been married when Diana was old enough of marry. 

[merylinkid]

Apparently the heads of the Commonwealth are meeting to decide who will be the leader when the Queen dies.   Obviously, it has been thought it would be Charles but there is no requirement that it be.   The Queen is on a PR offensive to make sure he succeeds her.   This tells me a lot about how the rest of the world feels about Charles as King.   If he were popular, it would be a no brainer that he succeed her as head of the Commonwealth.   That alternatives are even being discussed says so much.

[dubbel zout]

I'm not sure it's only about Charles specifically as much as what sort of leader the Commonwealth wants. Charles's current position is an accident of birth. Does the Commonwealth want that sort of person to lead it? Or does it want someone who has lived a life more in common with its population? Maybe the Commonwealth wants the lead position to rotate among members, like the Council of the European Union does. It's a much different world from when Elizabeth became head of the Commonwealth.

[andromeda331]

Maybe you guys can answer questions about the Commonwealth. I really don't know anything about the Commonwealth. What are the perks or reasons to be a part of it? What does it do? Why would it benefit Australia or Canada to be part of it. Instead of on their own. Do you think any of the countries will leave the Commonwealth after the Queen dies? Deciding to go on their own.  Every once in awhile I hear rumors that some countries are simply waiting until after the Queen passes before leaving. I don't know of there's anything to those rumors or not. 

[dleighg]

^and a related question going back to the Commonwealth meeting. I saw an article that at the time of the Queen's coronation, there were far fewer countries in the commonwealth than there are now (and the sovereign of GB was the leader of most of them, unlike now). Where did all of these extra members come from? I might guess it is former colonies that have "splintered" but would like to know more--

[Anothermi]

I've done a quick google search and found this website.  I haven't explored all of it, but here is the opening synopsis:
 

Quote

The Commonwealth is one of the world’s oldest political association of states. Its roots go back to the British Empire when some countries were ruled directly or indirectly by Britain. Some of these countries became self-governing while retaining Britain’s monarch as Head of State. They formed the British Commonwealth of Nations.

In 1949 the association we know today – The Commonwealth – came into being. Since then, independent countries from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Pacific have joined The Commonwealth.

Membership today is based on free and equal voluntary co-operation. The last two countries to join The Commonwealth - Rwanda and Mozambique - have no historical ties to the British Empire.

Think EU or any  "free trade" deal. Membership brings economic benefits.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Anothermi