History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Roseanna]

16 hours ago, AZChristian said:

According to a source, "As we have said previously, making a change to the working life and role of the monarchy for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex requires complex and thoughtful discussions."

Here's what the queen's response should be. "You want to tell US what YOUR chosen role in the monarchy is? How's this: You get to leave 'the family business' and become Mr. and Mrs. Windsor. You can live wherever you want. You'll live on your own inheritance (from Diana) and whatever else you can make without cashing in on your former role as royals. No more money from the Duchy of Cornwall or the British taxpayers.

Please leave the keys to Frogmore on the kitchen counter as you exit with the moving vans which will take YOUR possessions.

Good luck, and God bless."

Sincerely,
Her Royal Highness Elizabeth II
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Everyone Else in Line Ahead of Harry
The Rest of the World

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. 

[SailorGirl]

On 1/12/2020 at 2:00 PM, Razzberry said:

I don't really follow their press too closely so missed these attacks, racial slurs, and whatever else they're complaining about, but I'm afraid they ain't seen nothin' yet. 

Seems to me they love the perks of royalty but don't want to do the work.   They're financially dependent on the crown, but want to make their own rules.  It's David and Wallis all over again.

I think its erroneous and an overstatement to say this is David and Wallis all over again. They are not giving a middle finger to the royal family and demanding money as D & W did -- in fact, its the opposite -- they're saying they don't want to be financially dependent on the crown -- D & W felt it was their right and entitlement to have their lives funded by the crown.  

Here's just a small and very mild sampling of what H & M are "complaining about": 
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR1PTuBS5khi0uP0UwZ9d5Q5T5KphFZfEkuuc_SQi8Oor0Pb7AChpbeHWOQ

I absolutely believe they had to release their announcement ahead of the original plan (and the Queen's request) because the leaked story was going to be published and get out from under them -- FFS, we are talking about media outlets that published pictures of Diana IN THE CAR WRECKAGE. Rather than try to help get her out, they freakin' took her damn picture . . . and PUBLISHED THEM!!! When you are completely at the mercy of others to try to freakin' SAVE YOUR LIFE and they opt to exploit you rather than try to help you? And Harry, at age 12, saw all of that. AT AGE 12. 

If the press is willing to sink that low, publishing a salacious story about H & M wanting to step down as senior members is nothing. 

How can anyone question Harry trying to get his wife and child away from that???? I am very much a "I can handle anything; I can take care of everything for myself by myself" person and I've been in two situations (one a very bad car accident and another a medical emergency) in which I was completely dependent on assistance from others. It is probably the worst feeling ever, to know you are completely helpless. And then to have people NOT help you and instead take picture?? No matter your stance on whether she manipulated the media, that is inhuman and beyond cruel. 

Run far, run fast, H &  M. 

And for those who are commenting about Meghan's signing an agreement with Disney to narrate a documentary, ummmm . . .. how many documentaries has Charles narrated about the environment, architecture, and other causes he cares about and no one has batted an eye? Agreements had to be signed for him to do those. If Meghan shouldn't do it, certainly the future KING should be above such banal activities!! FFS -- Edward wrote, produced, and narrated a documentary on Uncle Nazi and Wallis!

Is it because its Disney, a company associated with cartoons (but that in actuality does a LOT of nature and environment documentaries) that she's doing it for? Or is it because its Meghan doing it, despite other members of the family having done the same and it being just fine???

Oh, and ANDREW IS A FREAKIN' PEDOPHILE!! 

But yeah, Meghan's not being treated any differently and SHE's the problem. Okay.

(this last is a general statement, not directed at you personally, Razzberry 😎). 

Edited January 14, 2020 by SailorGirl

[Umbelina]

Quote

 

In the queen’s own words, the statement identifies a short-term solution. “It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the U.K.,” she writes.

The statement also makes clear the extent to which accepting public money has motivated the young couple’s decision. “Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives,” she writes.

 

 

Ultimately, her tone was conciliatory. “My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said. “Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the royal family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

 

The Queen Has Struck a Deal With Meghan and Harry

[PeterPirate]

CNN is airing commercials about a series they will air about the Windsors in February.  

As someone who is relatively uninterested in the current royal family, it seems to me that H&M are carrying on the Windsor tradition of adapting to meet the changing times.  They have their own brand--Sussex Royal--and in order to maintain their income they will have to behave responsively to the market's demand for proper royal behavior.  More power to them, I say.  

 

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by PeterPirate

[Umbelina]

Quote

"The Sussexes will not use their HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family," the palace said. Harry will still be Prince Harry, and the Duke of Sussex as Meghan will remain Duchess, explains CBS News correspondent Imtiaz Tyab, but they will no longer be able to formally represent the queen. 

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:

Quote

A deeply personal statement from Her Majesty the Queen issued Saturday read, “Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life. I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.”

Quote

A royal source said Friday night that the couple “had got what they wanted,” however, losing the use of their HRH title has cast doubts over the name and future of their new charitable foundation, Sussex Royal. While courtiers insist Harry will always be a prince and a member of the royal family he will not be able to use the title “His Royal Highness” because he is no longer a working member of the Royal Family. Nor will he or Meghan receive public monies. Aides have said the couple will now be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex, while Meghan will be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex beginning in the spring.

Vanity Fair

This should shut some press people up:  

Quote

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home. Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security. This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.”

(more at link)

Edited January 18, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

 

Quote

Aides have said the couple will now be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex, while Meghan will be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

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.

[VCRTracking]

I just hope this heals the rift between the brothers.

[Joan of Argh]

On 1/9/2020 at 12:45 PM, Roseanna said:

With Harry's folly I didn't mean Harry's grief for losing a parent but his belief that by "stepping down" he can better shield his wife to be by harrassed by the media when Diana's fate showed that the media will then do it much more. 

Exactly I  hope Harry hires better security than his mother Diana had after she left the family.

I worry that the press will see this as open season on Harry, Megan, Archie and we'll have another tragedy.

I have a bad feeling about this whole thing and I really don't see it ending well.... I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Joan of Argh said:

Exactly I  hope Harry hires better security than his mother Diana had after she left the family.

I worry that the press will see this as open season on Harry, Megan, Archie and we'll have another tragedy.

I have a bad feeling about this whole thing and I really don't see it ending well.... I hope I'm wrong.

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. 

[Roseanna]

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. 

    

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think that the press can be held responsible for Diana's death. She was in a car whose driver was drunk.

She was also not wearing a seat belt.  That's not on the paparazzi or the driver.  

[VCRTracking]

6 hours ago, Roseanna said:

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. 

    

I've heard Phillip did persuade them but it wasn't his idea. That may have been come from the PM office.

[Fireball]

I'm very confused with all things regarding titles.

I get that Harry will always be a Prince and that title can't be taken from him, but....

The whole "they will not use their HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" which makes it sound like both Harry & Meghan get to keep the HRH titles, but they just can't use them? Why would the firm allow? Is it just because it sounds nicer then "Harry & Meghan have been striped of the HRH titles?" However, I've also read that they lost their HRH title? So which is the truth?

I'm also confused why the firm would allow Harry & Meghan to continue to use Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles. Weren't those given to them?  If they don't want to continue their royal duties why allow them to keep the titles?

Harry military titles. I don't understand how he can lose these? Didn't he earn them during his time in the military or were these bestowed on him due to him being a Prince?  

I am confused, but I don't understand the in and outs of the British titles etc. 

[Sew Sumi]

A lot of members of the Queen:s family have titles that they choose not to use. It's not a novel thing. Think of Archie. He's technically a Lord by birth, but H&M have chosen not to use his title.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Sew Sumi

[Umbelina]

The BBC seems to be the most thorough

Quote

 

They will always be, the Queen writes, "much loved members of my family".

But that's about it. No royal title, no royal duties, no military appointments, no tours, most of their time spent in Canada, no public money.

It is harder to think of a much cleaner break than this. Harry and Meghan are still members of the Royal Family, but they are effectively no longer royal.

The early talk was of a much more mixed life - one where perhaps Harry and Meghan continued with some royal duties, dividing their time equally between the UK and Canada.

But the contradictions and conflicts of interest were too many.

There are still lots of details to thrash out.

And the whole thing will be reviewed after a year.

But a new life awaits Harry and Meghan - celebrities, certainly, but a different kind of royalty.

 

MUCH longer article at link.

BBC answers more questions here:

(MOSTLY residency, taxes, boring stuff like that.)

[Fireball]

1 hour ago, Sew Sumi said:

A lot of members of the Queen:s family have titles that they choose not to use. It's not a novel thing. Think of Archie. He's technically a Lord by birth, but H&M have chosen not to use his title.

I guess I thought only working royals had titles. but obviously I was mistaken. 

However, how about Harry losing his military titles?  

[Sew Sumi]

Working royals can USE their titles. If H&M start working again when Charles is king, they can use their titles again. 

Not sure what the deal is with Harry losing his military titles. 

[MissLucas]

Harry steps back from his military appointments since they were given to him due to his position as senior royal, just like Anne has military appointments despite never having served. I assume that he keeps the ranks he earned during his active service. At least that's how I understand it.

[Ellaria]

I hope that Harry and Meghan find the peace that they are seeking. I also hope that they have realistic expectations about what this next step entails because it may not be easy. The concept of "Sussex Royal" being a marketable brand doesn't seem sustainable for a long period of time. 

Presumably. they are being advised appropriately and realistically because, judging by the Queen's statement, I don't think that they can turn back.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I hope that Harry and Meghan find the peace that they are seeking. I also hope that they have realistic expectations about what this next step entails because it may not be easy. The concept of "Sussex Royal" being a marketable brand doesn't seem sustainable for a long period of time. 

Presumably. they are being advised appropriately and realistically because, judging by the Queen's statement, I don't think that they can turn back.

The door is still open for them to come back.  They are still part of the family and will be present for the big stuff and holidays.  They will probably visit the Queen at Balmoral in August.  And when the day comes and Charles is king, they could possibly become Working Royals again.  

[toolazy]

On 1/19/2020 at 11:57 AM, Fireball said:

I'm very confused with all things regarding titles.

I get that Harry will always be a Prince and that title can't be taken from him, but....

The whole "they will not use their HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" which makes it sound like both Harry & Meghan get to keep the HRH titles, but they just can't use them? Why would the firm allow? Is it just because it sounds nicer then "Harry & Meghan have been striped of the HRH titles?" However, I've also read that they lost their HRH title? So which is the truth?

I'm also confused why the firm would allow Harry & Meghan to continue to use Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles. Weren't those given to them?  If they don't want to continue their royal duties why allow them to keep the titles?

Harry military titles. I don't understand how he can lose these? Didn't he earn them during his time in the military or were these bestowed on him due to him being a Prince?  

I am confused, but I don't understand the in and outs of the British titles etc. 

 

The way I understand it (vaguely, I admit) is that His/Her Royal Highness aren't titles. They're styles.  They will no longer style themselves as, for exaple, His Royal Highness, Harry, the Duke of Sussex.  Instead he'll just be the Duke of Sussex.  More or less.

[Joan of Argh]

On 1/19/2020 at 1:42 AM, Roseanna said:

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. 

I think you misunderstood what I said.... I didn't say the press was responsible.

I said I hoped Harry hires better security than his mother had...

The bodyguard never should have let her get in a car with a drunk driver and the driver never should have been drinking to begin with.... totally unprofessional.

Harry is used to all of that being handled for him and now he'll need to be more involved.... hopefully he has responsible people to take care of these things because just having money doesn't guarantee anything... Dodi Fayed had plenty of money but he had a driver who thought it was ok to drink on the job.

I read a an article a couple years ago about security people who guard celebrities and other wealthy individuals and it was alarming how many of them were less than professional and the turn over in the industry was alarming.

 

 

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Joan of Argh said:

The bodyguard never should have let her get in a car with a drunk driver and the driver never should have been drinking to begin with.... totally unprofessional.

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.  

[merrick715]

On 1/19/2020 at 1:57 PM, Fireball said:

Harry military titles. I don't understand how he can lose these? Didn't he earn them during his time in the military or were these bestowed on him due to him being a Prince?  

 

Harry still gets to keep Captain Wales which he earned. He lost his honorary military titles because he's not representing the Queen anymore.

[Razzberry]

H & M in five years...

[Ohiopirate02]

31 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

H & M in five years...

Shouldn't that be Molson or Labatt instead of PBR?

 

[Joan of Argh]

On 1/21/2020 at 12:28 AM, Roseanna said:

How about Dodi who had hired them? 

 

Yup him too... He was an international playboy and a spoiled child... He wasn't a serious person and I think it's sad that she spent her last days running around with such a frivolous character. 

I wonder if Dodi was going to propose to her and would she have accepted?

I never could understand what she saw in him.... He was rich but Diana traveled in those circles and could have dated any number of rich men plus she had money of her own.

Maybe she thought he'd be her Arristotle Onassis and she could be Jackie Kennedy.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

5 hours ago, Joan of Argh said:

Yup him too... He was an international playboy and a spoiled child... He wasn't a serious person and I think it's sad that she spent her last days running around with such a frivolous character. 

I wonder if Dodi was going to propose to her and would she have accepted?

I never could understand what she saw in him.... He was rich but Diana traveled in those circles and could have dated any number of rich men plus she had money of her own.

Maybe she thought he'd be her Arristotle Onassis and she could be Jackie Kennedy.

 

 

I got the feeling that Diana was looking for a man to take care of her, be her white knight, the romance novel hero and all that jazz.  She had enough self-awareness to realize she was a handful and too much for many a rich man.  She had already been burned by Charles and at least in my opinion was looking for the exact opposite of him.  Diana knew marrying another British aristo with loads of money was just a gilded cage where she would be always looking the other way while her husband dallied with another woman.  

I don't know if she would have married Dodi, but if she did she would have been miserable in that marraige as well.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by Ohiopirate02

[dubbel zout]

8 hours ago, Joan of Argh said:

I never could understand what she saw in him.... He was rich but Diana traveled in those circles and could have dated any number of rich men plus she had money of her own.

Dodi was starstruck by Diana, which I imagine fed her ego. Also, he was incredibly rich. Not just wealthy, but stinkin' rich. It could buy her a lot.

I don't think their relationship was anything more than a summer fling. She could flip her finger at the Establishment by dating—gasp!—a Muslim, he got the world's most famous woman on his arm. Too bad it ended so tragically and unnecessarily for both of them.

[Umbelina]

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.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

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.

Even without Camilla, Charles and Diana would have been miserable as well.  They were fundamentally mismatched and he was never going to be able to be the husband Diana wanted or needed.  The same for Diana.  

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Even without Camilla, Charles and Diana would have been miserable as well.  They were fundamentally mismatched and he was never going to be able to be the husband Diana wanted or needed.  The same for Diana.  

That's exactly it. If you took Camilla out of the picture and any affair Charles or Diana had it really wouldn't have changed or fixed anything. They both were so different, had nothing in common and both had needs in a spouse that they couldn't be. Charles couldn't be the husband Diana wanted and needed and she couldn't be the wife he wanted and needed. It was always going to end badly and in divorce. They weren't in love, they weren't opposites attracted or anything else.  They were two people so completely different from each other, didn't bother to get to know each other, and after 12 dates (which they were never really alone so the odds of them talking about anything) Charles's dad talked told him he needed to either propose to her or break up, and Charles who never really had a problem ignoring his dad's advice at times went with proposal or consider maybe date her a little longer if he was unsure. But he did, she said yes and they both went into marriage with two very different ideas on marriage and expectations which they never bothered to talk about and still barely knowing each other. That's not going to work. They were setting themselves up for failure. Its hard to see how no one could see it. 

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

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.

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.

46 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

That's exactly it. If you took Camilla out of the picture and any affair Charles or Diana had it really wouldn't have changed or fixed anything. They both were so different, had nothing in common and both had needs in a spouse that they couldn't be. Charles couldn't be the husband Diana wanted and needed and she couldn't be the wife he wanted and needed. It was always going to end badly and in divorce. They weren't in love, they weren't opposites attracted or anything else.  They were two people so completely different from each other, didn't bother to get to know each other, and after 12 dates (which they were never really alone so the odds of them talking about anything) Charles's dad talked told him he needed to either propose to her or break up, and Charles who never really had a problem ignoring his dad's advice at times went with proposal or consider maybe date her a little longer if he was unsure. But he did, she said yes and they both went into marriage with two very different ideas on marriage and expectations which they never bothered to talk about and still barely knowing each other. That's not going to work. They were setting themselves up for failure. Its hard to see how no one could see it. 

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.  

Edited January 24, 2020 by Roseanna
correcting grammar

[andromeda331]

17 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

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.  

That could have worked but I don't think Diana was capable of that kind of marriage. Even though she had affairs of her own. But they should have talked about it and if they couldn't agree then divorce. I know royals hate divorce but they would have been better off had they decided to divorce when they realized it wasn't working and moved on. They could have raised their sons jointly and both moved on with their lives. That would have been so much better then the crap that came later. I do agree she shouldn't have made their problems public if only for their sons and kept all of the marriage problems from them. 

[dubbel zout]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Still, the divorce wouldn't have been necessary, if Diana hadn't made the matter public.

I don't know about this. Why should either of them have had to stay in a marriage they didn't like? The monarchy didn't collapse when Charles and Diana divorced.

Neither side handled the divorce proceedings well, but given the personalities, I'm not sure it would have gone otherwise. 

[LilWharveyGal]

This is pretty cool.  Prince Charles just visited Princess Alice's tomb in Jerusalem.

[merylinkid]

4 hours ago, LilWharveyGal said:

This is pretty cool.  Prince Charles just visited Princess Alice's tomb in Jerusalem.

Was just coming here to post about this.   How nice that he took the time to do this.   

[Roseanna]

On 1/24/2020 at 10:59 AM, dubbel zout said:

I don't know about this. Why should either of them have had to stay in a marriage they didn't like? The monarchy didn't collapse when Charles and Diana divorced.

Neither side handled the divorce proceedings well, but given the personalities, I'm not sure it would have gone otherwise. 

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? 

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.        

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

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? 

I've always wondered if she gave that interview knowing it would be what would finally bring about the divorce. Maybe I'm wrong and she was just being Diana. But by that point they had been married and separated for a long time. The marriage was pretty much over, they'd never reconcile, they were living mostly separate lives, he was still with Camilla and she was dating other men but none of that was enough for them to divorce. Because of their positions. Sure she still made sure she came out looking the best (not cool Diana) but its what made the Queen decide they needed to divorce. 

[dubbel zout]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

But one must remember that at that time they both and others believed that divorce was impossible in their position.

I don't think it was considered impossible, just a really bad idea. 

[Umbelina]

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.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Umbelina
added the press part and virgin part

[Crs97]

At one point I remember reading that the Queen wanted them to divorce formally because Diana was alienating the children from Charles by consistently canceling things at the last minute that would have sent the boys to their dad.

I have always been amazed at how everyone seems to gloss over the fact that Diana threw herself down the stairs while pregnant.  She was so lucky she didn’t injure her child.  That seems to get a “poor Diana” response, which is amazing to me.

[Roseanna]

On 1/25/2020 at 2:46 PM, Umbelina said:

found the Camilla gift to Charles

Actually she first found many gifts, jewellery Charles was going to give to all his closest women friends as "thank you" during his single days. Afterwards there was Camilla's gift.

The whole business is an example of two different attitudes. To Charles it was perfectly natural that a former lover became a friend. Diana who wasn't only young but extremely insecure felt that she couldn't compete with the older women.

But it seems that she wasn't particularly jealous towards Camilla in the yearly years of her marriage, but towards all Charles's friends, his work, his hobbies - all that prevented him to be with her alone. It was only after the marriage had become formal and she had had lovers herself, that she began to hate particularly Camilla.  

On 1/25/2020 at 2:46 PM, Umbelina said:

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.

Their main problem was in their private lives.   

Even during the engagement Diana had mood swings becoming totally different than the girl Charles had dated. He had his heavy work program that had been settled before. The total change of environment with strict restrictions of movement an behavior and huge media attention was simply too much for young and insecure girl who had had no idea what becoming a royal meant (Charles believed that as a Spencer she knew it). She became sick with anorexia.

The honeymoon was a disaster when their different tastes became apparent. Charles wanted to read serous books, Diana wanted him to be with her all the time. They had rows: Diana shouted which was quite new to Charles to whom nobody had done it before. He loved Balmoral, she hated it, unlike she had pretended when they had dated.

Charles made the mistake to believe that the marriage wouldn't basically change his life. He worked hard, had sport hobbies, needed a lot solitary. Diana wanted to be with his husband all the time and couldn't understand why it wasn't possible.

Diana's physical and mental illnesses became worse. At first Charles did try to help her, but after realizing he couldn't reach her during her  hysterical scenes, he walked away. He simply couldn't understand what it was about. After all, even medical experts had scant knowledge.     

But he did make big concessions for his wife's sake: he gave up his friends and even his beloved dog.    

On 1/25/2020 at 2:46 PM, Umbelina said:

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.  

What about not inviting the photographers to be present every time she met f.ex. patients?

It's true that Diana had an extraordinary gift to connect people and make them feel that she understand them. But was it really more valuable than the hard work Charles did to help people with Prince's Trust or his speeches about serious matters?

Well, that's how the media works and Diana certainly learned to manipulate it for her own good and harming not only Charles. She couldn't just give anybody else to shine, f.ex. ordering events for same days than Fergie had her first official ones.  

But generally, the media needs "goodies" and "baddies". Catherine was praised for the same things that Maghan was criticized for. In the same time Diana was presented as an offer and Charles as a villain.     

[merylinkid]

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

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.

Or laid out ground rules.   So she got to be a Princess and all the perks, while pretty much living her own life.    If they had both been more mature, they could have worked things out.   Living separate lives but uniting for the big things like Trooping of the Colour, State Opening of Parliament, State Dinners (what 3 maybe 4 times a year) but then having schedules that darn just kept them going separate places.    They could have worked out a modus operandi that kept the lid on all this, got them both what they wanted and kept the boys out of the middle.

But both were insecure and immature.   Each wanted their own way and only their own way with no compromise.    A little compromise and Diana would be alive today to play with her grandchildren.

[Roseanna]

20 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

A little compromise and Diana would be alive today to play with her grandchildren.

Except, to her it's wasn't little as she didn't want such a life. 

Also, I don't wouldn't say even that Diana would be alive if she hadn't dated Dodi. The cause of her death was a drunken chauffeur and, maybe, that she didn't use safety belts.

 

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

A little compromise and Diana would be alive today to play with her grandchildren.

Except, to her it's wasn't little as she didn't want such a life. 

Exactly. Not everyone wants to be married but live separate lives. 

Charles and Diana had different ideas of what their married life should be. Neither was right or wrong as far as that went, but they couldn't agree on a situation that would work for both of them.

[PeterPirate]

On 1/19/2020 at 5:39 AM, AZChristian said:

She was also not wearing a seat belt.  That's not on the paparazzi or the driver.  

I wonder how they are going to portray that on the show.  Because the Crown must win.

[andromeda331]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Except, to her it's wasn't little as she didn't want such a life. 

Also, I don't wouldn't say even that Diana would be alive if she hadn't dated Dodi. The cause of her death was a drunken chauffeur and, maybe, that she didn't use safety belts.

 

 

5 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Exactly. Not everyone wants to be married but live separate lives. 

Charles and Diana had different ideas of what their married life should be. Neither was right or wrong as far as that went, but they couldn't agree on a situation that would work for both of them.

Which is why they both really should have talked about what they wanted and expected in marriage before Charles proposed. Then they would have known they each wanted something so completely different and realized it wasn't going to work. 

[Crs97]

27 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Which is why they both really should have talked about what they wanted and expected in marriage before Charles proposed. Then they would have known they each wanted something so completely different and realized it wasn't going to work.

Frankly, I wonder if that would have worked.  Diana pretended to like a lot of things Charles liked, great example being Balmoral, until after they married.  She was young enough that I suspect she might have agreed to lots of things to “win” a prince.

[Razzberry]

Diana should have realized that Charles was basically shopping for a broodmare and she checked all the boxes.  Some could have made it work, but I think she demanded more attention than he could provide. And then she became unhinged.  Throwing herself down the stairs, crank-calling her boyfriends, binge eating, calling the heart surgeon at the hospital 20 times a day, airing their dirty laundry in public...it all sounds like a Dr. Phil show.