Princess Diana

[helenazar]

Emeraldeyes - Diana was devoted to Charles!  She was needy for him!  He made no changes in his lifestyle upon marriage and she became more popular with the public than he and he didn't like it - that's when he went running back to Camilla.

I'm not so sure it was as simple as that... I think Diana and Charles really did not "understand" each other in many ways, I know it's a cliche, but in this case it really was so. It was almost a generation gap. Camilla and Charles were more on the same wavelength that way.

[Olishka~ Pincess]

If Camilla was not there at all in Charles's mind. I realy would think that the Wales marriage would have survived becuase I only realy think that it did not survive is becuase Camilla was in the scene Prince Charles had his eyes on her first. But, then he married Diana and he was not even thinking about her or loved her. I realy think that he would have been happy with being married with Diana if she was the first woman he layed his eyes on.But that was not the case. I am sure they would have more children and have a happy life and Charles it would make a much more positive impact on the royal family. It would be a positive example for the children. But she would not be as famous as she was in real life, I think that she is realy famous becuase she died and her cherity work in world that made a difference. The only reason that Charles did not want Diana becuase he never realy loved her, he loved Camilla more.

[ashdean]

The marriage was doomed from the start...Camilla might be seen as the catalyst/scapegoat but if she had not been around somebody else would have.Diana was too damaged by her childhood to be the right wife for Charles indeed most men and the over the top media attention which she played up to (and which went to her head) was among the many things that widened the breach....Charles was too insecure to handle it....there were other factors/faults too ON BOTH SIDES !!! but inevitably there would have been a seperation...

[CHRISinUSA]

That's a very romantic notion Elizabeth~Princess, but sadly that's all it is.  I totally agree with Helen, Charles and Diana were without question doomed from Day One.  

They had absolutely nothing in common.  They were from totally different generations and backgrounds.  They had totally different viewpoints on life, and what they needed from a life partner.  They were each emotionally hindered (albeit in totally different ways).  

But the most important reason they were going to fail is that Charles never truly loved Diana.  He had just proposed to Amanda Knatchbull a year or so beforehand.   He barely knew Diana - how many days had they actually spent together before he proposed?  A dozen?  Please - that marriage was a business proposition, not a love match.  

In old times, a Charles / Diana type royal marriage might have worked because the wife would have kept her silence while the husband went off and did his thing.  Charles was reared in a world where that was acceptable, even expected.  But Diana?  Never.

Does that make Charles a cad?  Absolutlely.  Does it make Diana naive?  Absolutely.  But does it change the fact that the marriage was doomed?  Nope.  Would it have made a difference if Camilla Shand-Kidd had never existed?  Nope.

I guess that's what irritates me so much about people blaming Camilla for the Waleses marriage break-up.  It ignores the real issues.

[Olishka~ Pincess]

That's a very romantic notion Elizabeth~Princess, but sadly that's all it is.  I totally agree with Helen, Charles and Diana were without question doomed from Day One.  

They had absolutely nothing in common.  They were from totally different generations and backgrounds.  They had totally different viewpoints on life, and what they needed from a life partner.  They were each emotionally hindered (albeit in totally different ways).  

But the most important reason they were going to fail is that Charles never truly loved Diana.  He had just proposed to Amanda Knatchbull a year or so beforehand.   He barely knew Diana - how many days had they actually spent together before he proposed?  A dozen?  Please - that marriage was a business proposition, not a love match.  

In old times, a Charles / Diana type royal marriage might have worked because the wife would have kept her silence while the husband went off and did his thing.  Charles was reared in a world where that was acceptable, even expected.  But Diana?  Never.

Does that make Charles a cad?  Absolutlely.  Does it make Diana naive?  Absolutely.  But does it change the fact that the marriage was doomed?  Nope.  Would it have made a difference if Camilla Shand-Kidd had never existed?  Nope.

I guess that's what irritates me so much about people blaming Camilla for the Waleses marriage break-up.  It ignores the real issues.

I can understand that Charles and Diana had nothing in common I mean I am saying if they did since the whole point of this thread is what if Charles had not know Camilla and if the marriage with Diana would have survived.

[Janet_W.]

They did have something in common. Unfortunately this shared situation was the primary reason their marriage did NOT work.

Charles, like his great uncle, needed comforting and approval from a mother figure, which he ultimately found in a paramour rather than his parent.

Diana, like Charles, sought approval from an emotionally distant parent, in this case her father, and when that was not forthcoming pinned her hopes on receiving comfort and approval from a chronologically mature husband.

So many people were appalled that Charles would be rejecting of a young and beautiful girl who was initially fresh and virginal, then ultimately blossomed into not just a warm and loving mother but a woman of provocative and seductive allure. If you've read the comment, however, that Charles supposedly made to a friend after his initial sexual experience with Diana, it's obvious he was used to being served rather than serving. (Alas, a contradiction of the Windsor family motto.) And the transcripts of his [non]private phone conversations with Camilla make it plain that she was and is the supportive, reassuring and motherly figure Charles craved. Diana was a loving mother to her boys, but the support she was ready to furnish her husband was wifely rather than motherly; she wanted Charles to be her pillar of support rather than just a pillar. (That, of course, is pilfered from "The Philadelphia Story," but it will do.) It must have been intensely confusing to her, and frustrating to Charles, that what they sought from each other was not there to be found.

So had there been no Camilla--or anyone else like her--not to mention the long line of men willing to provide sexual  comfort to Diana, would the Wales marriage have survived? Perhaps. But that depends on your definition of the word "survival," and whether or not mere survival is enough. Without intensive therapy and a willingness on the parts of both Charles and Diana to commit ONLY to each other the marriage would not have thrived, though it probably would have hobbled along like an old cart with one or more broken wheels until they both reached an age of amicable tolerance and/or indifference.

[dmitri]

Things can't have been too bad between Charles and Diana. After all they had two children. That doesn't happen unless there is some sort of mutual attraction. If Camilla had kept away and not behaved in an appalling manner, there is a lot to be said that this couple could have made a go of it. Certainly Diana wouldn't have ended up dead in a car crash without her husband. Camilla does have a lot of responsibility in the break up of the marriage. No decent woman would have done what she did. It is hardly normal to sleep with somebody else's husband when you are married yourself. It shows a sign of a lack of self respect if nothing else.

[helenazar]

Things can't have been too bad between Charles and Diana. After all they had two children. That doesn't happen unless there is some sort of mutual attraction.

Dmitri... I don't mean to be rude... but what planet do you live on??

[ChristineM]

Firstly, I am delighted the topic has proved provactive.   The reason I asked the question is because I cannot fathom the answer.   Chris is right when he writes that only a year before Charles had proposed to Amanda Knatchbull - and, if I am right, a few others too.   However, one imperative was that any prospective bride had to pass the Camilla test.   That's why I ask, remove Camilla from the equation and what have we got?   The answer 'whatever love is' couldn't have happened.   His reply was not for Diana, it was not for the media or for the general public - it was for Camilla.

Dimitri is right - by far the most important 'things' they had in common were their two sons.   Charles is reputed to have longed for a daughter - HE made that an impossibility.   Diana was so right when she said 'We make a great team'.    Unfortunately Charles didn't share this point of view.   He saw it as a competition.   A brilliant opportunity was lost -  for them as a couple, as a normal family with its inevitable ups and downs and for the British public.

To answer Helen A - 'opposites attract'... is there no truth in that expression?   I don't know.   I think I'm pretty well the opposite to my husband in many ways, but obviously not so many as Charles and Diana!   Perhaps in this case, Helen, you are right.   They were both naive - although Diana proved the faster and keener learner.   If she had been given the opportunity, she probably would have tried to fall in with Charles' whims and eccentricities.   Problem - she was always intellectually put down, both by herself and by her - by this time - exceedingly jealous husband.   The reason for his jealousy deserves examining.   There was more to it than just one side of the street audibly groaning when they saw it was Charles who would be glad-handing them.   

I agree, Diana was as needy a human being as her husband.   Her fundamental 'need' was to be loved by her husband.   Charles 'need' was inherited from his great uncle.

tsaria

[helenazar]

To answer Helen A - 'opposites attract'... is there no truth in that expression? 

I think the answer is "yes" and "no", and "depends"... Yes, opposites often attract initially, because it's more interesting that way. But depending on what exactly is opposite, i.e. how important these opposite traits are for their respective lifestyles, etc., they will either continue to attract, or (less commonly) become neutral and not cause any problems, or in time evolve into huge issues. In Charles' and Diana's case, it was the latter... Their case is really not so different from millions of other couples, except they had that royalty thing thrown into the equation, which only added fuel to the fire... Other than that, it was a fairly common run-of the-mill marital problem: two people who had no business marrying married for various reasons. Each had different ideas about what this marriage was going to be like, and what each of them was going to get out of it, and each of course was wrong. In the meantime they had a couple of kids and tried to go about their business, pretending everything was fine, having trysts with others, etc., until the proverbial s--t hit the fan and they no longer could go about their business and ignore the obvious: that they really had no business staying together and pretendning that everything wa fine. So they separated and divorced. Of course this is an oversimplified summary, but more or less this is how it went...

[helenazar]

 Diana was so right when she said 'We make a great team'.    Unfortunately Charles didn't share this point of view.   He saw it as a competition.   A brilliant opportunity was lost -  for them as a couple, as a normal family with its inevitable ups and downs and for the British public.

And this precisely was one of the major problems, Charles didn't share this view. Which means Diana was not right - they didn't make a "great team". The only way they would have made a "great team" is if both of them felt the same way about making a "great team"... It takes two to make a relationship or a team, not one, no matter how much one of the two wants it to work. Which is why they had no business being in a marriage together... Charles was pressured into marrying, not just marrying Diana, but marrying period. Diana was too young and immature to marry at that time, and she had no clue what it was going to be about. It is a very sad thing for both of them.

[ChristineM]

Yes, you are quite right, Helen, and this difference, so fundamental to their union, was a major issue.   However, Diana couldn't help her popularity.   I think she would have happily foregone her 'popularity' for the genuine love of her husband.   Eventually, of course, it became a weapon.   There seems to be little, or no doubt, Diana really did love Charles.   Why, I don't know, but love him she did.   Would she have loved him had he been the dustbinman and not Prince of Wales - I doubt it, but she might have found more in common with the said 'dustbinman'.   

A major part of Diana's attraction in so far as the public were concerned, was her obvious interest in her fellow human beings and her willing accessability.   However, I do feel, had Camilla not always been around - like the elephant in the room - Charles might - just might - have been able to understand that his own popularity could have grown, concometently.   

Camilla, on the other hand, now has the advantage of having learned her lessons from her predecessor's mistake - a mistake of being too human, too understanding, too empathetic and too appealing.   But she has never had to battle to be loved by him.

Tampabay got the relationship between Charles and Camilla - or rather Camilla's attitude towards her life with Charles, absolutely right.

tsaria   

[Gabriella]

Hello,

it's a very interesting topic with a lot of interesting opinions to that question. I would like to add mine:

I think the Wales' marriage wouldn't have worked either.

From what I learnt from the newpaper articles they were very different and had very different interests. I remember having read that Charles is more interested in gardening, nature and enviroment, more interested in serious books, and in his behaviour and  thoughts formed by his "gurus" like Earl Mountbatten and  Laurens van der Post. Diana should have been more normal, watching soap operas and be more interested in lighter entertainment. I only wondered that both have many friends among stars of show business, but they do not share the same. But I also read they'd seldom shared an evening watching  TV together.

I think Charles being the elder and formed and settled would not have changed his attitudes. From my point of view Diana would have been the one who would have tried to share more of  Charles' interests. Sooner or later she would have discovered that she only distorts herself for the sake of their marriage. Both would have drift apart sooner or later.

Gabriella

[helenazar]

Diana couldn't help her popularity. 

Absolutely, but I am not so sure if that was really what caused the rift between them. Again, that may have been a symptom, not the cause. As you know, when the relationship is not working, the two people start to find many things that annoy them about each other that normally are not such a big deal. Maybe it's a way of focusing on something else and avoiding the real issues and having to face the fact that they made a really huge mistake by marrying each other. You know sort of like, "I can't live with this man any more, he won't put the toilet seat down", which really means something else completely - a lot more serious than a toilet seat... This jealousy issue about Diana's popularity may have been one of those things. If Charles really loved Diana in the first place, he would have been overjoyed that she is popular with the people.

There seems to be little, or no doubt, Diana really did love Charles.   

Again, I am not so sure about that. Certainly she thought she did. But there is a difference between "needing" someone and loving someone, and there are all kinds of love... Diana was extremely immature and needy when she and Charles married, I am not sure if she was capable of mature healthy love. That's not to say that Charles was either.

A major part of Diana's attraction in so far as the public were concerned, was her obvious interest in her fellow human beings and her willing accessability.   

Diana was a very regular and very mediocre woman. That was her appeal to people, and that was the fact that made her "special" among the royals, her very mediocre-ness. She found comfort in other people's "troubles" and enjoyed helping them, which is very common in needy people. If she didn't become a princess, she may have enjoyed a carreer as a social worker and maybe would have made a very good one. She did it as much for herself as for others, which of course does not minimize her contributions. At the same time she wanted a lot of attention, which she got from the public. Charles is a very different kind of "needy", and their respectful neediness didn't match.

Tampabay got the relationship between Charles and Camilla - or rather Camilla's attitude towards her life with Charles, absolutely right.

I agree with Tampabay's assessment of C & C's dynamics too, which is precisely what makes those two a very good match. A "good match" doesn't always equal a "healthy match", it is just something that works for both people and makes both happy in their respective roles. It didn't work with Charles and Diana, i.e. they were miserable in their respective roles with each other. It does work with Camilla and Charles, they seem to be pretty happy in their respective roles for each other. It doesn't mean that someone else would be happy doing what Camilla is happy doing for him, but she is. But this is why she is "right" for Charles and some others weren't.

[ChristineM]

Welcome to the Forum, Gabriella.

Congratulations Helen on an excellent piece of psychological assessment.    I find it very easy to agree with all you write.   One or two observations, however - Diana could equally have said 'whatever love is', but that was not because she had given her heart to another as her prospective spouse had done.   To a nineteen year old, the prospect of becoming Princess of Wales must have been very seductive and tantalising - almost sufficiently tantalising to believe she was in love with Charles.   However, I do think she loved him within her own light - and that is what matters - not what we might think.   The age difference undoubtedly, in their case, had a profound affect on their relationship.   Remember, she was Camilla's choice to become her lover's bride because she was such a 'mouse' and wouldn't rock their boat.   Charles was an old man by the age of twenty.   In fact when he was twenty he probably was the age he actually is now.   Now, he really is becoming quite decrepid.   

They (Charles and Camilla) exploited Diana's age, innocence and naivety.   I cannot agree that Diana was 'mediocre'.   She was anything but.   She was far more intelligent than even she wanted to admit.   Her intelligence might not have been in any academic sense of the word.   What she possessed was a type of intelligence which is much more formidable because it is an instinct.   She possessed an innate intelligence.   To be unkind it could be called a 'native cunning' and indeed in Diana's case this is how it eventually evinced itself.

Given all that has been written, I am still tempted to believe that, subtract Camilla from the equation and today we would have an entirely different scenario.

Additionally it appears to me, despite her youth and naivety, Diana at least was able to grasp how important the successful survival of their relationship was to the British crown.   Charles, on the other hand, could - and can - only think of himself.

tsaria