Princess Diana

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, in the end there will always be many what ifs. I think that Diana made the best out of bad circumstances, and rose above how unhappy her private life often was, by becoming what she was in public. But, that wasn't enough for her, so she sought love in all the wrong places, and it can only be hoped that if she had lived, if she would have found the right person- the last man she was with before her death was almost certainly not that. She thought she had found her fairytale at 19, and so did the world, but that turned sour so she spent the time after that seeking the real fairytale, perhaps, with man who couldn't have given her that. You can't blame her even if she did hurt some people, and I agree, I don't think that was her real nature, as is evidenced by how she was before she married Prince Charles.

As for Prince Charles and Camilla, maybe it is kind of the same thing. I can't really cast blame, and think it was totally selfish. They couldn't marry when they were young, and perhaps were confused about what they really wanted, so Camilla married elsewhere, and Prince Charles had to marry elsewhere. I think if he hadn't had to, he wouldn't have, but he did and it has to be said it it turned out more badly than it could have. But, when someone can't marry who they really want to when they are young, and maybe don't even if they want to marry that person, although they might be attached to them, it really can't be said to be surprising that some years later when they marry for the sake of convenience, their heart isn't in it. That is just very human, and so is Diana, Princess of Wales seeking after her marriage went sour solace with other men, when she saw what her fairytale marriage had become. In my opinion, both Charles and Diana had expectations going into the marriage that couldn't be met by it.  The most positive things to come out of the whole thing was their two sons, and also the fact that Princess Diana became the figure she was, and that in the end Prince Charles and Camilla finally did marry, and in my opinion, that seems to be, as someone else said something that has worked out well. Maybe nobody really was the loser in the end, if looked at that way. Maybe that is overlooking other things though...

[helenazar]

I do rather tire of people claiming Diana was the whore of Babylon. There was no sign of any adultery on her behalf until AFTER Charles decided to take up his obsession with Camilla and abandon his wife. Give Diana a fair go some of you. She was terribly betrayed. I tend to think only her living as a Nun would satisfy some of you. This was a young woman with the same needs as most other young women. Certainly her husband didn't carry out his bedroom duties in his wife's bedroom with his wife.

I guess the point someone else was trying to make earlier was not that Diana was evil because she had affairs with men - which would have been perfectly fine considering the situation, i.e. the marriage she was in was dead, but that she went after married men to have these affairs... But Diana was neither the "whore of Babylon", nor was she a holy Madonna.  She was a normal deeply flawed human being, just as Charles is.

[dmitri]

Yes all humans are not perfect. The Prince of Wales must have known he was playing with fire when he betrayed his wife and decided to destroy his marriage. He was an older man who should have known what was expected of him. Instead he put his own selfish pleasures in front of the duty expected of him as heir to the throne and as a husband. This is not a man who deserves respect.

[TampaBay]

In the real world yes I do 100% agree but the POW does not live in thr REAL WORLD HOTEL.

Diana did live in the REAL WORLD HOTEL and did it as a Royal and this is what made her extra etra special.

TampaBay

[ChristineM]

But does he live in, or just occupy, a REAL WORLD PALACE, Tampa?

tsaria

[TampaBay]

But does he live in, or just occupy, a REAL WORLD PALACE, Tampa?

tsaria

tsaria,

I demand those smileys back!!!  LOL!  LOL!

TampaBay

[dmitri]

sending you plenty fo smiles Tampa Bay!!

[Martyn]

Over the weekend I have been reading a wonderful book that I haven't looked at for many years.  'Edwardians in Love', by Anita Leslie, who also wrote an excellent life of Jennie, Lady Randolph Churchill.  Interestingly, Anita Leslie was the great-niece of Jennie, her grandmother being Leonie Leslie, a great friend of Bertie and possible lover of his brother Arthur, the Duke of Connaught.

You might wonder how this relates to discussions about the Wales marriage.  Well, this book deals with the lives and loves of many prominent Edwardians, an age that Leslie defines as originating with Bertie's coming of age in the 1860's and lasting until his death in 1910.  It gives a wealth of information about how affairs amongst royalty and the upper classes were conducted at this time; the perils and pitfalls, as well as the benefits, not to mention the codes of conduct that were expected from the people who engaged in this mode of living.

It struck me most forcibly that the affair of Charles and Camilla, and his marriage to Diana, were conducted very much along the lines that his Edwardian predecessors favoured.  Charles's 'Edwardian' court has been commented upon in other discussions but it would seem that his lovelife conforms to this label also.

Married women are fair game for amorous adventures amongst this sector of society, providing they are willing and don't have husbands who are too restricting.  Unmarried women must be pure until marriage, when upon having produced an heir and a spare, they may be permitted to indulge in this amorous lifestyle, as long as they don't get caught, or at least, as long as there is no scandal.  All this is a brief desciption of the way that Edwardian affairs were conducted, but one could be mistaken for thinking it the 1980's, as opposed to the 1880's, if one looks at the affair of the Prince and duchess..........

Diana's selection as wife to Charles was more in keeping with the choice of a brood mare as opposed to that of a wife, again a notion locked in the timeframe and values of the  nineteenth century, as opposed to the last one.  There was never any serious expectation that she would be a wife in the sense that we understand, but that she would be a royal wife - pure, fecund and pliable, one who could be schooled in the ways in which to please the Prince, so that his life could continue to be the pleasurable experience that he expected it to be, with wife and mistress in their own respective places, just as in the days of his great great grandfather............

Check out the book - it is a great read...........

[dmitri]

Yes one wonders how it is possible in 2007 to have an heir to the throne so utterly out of step with the nation in which he resides. Thank goodness his two sons have their feet more in the 21st century rather than the late 19th/early 20th century. There are some in fact who believe that Queen Elizabeth II  and Prince Philip are far more modern in their thinking than their eldest son.

[HerrKaiser]

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.

Two children simply means they had sex at least twice (some believe Harry is the result of another father, so perhaps Charles and Diana only had sex once), and bears little credibility to the depth of relationship, love, honor, respect etc between them.

[Eddie_uk]

Good grief Herr!!!The way you are talking anyone would think you were present!!!;D

Do you have to bring up the Harry story? It's disrespectful to Diana, who I believe was not having an affair at that point, and he's clearly a Spencer!

[HerrKaiser]

Good grief Herr!!!The way you are talking anyone would think you were present!!!;D

Do you have to bring up the Harry story? It's disrespectful to Diana, who I believe was not having an affair at that point, and he's clearly a Spencer!

Well, i was not present and if I had been....i'd have much to add to this discussion!!! And with much greater sizzle!!!

I wasn't trying to disrespect Diana, but my comment (made by tons of others) was simply to underscore the point that bearing a child or two has limited or no relation to the true strength or weakness of a marriage.

[Eddie_uk]

Thank you and that is exactly my point, you can't believe everything you read.

[dmitri]

I wonder what the odds are really of a child being conceived after just one coupling? I think it takes a touch longer in most cases!

[HerrKaiser]

I wonder what the odds are really of a child being conceived after just one coupling? I think it takes a touch longer in most cases!

goodness gracious! this is not a forum for sex ed (how old are you?) but there must be many people here including myself who would be happy to provide the basic facts about 'how it works' on private emails. and they are indeed basic. one time is all you need...there is not build up effect.