Princess Diana

[ChristineM]

Helen -

If Charles had been a dustbinman (with no disrespect to dustbinmen - they are as - perhaps more - necessary as a Prince of Wales) would Diana have married him?   

If Diana had been a checkout girl at Tesco's (again there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a checkout girl - probably at least as useful to society as a Montesorri assistant) would Charles, the Prince of Wales have married her?

Of course not - their backgrounds and their upbringing would have been altogether too different.   Charles and Diana came from similar backgrounds - one royal... the other aristocratic.   They spoke the same language.   They were next door neighbours.   They mixed with the same social 'set'   They understood the subtext.   There was the difference in their ages, but there are thousands of couples who find this no impediment to a happy and fulfilled marriage.   

In Diana, Charles had in his hands a virtually flawless piece of clay who adored him and which he could have moulded and formed into just about anything he chose.   What did he choose - not to?   He continued with his old life, expecting her to fit in.   When she refused to compromise and then, sin of all sins, proved more attractive to the populace, she was tossed aside to be ridiculed and subjected to public abuse by Charles' toadies.   If that isn't cruelty, I don't know what is.   She was forced to look elsewhere for love and appreciation, but, most of all, she wanted to hit back in the only way she understood.

tsaria

[Romanov_fan]

Interesting viewpoints. I think that Prince Charles can be out of touch, but it seems this was a problem with the monarchy in general before the advent of Diana, Princess of Wales, who was a breathe of fresh air and modern glamor. I don't know if it was particularly his problem, but it seems since then, it may have become so. I don't think Prince Charles was delibaretly cruel, I think he had out dated conceptions of royal marriage where the kind of marriage he wanted was with Diana as his wife and Camilla as a mistress ( not that he started out with this intention, but obviously when the marriage broke down, that became his intention), and he can't be blamed because that was an example his ancestors provide ( although not in recent times). He just was out of touch, while Diana was profoundly modern, but that doesn't mean he was cruel. I am sure he has his regrets, but I think he always had compassion for Princess Diana even after their marital disaster, but obviously he moved on very quickly. They weren't compatible in a modern marriage, although in an old fashioned royal one, it would have worked. Thus, being out of touch had more than a little to do with Orince Charles's side of the marriage falling apart, but that wasn't really his fault.

[helenazar]

Helen -

If Charles had been a dustbinman (with no disrespect to dustbinmen - they are as - perhaps more - necessary as a Prince of Wales) would Diana have married him?   

If Diana had been a checkout girl at Tesco's (again there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a checkout girl - probably at least as useful to society as a Montesorri assistant) would Charles, the Prince of Wales have married her?

I think you are missing my point. I didn't mean it that way of course - if Charles was some random guy, while Diana was still and earl's daughter. What I meant was, if Charles was, say, the second son of the queen, not the first, would he have married Diana, out of his own free will and not because she was an "approriate" future Queen who was chosen for him? I should have put it that way.

In Diana, Charles had in his hands a virtually flawless piece of clay who adored him and which he could have moulded and formed into just about anything he chose.   

Why would you want to think that it would have been a good thing for Diana if this would have happened? That's not very flattering to Diana, nor would I think very much of Charles, if he indeed wished to do that. Perhaps Charles did not want to do that... Honestly, I don't think Diana would have allowed herself to be "molded" after a certain point. She would have grown up and matured and realized that she has to be what she is and not what Charles or anyone else wanted her to be. And again, I don't see how that has anything to do with Camilla in the long run...

[ChristineM]

I am only repeating what Diana herself said in terms of her enthusiasm about learning how to be a fulltime, working member of the royal family.   She was eager to participate - if your prefer that to being 'moulded'.   I think we are agreed that royalty are virtually a different species.   I think we are agreed that Diana loved Charles in the open, honest, innocent way of a rather shy, sheltered nineteen year old.   Of course she was flattered that her prospective groom was heir to the throne and she envisaged a glittering future.'   

However, he was set in his ways.   Which he had been since his teens.   There is no doubt that Camilla suggested Diana was a suitable bride - not because of her 'pure' status, (how humiliating) or her aristocratic background.   No, because she thought 'Shy Di' would not kick up a fuss.   The plethora of 'suitable' young women who had trod the path before Diana only to renege - one wonders was it because they were daunted by being part of the British royal family, or were they a bit more aware that something was going on in the background?    Afterall both Diana's and Charles' respective grandmothers were fully aware of the 'non-negotiable' Camilla, but nonetheless promoted the match   How bitter, sore and let down that young woman must have felt as the truth slowly dawned on her - and she had nowhere to run.

tsaria

[helenazar]

Diana certainly got the short end of the stick in this marriage, there is no denying this. I am not trying to badmouth Diana or say that she caused anyt of this or that she deserved it, etc. But Diana being treated unfairly in her marriage to POW is a different topic for a discussion titled something like "Who got the short end of the stick in the Wales's marriage?". This thread is about whether the Wales' marriage would have survived if there was no Camilla. IMO - due to various factors - only one of which was Camilla, it wouldn't have... 

[NAAOTMA]

Helen, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your arguements no matter how underlined and repeated do not persuade me that the marriage to Diana would have been doomed if Camilla Parker Bowles had not existed.

If Charles had been emotionally available, the Waleses as a couple had many commonalities and mututal points of understanding and compatability as outlined in many posts on this thread. If a couple is lucky, they grow in commitment as their life together progresses and all the feelings of their early days together are nothing compared to the depth of the relationship they have forged in living their life as a couple and in creating their family. That at least has been my experience in a longterm marriage. That is why if there had been only two in the marriage of the Waleses, they would have had a chance to establish a real marital partnership. There was never any chance for that with CPB tenaciously holding on to her GF status.

[helenazar]

This will probably be the last post I will make on this thread since I realize that I am starting to repeat myself. But the only reason I am doing that is because I don't think my point is getting across...

If Charles had been emotionally available, the Waleses as a couple had many commonalities and mututal points of understanding and compatability as outlined in many posts on this thread.

That's just exactly it - "IF he had been emotionally available". But he wasn't - and that was a huge point against the marriage, probably the one that doomed it. And it wasn't just because of Camilla, it was because he wasn't into this marriage, Camilla or not. So what more can one say...

[Olishka~ Pincess]

Yes Helen there is nothing realy to say I know i seen it being reapeated over and over again. Your are right that is the huge point Charles was not emotional avalible and therefore he was not ready for marriage at the time. The bottom line.

[Janet_W.]

I look at Charles and his infidelity the way I'd feel if my child started doing cocaine. First I'd soul search for what had gone on in my childr's life to cause him or her to feel the need to escape into cocaine. But I'd also fault the people who made the cocaine available, including that final transactor, the person pushing and selling the cocaine. And I'd think, If that person hadn't transacted with my child, and in fact no one had made the drug available to my child--well, maybe my child would have found something else just as harmful, but maybe not . . . maybe the "addiction" my child would have turned to would have been something more positive, such as athletics, or art, or volunteer work among the truly needy.

If Camilla hadn't made herself available to Charles, likely it would have been someone else. But if no one had agreed to indulge him in infidelity, beginning with Camilla . . . ?  

[Martyn]

That's just exactly it - "IF he had been emotionally available". But he wasn't - and that was a huge point against the marriage, probably the one that doomed it. And it wasn't just because of Camilla, it was because he wasn't into this marriage, Camilla or not. So what more can one say...

I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

The pressure had been on him for years to find a wife, and other possibilities had been explored before Diana was considered.  He knew full well that he had to marry, and that his wife had to have the right kind of pedigree in order to fit the bill.  So he knew the deal.

I can't disagree that he was emotionally unavailable but I do think that the reason for that was because Camilla was in place, and both of them had every intention that was how it was going to stay.

We can only guess at how both Camilla and Charles thought that the marriage to Diana would work out, or indeed whether either seriously thought that it would.  We do know that Camilla's postion was unassailable, and that was how she intended it to continue.

I simply can't see that we can know for sure that this marriage might not have worked; Janet makes a very valid point about long-term couples and the changes that can affect the nature of such a relationship, and speaking as someone who has experienced the joys and vicissitudes of just such an experience, I can vouch for that being just such a possibility.

Camilla was the impediment to this marriage being a success and I suspect that the many mismatched royal couples littering history who did sustain marriages, some rather successfully, may well give us a clue as to what might have been.

[dmitri]

Yes I agree. I think Queen Mary would have been totally annoyed with Charles. She would have told him to do his "duty". How could he cause such damage to the monarchy by not keeping his marriage together? He must have known the consequences of his actions. After all a royal heir to the throne was expected to stay married.

[pandora]

I see valid points in many of the previous posts. My firm belief, though, is that Camilla & Charles wanted to have "their cake and eat it to". IMO, neither had enough self-respect, integrity, or respect for all the other parties involved to discontinue their relationship. Whether one is royalty & the other is an aristocrat, I think this particular situation is a sad reflection on both person's morals no matter what is considered accepted or a common occurrence in their social set. Both are to blame.

[dmitri]

very well said Pandora .. it is what a great many people think about this couple

[Romanov_fan]

I think in their life stories there are some similarities, yet some differences. I'm not an expert on Sissi, having only read one book about her ( there seem not be many good books about her in English), but my take is the following.The marrying at a young age, tragic death, and unhappy marriage are true. Both were also famous beauties were restless and never seemed happy, in her later years Sissi moved from place to place, and some how, that might have been Princess Diana's fate too, had she lived longer. She seemed to be sort of drifting after her divorce, but one difference with Sissi, is she had more purpose, so she might not have become the way Sissi was, never finding a home, just traveling from one place to another. Sissi was very vain, and I don't think Princess Diana was.

 Princess Diana did have an eating disorder, and some people said Sissi did too, but a completely different one than that of Princess Diana. Sissi was said to starve herself to remain young and thin. One difference they had was as mothers. Sissi wasn't maternal, at all, whereas Princess Diana was, and identified herself as such. Both their husband didn't understand them, and they both died younger ( what was Sissi's age at death?), in the last years of a century, Sissi was murdered/ asssinated, and Princess Diana wasn't although some have said that she was. The worlds they inhabited were different. But, Sissi in later years barely lived in Austria I believe, and I think she died abroad, as did Princess Diana, another thing in common. Sissi was way more self interested than Princess Diana, but then Sissi had more of an aimless life, perhaps. I don't know much else, but that is my opinion.

[Alix of Wales had Panache]

Other than the marrying at an early age, being hailed as beauties in their lifetime and tragic death aspect, I see no  resemblance between the 2 women.  Di was of much tough stuff and very devoted as a parent as was Chuck in his way.  The big difference between them is the treatment they received by their men.  Despite the different temperment in both of them and his infidelities, Franz Joseph was definitely more in love with his wife from the start as opposed to...oh well.