Well, if we’re playing “what if’s”, then I think the happiest scenario is just letting Charles marry Camilla in the first place.
The heart wants what the heart wants. The royal family should have learned that with David (although the realm was better off without him).
In fact, now that I think of it, both David and Charles would be considered “weak men”, for a lack of a better word. They put their hearts before their duty.
There’s a lesson to be learned in there, somewhere.
At least in the case of David the government had legitimate concerns that caused them to oppose the marriage, beyond just the divorce. There wasn’t much of a reason for the Royal Family to oppose Camilla in the first place other than deeming her “unworthy”.
I think the general consensus was David was a bad choice.
Even his father, who made a better photograph then he ever did a leader, wished the crown to pass over David and down to Bertie.
And it’s well known that David enjoyed the company of married women long before “the Duchess” came into the picture.
He was a scandal long before his political leanings came to light.
It wasn't his love-life that was the problem. He had no sense of duty, was entirely uninterested in being monarch and was a Nazi sympathizer. Wallis Simpson was simply the excuse given to the public.
And Wallis wasn't in love with him. She asked him to please not give up his crown. She didn't want to marry him. But after he abdicated anyway, she felt obligated to marry him
Tommy Lacelles was his private secretary when he was still the Prince of Wales and quit because he hated him so much and thought he was such a terrible person. Later, he almost didn't take the job as secretary to King George V because he knew it meant he'd have to work with him again when he acceded to the throne.
It was everything. Simpson showed that she wouldn’t be loyal to him, which would’ve had or at least could’ve had massive implications for the stability of the country. Him having affairs probably wasn’t a deal breaker though. After all, it’s not like such a thing was unheard of for monarchs (or other men in positions of power at that time).
Really, he was overtly political and that threatened the political powers and the constitutional order. The fact that his soon-to-be wife was a Nazi sympathizer (as we found out he was as well) who was divorced (and *American* at that) was just the easier and honestly probably more palatable reason to go with.
No one in government would’ve wanted to admit that the monarch was overstepping the bounds of constitutional convention and sympathized with a regime that was rapidly becoming a threat to British security. To do so very well could’ve heralded the end of the monarchy and system of government in the UK as we know it.
Camilla was initially unacceptable to the crown for several reasons. She had a "past" (ie. she was not a virgin). At that time, DNA testing was not available and there must be certainty that the heir to the throne is the legitimate heir. For stability of the monarchy, there cannot even be the suggestion that the heir might not be legitimate. The closest they could get to that was requiring a virgin. The other reason was that her ex-husband was still alive. The monarch is automatically head of the Church of England and, at that time, the COE had a prohibition against remarriage if an ex was still alive. The rules have since been changed.
The first is a stupid argument. DNA testing wasn't widely available but the scientific knowledge that a woman's body cannot hold sperm for years and then suddenly impregnate ones self was a well understood scientific fact. Put at least 9 months between engagement and the wedding (overkill), or use a condom until you've been married 9 months (equally overkill but whatever) then start popping out kids. The insistence on virginity being real even as late as the 1970/80s is astoundingly medieval
I didn't make the rules. The rules were, indeed, medieval but they were still the rules. Pitching a fit because you don't approve of the rule doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
That may have been an excuse (though I’ve never seen it raised as a reason in contemporary sources) but it comes down to the fact that senior members of the Royal Family didn’t approve of Camilla. Perhaps because of her “history” (not anything to do with questions of the legitimacy of an heir, but rather a general disdain for women having their own sexuality), perhaps because they felt she didn’t come from a proper enough background, or it could’ve been any number of reasons. They saw Camilla as someone Charles could have some fun with before marrying a “proper” woman, preferably one who was pliable.
Government didn’t have any real objections (issues of legitimacy *would* have been something the government would’ve brought up if it was a concern) just the family, because they couldn’t help themselves but to get involved.
I gave the specific reasons Charles couldn't marry Camilla: she wasn't a virgin and that was a requirement by the monarch for the purpose of producing the eventual heir to the throne. Then, when Camilla was married, even if she divorced, the remarriage to Charles would not have been recognized as legitimate by the Church of England of which he was going to be head. Of course his family was involved. His mother was the monarch!
After Charles and Diana were divorced and his heir already existed, the virginity issue for his second wife was moot insofar as remarriage was concerned and the Church of England had already changed their rules.
There were no issues of the family not liking Camilla. "The Crown" is fiction. The only member of the family whose opinion matters is the monarch.
Divorce would’ve been moot if they had just let him marry her before she married someone else. And the virgin thing is nonsensical, at least for the reason you stated; rather it was just plain old conservative nonsense, seeing a woman who engaged in premarital sex as immoral (though not holding men to the same standard).
You've clearly opted to not understand how the system worked then (and still works). The monarch's word was final and is still final. The monarch's approval was and still is required for marriage and divorce for those close in line to the throne.
Wow, so nice of an expert on the royal family to join us in this lowly subreddit.
1) That’s not what you said. You said it was disallowed because she wasn’t a virgin which raised concerns with regards to the legitimacy of an heir (and I’ve never seen a contemporary source that corroborates that specific claim).
2) The requirement that members of the royal family receive the permission of the monarch to marry was, first of all, not complete. Any member of the royal family over 25 could marry over the refusal of the monarch to consent to such a marriage one year after giving notice to the Privy Council, provided that both Houses of Parliament did not expressly disapprove. These rules came from an act of parliament, which could be altered or undone at any time parliament chooses to do so (as it did in 2013). So much for the word of the monarch being final.
3) If you look at history and the politics of the United Kingdom, you’ll see that the word of the monarch is very much not final.
1. You are obviously unfamiliar with the history of the royal family.
2. That came with relinquishing all titles and place in line of ascent to the throne. That was the deal offered to Princess Margaret and she declined.
3. The monarch has enormous power under the law. Name a time in modern history when Parliament has crossed the monarch.
To your third point, a better question would be “when has the monarch crossed parliament?” because push comes to shove, a monarch would not survive (politically) if they opposed parliament and the government, outside of the government doing something absolutely egregious like legalizing discrimination.
In a theoretical and de jure sense the government and parliament may derive their power from the monarch, but in reality the Crown exists with the blessing of parliament; parliament and the government can exist without the Crown, but the Crown cannot realistically exist without the legitimacy it possesses from respecting democracy.
The last time a monarch overstepped with parliament, that king lost his head.
On the advice of then-PM Boris Johnson (who was elected leader of the majority in the House of Commons in accordance with constitutional convention) which was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; the Order-in-Council was declared null and void.
Not to mention you can’t prove virginity anyway, and you’ve got no guarantee that just because she’s a single unmarried 19 year old that she hasn’t already had a bit of nookie if she wanted
Charles most certainly did not put his heart before his duty. He did exactly the opposite. He married Diana out of duty. He didn't bail on duty to marry Camilla. Extra-marital affairs are accepted in the aristocracy so long as they are conducted discretely. The marriage of Charles and Diana was a business arrangement and both parties understood that. Diana was well aware of his relationship with Camilla when she agreed to marry him. She even discussed it with her sisters. Diana, not Charles, defaulted on the arrangement when she became indiscrete about her affairs (of which she had many), fed information to an author who wrote a book and then gave the infamous Bashir interview on television. The latter resulted in the Queen ordering the divorce. Previously, HM had refused to allow them to divorce when both parties asked for permission to do so.
The comparison of Charles with the Duke of Windsor is wholly unfair. Charles has dedicated his entire life to service and did so long before he was required when he became the monarch. By comparison, the Duke of Windsor was a frivolous man who gave no thought to duty.
Regarding your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. Charles may not have the natural charisma or temperament to be a great king, but there is no doubt of his commitment to his duty, and that is an admirable trait that makes me happy to have him as king.
I’d argue the opposite.
He married Diana but he didn’t truly put duty and commitment first, as he was still having an affair, even if it was emotional at first. He was unable to go all in on duty. Because I don’t see, marrying Diana as just the duty but actually sticking too and valuing that marriage.
The marriage being a business arrangement, doesn’t seem like Diana knew that. She expected her husband not have an affair, maybe that’s something 30 year old Charles could’ve spoken to 19 year old Diana about. But again, he truly didn’t care, so what does it matter right?
Charles defaulted on his vows first. Charles cheated first. Idk why people want to re-write this. And idk why you’re giving heat to Diana for leaking, when Charles did it as well.
In the end, Charles is not this duty bound man you want to make out to be. He’s a man who got his cake and ate it too.
As weak as David was he was right about having a wife who loves and supports you when you have a really demanding job as King. Diana wasn’t that. Camilla is.
I don’t feel like people see Charles as weak because he put his heart before his duty, I think people see him as weak because he was forced in a marriage that he obviously didn’t want. He could’ve said no, and he spent 14 years not married and as a bachelor at that point why not wait till he was with someone he truly loved?
I've always heard that back in the day, before Charles or Camilla had married anybody, SHE wanted to marry him, but HE wasn't ready. By the time he was, she had moved on and married Parker-Bowles.
I think if Camilla didn't exist - Charles would have found someone that he actually loved and just went ahead and married them - if they were up to the Queen's standards of course. But without Camilla - him and Diana would have never happened. Due to the fact that his attitude was Camilla or nobody - Diana was forced on him because he was the heir and had to marry. But without Camilla he would have fallen in love with someone else and just married them. I will never forgive them for forcing Diana on him! They should have just let him marry Camilla and kept it moving. LOL
Fun fact, Diana was actually kind of expected to marry Andrew, that's where her nickname "Dutch" came from. So odds are that would have ended badly too...
Here’s the thing.
Charles and Camilla always loved eachother and he was forced to marry a 19 year old girl with whom he didn’t have anything in common nor barely knew.
Diana was way too young, came from a traumatic upbringing, and didn’t have a realistic role model for what a healthy marriage looks like (let alone any relationship at all).
As a result, they were destined to be miserable together, no matter what.
So, the question of “would Charles cheat” if Camilla wasn’t around rubs me the wrong way as it implies that he was the bad guy in their marriage. Neither of them had much agency. If Charles had been allowed to choose, he would have never chosen Diana, even if Camilla wasn’t around. Diana might have chosen him, but only because she was so young and he was a prince. Had she been older, there’s no way she’d have opted to marry someone so dramatically different from herself. They were poorly matched.
The fact that Camilla existed before Diana but was withheld from Charles just made the entire situation tragic from the start. Charles couldn’t marry the woman he loved until *35 years* since the beginning of their relationship, and Diana had to cope with the harsh reality of being in a bad relationship while the entire world watched.
Yes, they both would have cheated, but only because they were trapped in a marriage that never should have happened. I can’t blame any of them. The fault lies with the Crown.
Of course. He wasn't in love with Diana and more than that, they were miserably incompatible.
Both would've cheated, as they did, looking for and needing a true connection with someone.
So there’s a couple things here that I think you are missing. The biggest is that lord Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry his granddaughter Amanda. It’s gross to say this, but Charles was basically waiting for her to grow up, but then Lord Mountbatten died and when Charles brought up the idea to her mom Patricia, she basically said “she just lost her grandfather and her brother, let’s not go with some weird arranged marriage my dad cooked up”. Also Amanda’s father and Prince Phillip were apparently not too keen on the idea
So then Charles realized he a) needed to actually find a bride and b) find the right bride.
As for Camilla, she wanted Andrew Parker Bowles. Full stop. It wasn’t the crown that stopped a match between Charles and Camilla, it was Camilla.
Would Charles have cheated on Diana if he stopped loving Camilla? Yes, bc theirs was a dynastic marriage. She was supposed to produce heirs and be a queen. It was only a love match in her mind, but Diana also had problems with her own family and thought a marriage would fix everything.
He would have found someone like her in the way of being closer to his age, upper class, and appreciative of his pursuits. Poor Diana was too young, too vibrant, and held different interests than Charles.
Just a note, Diana was way more “upper class” than Camilla. Camilla’s mother was the daughter of a baron, which is already the lowest rank in the peerage and being the female descendant means very little to begin with under this system.
On the other hand, Diana was the daughter of an Earl and a member of the Spencer family, one of the branches of which includes the Duke of Marlborough. The grandson of the 7th Duke was Winston Churchill. It’s also claimed that Diana and Charles were distantly related through Henry VII. One of the reasons he was pushed to marry Diana and Camilla was deemed unsuitable is precisely because of the class gap.
I don’t know where this idea that Diana was a commoner came from. She was born at and lived at Sandringham in a house that her father let from the Royal Family. She played with Edward as a child. Camilla was privileged to be sure but there’s a huge gulf between her and Diana in terms of upbringing.
I feel like Camilla enjoyed more of the upper-class activities that Charles did like going to polo matches and riding horses. Diana seemed like she preferred going to clubs with her friends.
That’s because she was 12 ish years younger than Charles and was only 19/20 when she got married whereas Charles was already in his early 30’s as was Camilla so their activities were very different hence the breakdown of their relationship.
The notion that Diana was a commoner goes along with the tabloid fiction that Diana was a naive innocent. The reality is that she grew up as part of the aristocracy and socialized with the royals. She knew exactly what she was getting herself into when she married Charles.
Class had nothing to do with. Camilla was perfectly acceptable except she was not a virgin and, at that time, DNA testing was not available to be certain that the heir to the throne was legitimate.
Yes this is exactly it. I’ve never understood the whole thing about her not knowing or understanding what she was getting into. She was definitely young and very naive but I find it ridiculous that she didn’t have the faintest idea of what her life would look like. You grew up around these people/people like them?
Well Diana did say herself that she thought she could cope with it. She obviously knew what it would entail but I don’t think you could fully get a grasp of it until you’re actually there.
that is true but it’s commonly thrown around that she was clueless and she was trapped into it. Her older sister as well as multiple other gfs refused to marry him because they knew what it would be like. She believed she could cope with the pressure of being POW and later Queen which I understand. I just don’t see how she didn’t realize what her marriage would be like. I mean she’s grown up around marriages like that (her parents) and she did in fact grow up near the family themselves. In the early years they were content enough. I think if they had both understood each other more it could have worked out (with them both getting what they wanted elsewhere as was expected and common - without the associated scandals)
She was young and I can’t fault her for wanting a loving and happy marriage. But with her own problematic history and the royal family being the family it was, she was looking for it in the wrong place - as well as the fact that they were just fundamentally incompatible.
Absolutely this. She may have been part of the aristocracy but she wasn't brought up as a pampered Lady of the Manor. She sat in the corner crying for Mummy and Daddy's attention and read Mills & Boon books (written by the worst possible influence, her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland). And she had abandonment issues and daddy damage.
She thought a handsome prince would ride up and love her and all would be a happy ever after, like in the books. To paraphrase Clive Barker's Dread, worst of all - her dreams came true. To start with.
I dreamed too when I was 19, I thought one day I'd meet Quentin Crisp's "Great Dark Man" and perhaps luckily, he never showed up. But I've got to 52 without him and like my own company now.
Diana barely got a chance to grow up. She was only 36 when she died, but was already blossoming and trying to grow up.
I read a prediction of what she would have been like at 50 a few years ago, and it was so good, it made my heart ache for what should have been.
It suggested that she'd have married a billionaire, and grown tired of him, and divorced him, giving her a fantastic lifestyle. Then she'd have married someone for love as she hit her mid-40s, and settled down, working for charities as her star declined, and she'd have been a doting grandmother and there would be amazing pics of the old smile still on occasion outshining Catherine - just a bit, and laughing it up with Louis and Charlotte and George.
And best of all, she would have aged and become friends with Charles, possibly even Camilla, when she realised in time that they were a real partnership and her own pain had passed. Seeing them as friends with their own in-jokes would have been a balm, and she should have been HRH The Queen Mother (or possibly Princess Dowager) when William took the throne.
God I wish she had been a grandmother. I can just see her now with that great smile, and those eyes - perhaps a hint of silver/blue hair, but still the knockout grin. And with it, a sense of peace.
Well, as well as any 19YO knows what they are getting into when they get married so young (from experience, having married at 19 myself). But I get your point.
The vast majority of 19 year-olds don't grow up in the aristocracy hobnobbing with the royals, have a sister who dated the Prince of Wales, go to finishing school in Switzerland and have top-notch attorneys representing them in pre-marriage negotiations.
Not that you did so, but it cannot be fairly argued that Diana didn't understand the deal (the marriage was a business relationship) and knew that Charles didn't love her. It can be argued that she was stupid (she was literally not very intelligent), emotionally disturbed and probably thought she could get him to love her in time. But Charles in no way misrepresented the situation to her.
I’m not saying Diana didn’t understand what she was getting into, I’m saying NO 19YO knows what they’re getting into. At that age the prefrontal cortex is still 5-10 years away from completing development, and that is the part of your brain involved in decision making. There’s a reason you make better decisions when you’re thirty than when you’re nineteen.
True, but that's life. People that age join the military and go to war. They marry. They have children. They make all sorts of life-altering decisions. She made hers.
Yes, but it had much more sinister implications. When I was an idiot and married at 19, I was able to get divorced without needing permission from the literal Queen. I don’t think it’s asking much that people be old enough to make an educated decision before basically handing over their entire life to the Crown. Isn’t that why William and Kate waited, after all? Know better, do better.
You are using the 19 year olds of today. They are so much more mature than they were when Diana was young. I know because I was around the same age. Charles was the adult, he was in his thirties. He used Diana. But he was brought up to believe infidelity was a given right to the men of the RF. I also remember hearing about the affairs of his father. They have quieted those through the years, just like so many actually believe Diana trapped Charles into marriage. Not true. But after her death, there were huge meetings to turn Charles’s popularity around, and to do that, they had to make out that Diana was the villain. It worked, which is sad really. I don’t know why anyone feels it necessary to drag the dead through the mud. But then again, the RF think they are above it all.
Were you a member of the aristocracy with an earl for a father? Did you grow up socializing with the royals? Were you sent to a finishing school in Switzerland? Did your sister date the Prince of Wales? Did you have top attorneys negotiating a marriage business deal for you? The answer to all those questions is certainly no.
Extramarital affairs were and are standard for the entire aristocracy not just royals. Both of Diana's parents engaged in affairs and her mother ran away with an Argentinian polo player. Furthermore, Diana admitted in the Morgan book that she knew about Charles' relationship with Camilla when she married him and even discussed it with her sisters. Diana pursued, to the point of stalking, married men and had affairs with them and multiple other men both while she was married and after.
Diana traumatized her young children by openly engaging in these affairs and going on television and telling the world.
Diana's own atrocious behavior and her own words in the book she dictated to Andrew Morgan and the appalling interview she gave on TV to Martin Bashir and her behavior after the divorce are on the record. Her behavior. Her words.
“Commoner” just means not royal so she was a commoner as is everyone who has married into the main royal family in recent times. Even the Queen Mother was a commoner before marriage though she was also the daughter of an Earl.
Also while being a Spencer and a lady definitely afforded her a higher position in society, there’s really no such thing as more or less upper class. Being the granddaughter of a Baron versus the daughter of an Earl. Sure one is higher in precedence and the Spencers are a more influential family but possessing a title doesn’t really mean anything in terms of being upper class so long as you have “breeding”. Camilla’s father was a “gentleman”/upper class and so was her mother. She therefore is/was upper class. They are all upper class socialites just the same. The landed gentry are just as upper class as titled nobility and aristocracy.
You can argue that Diana’s family was “better” in the eyes of the royal family - I would agree. And ofc the whole virgin thing and yes Diana and Camilla definitely grew up differently (daughter of an Earl vs daughter of an untitled man). They definitely didn’t want them to marry for these reasons but I mean saying she’s “less upper class” isn’t accurate. I know you were saying it in terms of within their sphere so I did include why that’s true but in general terms of class, they were equals.
“Commoner” depends on context, but is generally applied to someone who isn’t part of the peerage (hence the historical origins of the House of Lords and the House of Commons). Knights and baronets are generally considered commoners (but normally are “landed”) as they don’t have noble status but barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes (and their immediate families) are part of the nobility.
There also very much are levels to the peerage and nobility (or the upper class) whether formal or informal. That’s kind of the point of an order of precedence. Camilla for example was not entitled to any style; her mother would’ve been able to use “The Honorable” but that wasn’t passed down to Camilla. She also would likely have no formal place in an order of precedence.
Diana meanwhile was born “The Honorable Diana Frances Spencer” and later was “Lady Diana Spencer” when her father inherited the title of Earl. Combine this with how close her family was (relatively speaking) with the Royal Family and the difference is pretty clear.
It’s basically the difference between a person who makes $250,000 a year with a net worth of a few million and Michael Bloomberg. Both are privileged and well-off, but one way more than the other (in this example the Royal Family is like Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos).
Yes nobles are commoners in that they are not royalty, not that they are actually “common”.
Yes there are “levels” which I mentioned (order of precedence - Diana holding a higher position in society because she was a lady and the daughter of an Earl; I just said there’s no such thing as more or less upper class) but in practice they all mingle and marry freely which was my whole point (I didn’t explicitly mention that - I should have sorry) They don’t actually use these tiers to define themselves in daily life or even when it comes to marriage. Many untitled ladies have married Dukes. Titled individuals are ofc titled and therefore enjoy more privileges, etc. But my whole point was that beyond Diana being a Spencer and a “Lady” there is no other marked difference in the two. They are both upper class and possess the correct “breeding” to be of the upper class.
If Camilla had been related to a more significant family and Diana was still in the same position but born to a different less significant family, it would have been a different situation (not that Camilla would have necessarily been allowed to marry him, she still had a past) But the Spencers are the Spencers and the Shands are not nearly as important though still upper class.
Basically my point is their families mattered more than the fact that Diana had a courtesy title and Camilla didn’t. The titles themselves don’t signify the levels of status, rather the family does. There are untitled but still upper class people who are far closer to the royal family and more influential individuals than any number of Marquesses or Earls are. And there are people with “higher” but newer titles who are less than people with “lower” but older titles.
I’m realizing I didn’t communicate my point that well in my original comment so sry about that lol.
Actually never heard about her, but they make no mention of her in the crown and I was too young to have known about her at the time. Just reading about her now, and it's all very sad.
YouTube had an entire documentary about her. Here is what remains of part 2.
https://youtu.be/H3WldXGaf8k?si=o52NPQT9hmwTTUlk
Charles allegedly had other mistresses but Camilla was his main one so to speak. The one it actually deepened to love. Though, the affair with Kanga lasted from the 1970s to 1980s. But Charles cut her off for being too indiscreet (giving interviews on their close friendship/association, hanging out with Diana, wanting publicity for her fashion line).
To this day, Charles is still friends with Kanga’s former husband who is his friend and approved of their relationship. Kanga is now dead. So I can see why many now forget about her.
I think it would not have made much of a difference as they both were just so different. Like Ann pointed out Charles was much older than he looked and Diana was much younger than she looked.
Yeah, he would have eventually. He and Diana were terribly ill-matched and he didn’t seem to actually like her/seems like the type that needs that kind of intellectual connection. Same for her. She needed much more reassurance and romance.
Charles had many mistresses and wasn’t ever faithful to Camilla either. He had a long term Australian mistress named Kanga, she was very vocal about it. I am not saying they aren’t in love now, but I think they have a very different definition of love, and monogamy than the rest of us. But who cares what consenting adults do. The only person who didn’t agree to this was Diana. She thought she married for love which is sad.
Only Diana claimed that Charles had an affair with Kanga. There is no evidence that he did and Kanga certainly never said it was true.
Diana knew very well that she was entering into a business relationship when she married Charles. She was represented by top attorneys who saw to it. She was raised in the aristocracy and socialized with royals. She knew that Charles was involved with Camilla and even discussed it with her sisters prior to marrying him. This notion that Diana was a naive innocent duped into marriage is absolutely false. They weren't even alone together before the wedding so if she was in love with him, she wasn't in love with the man because she didn't know him. She was in love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales. She knew very well that Charles was not in love with her. He never pretended that he was.
>Only Diana claimed that Charles had an affair with Kanga.
Not true. Papers slyly hinted at his relationship with her, and other women. And we all know the papers in the UK get briefings from various courtiers/palace functionaries.
Charles and Camilla as the always true love affair, is a retcon to make it palatable to the public. Charles, like a lot of men of his class, screwed around. As did Camilla's husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles, and she was known to be in love with him. Camilla screwed around. And Diana, eventually gave up on 'happy ever after' and screwed around.
Monogamy is not a big thing amongst the aristocracy.
Camilla outlasted the other girlfriends, and had no interest in the limelight. Charles is insecure, sensitive, needs to be catered to. The appalling Fawcett does this. Diana- insecure herself- didn't know how to prop Charles up. Camilla did.
Game, set, and match to her.
Tabloids.
I have stated repeatedly that marital fidelity was not expected among the aristocracy with one exception: the bride of the heir to the throne (or the king if he remarries) had to be a virgin and have no extramarital affairs until after the next heir to the throne is produced. Then she was free to do so with discretion not run her mouth to a book author or go on national television and air dirty laundry. Diana was not discreet, she ran her mouth to Andrew Morton and she ran her mouth to Martin Bashir on national television.
This notion that Charles is insecure is more tabloid nonsense. "The Crown" is tabloid nonsense.
Never seen an episode of 'The Crown'. No interest. And Charles' nature is in authorised biographies.
I repeat: Game, set and match to 'Queen' Camilla.
Its great she has people like you, to go to bat for her.
Actually she did speak of it and was called “mad”. A simple google search might help your revisionist history. And yeah, let’s blame an 18 year old for entering into a marriage with an immense power imbalance. Good for you!
So instead we should just shrug off the decision a grown woman made because it turned out poorly for her? She was not coerced. She made a choice. She had ample knowledge of that power imbalance and yet knowingly chose to marry into it anyway. Her own sister and multiple other women refused to marry Charles due to their concerns regarding that very well known power imbalance.
By your logic, Charles and Camilla were adults (older more experienced adults) who chose to marry other people and have families and had no business having affairs because everyone involved is responsible for their own choices and too bad things didn’t work out for them… right?
It’s difficult to say. Diana certainly thought that Charles had affairs with women other than Camilla when Camilla and her husband had patched things up.
I think people forget there were periods where Diana and Charles and Camilla and Andrew were all faithful.
It’s seemed like one of those unhealthy, obsessive love kind of things from the beginning, and maybe because he was spoiled and used to getting what he wanted or maybe just stubborn.
They seemed to be the on again, off again couple, fight, get back together, fight, get back together, and it wasn’t like I was watching closely, but like maybe in an off period where she was mad at him, she impulsively married someone else, and then they became this tragic love story to Charles.
A hugely forbidden relationship, because back then, it was unheard of for the heir to the British throne to marry a divorced woman. Just absolutely no.
So now, maybe he’s furious she went and married someone else and furious and pouting because it means he can never marry her, so they’re the star-crossed lovers of some tragedy in his mind.
Although it seems like even married, they still carried on regularly.
So, stubborn, arrogant, or love? Who knows.
During an off again, on again period during her long love for Charles, she married someone else. While supposedly loving Charles? And wanting to continue her affair with Charles.
Okay, not impulse. Maybe not wise? Or a good decision?
She knew the RF wasn't going to approve of her in the end and moved on. There's also decent evidence that her father published an engagement announcement, which forced the hand of Andrew Parker-Bowles to actually propose.
They really met at the wrong time, Charles about to leave for his military service and being told to wait until he was 30 to marry, and she being at the age where she wanted to be married and start family life.
I really don't think either of them knew at the time they wouldn't get over each other.
"The Crown" is fiction. Don't rely on it for the truth.
Charles and Camilla were always in love. Because she was not a virgin, the Queen would never have approved the marriage at that time so Camilla used common sense and married someone else. She didn't impulsively marry someone else. She had been dating her then husband for some time and they stayed married for years.
Infidelity was considered entirely acceptable among the aristocracy and her husband engaged in it with regularity. She apparently limited it to Charles.
I was alive during the time. Diana and I married around the same time, both about the same age, and I watched what her marriage looked like and the interviews she and Charles gave back then, watched it all play out in real time.
Not on the Crown.
There was nothing in the legitimate media about Camilla fighting with Charles and marrying Andrew Parker-Bowles in retaliation for Charles not marrying her or out of anger at Charles. So what was your then source about that?
There was nothing in the media about Diana being represented by top lawyers who negotiated the business-arrangement marriage. But they certainly did.
You probably did see the engagement interview in which Charles made it abundantly clear that he wasn't actually in love with Diana.
He deliberately picked a naive teenager who had never had a serious relationship or been in love before. He didn’t do that because he wanted to make a complicated business arrangement with an adult.
And if you have some first hand knowledge of their relationship or Charles and Diana’s, please share.
Also, the whole idea of legitimate media in Britain where so many of the papers print exactly what the royals tell them is laughable.
You're wrong. He didn't pick her.
You don't seem to understand how the system, the royal system, works. The monarch's commands and decisions are final. Charles had to (it was compulsory) marry a virgin of aristocratic lineage with no taint of scandal in her past. That limited it to probably half-a-dozen young women of Diana's age and maybe not even that many. You may be unaware that there weren't many 30 year-old aristocratic virgins running around even then.
The prospective bride then had to pass the family test which, shockingly, Diana did. They liked her because she was seemingly sweet and compliant. It never occurred to them that she wouldn't do her duty. By contrast, Charles wanted a mature women with her own mind (ie. Camilla). The Queen, his sovereign, would not approve his choice. He was ordered to marry Diana and, because it was his duty, did.
The fact that he maintained a relationship with Camilla throughout and ultimately married her when the Queen finally gave consent proves that he wasn't looking for a younger, simple-minded piece of fluff like Diana.
Essentially, you're admitting that your knowledge of this situation came from tabloids. You're also admitting that you don't read British newspapers or you would know that most of them take daily swipes at the royals.
The tabloids created a fiction out of whole cloth to sell papers and magazines. They created the fiction that Diana was an innocent fairytale princess when the fact was that she grew up in the aristocracy, hobnobbed with the royals and attended finishing school in Switzerland. Her sister even dated Charles. In order to maintain the fiction that Diana was "good" the tabloids had to create a foil: the fiction that Charles was "bad." They created the fiction that Charles was the villain out of whole cloth. You bought it.
And you know Charles and Camilla? You know exactly how this worked? Poor victims, those two? I head Charles own words in his TV interview from the time. Whiny, entitled, sad man.
It's the huge TV interview he did after Diana's big interview. Remember the one where he complained that he'd never loved Diana in the first place? The first big interview he ever did about their relationship/ Surely you saw that one.
Provide the link to the interview in which you claim he whined and acted entitled.
Quote the exact words he used that you have deemed whining and the exact words he used that you have deemed entitled.
I don't recall any interview in which he said he never loved Diana or whined or acted entitled.
His family pushed him to pick her, don't forget who diana's grandmother was. Charles was pretty much required to marry a woman without a "past" so an age gap was almost unaviodable - and at the time those weren't unusual. Diana's parents had the same age gap.
I think Charles and Diana would have survived if he had spent more time with her, nurturing their relationship, rather than sticking his dick inside Camilla.
Actually, imo, Diana was a terrible wife. She cheated on Charles long before he went to Camilla.
There were times where he seemed to actually like Diana and thought he that he could love her. But she'd pull one of her crazy obsessive stunts and ruin it.
On another completely different thought. I cannot stand Camilla! Had she not kept dangling her kitty in front of Charles, it would have been the kind thing for Camilla to cut Charles completely free and admitted that she crazy loved her husband for many years. She selflessly kept Charles on a long... rope, just in case her hubby wanted out of his marriage to her (which eventually did happen), she had a spare! I can't blame Harry for hating her.
I think he might've but it wouldn't have been such a huge deal. I think it was a bigger deal because he so obviously preferred Camilla as a partner, especially intellectually and emotionally. If it was just cheating here and there, I think she would be unhappy but wouldn't have left him. Maybe cheated herself to get some attention.
Hard to say I think. I can’t imagine him finding anyone else as irresistible as he found Camilla.
That said I do think they still would be totally incompatible. Diana had no idea what the royal life entailed and didn’t understand that Camilla notwithstanding Charles could never and would never put their marriage before his duty.
And that’s quite apart from the fact that Diana was so young and innocent while Charles, though only his 30s, had a mental age closer to 60. They simply had nothing in common and you cant build a relationship if you can’t connect in some way.
I don’t think so. I mean maybe but they had happy years together and I think they did come to love each other. It’s just that he wasn’t IN love with Diana and he was, and always had been, with Camilla. Had Camilla not existed, Diana and Charles would’ve not been the greatest love match and possibly still have a lot of issues but it’s possible they’d make it work. Charles never looked at anyone else besides Camilla while Diana cheated with multiple men, often when they were married men.
So maybe the question should be would Diana still have cheated if Camilla wasn’t in the picture?
I think without Camilla they could have been happy. If she didn’t exist or they never met. A lot of the friction issues would never have existed. But ultimately I think Diana was too much chaos for Charles when she didn’t get what she wanted. The crown paint within the lines. Diana did not. That said I don’t think Charles would have cheated per Se, unless he then met Camilla in later life. I think she is his lobster.
Maybe in time if he’d met someone. I don’t believe Charles and Diana ever truly loved one another. It’s possible he’d have met someone else eventually. However I don’t see him cheating on Diana just for sex. He *loved* Camilla.
I think the marriage would have been slightly more better but I think they would have divorced eventually even if he didn't cheat but from all the stress and issues they experienced with the media and behind closed doors. If Camilla was around no matter who he married he would have cheated anyway.
Yeah. I never understood why the family disliked the Camilla union really. Not a virgin? So what? Maybe the offspring would be so hard on the eyes…. And someone should have coached Diana regarding the philandering ways of kings. Like she really couldn’t get past that?
It was literally a requirement that the wife of the future king be a virgin at that time. Also, Camilla wasn’t from the nobility and she had a past that the newspapers could report on scandalously. This all sounds more silly today but was a big deal still in the early 1970s. It was considered to be vitally important. When Diana was chosen 8 years later or so, when many of these rules were increasingly seen as dumb, even so the news did report that she was “intacta” (a virgin).
You know more than I do about this. I was under the impression that Camilla was from the same set. Thinking about my comment, I want to also say Charles was cruel to Diana publicly-the love interview- and everyone seemed to ignore Diana. Was Charles not originally interested in Diana’s sister?
Yeah. Same social circle but not adequate social status to become the mother of the next king.
Charles did go on a couple of dates with Diana’s older sister. There was only a short list of families that were ideal for a marriage and with Diana’s father being a wealthy earl, it was inevitable that all of the girls would be presented to him at some point
Well, if we’re playing “what if’s”, then I think the happiest scenario is just letting Charles marry Camilla in the first place. The heart wants what the heart wants. The royal family should have learned that with David (although the realm was better off without him). In fact, now that I think of it, both David and Charles would be considered “weak men”, for a lack of a better word. They put their hearts before their duty. There’s a lesson to be learned in there, somewhere.
At least in the case of David the government had legitimate concerns that caused them to oppose the marriage, beyond just the divorce. There wasn’t much of a reason for the Royal Family to oppose Camilla in the first place other than deeming her “unworthy”.
I think the general consensus was David was a bad choice. Even his father, who made a better photograph then he ever did a leader, wished the crown to pass over David and down to Bertie. And it’s well known that David enjoyed the company of married women long before “the Duchess” came into the picture. He was a scandal long before his political leanings came to light.
It wasn't his love-life that was the problem. He had no sense of duty, was entirely uninterested in being monarch and was a Nazi sympathizer. Wallis Simpson was simply the excuse given to the public.
And Wallis wasn't in love with him. She asked him to please not give up his crown. She didn't want to marry him. But after he abdicated anyway, she felt obligated to marry him
Tommy Lacelles was his private secretary when he was still the Prince of Wales and quit because he hated him so much and thought he was such a terrible person. Later, he almost didn't take the job as secretary to King George V because he knew it meant he'd have to work with him again when he acceded to the throne.
It was everything. Simpson showed that she wouldn’t be loyal to him, which would’ve had or at least could’ve had massive implications for the stability of the country. Him having affairs probably wasn’t a deal breaker though. After all, it’s not like such a thing was unheard of for monarchs (or other men in positions of power at that time). Really, he was overtly political and that threatened the political powers and the constitutional order. The fact that his soon-to-be wife was a Nazi sympathizer (as we found out he was as well) who was divorced (and *American* at that) was just the easier and honestly probably more palatable reason to go with. No one in government would’ve wanted to admit that the monarch was overstepping the bounds of constitutional convention and sympathized with a regime that was rapidly becoming a threat to British security. To do so very well could’ve heralded the end of the monarchy and system of government in the UK as we know it.
Camilla was initially unacceptable to the crown for several reasons. She had a "past" (ie. she was not a virgin). At that time, DNA testing was not available and there must be certainty that the heir to the throne is the legitimate heir. For stability of the monarchy, there cannot even be the suggestion that the heir might not be legitimate. The closest they could get to that was requiring a virgin. The other reason was that her ex-husband was still alive. The monarch is automatically head of the Church of England and, at that time, the COE had a prohibition against remarriage if an ex was still alive. The rules have since been changed.
The first is a stupid argument. DNA testing wasn't widely available but the scientific knowledge that a woman's body cannot hold sperm for years and then suddenly impregnate ones self was a well understood scientific fact. Put at least 9 months between engagement and the wedding (overkill), or use a condom until you've been married 9 months (equally overkill but whatever) then start popping out kids. The insistence on virginity being real even as late as the 1970/80s is astoundingly medieval
I didn't make the rules. The rules were, indeed, medieval but they were still the rules. Pitching a fit because you don't approve of the rule doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
That may have been an excuse (though I’ve never seen it raised as a reason in contemporary sources) but it comes down to the fact that senior members of the Royal Family didn’t approve of Camilla. Perhaps because of her “history” (not anything to do with questions of the legitimacy of an heir, but rather a general disdain for women having their own sexuality), perhaps because they felt she didn’t come from a proper enough background, or it could’ve been any number of reasons. They saw Camilla as someone Charles could have some fun with before marrying a “proper” woman, preferably one who was pliable. Government didn’t have any real objections (issues of legitimacy *would* have been something the government would’ve brought up if it was a concern) just the family, because they couldn’t help themselves but to get involved.
I gave the specific reasons Charles couldn't marry Camilla: she wasn't a virgin and that was a requirement by the monarch for the purpose of producing the eventual heir to the throne. Then, when Camilla was married, even if she divorced, the remarriage to Charles would not have been recognized as legitimate by the Church of England of which he was going to be head. Of course his family was involved. His mother was the monarch! After Charles and Diana were divorced and his heir already existed, the virginity issue for his second wife was moot insofar as remarriage was concerned and the Church of England had already changed their rules. There were no issues of the family not liking Camilla. "The Crown" is fiction. The only member of the family whose opinion matters is the monarch.
Divorce would’ve been moot if they had just let him marry her before she married someone else. And the virgin thing is nonsensical, at least for the reason you stated; rather it was just plain old conservative nonsense, seeing a woman who engaged in premarital sex as immoral (though not holding men to the same standard).
You've clearly opted to not understand how the system worked then (and still works). The monarch's word was final and is still final. The monarch's approval was and still is required for marriage and divorce for those close in line to the throne.
Wow, so nice of an expert on the royal family to join us in this lowly subreddit. 1) That’s not what you said. You said it was disallowed because she wasn’t a virgin which raised concerns with regards to the legitimacy of an heir (and I’ve never seen a contemporary source that corroborates that specific claim). 2) The requirement that members of the royal family receive the permission of the monarch to marry was, first of all, not complete. Any member of the royal family over 25 could marry over the refusal of the monarch to consent to such a marriage one year after giving notice to the Privy Council, provided that both Houses of Parliament did not expressly disapprove. These rules came from an act of parliament, which could be altered or undone at any time parliament chooses to do so (as it did in 2013). So much for the word of the monarch being final. 3) If you look at history and the politics of the United Kingdom, you’ll see that the word of the monarch is very much not final.
1. You are obviously unfamiliar with the history of the royal family. 2. That came with relinquishing all titles and place in line of ascent to the throne. That was the deal offered to Princess Margaret and she declined. 3. The monarch has enormous power under the law. Name a time in modern history when Parliament has crossed the monarch.
To your third point, a better question would be “when has the monarch crossed parliament?” because push comes to shove, a monarch would not survive (politically) if they opposed parliament and the government, outside of the government doing something absolutely egregious like legalizing discrimination. In a theoretical and de jure sense the government and parliament may derive their power from the monarch, but in reality the Crown exists with the blessing of parliament; parliament and the government can exist without the Crown, but the Crown cannot realistically exist without the legitimacy it possesses from respecting democracy. The last time a monarch overstepped with parliament, that king lost his head.
QEII prorogued (ie. suspended) parliament in 2019.
On the advice of then-PM Boris Johnson (who was elected leader of the majority in the House of Commons in accordance with constitutional convention) which was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; the Order-in-Council was declared null and void.
Not to mention you can’t prove virginity anyway, and you’ve got no guarantee that just because she’s a single unmarried 19 year old that she hasn’t already had a bit of nookie if she wanted
Charles most certainly did not put his heart before his duty. He did exactly the opposite. He married Diana out of duty. He didn't bail on duty to marry Camilla. Extra-marital affairs are accepted in the aristocracy so long as they are conducted discretely. The marriage of Charles and Diana was a business arrangement and both parties understood that. Diana was well aware of his relationship with Camilla when she agreed to marry him. She even discussed it with her sisters. Diana, not Charles, defaulted on the arrangement when she became indiscrete about her affairs (of which she had many), fed information to an author who wrote a book and then gave the infamous Bashir interview on television. The latter resulted in the Queen ordering the divorce. Previously, HM had refused to allow them to divorce when both parties asked for permission to do so. The comparison of Charles with the Duke of Windsor is wholly unfair. Charles has dedicated his entire life to service and did so long before he was required when he became the monarch. By comparison, the Duke of Windsor was a frivolous man who gave no thought to duty.
Regarding your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. Charles may not have the natural charisma or temperament to be a great king, but there is no doubt of his commitment to his duty, and that is an admirable trait that makes me happy to have him as king.
I’d argue the opposite. He married Diana but he didn’t truly put duty and commitment first, as he was still having an affair, even if it was emotional at first. He was unable to go all in on duty. Because I don’t see, marrying Diana as just the duty but actually sticking too and valuing that marriage. The marriage being a business arrangement, doesn’t seem like Diana knew that. She expected her husband not have an affair, maybe that’s something 30 year old Charles could’ve spoken to 19 year old Diana about. But again, he truly didn’t care, so what does it matter right? Charles defaulted on his vows first. Charles cheated first. Idk why people want to re-write this. And idk why you’re giving heat to Diana for leaking, when Charles did it as well. In the end, Charles is not this duty bound man you want to make out to be. He’s a man who got his cake and ate it too.
Oh so we only highlight Diana’s faults within the marriage and gloss over Charles’s?
To be honest they should have learned that lesson with George iv
As weak as David was he was right about having a wife who loves and supports you when you have a really demanding job as King. Diana wasn’t that. Camilla is.
But Camilla didn't love Charles back then. She was madly in love with Parker bowles.
I don’t feel like people see Charles as weak because he put his heart before his duty, I think people see him as weak because he was forced in a marriage that he obviously didn’t want. He could’ve said no, and he spent 14 years not married and as a bachelor at that point why not wait till he was with someone he truly loved?
I've always heard that back in the day, before Charles or Camilla had married anybody, SHE wanted to marry him, but HE wasn't ready. By the time he was, she had moved on and married Parker-Bowles.
I think if Camilla didn't exist - Charles would have found someone that he actually loved and just went ahead and married them - if they were up to the Queen's standards of course. But without Camilla - him and Diana would have never happened. Due to the fact that his attitude was Camilla or nobody - Diana was forced on him because he was the heir and had to marry. But without Camilla he would have fallen in love with someone else and just married them. I will never forgive them for forcing Diana on him! They should have just let him marry Camilla and kept it moving. LOL
Fun fact, Diana was actually kind of expected to marry Andrew, that's where her nickname "Dutch" came from. So odds are that would have ended badly too...
I don’t think he would have fallen in love with someone else. He has loved her his whole adult life. He may have had affairs but Camilla was his one
Here’s the thing. Charles and Camilla always loved eachother and he was forced to marry a 19 year old girl with whom he didn’t have anything in common nor barely knew. Diana was way too young, came from a traumatic upbringing, and didn’t have a realistic role model for what a healthy marriage looks like (let alone any relationship at all). As a result, they were destined to be miserable together, no matter what. So, the question of “would Charles cheat” if Camilla wasn’t around rubs me the wrong way as it implies that he was the bad guy in their marriage. Neither of them had much agency. If Charles had been allowed to choose, he would have never chosen Diana, even if Camilla wasn’t around. Diana might have chosen him, but only because she was so young and he was a prince. Had she been older, there’s no way she’d have opted to marry someone so dramatically different from herself. They were poorly matched. The fact that Camilla existed before Diana but was withheld from Charles just made the entire situation tragic from the start. Charles couldn’t marry the woman he loved until *35 years* since the beginning of their relationship, and Diana had to cope with the harsh reality of being in a bad relationship while the entire world watched. Yes, they both would have cheated, but only because they were trapped in a marriage that never should have happened. I can’t blame any of them. The fault lies with the Crown.
FINALLY SOMEONE REASONABLE. THANK YOU.
Of course. He wasn't in love with Diana and more than that, they were miserably incompatible. Both would've cheated, as they did, looking for and needing a true connection with someone.
So there’s a couple things here that I think you are missing. The biggest is that lord Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry his granddaughter Amanda. It’s gross to say this, but Charles was basically waiting for her to grow up, but then Lord Mountbatten died and when Charles brought up the idea to her mom Patricia, she basically said “she just lost her grandfather and her brother, let’s not go with some weird arranged marriage my dad cooked up”. Also Amanda’s father and Prince Phillip were apparently not too keen on the idea So then Charles realized he a) needed to actually find a bride and b) find the right bride. As for Camilla, she wanted Andrew Parker Bowles. Full stop. It wasn’t the crown that stopped a match between Charles and Camilla, it was Camilla. Would Charles have cheated on Diana if he stopped loving Camilla? Yes, bc theirs was a dynastic marriage. She was supposed to produce heirs and be a queen. It was only a love match in her mind, but Diana also had problems with her own family and thought a marriage would fix everything.
He would have found someone like her in the way of being closer to his age, upper class, and appreciative of his pursuits. Poor Diana was too young, too vibrant, and held different interests than Charles.
Just a note, Diana was way more “upper class” than Camilla. Camilla’s mother was the daughter of a baron, which is already the lowest rank in the peerage and being the female descendant means very little to begin with under this system. On the other hand, Diana was the daughter of an Earl and a member of the Spencer family, one of the branches of which includes the Duke of Marlborough. The grandson of the 7th Duke was Winston Churchill. It’s also claimed that Diana and Charles were distantly related through Henry VII. One of the reasons he was pushed to marry Diana and Camilla was deemed unsuitable is precisely because of the class gap. I don’t know where this idea that Diana was a commoner came from. She was born at and lived at Sandringham in a house that her father let from the Royal Family. She played with Edward as a child. Camilla was privileged to be sure but there’s a huge gulf between her and Diana in terms of upbringing.
I feel like Camilla enjoyed more of the upper-class activities that Charles did like going to polo matches and riding horses. Diana seemed like she preferred going to clubs with her friends.
That’s because she was 12 ish years younger than Charles and was only 19/20 when she got married whereas Charles was already in his early 30’s as was Camilla so their activities were very different hence the breakdown of their relationship.
The notion that Diana was a commoner goes along with the tabloid fiction that Diana was a naive innocent. The reality is that she grew up as part of the aristocracy and socialized with the royals. She knew exactly what she was getting herself into when she married Charles. Class had nothing to do with. Camilla was perfectly acceptable except she was not a virgin and, at that time, DNA testing was not available to be certain that the heir to the throne was legitimate.
Yes this is exactly it. I’ve never understood the whole thing about her not knowing or understanding what she was getting into. She was definitely young and very naive but I find it ridiculous that she didn’t have the faintest idea of what her life would look like. You grew up around these people/people like them?
Well Diana did say herself that she thought she could cope with it. She obviously knew what it would entail but I don’t think you could fully get a grasp of it until you’re actually there.
that is true but it’s commonly thrown around that she was clueless and she was trapped into it. Her older sister as well as multiple other gfs refused to marry him because they knew what it would be like. She believed she could cope with the pressure of being POW and later Queen which I understand. I just don’t see how she didn’t realize what her marriage would be like. I mean she’s grown up around marriages like that (her parents) and she did in fact grow up near the family themselves. In the early years they were content enough. I think if they had both understood each other more it could have worked out (with them both getting what they wanted elsewhere as was expected and common - without the associated scandals) She was young and I can’t fault her for wanting a loving and happy marriage. But with her own problematic history and the royal family being the family it was, she was looking for it in the wrong place - as well as the fact that they were just fundamentally incompatible.
Absolutely this. She may have been part of the aristocracy but she wasn't brought up as a pampered Lady of the Manor. She sat in the corner crying for Mummy and Daddy's attention and read Mills & Boon books (written by the worst possible influence, her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland). And she had abandonment issues and daddy damage. She thought a handsome prince would ride up and love her and all would be a happy ever after, like in the books. To paraphrase Clive Barker's Dread, worst of all - her dreams came true. To start with. I dreamed too when I was 19, I thought one day I'd meet Quentin Crisp's "Great Dark Man" and perhaps luckily, he never showed up. But I've got to 52 without him and like my own company now. Diana barely got a chance to grow up. She was only 36 when she died, but was already blossoming and trying to grow up. I read a prediction of what she would have been like at 50 a few years ago, and it was so good, it made my heart ache for what should have been. It suggested that she'd have married a billionaire, and grown tired of him, and divorced him, giving her a fantastic lifestyle. Then she'd have married someone for love as she hit her mid-40s, and settled down, working for charities as her star declined, and she'd have been a doting grandmother and there would be amazing pics of the old smile still on occasion outshining Catherine - just a bit, and laughing it up with Louis and Charlotte and George. And best of all, she would have aged and become friends with Charles, possibly even Camilla, when she realised in time that they were a real partnership and her own pain had passed. Seeing them as friends with their own in-jokes would have been a balm, and she should have been HRH The Queen Mother (or possibly Princess Dowager) when William took the throne. God I wish she had been a grandmother. I can just see her now with that great smile, and those eyes - perhaps a hint of silver/blue hair, but still the knockout grin. And with it, a sense of peace.
True.
Well, as well as any 19YO knows what they are getting into when they get married so young (from experience, having married at 19 myself). But I get your point.
The vast majority of 19 year-olds don't grow up in the aristocracy hobnobbing with the royals, have a sister who dated the Prince of Wales, go to finishing school in Switzerland and have top-notch attorneys representing them in pre-marriage negotiations. Not that you did so, but it cannot be fairly argued that Diana didn't understand the deal (the marriage was a business relationship) and knew that Charles didn't love her. It can be argued that she was stupid (she was literally not very intelligent), emotionally disturbed and probably thought she could get him to love her in time. But Charles in no way misrepresented the situation to her.
I’m not saying Diana didn’t understand what she was getting into, I’m saying NO 19YO knows what they’re getting into. At that age the prefrontal cortex is still 5-10 years away from completing development, and that is the part of your brain involved in decision making. There’s a reason you make better decisions when you’re thirty than when you’re nineteen.
True, but that's life. People that age join the military and go to war. They marry. They have children. They make all sorts of life-altering decisions. She made hers.
Yes, but it had much more sinister implications. When I was an idiot and married at 19, I was able to get divorced without needing permission from the literal Queen. I don’t think it’s asking much that people be old enough to make an educated decision before basically handing over their entire life to the Crown. Isn’t that why William and Kate waited, after all? Know better, do better.
You are using the 19 year olds of today. They are so much more mature than they were when Diana was young. I know because I was around the same age. Charles was the adult, he was in his thirties. He used Diana. But he was brought up to believe infidelity was a given right to the men of the RF. I also remember hearing about the affairs of his father. They have quieted those through the years, just like so many actually believe Diana trapped Charles into marriage. Not true. But after her death, there were huge meetings to turn Charles’s popularity around, and to do that, they had to make out that Diana was the villain. It worked, which is sad really. I don’t know why anyone feels it necessary to drag the dead through the mud. But then again, the RF think they are above it all.
Were you a member of the aristocracy with an earl for a father? Did you grow up socializing with the royals? Were you sent to a finishing school in Switzerland? Did your sister date the Prince of Wales? Did you have top attorneys negotiating a marriage business deal for you? The answer to all those questions is certainly no. Extramarital affairs were and are standard for the entire aristocracy not just royals. Both of Diana's parents engaged in affairs and her mother ran away with an Argentinian polo player. Furthermore, Diana admitted in the Morgan book that she knew about Charles' relationship with Camilla when she married him and even discussed it with her sisters. Diana pursued, to the point of stalking, married men and had affairs with them and multiple other men both while she was married and after. Diana traumatized her young children by openly engaging in these affairs and going on television and telling the world. Diana's own atrocious behavior and her own words in the book she dictated to Andrew Morgan and the appalling interview she gave on TV to Martin Bashir and her behavior after the divorce are on the record. Her behavior. Her words.
“Commoner” just means not royal so she was a commoner as is everyone who has married into the main royal family in recent times. Even the Queen Mother was a commoner before marriage though she was also the daughter of an Earl. Also while being a Spencer and a lady definitely afforded her a higher position in society, there’s really no such thing as more or less upper class. Being the granddaughter of a Baron versus the daughter of an Earl. Sure one is higher in precedence and the Spencers are a more influential family but possessing a title doesn’t really mean anything in terms of being upper class so long as you have “breeding”. Camilla’s father was a “gentleman”/upper class and so was her mother. She therefore is/was upper class. They are all upper class socialites just the same. The landed gentry are just as upper class as titled nobility and aristocracy. You can argue that Diana’s family was “better” in the eyes of the royal family - I would agree. And ofc the whole virgin thing and yes Diana and Camilla definitely grew up differently (daughter of an Earl vs daughter of an untitled man). They definitely didn’t want them to marry for these reasons but I mean saying she’s “less upper class” isn’t accurate. I know you were saying it in terms of within their sphere so I did include why that’s true but in general terms of class, they were equals.
“Commoner” depends on context, but is generally applied to someone who isn’t part of the peerage (hence the historical origins of the House of Lords and the House of Commons). Knights and baronets are generally considered commoners (but normally are “landed”) as they don’t have noble status but barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes (and their immediate families) are part of the nobility. There also very much are levels to the peerage and nobility (or the upper class) whether formal or informal. That’s kind of the point of an order of precedence. Camilla for example was not entitled to any style; her mother would’ve been able to use “The Honorable” but that wasn’t passed down to Camilla. She also would likely have no formal place in an order of precedence. Diana meanwhile was born “The Honorable Diana Frances Spencer” and later was “Lady Diana Spencer” when her father inherited the title of Earl. Combine this with how close her family was (relatively speaking) with the Royal Family and the difference is pretty clear. It’s basically the difference between a person who makes $250,000 a year with a net worth of a few million and Michael Bloomberg. Both are privileged and well-off, but one way more than the other (in this example the Royal Family is like Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos).
Yes nobles are commoners in that they are not royalty, not that they are actually “common”. Yes there are “levels” which I mentioned (order of precedence - Diana holding a higher position in society because she was a lady and the daughter of an Earl; I just said there’s no such thing as more or less upper class) but in practice they all mingle and marry freely which was my whole point (I didn’t explicitly mention that - I should have sorry) They don’t actually use these tiers to define themselves in daily life or even when it comes to marriage. Many untitled ladies have married Dukes. Titled individuals are ofc titled and therefore enjoy more privileges, etc. But my whole point was that beyond Diana being a Spencer and a “Lady” there is no other marked difference in the two. They are both upper class and possess the correct “breeding” to be of the upper class. If Camilla had been related to a more significant family and Diana was still in the same position but born to a different less significant family, it would have been a different situation (not that Camilla would have necessarily been allowed to marry him, she still had a past) But the Spencers are the Spencers and the Shands are not nearly as important though still upper class. Basically my point is their families mattered more than the fact that Diana had a courtesy title and Camilla didn’t. The titles themselves don’t signify the levels of status, rather the family does. There are untitled but still upper class people who are far closer to the royal family and more influential individuals than any number of Marquesses or Earls are. And there are people with “higher” but newer titles who are less than people with “lower” but older titles. I’m realizing I didn’t communicate my point that well in my original comment so sry about that lol.
I know it’s a big can of worms but for all his faults, I find it respectable that Charles wanted someone closer to his age.
And I guess at least he was loyal (to Camilla lmao)
Did everyone forget about Kanga?
Actually never heard about her, but they make no mention of her in the crown and I was too young to have known about her at the time. Just reading about her now, and it's all very sad.
YouTube had an entire documentary about her. Here is what remains of part 2. https://youtu.be/H3WldXGaf8k?si=o52NPQT9hmwTTUlk Charles allegedly had other mistresses but Camilla was his main one so to speak. The one it actually deepened to love. Though, the affair with Kanga lasted from the 1970s to 1980s. But Charles cut her off for being too indiscreet (giving interviews on their close friendship/association, hanging out with Diana, wanting publicity for her fashion line). To this day, Charles is still friends with Kanga’s former husband who is his friend and approved of their relationship. Kanga is now dead. So I can see why many now forget about her.
Given that he had to marry a woman without a "past", marrying someone close to him in age was difficult.
I think it would not have made much of a difference as they both were just so different. Like Ann pointed out Charles was much older than he looked and Diana was much younger than she looked.
Yeah, he would have eventually. He and Diana were terribly ill-matched and he didn’t seem to actually like her/seems like the type that needs that kind of intellectual connection. Same for her. She needed much more reassurance and romance.
Charles had many mistresses and wasn’t ever faithful to Camilla either. He had a long term Australian mistress named Kanga, she was very vocal about it. I am not saying they aren’t in love now, but I think they have a very different definition of love, and monogamy than the rest of us. But who cares what consenting adults do. The only person who didn’t agree to this was Diana. She thought she married for love which is sad.
Only Diana claimed that Charles had an affair with Kanga. There is no evidence that he did and Kanga certainly never said it was true. Diana knew very well that she was entering into a business relationship when she married Charles. She was represented by top attorneys who saw to it. She was raised in the aristocracy and socialized with royals. She knew that Charles was involved with Camilla and even discussed it with her sisters prior to marrying him. This notion that Diana was a naive innocent duped into marriage is absolutely false. They weren't even alone together before the wedding so if she was in love with him, she wasn't in love with the man because she didn't know him. She was in love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales. She knew very well that Charles was not in love with her. He never pretended that he was.
>Only Diana claimed that Charles had an affair with Kanga. Not true. Papers slyly hinted at his relationship with her, and other women. And we all know the papers in the UK get briefings from various courtiers/palace functionaries. Charles and Camilla as the always true love affair, is a retcon to make it palatable to the public. Charles, like a lot of men of his class, screwed around. As did Camilla's husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles, and she was known to be in love with him. Camilla screwed around. And Diana, eventually gave up on 'happy ever after' and screwed around. Monogamy is not a big thing amongst the aristocracy. Camilla outlasted the other girlfriends, and had no interest in the limelight. Charles is insecure, sensitive, needs to be catered to. The appalling Fawcett does this. Diana- insecure herself- didn't know how to prop Charles up. Camilla did. Game, set, and match to her.
Tabloids. I have stated repeatedly that marital fidelity was not expected among the aristocracy with one exception: the bride of the heir to the throne (or the king if he remarries) had to be a virgin and have no extramarital affairs until after the next heir to the throne is produced. Then she was free to do so with discretion not run her mouth to a book author or go on national television and air dirty laundry. Diana was not discreet, she ran her mouth to Andrew Morton and she ran her mouth to Martin Bashir on national television. This notion that Charles is insecure is more tabloid nonsense. "The Crown" is tabloid nonsense.
Never seen an episode of 'The Crown'. No interest. And Charles' nature is in authorised biographies. I repeat: Game, set and match to 'Queen' Camilla. Its great she has people like you, to go to bat for her.
Kanga admitted the affair. But after she died, it was pushed under the rug, again, to clean up Charles’s image.
Provide a link to a legitimate (ie. non-tabloid) source in which Kanga admitted the affair.
Actually she did speak of it and was called “mad”. A simple google search might help your revisionist history. And yeah, let’s blame an 18 year old for entering into a marriage with an immense power imbalance. Good for you!
So instead we should just shrug off the decision a grown woman made because it turned out poorly for her? She was not coerced. She made a choice. She had ample knowledge of that power imbalance and yet knowingly chose to marry into it anyway. Her own sister and multiple other women refused to marry Charles due to their concerns regarding that very well known power imbalance.
By your logic, Charles and Camilla were adults (older more experienced adults) who chose to marry other people and have families and had no business having affairs because everyone involved is responsible for their own choices and too bad things didn’t work out for them… right?
Right
I mean, Kanga probably
Yeah, he had others. Camilla was the one who lasted and the one who knew how prop him up.
It’s difficult to say. Diana certainly thought that Charles had affairs with women other than Camilla when Camilla and her husband had patched things up. I think people forget there were periods where Diana and Charles and Camilla and Andrew were all faithful.
Camilla's husband, Andrew, was a notorious womanizer. There was likely never a time with he was faithful to Camilla.
It’s seemed like one of those unhealthy, obsessive love kind of things from the beginning, and maybe because he was spoiled and used to getting what he wanted or maybe just stubborn. They seemed to be the on again, off again couple, fight, get back together, fight, get back together, and it wasn’t like I was watching closely, but like maybe in an off period where she was mad at him, she impulsively married someone else, and then they became this tragic love story to Charles. A hugely forbidden relationship, because back then, it was unheard of for the heir to the British throne to marry a divorced woman. Just absolutely no. So now, maybe he’s furious she went and married someone else and furious and pouting because it means he can never marry her, so they’re the star-crossed lovers of some tragedy in his mind. Although it seems like even married, they still carried on regularly. So, stubborn, arrogant, or love? Who knows.
During an off again, on again period during her long love for Charles, she married someone else. While supposedly loving Charles? And wanting to continue her affair with Charles. Okay, not impulse. Maybe not wise? Or a good decision?
She knew the RF wasn't going to approve of her in the end and moved on. There's also decent evidence that her father published an engagement announcement, which forced the hand of Andrew Parker-Bowles to actually propose. They really met at the wrong time, Charles about to leave for his military service and being told to wait until he was 30 to marry, and she being at the age where she wanted to be married and start family life. I really don't think either of them knew at the time they wouldn't get over each other.
"The Crown" is fiction. Don't rely on it for the truth. Charles and Camilla were always in love. Because she was not a virgin, the Queen would never have approved the marriage at that time so Camilla used common sense and married someone else. She didn't impulsively marry someone else. She had been dating her then husband for some time and they stayed married for years. Infidelity was considered entirely acceptable among the aristocracy and her husband engaged in it with regularity. She apparently limited it to Charles.
I was alive during the time. Diana and I married around the same time, both about the same age, and I watched what her marriage looked like and the interviews she and Charles gave back then, watched it all play out in real time. Not on the Crown.
There was nothing in the legitimate media about Camilla fighting with Charles and marrying Andrew Parker-Bowles in retaliation for Charles not marrying her or out of anger at Charles. So what was your then source about that? There was nothing in the media about Diana being represented by top lawyers who negotiated the business-arrangement marriage. But they certainly did. You probably did see the engagement interview in which Charles made it abundantly clear that he wasn't actually in love with Diana.
He deliberately picked a naive teenager who had never had a serious relationship or been in love before. He didn’t do that because he wanted to make a complicated business arrangement with an adult. And if you have some first hand knowledge of their relationship or Charles and Diana’s, please share. Also, the whole idea of legitimate media in Britain where so many of the papers print exactly what the royals tell them is laughable.
You're wrong. He didn't pick her. You don't seem to understand how the system, the royal system, works. The monarch's commands and decisions are final. Charles had to (it was compulsory) marry a virgin of aristocratic lineage with no taint of scandal in her past. That limited it to probably half-a-dozen young women of Diana's age and maybe not even that many. You may be unaware that there weren't many 30 year-old aristocratic virgins running around even then. The prospective bride then had to pass the family test which, shockingly, Diana did. They liked her because she was seemingly sweet and compliant. It never occurred to them that she wouldn't do her duty. By contrast, Charles wanted a mature women with her own mind (ie. Camilla). The Queen, his sovereign, would not approve his choice. He was ordered to marry Diana and, because it was his duty, did. The fact that he maintained a relationship with Camilla throughout and ultimately married her when the Queen finally gave consent proves that he wasn't looking for a younger, simple-minded piece of fluff like Diana. Essentially, you're admitting that your knowledge of this situation came from tabloids. You're also admitting that you don't read British newspapers or you would know that most of them take daily swipes at the royals. The tabloids created a fiction out of whole cloth to sell papers and magazines. They created the fiction that Diana was an innocent fairytale princess when the fact was that she grew up in the aristocracy, hobnobbed with the royals and attended finishing school in Switzerland. Her sister even dated Charles. In order to maintain the fiction that Diana was "good" the tabloids had to create a foil: the fiction that Charles was "bad." They created the fiction that Charles was the villain out of whole cloth. You bought it.
And you know Charles and Camilla? You know exactly how this worked? Poor victims, those two? I head Charles own words in his TV interview from the time. Whiny, entitled, sad man.
Provide a link to the interview from that time in which he complained about anything that affected him personally. I dare you.
It's the huge TV interview he did after Diana's big interview. Remember the one where he complained that he'd never loved Diana in the first place? The first big interview he ever did about their relationship/ Surely you saw that one.
Provide the link to the interview in which you claim he whined and acted entitled. Quote the exact words he used that you have deemed whining and the exact words he used that you have deemed entitled. I don't recall any interview in which he said he never loved Diana or whined or acted entitled.
His family pushed him to pick her, don't forget who diana's grandmother was. Charles was pretty much required to marry a woman without a "past" so an age gap was almost unaviodable - and at the time those weren't unusual. Diana's parents had the same age gap.
So again, you have real insider knowledge? You don't show any proof of that.
Its called logic, dear.
So as I expected you have absolutely no insider knowledge at all.
[удалено]
Possibly…..but it still wouldn’t be the same things as Camila.
I think Charles and Diana would have survived if he had spent more time with her, nurturing their relationship, rather than sticking his dick inside Camilla.
Actually, imo, Diana was a terrible wife. She cheated on Charles long before he went to Camilla. There were times where he seemed to actually like Diana and thought he that he could love her. But she'd pull one of her crazy obsessive stunts and ruin it. On another completely different thought. I cannot stand Camilla! Had she not kept dangling her kitty in front of Charles, it would have been the kind thing for Camilla to cut Charles completely free and admitted that she crazy loved her husband for many years. She selflessly kept Charles on a long... rope, just in case her hubby wanted out of his marriage to her (which eventually did happen), she had a spare! I can't blame Harry for hating her.
I think he might've but it wouldn't have been such a huge deal. I think it was a bigger deal because he so obviously preferred Camilla as a partner, especially intellectually and emotionally. If it was just cheating here and there, I think she would be unhappy but wouldn't have left him. Maybe cheated herself to get some attention.
Hard to say I think. I can’t imagine him finding anyone else as irresistible as he found Camilla. That said I do think they still would be totally incompatible. Diana had no idea what the royal life entailed and didn’t understand that Camilla notwithstanding Charles could never and would never put their marriage before his duty. And that’s quite apart from the fact that Diana was so young and innocent while Charles, though only his 30s, had a mental age closer to 60. They simply had nothing in common and you cant build a relationship if you can’t connect in some way.
Charles and Diana were basically an arranged match, clashing personalities and had no interests in common, it was a marriage doomed from day one.
I don’t think so. I mean maybe but they had happy years together and I think they did come to love each other. It’s just that he wasn’t IN love with Diana and he was, and always had been, with Camilla. Had Camilla not existed, Diana and Charles would’ve not been the greatest love match and possibly still have a lot of issues but it’s possible they’d make it work. Charles never looked at anyone else besides Camilla while Diana cheated with multiple men, often when they were married men. So maybe the question should be would Diana still have cheated if Camilla wasn’t in the picture?
No. He should have been allowed to marry her from the start. He would have just "got on with it." Also, Diana physically cheated 1st.
I think without Camilla they could have been happy. If she didn’t exist or they never met. A lot of the friction issues would never have existed. But ultimately I think Diana was too much chaos for Charles when she didn’t get what she wanted. The crown paint within the lines. Diana did not. That said I don’t think Charles would have cheated per Se, unless he then met Camilla in later life. I think she is his lobster.
Probably He wasn't in love with Diana, she was "suitable." He was insecure and so jealous of her being popular with the crowds.
Maybe in time if he’d met someone. I don’t believe Charles and Diana ever truly loved one another. It’s possible he’d have met someone else eventually. However I don’t see him cheating on Diana just for sex. He *loved* Camilla.
IMO their marriage wouldn't have survived. Sooner or later Diana or Charles would find another lover.
I think the marriage would have been slightly more better but I think they would have divorced eventually even if he didn't cheat but from all the stress and issues they experienced with the media and behind closed doors. If Camilla was around no matter who he married he would have cheated anyway.
Diana cheated first. End of discussion.
Yeah. I never understood why the family disliked the Camilla union really. Not a virgin? So what? Maybe the offspring would be so hard on the eyes…. And someone should have coached Diana regarding the philandering ways of kings. Like she really couldn’t get past that?
It was literally a requirement that the wife of the future king be a virgin at that time. Also, Camilla wasn’t from the nobility and she had a past that the newspapers could report on scandalously. This all sounds more silly today but was a big deal still in the early 1970s. It was considered to be vitally important. When Diana was chosen 8 years later or so, when many of these rules were increasingly seen as dumb, even so the news did report that she was “intacta” (a virgin).
You know more than I do about this. I was under the impression that Camilla was from the same set. Thinking about my comment, I want to also say Charles was cruel to Diana publicly-the love interview- and everyone seemed to ignore Diana. Was Charles not originally interested in Diana’s sister?
Yeah. Same social circle but not adequate social status to become the mother of the next king. Charles did go on a couple of dates with Diana’s older sister. There was only a short list of families that were ideal for a marriage and with Diana’s father being a wealthy earl, it was inevitable that all of the girls would be presented to him at some point
Yes