Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
1
Diana Princess of Wales / Re: The daughter Diana so longed for
« Last post by sandy on Today at 05:30:40 PM »
I do find it absurd that there are rumors about WIlliam being sired by the Spanish Bourbon. Did he take over the Britannia and abduct Diana or was he a guest at Balmoral during the honeymoon. It's like the ET rumors only weirder.

Charles encouraged his own downward spiral. He is responsible for his own mistakes. His outing his mistress for one thing was heavily criticized. And his getting involved with married mistresses was noted by courtiers who complained to the QUeen (pre Diana).

I did not think Diana's service was over the top. Not in the least.

Diana was dating Dodi. She was pursued by the paparazzi she did not have to 'invite' anyone since she was among the most famous people on the planet. The inferences of Diana's "instability" come straight out of Charles' sympathizer's playbook.

I see a lot wrong with a man who gets involved with  a woman who looks like his nanny and marries a woman to have his heirs not loving her. If that is not out of control, I don't know what is. In a documentary, it was reported that Lord Tryon had to arrive at his own home later than usual so his friend Charles could have at it with his wife. So much dysfunction.
2
No need to apologize at @Curryong for the long post. Certainly not to me. You make good points and I am actually the one that rambled a bit with a long post.  I do agree that Diana had (and still has) a very strong following of people who typically fall into one or more of the following categories:  emphasized with her plight, benefited from her charitable activities ,  were mesmerized by her beauty/charisma, wanted to use her to bring down the monarchy or alternatively tried to imprint their own lives on her own. Ultimately that counts for very little in terms of the structure of the royal family.  As the Windsors have shown time and time again, they are able to recover from virtually anything (Including the crises of 1997).

Charles was already a victim of press cynicism long before the War of the Walesses. Diana merely joined an already established coterie of enemies that had for a very long time tried to trivialize his work and assign the worst of all aspects of humanity on him. Diana participated in and encouraged the downward spiral in his popularity. She did not start it and certainly did not end it. Even today; everything nasty said about Charles is taken to be the gospel truth and anything nice said about him is taken to be a PR campaign. I would mention names but you all know what I mean.

To be honest, some of the display in 1997 was a little bit over the top. Clapping in church at a funeral, nasty speeches by brothers, masses of flowers, conspiracy theories and the search for someone to blame. Some of us considered that to be a low point in national character, not a triumph of goodness or a dignified Christian funeral service.  Tony Blair and his spin doctors joined the fray for political purposes and I do not think the queen ever forgave him for that. I am sure many people were saying things that in the cold light of day seem not only untrue but also unfair/cruel. Anyway the Windsors survived nonetheless. Many of the stars of that show by contrast are now largely reviled. Tony Blair as a liar and hypocrite, ditto Charles Spencer.

The possibilities about Diana's life spiraling out of control are not as far fetched as they seem at first. I was watching news reels of her sojourn with Dodi on a yacht. That did not seem to be someone that was in full control of her emotions. There were very bizarre moments including invitations from Diana herself for paparazzi to take better photos. I surmised that she was hurting because of Camilla's birthday but who knows.

Off topic off topic off topic: My bad. Ultimately I am of the view that the best thing to in that marriage apart from the children was the divorce. No additional child could make it work, girl or boy.
3
Diana Princess of Wales / Re: The daughter Diana so longed for
« Last post by sandy on Today at 04:31:15 PM »
@sandy. I think you are not really accepting the fact that in terms of royal family, it is Charles who matters. You raise the issue of paternity for Thomas and Laura Parker-Bowles. If that were the case (rather unlikely); it would be an enormous advantage to them. Diana herself benefited from being descended from royal "bastards". Typically they get titles and lands. As it happens Charles has already created Trust Funds for Laura and Tom, even though they are not his children.

That is a very different proposition from any paternity questions relating to William and Harry. If any of them were proved not to be Charles' children, they would face a significant or even devastating loss in status. They would lose all their titles and privileges. So you see, fathering a love child has very different (even opposite) implications depending on whether you are the Prince or Princess of Wales. The Parker-Bowles children benefit from being close to Charles. It is not a disadvantage to them that he is their stepfather and they clearly revel in that status (read Thomas' constant praise of his stepfather). By contrast, if Hewitt was hypothetically the biological father of Harry; it would be a devastating blow to the young man.

In her eagerness to take revenge, Diana failed to realize that admitting adultery on national television opened up the way for conspiracy theorists to question her children's paternity. Some go as far as suggesting that William is a Spanish Bourbon. That is what you get when you air dirty laundry, particularly when you are a woman. By admitting adultery, Charles merely raised the profile of Camilla. She was now his undisputed consort and it was only a matter of time before she would be given an official role. Andrew Parker Bowles took the opportunity to divorce and everything was set for Camilla's ascent. Diana knew this and bitterly resented how Camilla was on the verge of taking her place.

Diana (and it seems some of her fans) failed to realize the true importance of Charles, until it was too late. Without him she was just another minor aristocrat (an Earl's daughter is way, way down the line the aristocratic ranks) or  later on celebrity fundraiser. It is Charles who gave Diana the cache of royalty. When he took that away from her, she was devastated. Had he not been important, she would not have clung to the marriage despite knowing that Charles did not love her (just quoting her own words in Panorama about not wanting a divorce) or even raised a stink about the removal of the HRH title. It is Charles who has always been the important party in the equation. Like it or not, that is how the monarchy operates. It was very foolish of Diana to push Charles and the Royal Family. When they wielded their power, she wilted.

Also the Hasnat Khan relationship did not last that long,  precisely because of the drama surrounding Diana. Her love life was a mess and the paparazzi were emboldened in their harassment by the fact that she was now only a detached member of the Windsor clan. That is one of the reasons she was so resentful about the birthday party for Camilla. Diana contrasted her own trail of failed relationships and betrayal with the relative security that Camilla had with Charles. Diana was no fool. She realized what had been lost and it is silly to pretend that she did not regret being removed from the mainstream royal family.

Had she lived longer, it was possible that Diana would have joined the heap of jaded Hollywood celebrities; probably running the gamut of multiple nasty divorces and tabloid scandals. A few weeks before her death, the press was already turning on her. It is only when she died that they temporarily deified her. Now they are back to picking her apart. The divorce was a very big loss to Diana but it actually freed Charles to do as he pleased i.e. openly go out with and eventually marry Camilla.

You might want to read the "accident waiting to happen" revelations from Diana with a pinch of salt. At this time Diana was very lonely. She was surrounded by charlatans and sycophants who fed her paranoia. The Windsors had neutralized her influence over their image through the separation and forced divorce. They had nothing to gain from having her killed. She was in the process of destroying her own reputation with a series of controversial decisions (Dodi, landmines etc.).  It is said that Diana was addicted to fortune tellers they kept telling her dire predictions about the death about to befall her former husband. She started  imagining Charles' death and even planning her outfit for the queen mother's death. As history has shown us, all these were wrong predictions by people who never had Diana's interests at heart.


There was no such problem since Harry and William are biological children of Charles and Diana. NO way would Charles keep another man's child in line of succession. Tom name drops  Sir and Mum to help peddle his cookbooks though fortunately he's more low key now. Hewitt is not Harry's father so I don't get why this is regurgitated. Harry was about 2 years old when Diana and Hewitt got involved.

Diana's admitting adultery did not compromise anything. Only Diana bashers think it did.  Charles admitting adultery forced APB to divorce his wife  and had serious consequences. And Charles got criticized by the public as well as Camilla's own father who confronted him about it. What Charles did was not "noble". CHarles as good as named APB as a cuckold and no he could not name Camilla as partner by doing this because at the time he was married to Diana and she was married to APB.

Diana did not "cling" to the marriage. If she did there would have been no MOrton book nor a Panorama interview. She'd just put up and shut up if she was a "clinger."

The Spanish Bourbon gossip about WIlliam is as ridiculous as stories about aliens abducting people.

You really want to think the worst of Diana had she lived. She would still have been the mother of a future King and the "spare" Harry. She would have had grandchildren to love. She was only divorced ONE year when she died yet you consign her to failure.

The press was not turning on Diana at the time. That is not true. If they were nobody would have made such a fuss when she died and the royals would not have given her the lavish funeral. They pretty much had to because of public demand.

When did Diana plan her "outfit" for the Queen Mum's funeral? This sounds like tabloid fodder like the Spanish Bourbon rubbish.

The Queen Mum loathed Camilla and did not want Charles to marry her. Charles had to wait until the Queen Mum passed on. Camilla had to go into hiding after Diana died and Charles tastelessly used his sons to get her promoted less than a year later.

You bash Diana but Camilla's life is nothing to write home about. She got where she is today by being a mistress to the Prince undermined the wife and is not popular with everybody.

Charles has been criticized and is not the Saint you think he is. He showed himself unable to sustain a marriage to the mother of his children (and yes he shared the blame), too wishy washy to commit to the marriage, too wishy washy not to dump the mistress, and too weak willed and spineless to take any responsibility for his own actions. Bedell Smith "helps" Charles by claiming he was "forced" to marry Diana and none of the problems were his fault.

The people "picking apart" Diana are Camilla worshippers and Charles sycophants like Penny Junor, Bedell Smith, and Charles cousins the Mountbattens every now and then bash Diana. Charles technique of trashing his late ex wife makes him look just plain nasty like the sycophants.
Junor and Camilla and Charles are best pals and she very conveniently bashes Diana in all are books.

The Landmine Campaign was well received. She dated Dodi. Her bad decision was getting involved with Charles and his mistress.

How do you know Diana "resented" the party for Camilla. It was so ludicrous she probably had a good laugh over it.
4
Diana Princess of Wales / Re: The daughter Diana so longed for
« Last post by Curryong on Today at 03:27:34 PM »
^ I haven't got very much time so can only counter a couple of points from your long post, Royalanthropologist. I think you are underestimating, in your overview of Diana post divorce and death, the tremendous blow to Charles's prestige and popularity after the revelations of his interview with Dimbleby and of the War of the Wales.

His popularity took a knock from which it has barely recovered, even now. His and Camilla's relationship was not a overwhelming success accepted by the whole country, no matter how it was viewed by his friends. Indeed, for many years, Charles had to move very cautiously.

Even if the Queen did not back Diana she was not approving of Mrs Parker Bowles for many years, and it was said that, because the QM did not wish him to marry Camilla, Charles didn't do so until after her death. So his mother and grandmother did not exactly give Camilla the tick of approval.

As for the country, Camilla is not particularly popular now and certainly wasn't in the 1990's. Again Charles had to be cautious. Because of Diana's still great influence on public opinion and her memory, Camilla bears another title to her husband's primary one.

Even now the possibility of a Queen Camilla is contentious. So it was certainly not broad sunlit uplands for Charles (in spite of his pre-eminent position in British Society) after the divorce and his ex wife's death. (Camilla was barely seen in public for months after the death of the Princess of Wales.)

I also do not believe that Diana's Landmines campaign was the disastrous move on her part that you claim. She was mentioned approvingly in the Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the day that Britain signed the international agreement to ban Landmines. Charles wasn't mentioned, but his ex wife was, and Harry carries on the campaign in her name.

 I also think that you are portraying her possible life in her forties and fifties as being tawdry and faded. How do you know? She would still have been a loving mother to two very popular young princes, and later a loving grandmother. She could hardly have been pushed aside nor would her sons have wanted her to be. And she could well have taken on some other prominent international causes as well.

You forget that, in spite of the Press having some jabs at her in that last summer, Diana still had tremendous popularity in the country. That was shown by the floral offerings around the Royal palaces after her death. The Press didn't encourage the people to do that. They did it spontaneously as an offering to her, and those floral tributes were mountainous by the time of the funeral.

I happened to be in London, royalanthropologist, at the time of Diana's death and her funeral. I wandered about among those crowds, and let me assure you people's comments were not exactly complimentary with regard to Charles or indeed the BRF. I still remember the cries of 'Diana! Diana! God bless you!' 'God Bless!' as the funeral cortège went by.

Yes, Charles is a very important person and he will no doubt have a grand funeral. Whether he will have such a heartfelt farewell from his people as Diana received however, I very much doubt! And that, I'm afraid, will be more so for Camilla.

So sorry for the length of this.

5
@sandy. I think you are not really accepting the fact that in terms of royal family, it is Charles who matters. You raise the issue of paternity for Thomas and Laura Parker-Bowles. If that were the case (rather unlikely); it would be an enormous advantage to them. Diana herself benefited from being descended from royal "bastards". Typically they get titles and lands. As it happens Charles has already created Trust Funds for Laura and Tom, even though they are not his children.

That is a very different proposition from any paternity questions relating to William and Harry. If any of them were proved not to be Charles' children, they would face a significant or even devastating loss in status. They would lose all their titles and privileges. So you see, fathering a love child has very different (even opposite) implications depending on whether you are the Prince or Princess of Wales. The Parker-Bowles children benefit from being close to Charles. It is not a disadvantage to them that he is their stepfather and they clearly revel in that status (read Thomas' constant praise of his stepfather). By contrast, if Hewitt was hypothetically the biological father of Harry; it would be a devastating blow to the young man.

In her eagerness to take revenge, Diana failed to realize that admitting adultery on national television opened up the way for conspiracy theorists to question her children's paternity. Some go as far as suggesting that William is a Spanish Bourbon. That is what you get when you air dirty laundry, particularly when you are a woman. By admitting adultery, Charles merely raised the profile of Camilla. She was now his undisputed consort and it was only a matter of time before she would be given an official role. Andrew Parker Bowles took the opportunity to divorce and everything was set for Camilla's ascent. Diana knew this and bitterly resented how Camilla was on the verge of taking her place.

Diana (and it seems some of her fans) failed to realize the true importance of Charles, until it was too late. Without him she was just another minor aristocrat (an Earl's daughter is way, way down the line the aristocratic ranks) or  later on celebrity fundraiser. It is Charles who gave Diana the cache of royalty. When he took that away from her, she was devastated. Had he not been important, she would not have clung to the marriage despite knowing that Charles did not love her (just quoting her own words in Panorama about not wanting a divorce) or even raised a stink about the removal of the HRH title. It is Charles who has always been the important party in the equation. Like it or not, that is how the monarchy operates. It was very foolish of Diana to push Charles and the Royal Family. When they wielded their power, she wilted.

Also the Hasnat Khan relationship did not last that long,  precisely because of the drama surrounding Diana. Her love life was a mess and the paparazzi were emboldened in their harassment by the fact that she was now only a detached member of the Windsor clan. That is one of the reasons she was so resentful about the birthday party for Camilla. Diana contrasted her own trail of failed relationships and betrayal with the relative security that Camilla had with Charles. Diana was no fool. She realized what had been lost and it is silly to pretend that she did not regret being removed from the mainstream royal family.

Had she lived longer, it was possible that Diana would have joined the heap of jaded Hollywood celebrities; probably running the gamut of multiple nasty divorces and tabloid scandals. A few weeks before her death, the press was already turning on her. It is only when she died that they temporarily deified her. Now they are back to picking her apart. The divorce was a very big loss to Diana but it actually freed Charles to do as he pleased i.e. openly go out with and eventually marry Camilla.

You might want to read the "accident waiting to happen" revelations from Diana with a pinch of salt. At this time Diana was very lonely. She was surrounded by charlatans and sycophants who fed her paranoia. The Windsors had neutralized her influence over their image through the separation and forced divorce. They had nothing to gain from having her killed. She was in the process of destroying her own reputation with a series of controversial decisions (Dodi, landmines etc.).  It is said that Diana was addicted to fortune tellers they kept telling her dire predictions about the death about to befall her former husband. She started  imagining Charles' death and even planning her outfit for the queen mother's death. As history has shown us, all these were wrong predictions by people who never had Diana's interests at heart.
6
Diana Princess of Wales / Re: The daughter Diana so longed for
« Last post by sandy on Today at 06:32:08 AM »
I think Diana would have tried again prior to 1990. After, I very much doubt it. Diana did confront Camilla so she certainly realized what Camilla's role was. Diana was not in a cold and lonely place. I think the lonely and sad place would have been living with Charles.

Double post auto-merged: Today at 06:37:34 AM

I rather think they were getting on better after the divorce @sandy. She had no need to trust or distrust him. He was no longer in her bed and was with another woman. What united them was the love of their children. I find it hard to believe that Diana would still be pining for a man that had left her nearly a decade before and made it abundantly clear that he would never be with her again (in that way) i.e. stating that Camilla was a non-negotiable part of this life. I would like to think that Diana was trying to have a civilized relationship with her ex, at least for the sake of their children. That was certainly getting on better than nasty exchanges during the war of the Walesses.

As for 'being nothing without Charles", that statement reflects that fact that Diana would have joined the list of fairly anonymous aristocratic women in England had she not married Prince Charles. It does not mean she was worth nothing as a human being.  As the divorce settlement showed, constitutionally the Princess of Wales is a meaningless title once you are detached  from the Prince of Wales. You are not entitled to the crown or any other deference, save for the respect accorded to the mother of a future king.

Even that (being mother of a future king) is entirely dependent on the Prince of Wales acknowledging your children as his legitimate heirs.  If there is genuine doubt on that score, you lose even that. That is why Diana was very alarmed when some people started questioning Harry's paternity. It was imperative that both her children were beyond reproach in terms of their biological lineage. Unfortunately at the time of Morton and Panorama, Diana had not quite anticipated the implications of admitting an adulterous affair with James Hewitt.

Curryong was just making a light joke about some Diana fans who argue (with earnestness) that Diana did not need Charles and could have been famous without him. Clearly that is not reality.

In 1995 Diana was very suspicious of Charles and a letter surfaced where she believed he was planning an "accident" in a car for Diana. That does not scream trust to me. I think they were civil to each other and got together at events regarding the boys. Diana also was involved with Khan at the time and was serious about him. I doubt Charles  was in her bed after 1984.

Everybody matters and they don't have to marry a Prince to be "somebody."

Gossips questioned Harry's paternity. Vicious and ignorant ones at that.  The same could be said about the whispers about whether or not Charles sired Camilla's children.

Thanks to Hewitt's book and Diana's confessions, it was well known Diana got involved with Hewitt in 1986.  Only the gossips stir the pot. Diana had nothing to prove. Harry is the bio son of Charles and Diana. There were no implications of Diana's confession. Charles stirred the pot by saying he was involved with married Camilla, so do you think this caused issues for Camilla's kids being "royal."
7
Diana Princess of Wales / Re: Prince Charles was an insider
« Last post by Curryong on Today at 03:10:18 AM »
^ The Queen and Consort, because they are taxpayer funded, have Comptrollers of finance. So did the QM, and she was the despair of hers. Prince Charles does, because of the Duchy. I would imagine the Cambridges certainly do because of their different sources of wealth.

I think all the Queen's children would have accountants of some sort. Princess Anne for instance runs her home estate as a business. I also imagine the Yorks did as they had to have some way of tracking what happened to the allowance that the Queen gave Andrew each year.
8
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg / Re: The Cousins In Uniform
« Last post by LouisFerdinand on Today at 02:38:28 AM »
It was interesting that Prince Wenceslas and Archduke Alexander both wore Irish Guards uniforms at the wedding.
9
It was interesting to learn that Willem-Alexander was an ice skater.
     
10
Culinary and Fine Arts / Re: Regal Statues
« Last post by LouisFerdinand on Today at 02:25:17 AM »
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites