lacked and that he did not find in Diana, you are entirely right that his
mistress was an inextricable aspect of the situation.
I usually approach these situations, however, from a standpoint defined by
something my late father once said to my mother: "No matter what happens in
between, a marriage starts with two people and it ends with two people."
Strictly put, then, Diana was wrong. "Marriage," as we have been repeatedly
reminded in recent months, involves (legally anyway) a husband and wife.
From that perspective Millie never really was part of Diana's marriage,
although Millie's presence certainly complicated that union as well as her
own.
Regards
John P.
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: 10 Feb 2005 08:35:29 -0800
I recall Diana's famous statement made on national television:
"There were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded."
I don't think you can talk about Charles and Diana, and not talk about
Camilla.
To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is to
miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
Charles's life.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"John Parsons" wrote:
There were only ever 2 people who could have told us the absolute
truth
about what happened to the Wales marriage. One of them is dead and,
as of
this morning, the other has made it clear that he is now ready to put
it all
behind him. Perhaps that's not a bad idea, but given Diana's immense
popularity, her beauty, and the unspeakable tragedy of her early
death, it
probably won't happen.
It is clear that Diana was traumatized by her parents' divorce and
that she
never managed to evolve any intellectual or emotional resources to
deal with
that or similar situations. She remained an emotionally needy young
woman
and, as she flunked out of high school (in American terminology) and
never
attended university, she was a naive 20 year old with virtually no
experience of the world when she married Charles. She knew, like
most
Britons of her class, that he had been involved with Camilla in the
past.
It was unfortunate that the two of them carelessly gave her reason to
suspect that the affair was ongoing even while she was engaged to
Charles.
Diana had stars in her eyes, as any young woman of her naivete would
have
had in her situation. Her disappointment with what she then
discovered to
be reality was very real, complicated by her inability to address the
realities of her marriage in the mature manner that a more
sophisticated
woman might have managed.
Charles grew up with what he describes as a remote mother and a
hectoring
martinet father. In part the queen's distance from her children was
the
result of her office and dignity, but one cannot help reflecting on
the
difference between the intimate family circle she had known as a
child and
what appear to have been emotionally remote relationships with her
own
children. As he matured into public life he came to receive an
inordinate
amount of positive publicity, which may well have compensated him for
an
emotionally sterile early life and given him a self-confidence many
thought
he lacked in his 'teens and 'twenties. (It undoubtedly did him no
good
later on to see so much of that media approval transferred to Diana.)
As a
result, Charles had his own needs but Diana was no more the woman to
fulfill
them than he was the man to fulfill hers. The direct consequences
were
disaster and tragedy.
Regardless of how we choose to regard or criticise the methods either
of
them adopted to deal with their crisis--sulking, crying to the media,
pursuing extramarital affairs--the above is my view of the personal
relationships involved. It's charitable if nothing else. Two
essentially
very well-meaning young people who were simply wrong for each other.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all was that they were forced to go
through
all of it under relentless and often pitiless public scrutiny. Any
other
couple could have faced facts and ended the ordeal in a humane and
dignified
manner, as Prince and Princess Joachim of Denmark are now doing.
Regards
John P.
From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Fw: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:26:44 +0000
My views on her have not changed since the early days of her
marriage and
her whining that the Queen kept interfering and telling her what to
do
(someone needed to remind her of protocol and who better).
Di knew from the start the situation with Charles and Camellia (it
had been
going on for some years and they had no intention of stopping) and
she
accepted it but after marriage tired to change this situation. She
knew why
she had been chosen and what her role would be, but tried to force
her hand
when she considered she had leverage, history shows how she failed.
She was manipulative and scheming using the press to best advantage,
it is
just a pity that Charles took so long in realising just how to
manipulate
the press to advantage.
Cheers
Guy
I'll give Millie this (love this new name for her: haven't come
across it
before), she has been quiet in her activities, some might say
discreet.
While Di was alive, she was everyone's favourite, bar a few, who
thought
her a nutter. Since she died, everyone has joined on the bandwagon
of
Di-bashing. It's fashionable, but I don't know how much truth there
is in
any of what you say. Besides, why should she try to destroy the
Royal
Family when her son will be king one day? Why would she destroy her
descendants' futures.
Renia
--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you
facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area