I’ve read a lot of books about the Windsors, especially about Princess Diana. By far, one of the best books about Diana is The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown. I found Brown to be extremely fair about Diana’s strengths and weaknesses, and realistic about how the blame was assigned in Charles and Diana’s divorce. By the end of the Wales’ marriage, they had both done dreadful, shady things, but it bears repeating: Charles and Diana were ill-suited from the start, they had no business getting married to each other, and Charles really was an a–hole to her. I can’t recommend The Diana Chronicles enough!
As we keep discussing, there’s this new Tom Bower book about Charles and I can barely keep up with all of the sh-t Bower is throwing against the wall to see what sticks. Bower’s book seems, so far, to be a compilation of the worst press Charles got during the Diana years, plus some new details to oft-repeated stories. We’ve already gotten excerpts about how Charles is jealous of the Middletons, and how the Queen absolutely loathed Camilla for years. So what’s next? Charles and Camilla “plotted” against Diana.
When Diana died following a car crash in Paris in August 1997, Charles’ plans to bring Camilla, with whom he had a relationship before and during his marriage to Diana, out into the open via a series of charity events had to be canceled as the mourning population would not have appreciated the woman dubbed by Diana as the “third person” in her marriage being pushed back into the limelight.
Investigative writer Tom Bower — whose book Rebel Prince: The Power and Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles is being serialized in the Daily Mail — says a year or so after the news of the tragedy in Paris, Charles, Camilla and their PR man and assistant private secretary Mark Bolland, met and agreed to a new plan: To “demythologize Diana by portraying her as a manipulative hysteric,” writes Bower.
The next step was to cooperate with author Penny Junor who was planning to portray Diana as “an unbalanced and unfaithful wife, suffering from a borderline personality disorder, who had compelled Charles to return to his true love,” Bower claims. What followed was a trip to New York, including a reception where Camilla met high society movers and journalists. The former head of Charles’ charities in the U.S., Robert Higdon, is quoted as saying of Camilla: “For her to get up in the morning and survive until nightfall is a major effort.” (She was reported to be “the laziest woman to have been born in England in the 20th century” by another source.) Higdon adds, “It was even hard for her to get out of bed. She tries her best to do nothing during the day. It was horrible, a disaster.’”
Although the campaign wasn’t without it’s hiccups, there was a gradual release of positive stories and the couple became confident enough to appear in public formally for the first time since Diana’s death – when they stepped out of the Ritz hotel in London in 1999, in front of hundreds of photographers.
Other claims in the book include that Camilla had newspaper and magazine cartoons that lampooned Diana in her downstairs bathroom. When Diana died, Charles “dithered” about flying to Paris to bring the princess’s body home, and the Queen told him, “‘I think you should get out there.” Other courtiers have reportedly said that Charles insisted on making the flight against his mother’s wishes. When Diana famously confronted Camilla at a party at the home of mutual friend Lady Annabel Goldsmith, Camilla “coolly” ticked off Diana for “unacceptable behavior in a private house,’” reports Bower.
Bower sort of has his timeline wrong – Charles’ campaign to portray Diana as a hysteric began before her death. They were still married when he was already working to portray her as hyper-emotional and hysterical. But I believe that Charles and his people did try to demythologize Diana following her death, just as I believe that most of it landed like a lead balloon. As for Charles dithering about flying to Paris to bring Diana’s body home… I don’t believe that. By all accounts (even Paul Burrell wrote about it in his book), Charles was devastated by Diana’s death and he was the one fighting to bring her body home like a member of the royal family.
As for Camilla being lazy… that’s so funny to me. What *does* Camilla do all day? Has she always been pretty lazy?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Lazy? You don’t say! I absolutely would be lazy if I had people to do things for me and taxpayers pay them to do it!
They are all lazy! Lets not kid ourselves into thinking any of these sponges do real “work”
“Sponges” I love it! 🤣
This is what happens when people elevate their fellow citizens, calling them ‘royal’ which is simply a remnant of ancient times. It’s a myth, but what an expensive one to maintain. Taxpayers lose billions of pounds propping up a below average family. Said family assumes all manner of airs and graces though their behaviour shows anything but class. It seems their only purpose is to exist. Entertaining yes, but still pointless.
Camilla has the last laugh
Intentional or not, her entire life is funded and probably her kids get a share of the gravy train too.
Also, her face : everytime I see her picture, I remember Diana’s Rottweiler comment and its so unfair on rottweilers.
Anyway, I feel so mean about Camilla and Charles. Its like none of them got their Karma at all.
Camilla can’t help her looks and attacking her appearance only gives people more sympathy for her. They’ll bang on about how she was dragged in the press for years and had bread rolls throw at her. Her looks have nothing to do with anything.
Well said.
I do recall rude comments but I didn’t realize it was that bad. Geez.
Magnoliarose: the public were so aggressively rude to Camilla that she once refused to leave her home for an entire year because she was so afraid. I’m surprised she didn’t develop permanent agoraphobia.
If you watch that appearance outside the Ritz in 1999, She’s visibly shaking.
No matter the wall of protection Charles put around her, there was always the chance of verbal abuse even if security could stop the physical abuse.
I think they live their karma. For years we have heard that they barely live in the same house. Remember the Camillagate tapes where she cooed at him how she couldn’t bare to be away from him even for a second? Well real life delivered a rude awakening. The man is uncompromising about his living conditions, so you spend your days in your cottage and wait to be needed.
Also, Charles big concern has always been to be beloved by the people. He also apparently resented that his young wife over shadowed him during their marriage. He finally got what he wanted, a wife who is not as beloved as he is. The only problem is that she is least popular member of the royal family in every single poll since 2005. And sure he is more popular than her but only by a bit. He is consistently the second least popular royal.
They are paying the price.
My biggest problem with them is their strategy to wreak Dianas name to climb up. They should have instead have gone on an apology tour and appeared remorseful for what they did. Then a PR rehabilitation could begin that didn’t involve trashing anyone. They stink of royal entitlement.
FROME, if you really believe in Karma and you believe Charles and Camilla are paying the price, then Charles will never be King because HM will outlive him and then Camilla will live out her last years lonely and ill. But keep in mind life can be very unfair. Charles and Camilla may indeed be the next King and Queen consort and live out the rest of their years in total happiness, excellent health and full luxury.
I don’t know how else karma will smack them, I just believe in the universal truth that the misery you create is the misery you will reap.
He could find himself on the throne and even find a way to force her in as queen and the karma may still continue to find him. Ever heard of guys who pursued something at all costs and when they finally get it, they say it tasted like sand in their mouth? Cause and effect is real. And the consequences are in this life
It’s been 20 yrs. Omg can no one ever move on. Diana is like that crazy ex that never goes away. LOL. I didn’t work out and we can agree that both parties behaved badly. I will say it again 20YRS.
Diana is in her grave 20 years now, so she is not like the ex that won’t go away. She died unfairly and cruelly young at the height of her beauty and popularity. So of course people are going to have a bad taste in their mouths over her fate. That’s the price these other two pay for getting to enjoy a long life well into old age.
Who would you rather be?
This has been clung to way too long. And it ignores Diana’s role in her marriage and that she was well over it before she died.
But Magnoliarose, bitterness about C&C, at least for me-is not about Diana wanting to stay with Charles and Camilla pushing her out. I agree, I think Di realized Charles will never ever be a man for her and how he never was; it was his gaslightning, his cruelty, the fact that he expected her to know and live in a sham marriage although he never, not once, told her that it’s gonna be a sham marriage prior to wedding. He took her as an object and sacrifized her for his owngain and goodstanding with Queen, press and public-at least, that was his plan.
Camilla gets no love from me, bc although it was Charles’ marriage:
she was also married with children
they, by all accounts gaslighted Di together and treating her like naive, poor and stupid young accesoire to his royal life.
they were cruel in their selfishness and acted and expected everyone else to act like Prince andhis mistress in 16th or 17th century…no care for anyone esle but themselves.
Charles and Camilla seem pretty happy to me. He works hard and has never been a lazy grub like Wills and Harry are. And Camilla does a lot of appearances, too, and reporters like Richard Palmer say she is most reporters’ favorite royal – always friendly, always with a joke and a laugh. On trips, she is said to often walk from site to site with the reporters, which none of the rest of them deign to do.
Diana and Charles were a disaster almost right away. He loved Camilla and still seems to. And so what if they both have their own space to retreat to? Maybe more marriages would last if people could go to their own place when they need space.
Eh, I think it is fanfiction to say they are ‘living their karma’ and extrapolate that they are in some type of self made hell.
They seem to be doing alright- they have the lifestyle that suits them both, both do engagements and seem very engaged and happy to participate. I think theirs is most likely a love that really was meant to be … eventually.
Her husband cheated — she cheated – Chuck and Diana had a horribly dysfunctional marriage.
There are no winners or losers and it is odd that we feel 20 years later someone should still be paying a blood penance over it. Love has never been fair.
Whatever the truth is, it all happened over 20 years ago. That does not excuse bad behaviour but havent we all done stuff we wish we could undo? Both Charles and Camilla, and Diana, behaved appallingly badly at that time. Charles was under pressure to marry and produce an heir, his bride had to be very young because the future Queen had to have an unblemished past. An older woman (or less naive than Diana) could probably have weighed up the pros and cons of a marriage of convenience and made it work. Diana was too young on so many levels, and lacked guidance. Nowadays Charles and Camilla seem to be happy with each other. Although he is still a petulant, spoilt man-child, she has found a way to make it work for her. Diana sadly never got to get past it all, but that’s hardly C&C’s fault.
Camilla stays busy. She’s a working member and constantly engaged with her causes. But if some people don’t read a fluff piece on a tabloid then it’s not real.
As far as any gravy train she’s endured death threats for ages by people believing they’re acting on behalf Diana. Same Diana that moved on and forgave. It’s all done and another cheap cash grab.
says the real Camilla.
FLORC is not Camilla. She posts here often and is a regular. Insightful too. 🙂
Agree about the Rotties!
That’s kind of crappy. She can’t really do anything about her appearance outside of surgery. And it’s not like she’s some horror to look at. She was relatively cute when she was young, and I don’t see her as some hideous old lady. Di wasn’t someone who was classically movie star gorgeous either, so it’s a bit rich coming from her. She was pretty, but nothing exceptional – she just had a warmer spark to her. Camilla also had 13 years on her, so it’s not fair to directly compare.
I agree with you but I had always taken it to mean that Dianna compared her to a Rottweiler because once she got her teeth and Charles she wouldn’t let go. I guess it could’ve also been a dig at her appearance.
The Rottweiler nickname wasnt about Camillas looks. That was just how some chose to interprate it because it fed into their preferred narrative. That Diana was the true soapie villain, lording her looks over others. That forever tale of a good man being bedazzled by a scheming young beauty but then realising that she is evil or stupid and then finally acknowledging the true value of the homely girl. It was a common trope in movies set in high school, day time soaps and pulp romance novels. I guess it allows us average women to feel some superiority over the acclaimed beauties.
@Krill
It also pits women against each other based on appearance. *eyeroll*
I don’t think Diana’s Rottweiler nickname was about Camilla’s looks, but about the reputation that Rottweilers have: that when they bite into something they will not let go.
Exactly, TheSageM, exactly. I feel certain that’s what Diana meant with the rottweiler comment, because it’s so apropos to the situation in that marriage.
This part about trying to have her dismissed as a loon is true. Luckily most people now understand that there are degrees to mental illness and a person suffering from depression does not and should not nullify their entire point of view. If anything, it can actually underscore it.
Anyway, all that “crazy wife in the attic” campaign did was make the public ask, what her environmental triggers were and what was done to address them. And just as importantly, was she treated with compassion during her illness.
Omigoodness these book writers are incredulous! Geez Louise Diana’s been dead 20 years, why does this still matter? Can’t we let Dian’s sons’ pain ebb and start to heal? Is it necessary to open and reopen these old wounds? Can’t people let this poor woman RIP? I’m getting so exasperated about all this madness!! its like these people are so sadistic they enjoy inflicting the utmost amount of pain!! Somebody needs to send someone a memo that no amount of regurgitation of what who did is going to bring Diana back, please give it a rest already!
Agreed. Let the woman rest in peace.
I agree too. It just seems tired and mean spirited.
I don’t agree. their mom died traguc death. their dad carried on and very soon, stepped out in public with his mistress who made their mom’s life even more miserable and humiliating.
Their dad was the one who started the PR “Camilla is the best” capmaign as soon as he possibly could. He was the one who made her a part of their family, while they were shipped of to Eton and further while dealing with life without mom.
I just don’t see how can we possibly talk about “bringin back old pain” when:
a) if you’re looking at woman who was complicit in making your mother’s life miserable
b) if your dad is making you all “get along” for his own benefit (public opinion)
c) if in last few years there is a curious direction when talking about Charles and Diana-emphasizing her weaknesses and faults (and her depression in, honestly, pretty disgusting way-“she was crazy! she was unstable! poor Charles, what was he to do?”)…
I don’t see this as bringing back old pain, I see it as seting the story straight.
and tbh, I just don’t see how, if I wasa child in this situation, I could ever forget “old pain” and my mom’s pain regarding it all, while staring at Camilla’s face at every family function. IDK, kudos to those so full of forgiveness, but I haven’t met anyone like that in my life.
The campaign started long before Diana’s death.
Eton was actually Diana’s pick and the kids were shipped off to boarding school age 8yrs old though the public didn’t realise and thought Diana was hands on day to day with them.
Diana’s mother was also portrayed as an unstable, unfit mother in her divorce battle. Never mind the fact that Johnnie Spencer was an extremely cold and abusive tyrant.
At least on tour, Camilla seems to be more active than WillNot and Katie Keen. I saw her get off a plane here in the US at dawn, do an event with Charles and then do separate events during the day, including kneeling down and gardening with kids, before rejoining Charles at an evening event. And, she didn’t stop to change her wardrobe, so there really wasn’t any “break” for her..
Although not remotely a royalist, I do like Camilla and don’t care much for this ‘bone idle’ narrative. She comes across as sincere, compassionate and intelligently committed to the causes she’s taken on. She’s one of the very few things Charles has got going for him. Without her, he’d be even more disliked than he is.
I like Camilla too. She works hard and seems engaged. And has paid attention to issues like sexual assault and domestic violence. She also seems like she’d be a sassy delight to day drink with lol. Look I’m someone who’s marriage ended in divorce due to my husband’s affair. I know first hand the pain involved. And I also know that people are complicated and time changes things and mistakes are made. Add living in a fish bowl and the pressure to make the “right decisions” and it’s no surprise all of these marriages blew up. Again I say this as the wronged party and somewhat of a Diana admirer, but it really doesn’t bother me that Charles and Camilla are 10+ years into a seemingly happy marriage. I’ve learned the hard way that rather than anger and karma and everything else we wish would happen, life just takes its course. And sometimes it’s messy and full of mistakes. But hopefully we come out happy on the other side.
I like her too. Someone shouldn’t get beat up for their mistakes for decades when it wasn’t even their personal life that was affected.
I agree. She seems like the best of ALL the royals. Not a stick in the mud or entitled and lazy like the younger royals.
I still feel sorry for Diana, yes she had her weaknesses but her strengths outweighed them heavily.
Her work had a global impact.
I do believe she had mental health issues but not crazy.
I do believe that Camilla was toying with Charles for a long time and it wasn’t true love and marrying him was her best option.
Charles I believe was absolutely jealous of Diana’s fame and how she was regarded as the people’s princess.
None of the newer Royals would ever dare to do what Diana did. Take the risks she did to bring attention to very important issues.
People also forget she was a teenager when she got married and had very little support and very little exposure.
Imagine as a kid marrying your sisters boyfriend and he in turn is in love with another older woman, who knows how to play the game. I would be absolutely crushed. Add the fact you are part of a very rigid and indifferent institution. You have the world obbsessed with you and you have to put a smile on and get on with being a royal.
Yes to this. And there was an additional layer in that Diana was born in the 60s. Womens expectations of marriage had changed drastically in that period. They were no longer thinking of marriage as an institution to matyr yourself but rather a relationship that should be mutually loving and beneficial.
And where cultural norms used to be transmitted by backward aunties telling gossipy cautionary tales about “bad women”. Diana grew up in the era of easy access to pop music, television and film.
I really think that marriage was an expression of the clash between feminism and the old sexism. He thinks marriage exists to meet his needs and can’t understand why she has any emotional and psychological needs of her own, much less why he should have to meet them. He doesnt believe she has a right to question his life compartments. He believes that she should be content with the babies and the social benefits of being a wife. Meanwhile she knows that her needs are just as important as his and that she has a right to be heard in a matter that affects her so personally.
@Frome
Thank you, this is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful commentaries on the Diana-Charles relationship that I have read.
Except that Diana was completely wedded to Barbara Cartland romances that made no allowances for the other person’s agency or feelings.
According to Cartland, your partner was supposed to be instinctively taken by your beauty, your virtue, your good character without question or analysis. They should worship you, praise you endlessly and always know your needs without being told.
They should be the very embodiment of the fairytale Prince Charming.
And she got a real life Prince. Nevermind his actual personality or character or pesky mistresses.
One look at her and he would drop everything. No need to charm him or get to know him or his needs except in those matters that got you what you wanted such as pretending to be a country woman because your real life Prince liked country pursuits.
When you read about her other romances, including her supposed surgeon, she followed the same playbook. The surgeon was especially irritated that she would expect him to drop his hospital schedule to attend to her. Diana went as far as presenting herself to his family who she thought would instinctively love her and approve a marriage between their son and her.
As much as i sympathise with her predicament, i also realise that she never grew out of her Cartland view of romance and that view is a disaster even if you find yourself in a relationship with a prince charming who ticks every box.
Diana may have been an unrealistic romantic but that makes it even more egregious that Charles and the royal family used her presuppositions to ensnare her. They believed her outdated notions of romantic love would keep her quiet and passive while Charles did his own thing. It was manipulative and unethical. In some ways I’m glad Dianna burned that nonsense to the ground and only wish she herself had been strong enough to emerge unscathed. But Kate, Meghan and in some ways even Camilla currently benefit from the fact that she ripped the veil away from the fairytale.
Camilla wasn’t in love with Charles. Andrew Parker-Bowles was actually the real prize everyone was after…just ask Princess Anne. These people really are quite mad.
Another yes from me. These stories have some bearing in that they illuminate the character of a future monarch and his Queen consort. He did not go into his first marriage with the idea of a meaningful partnership for the rest of his life, he wasn’t spending loads of time with her and he was saying “whatever in love means” when asked if he was in love. His mother and her parents chose their partners and then stuck it out through thick and thin. Charles seems so much more spoiled than his parents and Elizabeth’s parents, it’s embarrassing and cringey that he will be a king.
+1 Rumi. Diana was only 19 when she got engaged. She was way too young. I wish they’d let her rest in peace. Will and Harry have to deal with these “stories” coming out about their mom for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, bringing photos of your mistress on your honeymoon is low. But there’s a long history of animosity between the Spencers and the British Royals.
Diana was in denial for much of the “dark years.” Then Diana was made redundant after the birth of Harry.
Charles and Camilla didn’t plot to have Diana forever remembered as crazy. Bolland wanted a clean slate.
Apart from the entertainment value in a sick and twisted way, the entire ‘royal’ family is horrendous and a complete waste of space. They exist just to exist. So much money used to prop up such medieval silliness.
If you think about it, aren’t we all a waste and exist just to exist.
Well, yes, you’re right. But if you find yourself on the earth for a period of time, surely it’s better to make a contribution to the world rather than suck off the collective public teat and live the life of Riley while a phalanx of PR people weave a fantasy of these people caring about others.
When monarchists cite the charity work of these ‘royal’ lumps, let’s not forget about the countless millions who offer time, expertise and THEIR money to help others on a sustained basis, all anonymous with no fanfare and no parade of photographers. They don’t need to be paid millions by the state. So why do the Windsors?
What I don’t understand is how anyone can believe Diana’s mental issues makes Charles and Camilla look better? If anything, it made them, and especially him, look even more heartless!
If even a quarter of what Bower is saying about Charles in this book is true, he really comes across appallingly. So infantile, so petulant, so greedy, so self-pityingly entitled and so not fit for king-dom.
I hope the Queen is the last of the reigning Windsors and they all get their marching orders upon her death.
And people sniff at Meghan’s so-called ‘dysfunctional’ family. *shakes head*
I believe that Charles was the one insisting on bringing Diana back like she was still a Royal, because the whole reason the Queen wouldn’t fly the flag over BP at half mast was out of tradition, so it makes more sense that she was sticking with tradition on how Diana’s body would be transported (no royal protocol since she was no longer a Royal) & Charles was the one insisting on it. He also insisted on walking with his sons in the prosessional, even though no one wanted him to because they were afraid how the crowd would react. So even though he was a terrible husband, I’ll give Charles some credit on how he handled her death.
The first reports that reached Balmoral seemed to indicate that Dianna had only been severely injured in a car accident in Paris. Charles’ response was to sigh and say well I guess I will have to fly her back and take care of her, meaning as she convalesced or throughout her invalidity, possibly for life. I thought it said a lot about him and the fact that he truly did not hate Diana. That is one plus he has in my book.
Even Penny Jordyn admits that he walked behind the coffin because he feared the backlash, if he didnt. As soon as Charles Spencer declared he would walk and it was decided the boys would too, Prince Charles had no option. As for facing the grieving crowds, he tested the reception with the crowd outside Buckingham palace before he stepped foot there. He slyly sent out Edward and Andrew to walk among the tributes and shake hands. It is reported that he sat glued to the TV watching their reception. It became obvious that lowering the flag had cooled temperatures and that the masses wanted to see the BRF outside the palace gates. And thats how two children came to be walking among those flower tributes and facing that flood of grief from total strangers just days after their mothers death, with Charles in tow to pluck up some of that goodwill.
I’ll grant that it was a difficult position to be in but the way he has subsequently behaved, waging a war on her memory with his support of certain royal writers and biographers means that I cannot view his actions at her death as anything but Machiavellian.
I know the concept of duty and honor and history was part of the reason that Will and Harry walked in the processional, and I realize that I’m an American and have only a passing acquaintance with what that means in the context of the BRF, but as a mom, it breaks my heart to think about those boys forced to endure that. Harry wasn’t much older than my oldest when Diana died, still very much a little boy, and it seems unimaginably cruel to expect that of children. I am teary sitting here in my office thinking about it.
For all the noise about William wanting his kids to have a “normal” upbringing (which I agree is ridiculous and spoiled in most ways) I hope that he means it in ways like this, ways that really matter. That he will consider the emotions and well-being of his children in situations where past generations just expected them to perform their duty without regard to the consequences.
As someonein 20th century what Royal family made those boys do at their mother’s funeral-is appaling. To anyone with any sense if decency and understanding of children
I give Charles credit for knowing how to pander to public opinion. Making his sons walk behind Diana’s coffin was a smart pr move at the time. But it was a terrible move as a father. And public opinion has shifted toward that by now, too.
By portraying the mother of his sons as crazy, doesn’t say much about Chuck. I almost felt bad for him, never having the chance to be King, but I guess karma does what it choses. Funny that the dude who wanted to come back as his babe’s knickers, or dwell within them is calling someone else crazy. These two were meant for each other. RIP Diana, perhaps in another fifty years.
I don’t believe that Charles would have accused Diana of being mentally ill, at least not in public . Charles was/is a good father in spite of his horrible childhood. He would never do that to his children. That theory was advanced mostly by Penny Junior who claims to be on Charles’s side.I do believe there was a PR campaign to rehabilitate Camilla after Diana’s death. And, people have a right to be happy, and Camilla makes Charles happy.
What I find shameful is the belief that Charles is kept from his grandchildren in favour of the Middletons. Charles can contribute greatly to their upbringing especially since they are royals. And the idea that the royals were in any way responsible for Diana’s death is ludicrous. The press played a part, so did the driver and the lack of a seatbelt.
But this is definitely a dysfunctional family no matter how you look at it.
This seems like a very strange mantra/thought to live by:
I mean, if you make someone else’s life miserable by your own selfishness, you really think you have every right to be happy in your life?
Or (totally unrelated), you kill someone, you still have right to your happines in life?
You embezzle millions of dollars and destroy hundreds of lives, you still have a right to be happy in life, no matter what?
boggles my mind, that attitude.
I bet the Queen has decided to be Queen until her death because she knows that King Charles would be a disaster. She usually knows what is going on in her family – she just keeps quiet about it as long as possible. The thing is that Diana and her legacy increased and still increase the popularity of the Royal Family. Every year there is a concert in Diana’s honour and that increases the popularity of the Royal Family, too. If Diana’s reputation is trashed post mortem then this is bad for the Royal Family, too. Especially as many people will remember the Royal’s less than stellar behaviour towards Diana and therefore many people will see through Charles’ efforts to trash his dead ex-wife in order to elevate his former mistress and now-wife to future queen. Many people will be utterly disgusted with the Royals if this happens.
The Queen must know all of this. She knows that King Charles would be a catastrophe. She has this kind of general smart far-sightedness common sense thing (which Charles lacks). And I guess therefore she keeps Charles in his position as Prince of Wales and heir.
I am wondering though if there are any machinations to exclude Charles from king-ship and to make William the next king. If I were the Queen I would be plotting to have Charles removed and William installed. But how?
Guys, help me speculate.
If the Queen thinks Charles is unsuitable, then she must have no doubts whatsoever that William would be even worse, as would Harry. Meanwhile, she’s shored up Harry in a faux job that didn’t exist and is possible just smoke and mirrors anyway (the Commonwealth youth leader or whatever it is), and misappropriated funds meant for building repairs to her own family. Charles has also tried to transfer the publicly-owned Duchies to the Windsors. In other words, they are feathering their nests while they can.
I agree that the monarchy’s alleged popularity lies with Elizabeth’s longevity and perceived service. Everyone loves a granny. But I’d wager that most Britons are pretty neutral to the royals because they are just… there. Few think to question why this largely unintelligent family with few achievements between them exists in unelected leadership roles.
To answer your initial question, Parliament would need to remove Charles; LAK could speak to this better than I. But if the aim is to replace a lacklustre Head of State, why not go the whole hog, and find someone in the UK intelligent, committed to the public good and with a record of professional achievement? Surely that’s a superior option than trying to pander to the lazy, pampered and useless Windsor man-boys to get them working?
People will never forget Charles treatment of Diana, and for younger people he has, as in the past, no appeal, nobody can relate to him. The public would rather have William and Kate any day. Charles will be almost eighty if he makes it to King. The man must be livid that his mom lived this long.
So Diana “compelled Charles to return to his true love.” Uh huh.
Yeah, that line says all you need to know about the angle here. Putting aside that you can’t compel someone else’s bad behavior, hasn’t it long been established that Charles and Camilla didn’t have any kind of fairy tale romance? They just got thrown back together enough times out of circumstance that here they are.
When I look at them, all I see are Diana’s murderers.
RIGHT…… i remember my mother being like… well they killed her.
How?
threw… fixing a situation…what type of question is that lol jeeez lol
The Diana Chronicles is a brilliantly written book. I couldn’t put it down. I’ll probably read it another 2 or 3 times. It’s a fascinating look into the world of the uber-posh, in addition to being a balanced, well-rounded profile of Diana.
Agreed, Betty rose. I’ve read it probably 4 times. It feels fresh and new each time I read it.
Ugh. So much of this believable until you get to the plane thing. It has always been presented that Charles spearheaded bringing her body back. Even people that don’t like him admit that. But I totally buy the smear campaign pre-death and still being devastated by her death. Just because you say you hate someone doesn’t mean you actually hate them.
I’m sure that Diana had problems, but some of them were caused by marriage to a husband she knew was cheating on her and who would not quit. But I will never believe she was hysterical crazy because of the kind of mother she was. She loved her sons deeply and truly and that was clear. It’s too sad that they were robbed of her presence as little boys.
She engaged in so many charities and it always seemed to me that she “felt” what she was doing. AIDS, land mines, etc. It didn’t seem like it was for show or a photo op.
And even though he was deprived of her at a younger age I’ve always felt that Harry was more like her in regard to “real people” and charitable work.
Well they done a great job at it, people dismiss his behavior and say her mental instability drove him to cheat.
I always say he showed more compassion and respect for her that week after she died than he ever did when she was alive. Then again it was a brilliant PR move for him
I don’t think he’s ever done anything that didn’t first and foremost have his own self-involved, self-serving interests at heart.
This. His kind will always do this. Even her brother, the Earl Spencer, ignored her pleas for help and escape and left her to the wolves. Then he feigns love for her and is blaming everyone else for her death.
There’s a wee documentary about Althorp on Netflix in Canada. Diana comes from a long life of prominence and there are other tragic women amongst her ancestors. It’s remarkable viewing. The Spencer women were always progressive and standouts in society. Her brother is a petulant man child profiting now off Diana’s death and I dislike him but the docu is so interesting. All I kept thinking was if she’d been allowed to go home, she’d be alive today I bet. Her brother is not much better than Charles.
Exactly!
And I would like to add where that attitude comes from: The aristocracy was used to selling their daughters and sons into marriage for the benefit of the family. And marriages like Diana’s were the result of such cruel dealings.
Please remember that when there is a danger of glorifying the aristocracy.
This article makes Charles & Camilla look like ghouls in the way they plotted against Diana, trying to make her look mad or unstable, even after her death. Both seem to exhibit strong narcissistic traits. It explains Charles’s inability to sympathize for others, such as the way he casually fires/ghosts his staff, even after years & years of loyal service. If the article is true–poor Diana & her sons. Dealing with narcissistic people is no picnic.
It is true. I also remember Charles trying to put this in play by releasing to the press the private details about William and Harry meeting Camilla and how it went. If memory serves, William reportedly found that a breach of trust from his own father and it may be why William keeps Charles off side now.
Charles never did that again, leaking his sons private comments in family settings to the press. But once was enough. I don’t blame William. Charles and Camilla are cruel.
What’s the purpose of this book? Just to dredge up all of this stuff? Some of it untrue?
To make money.
The irony is is that it was in part the way he and his family treated her that was at least in part, the cause of her neuroses. And despite their awful treatment, she rose above it, and while they did not love her, the people did. And not just the English. She was internationally loved. That and the work that she did, especially with taboo issues, like AIDs and mines, is why she is an icon. She will never be forgotten, and rightly so. And to tell you the truth, I don’t even consider myself a fan of hers, but I sure like her better than most of that family.
She did rIse above it spectacularly too. And showed them up. The Queen acknowledged as much I felt by her head bow as Diana’s casket went by the day of her funeral procession.
Diana responded as anyone would who’d been manipulated, gas lighted, used, abused, and ignored. She showed them all she’s made of better stuff than they ever were. Phillip reportedly liked her and understood.
I’m as upset reading this as I was when she died! Arghhhh, it’s all the MeToo and TimesUp and recognizing Diana went through all of this horror in public view and today Charles is still not held accountable, and worse, Camilla aided him in all ways. The whole thing is tragic and horrible.
Diana was 20 years old when she married, Charles was 33.
Unlike Diana, he had had multiple affairs and should have had the maturity to pick a spouse he could commit to. Instead, from the outset, he treated her as young flesh to play with for a while and then a breeding cow, with no intention of ever giving up his mother-mistress.
The guy had one job! Present a decent and strong family image as the heir to the throne and purported head of the Church of England. Instead, this mealy-mouthed self-indulgent dolt prevaricated about loving Diana in front of cameras (embarrassing her right from the start), while he went on to boldly lie to the freakin’ Archbishop of Canterbury about forsaking all others.
He actually had Camilla groom Diana and organize when he was going to cheat on her. He wore cufflinks from Camilla on his honeymoon with Di!
He should have been thrilled that she was so popular and naturally so media savvy; he could have ridden her photogenic coattails to massive popularity. Instead, he marinated in his jealousy for the media/public attention she was getting that he had claimed he never sought or wanted.
I’m sorry, this is super vintage gossip, but Charles the petty, useless twit never ceases to enrage me. As much flack as Will and Kate get around here, they have ten times the decency of this puddle of a man. I think the Queen agrees with me and is doing her darndest to outlive him.
I agree
VERY well said, Ally!
This–SO MUCH. Charles is very dislikeable. Diana, for all her many faults, outshone him as a person in every way. I won’t ever forget her comforting victims of Aids, when many others refused to get involved or touch a person with Aids. That’s what people reacted to with her, and why the cult of Diana won’t die. Suck it forever, Charles.
You hit the nail totally on the head.
Right there with you, I remember all this too. He’s trash. So is Camilla. Men like him always have a horrible woman helping too. It’s cruel and terrible.
Yep, exactly
Charles was older and wiser and more experienced and should have known better. He had advisors and friends and was worldly.
Diana was young and inexperienced and still teenage-stupid and she had no good advisors and hardly any help. Just imagine how many people from her family must have pressured her to marry the prince. And they did that because they wanted to elevate their own social status and they had no thoughts about wether this girl would be happy with the prince or not.
I’m the same age as Prince Charles, and there has been press about him, even in
America all his life. I remember watching their engagement announcement on the news, and it seemed really clear that he didn’t love her. I had hoped the best for them, but the horrors of that marriage played out in the press on both sides of the pond. Charles got most of the grief, but there is documentation that he was an engaged father from the start. She got the publicity, though, and masterfully manipulated the press. There are videos that show her coming to an event, posing for pictures, then ducking out the back before the event began. I had little respect for her during her life and even less after I read Tina Brown’s book.
He ignored Harry’s birth and didn’t go see her at the hospital for it. He was hardly an engaged father.
This is completely not true. He was in the hospital for the birth and Diana went as far as lying about his reaction to Harry’s red hair when the baby popped out.
I believe the title of this story with all my heart (could not read the article). Charles is a weasel who does not deserve kingship. Camilla is a viper. Whatever whitewashing had been done (and plenty has been), it will never change the rotten hearts of these two key players in Diana’s tragedy.
It’s amazing how strongly Diana’s lies still enthrall the public some 20yrs after her death.
Camilla will always be “the other woman” in people’s eyes. And everyone hates the other woman, even though there was a man involved.
Great. More Diana Cult fuel.
Right?!
I followed Diana closely during her public life and have read thousands of articles, and dozens of books on her and on the British royal family-I think Diana was a very complicated woman wounded very deeply as a small child by her family dysfunction. Charles was sensitive and his father was an old school bully and his mother let him rule their private lives. Charles and Diana were catered to as children and given everything their heart desired but stability. Fast forward to them as young adults being followed endlessly by aggressive British media as they tried to date and lead their lives. Eventually they married and the woman who only said yes to marriage overshadows the prince,the future king, the great white hope and jealousy arises. Eventually they devolve into two rival pop star camps-Diana the saint, Supermom and princess, Charles trying to save the world as an organic farmer, railing against modern architecture and his core charities the Prince’s Trust. He is a good father but refuses to play the role in front of the media. When and how their various extramarital dalliances began whose to say? All I can say is these were two very complicated people living in a bizarre fish bowl. If only they just could have ignored what the papers said about them and just got on with life-maybe more kindness and understanding they could have lasted? Idk I don’t hate Camilla I think she is good for Charles at this stage in life. A lot of people think the focus on mental health for William and Catherine and Harry is a tip about Diana but could it be both parents?
Why does no one every talk about her drinking? Maybe that’s why she is so “lazy” during the day. I suspect drinking played a role in her brother’s death and upper class British seem to do what we in the U.S. would consider heavy drinking alot.
So Charles is throwing his dead ex-wife and mother of his children under the bus to elevate Camilla in order to make her seem fit for a queen? How does he intend to look into his sons’ eyes after that stunt? Does he think that such a campaign wouldn’t affect his relationship with his sons and his grandchildren? What does it look like when his sons are suddenly the children of “that mad woman”?
That is disgusting.
I am quite sure that Diana’s memory as “Princess of the hearts” and her legacy will protect her somewhat and a lot of people will see through Charles’ intentions. It is surprising how Diana’s charity work and social status does still shine out post mortem and it does somewhat protect her sons against being painted as the children of “that mad woman”.
Mothers try to protect their children from beyond the grave.
Generally and mostly mother-child relationships seems to be one of the least breakable and most relieable relationships that there are.
Firstly, I am so glad to read sane comments on here that acknowledge that it’s been 20 years and people need to get the f**k over it.
Diana was no angel; she went on to be the other women in other people’s marriages, so can all stop with the “poor Diana” tripe and about “karma”.
The worst of it is, a lot of the Diana die-hards will eat his up, hook line and sinker, and start baying for blood.
They ALL were flawed humans, who just happened to be on a global setting.
Get. Over. It.
“Demystify” is a much, much better word than “demythologize”, which sounds like a useless neologism and just makes my eyes and ears bleed. They mean the same thing, except that “demystify” is a little bit harder to understand as the etymology is less patent.