It's an understandable viewpoint - for hundreds of years, this is exactly how royal marriages were made; they were political or diplomatic alliances. It's hard to swallow any of the 'fairy tale' stuff in the wake of Charles and Di, in which the public were well and truly hoodwinked by a completely falsified 'romance' designed especially to fool people. In short, they have 'previous'.
I didnt really know much about when charles and di first met. Wasnt born. but i have read up on him and camilla how she wasnt suitable. Also wills and kate. I think they are great together and are in love. But she seems too perfect lol cant explain it.
I didnt really know much about when charles and di first met. Wasnt born. but i have read up on him and camilla how she wasnt suitable. Also wills and kate. I think they are great together and are in love. But she seems too perfect lol cant explain it.
They were touted as love's young dream back in the early 80s. It was only when the marriage crumbled that the truth came out: the public had been fleeced all along - the whole thing was a set-up with Diana hand-picked to be 'the love of his life' for PR purposes. Although I'm no fan of Diana (or Charles), she was most certainly used without shame by the Windsors in those early years. It was as though they hadn't yet stepped out of the Edwardian idea of 'marry for show and an heir, amuse yourself with whoever you wish in private'.
Wow what a woman Alice was - changed many people's lives and was so selfless. Terrific character and I am so glad that Philp fixed it for her to be laid to rest on the M. of O.
Yes, and that they took her in so she was comfortable at the end of her life.
in the biog I read it was noted that philip had asked her to live in the palace but she declined, she did agree when Elizabeth asked her. it said something on the lines of Lilibet had asked her to live there so she couldnt refuse or something like that.
Yes, and that they took her in so she was comfortable at the end of her life.
Indeed - I'm glad she was not affected by wealth, though. She seems a truly charitable woman - giving away her own money to the needy rather than simply patronising charities and importuning others to give: and all without fanfare. Rather than Alice being one of the monarchy's 'secrets', they should be holding her up as an example.
They were touted as love's young dream back in the early 80s. It was only when the marriage crumbled that the truth came out: the public had been fleeced all along - the whole thing was a set-up with Diana hand-picked to be 'the love of his life' for PR purposes. Although I'm no fan of Diana (or Charles), she was most certainly used without shame by the Windsors in those early years. It was as though they hadn't yet stepped out of the Edwardian idea of 'marry for show and an heir, amuse yourself with whoever you wish in private'.
So were they going around all lovey dovey the way wills and kate are right now? Does what happened with charles and di make people skeptical?
Indeed - I'm glad she was not affected by wealth, though. She seems a truly charitable woman - giving away her own money to the needy rather than simply patronising charities and importuning others to give: and all without fanfare. Rather than Alice being one of the monarchy's 'secrets', they should be holding her up as an example.
Totally agree. Royal family need to really think about what they should hide and be ashamed of and what they should be proud off. Alicd sounds like a great woman and i feel for philip
So were they going around all lovey dovey the way wills and kate are right now? Does what happened with charles and di make people skeptical?
Indeed - I daresay you can look up some of their interviews or even pictures; it's amazing how much they acted up the 'romance' in order to take the whole world in. Then, in the end, it was revealed that Charles was keeping his 'friend' Andrew Parker Bowles' wife as a mistress throughout the courtship. He has even been reported as telling Diana that he had 'no intention of being the first Prince of Wales without a mistress'. And this is how we choose then next Head of the Church of England. I have no idea if it makes people skeptical of William and Kate, but I certainly find any of the Windsors' 'perfect romance' photo opportunities hard to stomach after they blatantly pulled one over on us all thirty years ago.
Totally agree. Royal family need to really think about what they should hide and be ashamed of and what they should be proud off. Alicd sounds like a great woman and i feel for philip
I've said this in another thread - for an institution which apparently wishes to 'modernise' and move with the times, it's astonishing how out-of-synch a lot of their actions and attitudes seem to be with the modern, progressive UK of today in practise. The Queen's 'hidden cousins' are a case in point - why does the Palace continue to decline to comment when (assuming she is still alive) the disgracefully treated Katherine could attend royal events with a carer? Rather than adhering to the seventy year-old nonsense that learning difficulties must be brushed under the carpet, shouldn't the monarchy at least acknowledge the poor woman?
Indeed - I daresay you can look up some of their interviews or even pictures; it's amazing how much they acted up the 'romance' in order to take the whole world in. Then, in the end, it was revealed that Charles was keeping his 'friend' Andrew Parker Bowles' wife as a mistress throughout the courtship. He has even been reported as telling Diana that he had 'no intention of being the first Prince of Wales without a mistress'. And this is how we choose then next Head of the Church of England. I have no idea if it makes people skeptical of William and Kate, but I certainly find any of the Windsors' 'perfect romance' photo opportunities hard to stomach after they blatantly pulled one over on us all thirty years ago.
I doubt Andrew PB gave a fig about what his wife was up to. If rumours are to be believed he was doing the same thing himself, with Princess Anne.
That was very interesting. I am no fan of the royals to be honest but I think I would have liked Alice. I can't imagine being separated from all your children and being locked up against your will for 2.5 years.
I think it just highlights what a dysfunctional lot the royals are.
Affairs, mental illness, learning disabled family members hidden away (there was also Prince John who was hidden away at Sandringham in addition to the 2 girls already mentioned above), bulimia, children with no family stability etc etc. Wow!
Comments
I didnt really know much about when charles and di first met. Wasnt born. but i have read up on him and camilla how she wasnt suitable. Also wills and kate. I think they are great together and are in love. But she seems too perfect lol cant explain it.
Haha. Aww that was sweet of philip to carry out her last wish.
They were touted as love's young dream back in the early 80s. It was only when the marriage crumbled that the truth came out: the public had been fleeced all along - the whole thing was a set-up with Diana hand-picked to be 'the love of his life' for PR purposes. Although I'm no fan of Diana (or Charles), she was most certainly used without shame by the Windsors in those early years. It was as though they hadn't yet stepped out of the Edwardian idea of 'marry for show and an heir, amuse yourself with whoever you wish in private'.
Yes, and that they took her in so she was comfortable at the end of her life.
he gambled and had affairs, went off to the south of france,
in the biog I read it was noted that philip had asked her to live in the palace but she declined, she did agree when Elizabeth asked her. it said something on the lines of Lilibet had asked her to live there so she couldnt refuse or something like that.
Indeed - I'm glad she was not affected by wealth, though. She seems a truly charitable woman - giving away her own money to the needy rather than simply patronising charities and importuning others to give: and all without fanfare. Rather than Alice being one of the monarchy's 'secrets', they should be holding her up as an example.
So were they going around all lovey dovey the way wills and kate are right now? Does what happened with charles and di make people skeptical?
So that's where Philip (allegedly) gets it...
Totally agree. Royal family need to really think about what they should hide and be ashamed of and what they should be proud off. Alicd sounds like a great woman and i feel for philip
Indeed - I daresay you can look up some of their interviews or even pictures; it's amazing how much they acted up the 'romance' in order to take the whole world in. Then, in the end, it was revealed that Charles was keeping his 'friend' Andrew Parker Bowles' wife as a mistress throughout the courtship. He has even been reported as telling Diana that he had 'no intention of being the first Prince of Wales without a mistress'. And this is how we choose then next Head of the Church of England. I have no idea if it makes people skeptical of William and Kate, but I certainly find any of the Windsors' 'perfect romance' photo opportunities hard to stomach after they blatantly pulled one over on us all thirty years ago.
Perhaps the nearest modern comparison is the Duchess of Kent?
I've said this in another thread - for an institution which apparently wishes to 'modernise' and move with the times, it's astonishing how out-of-synch a lot of their actions and attitudes seem to be with the modern, progressive UK of today in practise. The Queen's 'hidden cousins' are a case in point - why does the Palace continue to decline to comment when (assuming she is still alive) the disgracefully treated Katherine could attend royal events with a carer? Rather than adhering to the seventy year-old nonsense that learning difficulties must be brushed under the carpet, shouldn't the monarchy at least acknowledge the poor woman?
I doubt Andrew PB gave a fig about what his wife was up to. If rumours are to be believed he was doing the same thing himself, with Princess Anne.
I think it just highlights what a dysfunctional lot the royals are.
Affairs, mental illness, learning disabled family members hidden away (there was also Prince John who was hidden away at Sandringham in addition to the 2 girls already mentioned above), bulimia, children with no family stability etc etc. Wow!