Correct about choosing the wrong guy . How was such a young girl to know that he was having an affair with a married woman ( you know who ) and he would be "seeing" her in the days before their fancy wedding and wouid continue after and throughout the sham of a marriage .
Such a pity the family history was such a secret, that she couldn't have discovered that most of them had been the same.
She wasn't aristocracy or considered suitable because of her known sexual exploits. Virgins only need apply.. Diana has changed that, thank goodness.
There was actually nothing to stop him marrying her if he really wished.
Diana changed NOTHING. Plenty of non virgins married kings. There was no law stating that the king had to marry and aristocrat OR a virgin. He was simply a coward who couldn't stand up to his father.
And no, I'm not obsessed with Charles - the whole lot of them could self combust as far as I care. I do think the Windsors are - on the whole - a far less loathesome family than the Spencers though.
Who can blame her? Few women can tolerate a cheating partner. Was she supposed to live a celibate and unloved existence while he put it about and ignored her? The marriage was all but over before Harry the spare was born. It only dragged on to save the Queen's blushes.
At least he stuck to one woman.
She spread it around to riding instructors, art dealers, rugby captains, heart surgeons, playboys, rock stars and whatever James Gilby did.
There was actually nothing to stop him marrying her if he really wished.
Diana changed NOTHING. Plenty of non virgins married kings. There was no law stating that the king had to marry and aristocrat OR a virgin. He was simply a coward who couldn't stand up to his father.
And no, I'm not obsessed with Charles - the whole lot of them could self combust as far as I care. I do think the Windsors are - on the whole - a far less loathesome family than the Spencers though.
Diana changed everything in this respect. Plenty of non virgins? I don't think so. An examination was essential to establish that any future wife of the monarch was not already pregnant and a virgin. As for law, no of course it wasn't law. Tradition and blue blood mattered. Camilla was known as a bit of a floozy.
She spread it around to riding instructors, art dealers, rugby captains, heart surgeons, playboys, rock stars and whatever James Gilby did.
It makes no difference to me how many lovers she had. Nor do we know how many he actually had. Speculation and rumour with a few facts thrown in and as I said I don't care. He wasn't committed to the marriage from the start. It was getting late in the day, an heir was needed and she was considered suitable. She was too far young,naive, infatuated, and frankly, stupid, to ever agree. Both of them, too needy and from dysfunctional backgrounds.
An examination was essential to establish that any future wife of the monarch was not already pregnant and a virgin..
Christ. I can't believe you actually think this is true! I believe it was tabloid rubbish (completely untrue) that Diana was forced to undergo a gynaecological examination proving she was a virgin. Actually the old traditional female pre wedding exam has more to do with fertility. As I'm sure you are aware, it is impossible to say for sure a woman is not a virgin as the hymen often tears in adolescence. (Or perhaps you aren't aware of that...)
There is no law whatsoever which states that a woman who is marrying a future monarch is required to be a virgin. None.
It was the tabloids who were obsessed with Diana's virginity.
Christ. I can't believe you actually think this is true! I believe it was tabloid rubbish (completely untrue) that Diana was forced to undergo a gynaecological examination proving she was a virgin. Actually the old traditional female pre wedding exam has more to do with fertility. As I'm sure you are aware, it is impossible to say for sure a woman is not a virgin as the hymen often tears in adolescence. (Or perhaps you aren't aware of that...)
There is no law whatsoever which states that a woman who is marrying a future monarch is required to be a virgin. None.
It was the tabloids who were obsessed with Diana's virginity.
Do you have to be so rude? I was not referring to Diana alone. No not tabloid rubbish, a historical fact, a royal tradition. Purity, which of course included checking they were not already pregnant to someone else and fertility. Why you think there has to be any law about any of this, I don't understand.
No not tabloid rubbish, a historical fact. Purity, which of course included checking they were not already pregnant to someone else and fertility. Do you have to be so damned rude!
Possibly the poster does not recall the time when virginity was prized and demanded.
I think it speaks more, not less of Charles that he found Camilla - an intelligent, discreet, interesting woman - far more to his liking than the shallow, vacuous, tabloid **** that he married.
So you're heaping praise on a scheming , cheating husband and father and at the same time praise a shameless , sleezy married woman who was happy to keep on with the illicit affair behind the poor young girl's back before and after the couple wed !?
There was actually nothing to stop him marrying her if he really wished.
Diana changed NOTHING. Plenty of non virgins married kings. There was no law stating that the king had to marry and aristocrat OR a virgin. He was simply a coward who couldn't stand up to his father.
And no, I'm not obsessed with Charles - the whole lot of them could self combust as far as I care. I do think the Windsors are - on the whole - a far less loathesome family than the Spencers though.
As loathsome as they come. Spencers were so close to Royalty. Diana grandmother was lady in waiting to Queen Mother. The Spencer family knew without question about Charles relationship history. There was a battle between Queen Mother and Lord Louis Mountbatten as to who would be the Princess of Wales. Lord Louis wanted his granddaughter and spent 1970's telling Charles not to commit and to sow his wild oats. Why? So is granddaughter was old enough to marry. He died in 1979. Queen Mother was playing the Spencer card. They tried to marry him off to Sarah but she said no. Enter Diana willing and ready. If Diana married him seriously not knowing about Camilla she has her family to blame as they knew. Diana faked who she was to attract him. If you go back to the engagement interview. As well as the famous in love question Diana was asked what they had in common. She said a love of the outdoors / countryside. What a total lie. It is obvious that the interviewer knew the score asking simple questions - about being in love and what they had in common. Simple answer - no we have only met 6 times / no common interests.
An arranged marriage. Known on both sides. The joining together of an aristocratic family and royality. All this twaddle from Diana about being so in love. How the hell was she in love with Charles the person when she hardly knew him.
She spread it around to riding instructors, art dealers, rugby captains, heart surgeons, playboys, rock stars and whatever James Gilby did.
You forget the police protection officer. The first and before Charles went back to Camilla on an intimate basis. Diana fanatics are going to be in for a shock when the official papers for this time as released I suspect. They may be sat in their nursing home as it will be a number of years before they come out and certainly after Charles death.
^^This
Hardly the greatest mother ever also, slagging their dad on tv
Prince William headmaster (or some other title) at Eton has said that William was distraught about Panorama interview. He had to demand that Diana come down to Eton and talk to him as she hadn't even thought about doing so. All this rubbish about how great a mother she was. She was a narcissist and it was about her and her feelings most of the time.
A chunk of this thread seems to have been lopped off between the hours of 01:50 and 05:59. I posted between those hours but didn't see much different to what is being discussed elsewhere in it. Hmmm.
I posted something about Diana being flawed due to her background, marrying too young into a very dodgy setup but becoming empowered- for good and ill- when she realised how much the public liked her (for the most part, at that time!). Some people thought she'd been murdered. I'm not sure about that but I did say that I had a feeling for a few years before she died that she wouldn't make old age. Didn't know why. Also wrote that like her or not, she did have something that left its mark on the population.
The reaction to her death was a bit crazy but she was too young to die and the means was sudden, unexpected. I do think she'll be remembered by many people who were around during her existence because she was so controversial and her relationship with Charles did shake up the status quo quite markedly.
So you're heaping praise on a scheming , cheating husband and father and at the same time praise a shameless , sleezy married woman who was happy to keep on with the illicit affair behind the poor young girl's back before and after the couple wed !?
You can see why this country is such a mess rbh.
I'm heaping praise on none of them.
If ever there were two people who deserved each other it was these two.
What I am saying is that Diana showed a really nasty side to her (vindictive and sinister) in some of her actions. Like how she treated the nanny (legge-borke?). Her relationship with the gutter press was just an example of how tacky she was. And that even breeding can't buy class.
Jane Seymour was technically a commoner (though distantly related to royalty).
Also Anne Boleyn.
Camilla Shand was a commoner (again, technically).
As were Anthony Armstrong Jones (Princess Margaret's husband), Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother - she was titled, but technically a commoner), Angus Ogilvy (Princess Alexandra's husband) and Captain Mark Philips (Princess Anne's first husband).
So you're heaping praise on a scheming , cheating husband and father and at the same time praise a shameless , sleezy married woman who was happy to keep on with the illicit affair behind the poor young girl's back before and after the couple wed !?
You can see why this country is such a mess rbh.
A 'poor young girl' who had numerous affairs, yet she never seems to be criticised for that.
Looking at the OP's posting history, they also decided this evening to resurrect another thread from 5 years ago.
Draw your own conclusions.
So what if he did? What's that got to do with anything? The conclusions I draw from thread diggers who go delving into people's posting history is that they have way too much time on their hands to worry about what other people have said and the only purpose it serves is to publicly humiliate the OP.
If you go sifting through someone's posting history so you can look for mud to sling at them, I think that says more about you than it does the other person tbh.
Comments
Such a pity the family history was such a secret, that she couldn't have discovered that most of them had been the same.
There was actually nothing to stop him marrying her if he really wished.
Diana changed NOTHING. Plenty of non virgins married kings. There was no law stating that the king had to marry and aristocrat OR a virgin. He was simply a coward who couldn't stand up to his father.
And no, I'm not obsessed with Charles - the whole lot of them could self combust as far as I care. I do think the Windsors are - on the whole - a far less loathesome family than the Spencers though.
At least he stuck to one woman.
She spread it around to riding instructors, art dealers, rugby captains, heart surgeons, playboys, rock stars and whatever James Gilby did.
Diana changed everything in this respect. Plenty of non virgins? I don't think so. An examination was essential to establish that any future wife of the monarch was not already pregnant and a virgin. As for law, no of course it wasn't law. Tradition and blue blood mattered. Camilla was known as a bit of a floozy.
I also don't particularly care about any of them.
It makes no difference to me how many lovers she had. Nor do we know how many he actually had. Speculation and rumour with a few facts thrown in and as I said I don't care. He wasn't committed to the marriage from the start. It was getting late in the day, an heir was needed and she was considered suitable. She was too far young,naive, infatuated, and frankly, stupid, to ever agree. Both of them, too needy and from dysfunctional backgrounds.
Christ. I can't believe you actually think this is true! I believe it was tabloid rubbish (completely untrue) that Diana was forced to undergo a gynaecological examination proving she was a virgin. Actually the old traditional female pre wedding exam has more to do with fertility. As I'm sure you are aware, it is impossible to say for sure a woman is not a virgin as the hymen often tears in adolescence. (Or perhaps you aren't aware of that...)
There is no law whatsoever which states that a woman who is marrying a future monarch is required to be a virgin. None.
It was the tabloids who were obsessed with Diana's virginity.
Do you have to be so rude? I was not referring to Diana alone. No not tabloid rubbish, a historical fact, a royal tradition. Purity, which of course included checking they were not already pregnant to someone else and fertility. Why you think there has to be any law about any of this, I don't understand.
Possibly the poster does not recall the time when virginity was prized and demanded.
They've been in a coma for a few years? :-D
So you're heaping praise on a scheming , cheating husband and father and at the same time praise a shameless , sleezy married woman who was happy to keep on with the illicit affair behind the poor young girl's back before and after the couple wed !?
You can see why this country is such a mess rbh.
As loathsome as they come. Spencers were so close to Royalty. Diana grandmother was lady in waiting to Queen Mother. The Spencer family knew without question about Charles relationship history. There was a battle between Queen Mother and Lord Louis Mountbatten as to who would be the Princess of Wales. Lord Louis wanted his granddaughter and spent 1970's telling Charles not to commit and to sow his wild oats. Why? So is granddaughter was old enough to marry. He died in 1979. Queen Mother was playing the Spencer card. They tried to marry him off to Sarah but she said no. Enter Diana willing and ready. If Diana married him seriously not knowing about Camilla she has her family to blame as they knew. Diana faked who she was to attract him. If you go back to the engagement interview. As well as the famous in love question Diana was asked what they had in common. She said a love of the outdoors / countryside. What a total lie. It is obvious that the interviewer knew the score asking simple questions - about being in love and what they had in common. Simple answer - no we have only met 6 times / no common interests.
An arranged marriage. Known on both sides. The joining together of an aristocratic family and royality. All this twaddle from Diana about being so in love. How the hell was she in love with Charles the person when she hardly knew him.
^^This
Hardly the greatest mother ever also, slagging their dad on tv
You forget the police protection officer. The first and before Charles went back to Camilla on an intimate basis. Diana fanatics are going to be in for a shock when the official papers for this time as released I suspect. They may be sat in their nursing home as it will be a number of years before they come out and certainly after Charles death.
Has he got a girlfriend?
His getting on now.
Prince William headmaster (or some other title) at Eton has said that William was distraught about Panorama interview. He had to demand that Diana come down to Eton and talk to him as she hadn't even thought about doing so. All this rubbish about how great a mother she was. She was a narcissist and it was about her and her feelings most of the time.
How do you know he stuck to one woman? Or to one person?
I posted something about Diana being flawed due to her background, marrying too young into a very dodgy setup but becoming empowered- for good and ill- when she realised how much the public liked her (for the most part, at that time!). Some people thought she'd been murdered. I'm not sure about that but I did say that I had a feeling for a few years before she died that she wouldn't make old age. Didn't know why. Also wrote that like her or not, she did have something that left its mark on the population.
The reaction to her death was a bit crazy but she was too young to die and the means was sudden, unexpected. I do think she'll be remembered by many people who were around during her existence because she was so controversial and her relationship with Charles did shake up the status quo quite markedly.
I'm heaping praise on none of them.
If ever there were two people who deserved each other it was these two.
What I am saying is that Diana showed a really nasty side to her (vindictive and sinister) in some of her actions. Like how she treated the nanny (legge-borke?). Her relationship with the gutter press was just an example of how tacky she was. And that even breeding can't buy class.
As were Anthony Armstrong Jones (Princess Margaret's husband), Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother - she was titled, but technically a commoner), Angus Ogilvy (Princess Alexandra's husband) and Captain Mark Philips (Princess Anne's first husband).
A 'poor young girl' who had numerous affairs, yet she never seems to be criticised for that.
So what if he did? What's that got to do with anything? The conclusions I draw from thread diggers who go delving into people's posting history is that they have way too much time on their hands to worry about what other people have said and the only purpose it serves is to publicly humiliate the OP.
If you go sifting through someone's posting history so you can look for mud to sling at them, I think that says more about you than it does the other person tbh.