The problem with the Charles/Diana/Camilla situation is that it was over 25 years ago.
With the benefit of hindsight, which is always a wonderful thing, Charles and Diana were clearly ill suited. The age difference,the complete lack of common interests (remember the visit to Live Aid), Diana's mental health issues and the comment "Whatever in love means" at the engagement interview. (Which let's face it, should have set off ruddy great klaxons).
Yes, he should have married Camilla at the start.
Yes, the implication that his bride should be a virgin was antiquated to say the least.
Yes, the way they both went to the press,Diana to Martin Bashir and Charles to David Dimbleby, should not have happened. Washing dirty linen in public is never a good idea.
The problem is that the Royal Family are human. The days of total deference are long gone. The Queen was the last of that old style of monarch, and by the time William becomes King (if he does), l would expect it to evolve into some kind of Dutch model. There's no way in the 21st century that most people believe in the "Divine right of Kings". If you believe that Charles should not become King because he committed adultery over 25 years ago then that is your perogative and l would defend your right to say it.
If you believe that Charles should not become King because he committed adultery over 25 years ago then that is your perogative and l would defend your right to say it.
I don't care if Betty's faourite Corgi becomes King. I merely pointed it out.
Many folk married the wrong person the first time around, for various reasons. Many such folk have committed adultery when their marriage has become unsustainable and unbearable. It does not make them bad people.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Many folk married the wrong person the first time around, for various reasons. Many such folk have committed adultery when their marriage has become unsustainable and unbearable. It does not make them bad people.
Indeed so. Diana was treated as no more than a brood mare . She was treated appallingly by the whole family.
If the marriage (partnership) has broken down, then leave the marriage. The partner deserves to be aware that the relationship has finished and there is no hope of keeping it alive. I do not think it's right to start another relationship while in a partnership that is failing and then decide what you want to do. That is just using the partner isn't it?
If the marriage (partnership) has broken down, then leave the marriage. The partner deserves to be aware that the relationship has finished and there is no hope of keeping it alive. I do not think it's right to start another relationship while in a partnership that is failing and then decide what you want to do. That is just using the partner isn't it?
Camilla was at the wedding or Charles and Diana, The marriage was a sham. Does anyone believe he actually " gave it a go " ? My belief is that she just had to pop out an heir and he was seeing camilla from the very outset
Posts
With the benefit of hindsight, which is always a wonderful thing, Charles and Diana were clearly ill suited.
The age difference,the complete lack of common interests (remember the visit to Live Aid), Diana's mental health issues and the comment "Whatever in love means" at the engagement interview. (Which let's face it, should have set off ruddy great klaxons).
Yes, he should have married Camilla at the start.
Yes, the implication that his bride should be a virgin was antiquated to say the least.
Yes, the way they both went to the press,Diana to Martin Bashir and Charles to David Dimbleby, should not have happened. Washing dirty linen in public is never a good idea.
The problem is that the Royal Family are human. The days of total deference are long gone.
The Queen was the last of that old style of monarch, and by the time William becomes King (if he does), l would expect it to evolve into some kind of Dutch model. There's no way in the 21st century that most people believe in the "Divine right of Kings".
If you believe that Charles should not become King because he committed adultery over 25 years ago then that is your perogative and l would defend your right to say it.
I thought it was someone else who had a post deleted, but l probably got confused. Wouldn't be the first time,
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Diana was treated as no more than a brood mare .
She was treated appallingly by the whole family.
Does anyone believe he actually " gave it a go " ?
My belief is that she just had to pop out an heir and he was seeing camilla from the very outset