Staying Safe In Manchester.....
ChatterBank0 min ago
Diana Or Charles?
106 Answers
I've never had a lot of time for either, but I was never been truly enamoured by Diana, he's getting an awful lot of stick at the moment because of 'The Crown' & I'm notorious for defending hopeless cases but for once I seem to be on his side.
https:/
https:/
Answers
I did understand the problems she faced, but, like Meghan, she didn't fit the role - unlike Meghan, Diana did try quite hard for a while, but she didn't click with what Charles needed, and she did OK with the formal bits. I thought everyone knew that she was said to have had had several affairs before Charles reverted to Camilla. The tragedy is that Charles and...
22:46 Fri 04th Dec 2020
bednobs, //it's a drama not a documentary//
Yes I know, but it is creating terrible existential suffering for the living. How would you like to have someone who doesn't even know you personally, to write a fictional account for wide public entertainment (& huge financial profit) about your life & it's relationships? Charles & Camilla are getting the most disgusting on-line attacks for this 'fiction'.
I'm asking in the OP, do you side with either of them?
Yes I know, but it is creating terrible existential suffering for the living. How would you like to have someone who doesn't even know you personally, to write a fictional account for wide public entertainment (& huge financial profit) about your life & it's relationships? Charles & Camilla are getting the most disgusting on-line attacks for this 'fiction'.
I'm asking in the OP, do you side with either of them?
I don't side with either of them, because I don't know either of them or what really happened and I have no interest in taking one side or another.
I think both of them have been stitched up in various ways, probably Diana more so than Charles.
I am looking forward to seeing how the investigation into Bashir pans out.
I think both of them have been stitched up in various ways, probably Diana more so than Charles.
I am looking forward to seeing how the investigation into Bashir pans out.
I did understand the problems she faced, but, like Meghan, she didn't fit the role - unlike Meghan, Diana did try quite hard for a while, but she didn't click with what Charles needed, and she did OK with the formal bits. I thought everyone knew that she was said to have had had several affairs before Charles reverted to Camilla. The tragedy is that Charles and Camilla should have married when young. They are obviously still in love. I don't really blame Charles at all.
It may clarify my feelings if I explain that my old headmaster (northern Grammar School) retired to Sevenoakes and ended up doing a bit of part-time teaching. When we met him at a school reunion years later, it transpired that he had taught Diana (she was only a couple of years into her marriage then). Naturally I asked his opinion of her. His response (remember this is an M.A. Cantab. with many years teaching experience) was that she was 'sly, manipulative, thick as two shorts and not worth half of one of you'. That is simply as I report it.
You can work out whose side I'm on! Camilla is, I think, a decent woman and supports and loves Charles. He is obviously happy and has blossomed in his ventures. What happened to Diana was sad, but she brought a lot of it on herself i.m.o.. I put a lot of blame on the Establishment and Prince Philip for the whole mess, but I do think that Charles was the victim of circumstance in many ways.
It may clarify my feelings if I explain that my old headmaster (northern Grammar School) retired to Sevenoakes and ended up doing a bit of part-time teaching. When we met him at a school reunion years later, it transpired that he had taught Diana (she was only a couple of years into her marriage then). Naturally I asked his opinion of her. His response (remember this is an M.A. Cantab. with many years teaching experience) was that she was 'sly, manipulative, thick as two shorts and not worth half of one of you'. That is simply as I report it.
You can work out whose side I'm on! Camilla is, I think, a decent woman and supports and loves Charles. He is obviously happy and has blossomed in his ventures. What happened to Diana was sad, but she brought a lot of it on herself i.m.o.. I put a lot of blame on the Establishment and Prince Philip for the whole mess, but I do think that Charles was the victim of circumstance in many ways.
Khandro - // es I know, but it is creating terrible existential suffering for the living. How would you like to have someone who doesn't even know you personally, to write a fictional account for wide public entertainment (& huge financial profit) about your life & it's relationships? Charles & Camilla are getting the most disgusting on-line attacks for this 'fiction'. //
A valid point.
No-one should be cricitised for the portrayal of their lives and actions in a fictional drama, that is competely unacceptable.
I am sure the prince and his wife are more than well used to living with this sort of unpleasantness, which does not for one moment make it right, but long experience may at least shield them from the worst upset they might be feeling at this latest interference in their private lives.
A valid point.
No-one should be cricitised for the portrayal of their lives and actions in a fictional drama, that is competely unacceptable.
I am sure the prince and his wife are more than well used to living with this sort of unpleasantness, which does not for one moment make it right, but long experience may at least shield them from the worst upset they might be feeling at this latest interference in their private lives.
jourdain - // I put a lot of blame on the Establishment and Prince Philip for the whole mess, but I do think that Charles was the victim of circumstance in many ways. //
I'm not sure that either of those views bear scrutiny.
Price Philip has long being vilified as the power behind Diana's exclusion from the family, although records show that he was actually very fond of her, and spent considerable time and effort counselling her about the ending of her marriage.
As for Charles - he allowed himself to be pursauded into his 'duty', but felt unable to give up his mistress in the process, and that does not make him a 'victim' of circumstance, but rather the creator of it.
I'm not sure that either of those views bear scrutiny.
Price Philip has long being vilified as the power behind Diana's exclusion from the family, although records show that he was actually very fond of her, and spent considerable time and effort counselling her about the ending of her marriage.
As for Charles - he allowed himself to be pursauded into his 'duty', but felt unable to give up his mistress in the process, and that does not make him a 'victim' of circumstance, but rather the creator of it.
TTT - // ... but she new what she was getting into and went ahead with it. //
I would suggest that a sheltered and naive nineteen-year-old, Diana had less than no idea what she was getting into, beyond an imagined scenario of royal life which turned out to be very different from the reality she experienced.
I would suggest that a sheltered and naive nineteen-year-old, Diana had less than no idea what she was getting into, beyond an imagined scenario of royal life which turned out to be very different from the reality she experienced.
so what has changed ? you're defending a hopeless case !
ter daah
the Americans believe it as all true
BUT
then they ridiculed Bellatrix belladonna for going on telly and reminding people she wasnt Princess Margaret
The regency bit was all wrong - the courtiers and civil servants had it all taped as a result of getting caught with their knickers off in 1936. So there is a Regency Act 1937 and well as a tweaking in 1952.
Apparently the queen mum DID have two idiot sisters which was completely news to me and the Kings Porphyria went un noticed
ter daah
the Americans believe it as all true
BUT
then they ridiculed Bellatrix belladonna for going on telly and reminding people she wasnt Princess Margaret
The regency bit was all wrong - the courtiers and civil servants had it all taped as a result of getting caught with their knickers off in 1936. So there is a Regency Act 1937 and well as a tweaking in 1952.
Apparently the queen mum DID have two idiot sisters which was completely news to me and the Kings Porphyria went un noticed
I mean bits are good
the final walk of Lady Di as a commoner darn da stree' yeah
is done to the rprelude to act 1 of La Traviata
( another young lady who does not thrive )
when she ( Di that is!) was being scantily clad veg behind the large flower pot ( I will get into awful trouble if they find out - a line from a rent boy in Dirty harry I think 1970 )
the foot steps are wrong/ They always have to be dubbed in and were shoes on wood = clop clop
Everyone knows it was filmed in the verstibule of the Queens House at Greenwich which is marble- click click
the final walk of Lady Di as a commoner darn da stree' yeah
is done to the rprelude to act 1 of La Traviata
( another young lady who does not thrive )
when she ( Di that is!) was being scantily clad veg behind the large flower pot ( I will get into awful trouble if they find out - a line from a rent boy in Dirty harry I think 1970 )
the foot steps are wrong/ They always have to be dubbed in and were shoes on wood = clop clop
Everyone knows it was filmed in the verstibule of the Queens House at Greenwich which is marble- click click
I have watched each and every episode of The Crown so far and know full well that it is nothing more than a drama. However, it is a drama based on quite a lot of truth, despite the chronology being wrong on some occasions. As i have said before, this has most likely been done to condense events into a few minutes rather than drag them out for entire episodes.
This drama has not altered my opinion of either Charles or Diana and i side with neither. What it does do, though, is ram home the point that Diana was no more than a child when Charles (13 years her senior) proposed. I do not believe she knew just how deep his feelings were for Camilla and was so swept up in the idea of becoming the future Queen of England, she actually believed Charles loved her - "Whatever love means." I think she found out a little too late that he didn't.
In Charles' defence, he was more or less forced to marry someone young who could keep the line of succession going. He did his duty to The Firm and, perhaps, to the country.
This drama has not altered my opinion of either Charles or Diana and i side with neither. What it does do, though, is ram home the point that Diana was no more than a child when Charles (13 years her senior) proposed. I do not believe she knew just how deep his feelings were for Camilla and was so swept up in the idea of becoming the future Queen of England, she actually believed Charles loved her - "Whatever love means." I think she found out a little too late that he didn't.
In Charles' defence, he was more or less forced to marry someone young who could keep the line of succession going. He did his duty to The Firm and, perhaps, to the country.
This is slightly off-topic, but I recently was given a bag of books by a friend, and amongst them was one titled "Wallis & Edward Letters 1931-1937" subtitled "The Intimate Correspondence Of The Duke And Duchess Of Windsor". It really does not interest me; however, since our public libraries are closed, and I'm too cheap to buy new books:) I might just end up reading it.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
