Royalty Thread #7: Do They Get Frequent Flier Miles?

[PDilemma]

It's just like all the references to Diana in the largely p.r. royal histories these days are couched in terms of Diana being sad, unhappy and unstable (her only saving grace is having been a good and loving mother to her sons). The commentaries are generally protective of the Queen and Prince Charles in relation to Diana, although there is sometimes reference to Charles and Diana both being needy, and Charles not doing enough to save his marriage. Again, it was a marriage that did not begin on a good foundation, and again the two parties were temperamentally wrong for each other.

I think that if any commentary or bio paints Diana as unstable, it is only fair to balance out the public's obsession with her being a sainted, never wrong, perfect woman who was destroyed by Charles who is completely evil.

There was a silly article about William being a perfect parent because he kneels down to talk to his toddlers floating around on my FB newsfeed all weekend. And the comments were all about how he is wonderful and perfect because he takes after his mother and how awful Charles is. Except that there has never been one indication that Charles is not a good parent and not close to his sons. All indications in public have been clearly to the contrary.

Having read several bios of Diana and Elizabeth II, I believe that Diana likely had Borderline Personality Disorder. My best friend from childhood has BPD. If you have not experienced that up close and personal, you have no idea what she probably put everyone around her through. Saving the marriage was likely impossible.

 

[taf2002]

Re Margaret - just because someone is born as a child of royalty doesn't make them interesting or worthy of a book. There is little about Margaret's story that is unique, certainly the fact that she had a bad marriage isn't a rare event.

 

[skatesindreams]

I love these "armchair diagnosis" of the departed!
Remember, Prince Charles was no "saint" in the past.

 

[PDilemma]

Re Margaret - just because someone is born as a child of royalty doesn't make them interesting or worthy of a book. There is little about Margaret's story that is unique, certainly the fact that she had a bad marriage isn't a rare event.

There actually is quite a lot about Margaret's story that is interesting and unique. Were you unable to marry the person of your choosing because your older sister and the British Parliament disapproved?

Didn't think so.

I read a pretty interesting bio of Margaret awhile back. The title is Princess Margaret: A Biography and the author is Theo Aronson. In many ways her life is more interesting than her sister's as she was not bound by the throne. Bios of Elizabeth can get boring as it is day after day of royal duties.

 

[PDilemma]

I love these "armchair diagnosis" of the departed!
Remember, Prince Charles was no "saint" in the past.

Didn't say he was a saint. But his lack of sainthood does not give sainthood to his dead ex-wife. That is not how it works.

Some people apparently are under the impression that it is, though.

I think, however, that you get less pushback on the internet suggesting that Diana is not a saint than you do for invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[taf2002]

There actually is quite a lot about Margaret's story that is interesting and unique. Were you unable to marry the person of your choosing because your older sister and the British Parliament disapproved?

Didn't think so.

I read a pretty interesting bio of Margaret awhile back. The title is Princess Margaret: A Biography and the author is Theo Aronson. In many ways her life is more interesting than her sister's as she was not bound by the throne. Bios of Elizabeth can get boring as it is day after day of royal duties.

It depends on what you find interesting. I am not interested in reality "stars" just because they've been on TV or published a sex tape. I am not particularly interested in minor royals who basically live an ordinary life but don't have the money struggles that ordinary people face. I'm sure that giving up her 1st love was hard but going by her judgement of men, maybe Elizabeth knew what she was talking about.

 

[aftershocks]

I think that if any commentary or bio paints Diana as unstable, it is only fair to balance out the public's obsession with her being a sainted, never wrong, perfect woman who was destroyed by Charles who is completely evil.

There was a silly article about William being a perfect parent because he kneels down to talk to his toddlers floating around on my FB newsfeed all weekend. And the comments were all about how he is wonderful and perfect because he takes after his mother and how awful Charles is. Except that there has never been one indication that Charles is not a good parent and not close to his sons. All indications in public have been clearly to the contrary.

Having read several bios of Diana and Elizabeth II, I believe that Diana likely had Borderline Personality Disorder. My best friend from childhood has BPD. If you have not experienced that up close and personal, you have no idea what she probably put everyone around her through. Saving the marriage was likely impossible.

^^ There's no accounting for extreme slants and gossipy ridiculosity about people in the public eye, no matter who they are. I never believed any of the nonsense about Prince Charles not being a good father. And of course Diana was not perfect. No one was a saint in that relationship. Both Diana and Charles dearly loved their sons and if they never agreed or got along on much, they at least were mostly in agreement on the raising of their sons. And fortunately, it seems that no matter how unhappy Diana was and how much she leaned on William, she apparently never tried to destroy his love for his father. I would also have to say that the best part about Charles and Diana's marriage is their sons. William and Harry both turned out remarkably well under the circumstances of living in a royal fishbowl all of their lives, having their parents' marriage break up, and losing their mother while in their teens.

The made up stories and nonsensical trivia spouted in the Daily Mail about Meghan Markle and Harry, not to mention the media going after fodder about Markle's family members is mindboggling. But the comments section underneath these stories is like hell on wheels (filled with ignorance, hate, vitriol, jealousy and resentment). Thankfully, it's likely that most of the general public who don't read the gossipy drivel in the Daily Mail and other publications either could not care less or else wish Harry and his current girlfriend happiness.

All in all, the p.r. type documentaries largely make an attempt at being fair and balanced. I do agree that quite clearly Diana was unhappy, headstrong, bulimic, needy and unwilling to put up with being stuck in a loveless marriage. At least the Palace admits to the fact that more should have been done by someone to mentor Diana and to guide her into understanding what royal life would be like. As the documentary I recently saw indicated, "To some degree after leading a sheltered and unhappy childhood reading Barbara Cartland romantic novels, Diana may have felt that she was stepping into a fairytale when she married Charles." Although, it's also been said that during her engagement, Diana became hesitant and wary when she began to detect hints and clues about the closeness of Charles' bond with Camilla. But by that time as one of her sisters famously said, "It's too late to back out now. Your face is on the tea towels."

There's no question that William is an attentive and loving parent. I think that's because he's well adjusted, and he received love from his parents and his grandparents. One of the important things Diana gave her sons which is widely recognized, is the understanding that although they are privileged and have responsibilities as royal princes, they should be open to truly caring about other people. Plus Diana tried to make sure her sons were able to enjoy some of the fun and normal experiences of growing up in the real world and not remaining stuck inside stuffy palace walls.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Good father's who love and adore their children don't keep Kamilla on the side.

 

[ballettmaus]

It depends on what you find interesting. I am not interested in reality "stars" just because they've been on TV or published a sex tape. I am not particularly interested in minor royals who basically live an ordinary life but don't have the money struggles that ordinary people face. I'm sure that giving up her 1st love was hard but going by her judgement of men, maybe Elizabeth knew what she was talking about.

Uh? So, you'd be okay if a family member would forbid you to get married to someone because they don't like that person?

Good father's who love and adore their children don't keep Kamilla on the side.

What does a mistress/girlfriend have to do with the love for the children?

 

[Lorac]

Uh? So, you'd be okay if a family member would forbid you to get married to someone because they don't like that person?

I saw a documentary sometime towards the end of last year here in the UK where it was said that Margaret was never actually forbidden to marry Townsend but that is she did she would have to forfeit her - and any children she might have had from a union with Townsend - place in the line of succession. She would also have not been allowed to marry in the Church - and that mattered to her. Note that the Church of England back then and until recent times refused to allow divorced people to marry in Church and Townsend was a divorcee. Charles had a CoE blessing when he married Camilla - their marriage was actually a civil one in a registry office. Townsend was actually greatly admired by the Royal Family - it was his divorced status and his age in relation to Margaret that was causing some concerns.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Uh? So, you'd be okay if a family member would forbid you to get married to someone because they don't like that person?



What does a mistress/girlfriend have to do with the love for the children?

Gree let's see... Love honor fulfill your commitments to your family.... I hope you were being silly.

 

[ballettmaus]

Gree let's see... Love honor fulfill your commitments to your family.... I hope you were being silly.

Why would I be? A father can adore and love their children and still not love the wife. One does not exclude the other. Love for children is not tied to the love one has for the partner and it shouldn't be.

 

[taf2002]

Uh? So, you'd be okay if a family member would forbid you to get married to someone because they don't like that person?



What does a mistress/girlfriend have to do with the love for the children?

I really wish (even if they didn't forbid it) my parents had talked to me about the consequences if I married my ex. It would have saved me a lot of aggravation. And apparently that's all Elizabeth did according to Lorac above. She didn't make the Church of England rules about divorces. Catholics have the same restrictions & they don't try to put it on some mean family member who ruined their lives.

BTW, Charles didn't just cheat on his wife like millions of men do - he took his vows while lying & he was unfaithful (in his mind if not in deed) every day of his marriage. Wouldn't you think that would make a young bride unhappy? And wouldn't the fact that they both were miserable have an impact on the children? Infidelity affects everyone in a marriage. Even young children can feel the unhappiness & tension.

 

[aftershocks]

I saw a documentary sometime towards the end of last year here in the UK where it was said that Margaret was never actually forbidden to marry Townsend but that is she did she would have to forfeit her - and any children she might have had from a union with Townsend - place in the line of succession. She would also have not been allowed to marry in the Church - and that mattered to her. Note that the Church of England back then and until recent times refused to allow divorced people to marry in Church and Townsend was a divorcee. Charles had a CoE blessing when he married Camilla - their marriage was actually a civil one in a registry office. Townsend was actually greatly admired by the Royal Family - it was his divorced status and his age in relation to Margaret that was causing some concerns.

There are some assumptions and conflicting readings of exactly what happened. This is why I think Margaret's story is so fascinating -- it has yet to be fully told, but there is a lot of unsubstantiated gossip, rumors, and now revisionism. I have yet to see how the new Netflix series The Crown portrays the star-crossed love story between Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend. I have read a number of biographies and viewed a few documentaries that shed some light on Margaret's story. I would imagine that the new series focuses more on the Queen and is sympathetic to her anguish in having to deny her sister's wish to marry the man she loved. Yes, Peter Townsend served as Equerry to their father, King George VI, so Townsend was well respected, trusted and admired by royals and courtiers. The bottom line problem that loomed over everything and doomed the lovestruck couple was the too recent scandalous abdication by Edward VIII to marry a divorced American woman.

Margaret may or may not have been outright told she couldn't marry Townsend. But the message was quite clear. When their feelings for each other came to light privately in 1947, it was hoped by her family that Margaret would grow out of the intensity of her emotions. As Margaret was very young, the two were separated for a year. Then after the King's death in 1952, and Elizabeth's coronation in 1953, Townsend was sent away to Brussels for two years. But the strength of affection and deep connection between Townsend and Margaret was undeniable and undying. The biggest obstacle was Townsend's divorced status, in addition to his having two children, and his huge age difference. The divorce factor conjured up the abdication affair, and that was the single greatest obstacle.

There are many interesting and some deeply disturbing personalities down the long history of the British Royal Family. But truthfully, there's similar cautionary tales in the long history of many families. It's just that British Royals have a lineage and antecedents that are readily available to read about because they have always been in a huge intense spotlight. I think perhaps it will take until the present Queen passes away before more detailed and extensive coverage might be given to Margaret's story. There's all kinds of conflicting stories including a so-called "recently discovered letter" written by Princess Margaret to the British Prime Minister in 1955. The letter is being described as proof that Margaret was 'confidently' determined to make the decision whether to marry on her own, and that she was 'uncertain' about whether she wanted to marry Townsend. To me that is a bunch of revisionist p.r. bunk. As is the claim in another article that Margaret "bounced back smartly" from her love affair with Townsend gathering a "posh set of friends" around her and entertaining lavishly. It sounds more to me like she was drowning her woes in lighthearted escapist activities that ultimately led to lifelong addictions which eventually crippled her health and culminated in her relatively early death.

By 1955, Margaret had already been given the ultimatum that she'd have to give up her royal title and her place in the line of succession if she chose to marry Townsend. That's the reason why it took her time to come to a decision. I doubt there was any uncertainty on Margaret's part as to whether she loved Townsend. Of course Margaret had to make the decision whether to marry on her own, but what she wrote in the letter likely came with strain and some duress. Who knows what family members were saying or not saying to her over the course of the 8 year affair (which included a year apart and later another 2 years of forced separation). By 1955, she may have finally been worn down, and she might be suggesting in the letter that once she saw Townsend again, she might be able to make a choice about the course her life would take. Who knows whether or not she was told what to write in the letter. The lovers had been forcibly kept apart for approximately two years 1953 - 1955. They kept in touch by correspondence. In the first place, why should a young lady have to write to her country's Prime Minister about whether or not she will choose to give up either her identity or the person she loves? The other question is: Why is this so-called 'history-changing' letter being revealed as proof of something different from historical accounts well after Princess Margaret's death? I am suspicious of revisionist claims about matters of the heart when the persons involved are dead and can no longer speak for themselves. A lot of the participants and witnesses are dead too and a new generation knows very little about the original facts, so it's easy to create a different slant. I'm interested to see how The Crown handles the portrayal of Margaret vs Elizabeth.

Indeed from all accounts, Margaret was spoiled by her father and indulged by everyone as she grew up within her sheltered family existence. She had a charming, witty and mischievous personality. She also possessed a talented gift for mimicry and it's been said that she might well have been an accomplished actress had she been able to pursue such a career. She was used to having her way. She was used to being a royal. The loss of her father coupled with her sister's accession to the throne must have been extremely difficult for her emotionally.

Margaret's relationship with Townsend is said to have begun during a tour of South Africa in 1947 when her father was still alive. It would be interesting to see what might have eventually happened had her father not died when he did (in 1952). Who knows except the two people involved how deep their feelings were for each other? From what I've read and the photos I've seen (particularly the one of Margaret in a car with tears glistening in her eyes, shortly after she'd released her statement to the press about deciding not to marry Townsend), it was a hearbreaking decision. Comments in interviews with Townsend during his lifetime back up the fact of their mutually devastating heartbreak. I recall Townsend having made statements years later that he had felt betrayed by Margaret's decision. He was sad about the toll it had taken on his life and his career, and about how he'd been treated overall by the royals, in light of his love for Margaret and his diligent service to his country. He had been a war hero during WWII.

The recent letter was discovered in a royal archive by researchers for the new Netflix series. How convenient is that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sheds-new-light-on-decision-not-to-marry.html
Seems like an effort in certain quarters to continue protecting the Queen's role in the situation, while trying to sanitize and whitewash aspects of the story. Until I see how the series covers Margaret's story and character portrayal, I will reserve judgment on the actual series. I do not fault the Queen. She was very protective of her sister as they were growing up. But I suspect eventually Margaret began to feel more left out and resentful of Elizabeth's lofty status as they entered adulthood. The King's death in 1952 changed everything and completely recast personal relationships in that family, between Queen Elizabeth and her mother who was suddenly a widowed Queen 'Mother' bereft of her husband; between Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip; and between Queen Elizabeth and her sister Princess Margaret, who was facing that awkward transition from pampered royal child princess to emotionally lost and directionless adult embattled by the high price of a privileged but sterile life inside a gilded cage.

I guess I'm passionate about understanding Margaret's story. Maybe I should write the script.

 

[aftershocks]

I'm sure that giving up her 1st love was hard but going by her judgement of men, maybe Elizabeth knew what she was talking about.

That's a potshot. Margaret fell in love with Peter Townsend (a kind and decent man) when she was a teenager. Townsend was a war hero who worked for her father, the King. Margaret and Elizabeth were both sheltered growing up during the thirties and especially during the war years. And suddenly they were teenagers emerging into the post-war period which was not an easy era for anyone, not even the British Royal Family.

Again, Margaret was the pampered and spoiled younger sister. She had a quick wit and a gift for mimicry. She was a teenager beginning to find herself and used to having her way. You might call her a spoiled brat, but she strikes me as someone who after being raised in a sheltered way surrounded with love and indulgence from her parents and her older sister and attendants, it was mighty difficult transitioning into young adulthood with restrictive royal restraints as to what you could actually do with your life. There was privilege and royal titles to which she had become accustomed -- but unlike her sister Elizabeth, there was no larger grander purpose for which to aspire. And it was cruel for a young lady of 25 to be made to choose between the identity she'd always known vs the love of her life, especially after being forcibly separated from him and harangued about the relationship for years.

All that was left to Margaret after she was emotionally and psychologically pressured to give up Townsend, was the secondary role of sister to the Queen of England. It's no wonder that Margaret's worst personality traits came to the fore as she threw herself into a life of parties, pleasure, hanging out with actors, artists, pop stars, and engaging in ill-advised love affairs. She was rebelling against her sister, and against having been forced to give up someone she loved whom she had waited so long to start a life with. Margaret's later decision to marry her lover, Antony Armstrong-Jones, came on the heels of the news that the man she'd fallen in love with as a teenager, Peter Townsend, was marrying a Belgian lady who was a young Margaret look-a-like.

Others may not think so, but I feel that at the least had Margaret been allowed to marry Peter Townsend, the great love of her life, she might have had a chance at a happier life. There was the possibility she may have been able to pursue her artistic interests as well as supporting the arts, and raising a family. Above all, she missed out on being adored and guided by the love, support and encouragement of a kind and gentle man who had served her father and fought for his country with such dedication and bravery.

It's absolutely sad how Margaret has been derided, ridiculed, dismissed and condescended to for her own lofty mean-spirited airs and demands, her poor lifestyle choices, her ill-advised love affairs, her failed marriage, and her debilitating alcoholism. The only saving graces of her life are her children. Both she and her husband Tony (Lord Snowden) were to blame for becoming stuck in a loveless, hate-filled marriage. Margaret jumped into the marriage out of pain and regret, so their marriage was seemingly doomed from the start, especially due to their mutually volatile temperaments and sexually profligate ways.

ETA:
Elizabeth was lucky to have found Philip at such a young age, and having things work out in the end, largely due to knowing her own mind and having a handy, self-interested supporter in her distant relative Lord Mountbatten (who was also Philip's uncle). There were obstacles to Elizabeth and Philip marrying that were ironed out over many years, as a result of Lord Mountbatten's behind-the-scenes machinations. Of course, Philip was strong-minded and nobody's fool either. Philip and Elizabeth developed a strong bond and a mutual respect that served as a solid foundation over the rocky up-and-down years of their marriage. It was extremely difficult for Philip when Elizabeth ascended to the throne at such a young age during the early years of their marriage.

The obstacles that Margaret and Peter Townsend faced against their marrying were alas greater and ultimately insurmountable. However, had George VI not died when he did, things might have played out differently.

 

[cygnus]

Good father's who love and adore their children don't keep Kamilla on the side.

And good mothers don't have multiple affairs either, some of which were with married men?

Neither one was a saint, and neither one was evil. Both tried to do their best under the circumstances. There is no evidence that Charles cheated "every day" of their marriage- in fact there is evidence that he tried to make it work for the first bit, but they grew apart quite quickly. None of us knows the details of the breakdown though, and we can assume that there was fault on both sides.

 

[Vagabond]

Entire post

Nothing succeeds like Sussex.

 

[AxelAnnie]

And good mothers don't have multiple affairs either, some of which were with married men?

Correctamundo!

Neither one was a saint, and neither one was evil. Both tried to do their best under the circumstances. There is no evidence that Charles cheated "every day" of their marriage- in fact there is evidence that he tried to make it work for the first bit, but they grew apart quite quickly. None of us knows the details of the breakdown though, and we can assume that there was fault on both sides.

Here is where we differ. I don't care if they "grew apart" or didn't feel it or whatever. The best is for them to have stayed together and been polite, for the sake of the children. Especially with Charles being the future King. The Royals are groomed for their life. They do a lot of things they don't want to do, or don't "feel". But then, I take marriage vows (and remember Charles is going to be head of the Church of England) very seriously. It was a tragic mess, and it did not have to be.

 

[taf2002]

And good mothers don't have multiple affairs either, some of which were with married men?

Neither one was a saint, and neither one was evil. Both tried to do their best under the circumstances. There is no evidence that Charles cheated "every day" of their marriage- in fact there is evidence that he tried to make it work for the first bit, but they grew apart quite quickly. None of us knows the details of the breakdown though, and we can assume that there was fault on both sides.

I said in my post that Charles cheated "every day" because he was unfaithful in his mind & he lied when he took his vows. If your husband wanted another woman & was just going thru the motions, would you be ok with that as long as he paid lip service to the marriage? According to Diana herself, there were 3 people in the marriage, & a wife would certainly know. I don't think there's any doubt that he wanted Camilla from day 1 of their marriage.

 

[Skittl1321]

your husband wanted another woman & was just going thru the motions, would you be ok with that as long as he paid lip service to the marriage?

Did Diana go into the marriage thinking it was anything other than political though?
His relationship with Camilla was known before the vows took place. Throughout history royal marriages have been like this

 

[skatesindreams]

Diana seemed sheltered, naive, and "romantic" at the time of her engagement/marriage.
There was also a large age difference .
Diana was 19; Charles was 33.

 

[attyfan]

IMO, only a royal can tell a prospective spouse what they will be getting themselves into (ie, no privacy); no one else can really describe what the life is like. I heard that, after all the problems with Diana (and with the Duchess of York), the royal family is putting more effort into making sure that -- before the ceremony -- prospective spouses understand what they are giving up, as well as what they may be getting.

 

[taf2002]

Did Diana go into the marriage thinking it was anything other than political though?
His relationship with Camilla was known before the vows took place. Throughout history royal marriages have been like this

Diana was a silly, apparently naïve & undereducated 19 yr old. IMO she wasn't ready to be anyone's wife, nevermind a 33 yr old prince. She appeared to have stars in her eyes & no real appreciation of what she was getting into.

 

[aftershocks]

^^ It was a trial by fire for Diana, indeed. Her marital unhappiness, discomfort and isolation as a young royal bride amidst palace intrigue, after growing up in a broken home herself was apparently too much for her to bear. At least Diana was a good mother, and a person with a deep sense of compassion for those less fortunate.

What the Royal Family (and even Diana's grandmother, Lady Fermoy) weren't expecting was Diana's rebelliousness against settling for royal trappings while her husband was out philandering with the woman he really loved.

 

[Lorac]

IMO, only a royal can tell a prospective spouse what they will be getting themselves into (ie, no privacy); no one else can really describe what the life is like. I heard that, after all the problems with Diana (and with the Duchess of York), the royal family is putting more effort into making sure that -- before the ceremony -- prospective spouses understand what they are giving up, as well as what they may be getting.

I have read that the split between Kate and William was a time for Kate to think about how becoming William's spouse was going to change her life for ever and she was basically given a chance to walk away. William had lived through the traumatic marriage of his parents and was at the centre of the fallout. He wanted to ensure his wife was fully aware of how her life was going to change. He has also been very proactive with giving his young family as much privacy as he can at the moment as he knows when he becomes the 1st in line to the throne things will be different for them all.

 

[PDilemma]

I have read that the split between Kate and William was a time for Kate to think about how becoming William's spouse was going to change her life for ever and she was basically given a chance to walk away. William had lived through the traumatic marriage of his parents and was at the centre of the fallout. He wanted to ensure his wife was fully aware of how her life was going to change. He has also been very proactive with giving his young family as much privacy as he can at the moment as he knows when he becomes the 1st in line to the throne things will be different for them all.

Kate was allowed to slowly work her way into royal duties, too. She didn't have a solo engagement for quite some time after their marriage; she was always with another royal in the early days, not just William either, she did engagements with Charles, with the Queen and Phillip and once with the Queen and Camilla in the beginning. She has not had a full time schedule yet at all. Diana was thrown into a full royal schedule immediately and basically on her own.

I get the sense that the Queen is allowing William a light load now while he has a young family (and is farther from the throne) and that gives Kate a lighter load as well. It has been said by many sources that she considers the early years of her marriage when Phillip was still in the Navy and her father was on the throne to be some of the best of her life.

 

[ballettmaus]

BTW, Charles didn't just cheat on his wife like millions of men do - he took his vows while lying & he was unfaithful (in his mind if not in deed) every day of his marriage. Wouldn't you think that would make a young bride unhappy? And wouldn't the fact that they both were miserable have an impact on the children? Infidelity affects everyone in a marriage. Even young children can feel the unhappiness & tension.

Now we're starting to get into a whole different ball game. The psychological effect on the children still has nothing to do with what a father feels for his children. He can still love and adore them even though what he does is damaging. I know someone right now, two sets of parents, actually, who love and adore their respective child and yet, they each are currently planning to do that will most likely be damaging to the respective child's mental health. (for the lack of a better way to describe it)
If you are a loving and adoring parent, you don't do anything that harms your child intentionally. Many parents are just not aware that everything they do has a lasting impact on the child but that is in part due to our society, too. For years children were not recognized as human beings in the way adults were, they were lesser human beings if you will. They were dismissed as "just being children". And some people today still dismiss them as "just being children". So, I wouldn't be surprised if Charles was a loving and adoring father (I have no idea if he was) but acted the way he did without being aware of how much of an impact it would have on his children.

 

[aftershocks]

"Royal rebel's anti-Trump protest..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4178464/Royal-rebel-Amelia-s-anti-Trump-protest.html

"More than 1.7 million people in Britain have signed an official petition to rescind Britain's invitation to Trump of a state visit this year..."

 

[AxelAnnie]

Now we're starting to get into a whole different ball game. The psychological effect on the children still has nothing to do with what a father feels for his children. He can still love and adore them even though what he does is damaging. I know someone right now, two sets of parents, actually, who love and adore their respective child and yet, they each are currently planning to do that will most likely be damaging to the respective child's mental health. (for the lack of a better way to describe it)
If you are a loving and adoring parent, you don't do anything that harms your child intentionally. Many parents are just not aware that everything they do has a lasting impact on the child but that is in part due to our society, too. For years children were not recognized as human beings in the way adults were, they were lesser human beings if you will. They were dismissed as "just being children". And some people today still dismiss them as "just being children". So, I wouldn't be surprised if Charles was a loving and adoring father (I have no idea if he was) but acted the way he did without being aware of how much of an impact it would have on his children.

He knew. He did t care.

 

[aftershocks]

So Meghan and Harry stepped out in public and paparazzi were waiting of course. They have managed to keep their time together private for quite awhile. No mean feat. Kudos to them. They knew the cameras would be there, but they seem more comfortable about testing the waters together. Media really should not go crazy. Let them live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfk_Q3tKkhc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4189660/Prince-Harry-spotted-holding-hands-girlfriend.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4187196/Meghan-Markle-virtually-moved-Prince-Harry.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcOLC85k5TM E News
http://www.tmz.com/2017/02/04/prince-harry-meghan-markle-couple-dating/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHZTrK82TZU interview with Patrick J. Adams, Markle's co-star on Suits [of course he's asked about Meghan & Harry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhA39CvyXO4 psychic reading of M&H love affair & how the Royal relatives feel about it
Per the psychic, the Queen is as reported happy that Harry is happy; furthermore Prince Charles and the Queen, according to the psychic, feel that the world is in a strange place now and we don't know what's going to happen, so they feel 'If you have found love Harry, go for it'; although Prince Charles is slightly worried as a father would be for his son not getting hurt.

An old interview with Prince Charles and his sons, about the Prince's Trust, playing polo, etc. -- shows their relaxed relationship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBvix8cJ_zc