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

[ballettmaus]

Diana may have had mental health issues but I think there are a lot of people and factors which contributed to the unhappiness of many people. Mosty though, I think it's the institution of the monarchy which is to blame. Consequently, the Queen bares some responsibility as well since , unless I'm mistaken, she did not allow her son to marry a non-royal divorcee.
Maybe Diana would not have led a happier life had Charles married someone else and she would still have had her mental health issues. But I think it would have meant a lot less grief for a lot of other people.

 

[Vagabond]

Consequently, the Queen bares some responsibility as well since , unless I'm mistaken, she did not allow her son to marry a non-royal divorcee.

The Prince and Princess of Wales were married in 1981.
Andrew and Camilla Parker Bowles were married in 1973 and divorced in 1995.

So, yes, you are mistaken.

Apologies may be addressed to H.M. the Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA. says will read it when she gets back from her holiday in Scotland.

 

[Coco]

I believe the Queen had 'forbidden' Camilla as a girlfriend before she was married in 1973.

 

[AxelAnnie]

According to THIS, Diana's bulimia began when her relationship with Charles began.

The bulimia started the week after we got engaged (and would take nearly a decade to overcome),” Diana had recorded herself saying. “My husband [Prince Charles] put his hand on my waistline and said: ‘Oh, a bit chubby here, aren’t we?’ and that triggered off something in me. And the Camilla thing.”

Diana was referring to Camilla Bowles‘ relationship with the Prince of Wales, an affair that occurred while she was still married to her first husband Andrew Parker-Bowles and Charles was still married to Diana.

Absent medical records, we will never known the truth.

 

[ballettmaus]

According to THIS, Diana's bulimia began when her relationship with Charles began.

Absent medical records, we will never known the truth.

She wouldn't be the first woman who was pushed into a royal marriage to suffer from an eating disorder and/or depression. Even Letizia struggled with an eating disorder and she married out of love.

The Prince and Princess of Wales were married in 1981.
Andrew and Camilla Parker Bowles were married in 1973 and divorced in 1995.

So, yes, you are mistaken.

I was mistaken about the divorce part but if what Coco says is true then Charles still wasn't allowed to be with Camilla because of who he was and who she was.

 

[Vagabond]

I was mistaken about the divorce part but if what Coco says is true then Charles still wasn't allowed to be with Camilla because of who he was and who she was.

Do you have a source other than a poster on FSU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's very well-sourced.

There are several explanations offered from different sources as to why their relationship ended and that "palace courtiers" (not the Queen) found Camilla unsuitable, but if you read the Wikipedia article carefully, you will see that that isn't thought to be the reason why Charles and Camilla broke up. And the breakup followed Charles's naval posting overseas, which was not something the Queen would have involved herself in.

 

[cygnus]

From everything I have read, Charles and Camilla were dating when they were in their early 20s, and Charles was simply not ready to settle down at that point with anybody. He was still in the Navy at that time. It wasn't a question of him being forbidden to marry her- he just wasn't at that point yet. She was, so she married someone else. If they had wanted to marry, they could hardly have been prevented from doing so- even in the 1970s.

And as for the relationship continuing after his marriage- I read that he actually only returned to Camilla after a few years of marriage- he really did try to make it work (as did she, I suppose). There are quotes from some of his friends to the effect that he asked them if it was normal for a partner to keep harping over past relationships or something like that. ( I wish I could find the source for that, but I read it years ago). But the story of his affair continuing from the beginning has been repeated so often that it is accepted as fact.

 

[PDilemma]

From everything I have read, Charles and Camilla were dating when they were in their early 20s, and Charles was simply not ready to settle down at that point with anybody. He was still in the Navy at that time. It wasn't a question of him being forbidden to marry her- he just wasn't at that point yet. She was, so she married someone else. If they had wanted to marry, they could hardly have been prevented from doing so- even in the 1970s.

And as for the relationship continuing after his marriage- I read that he actually only returned to Camilla after a few years of marriage- he really did try to make it work (as did she, I suppose). There are quotes from some of his friends to the effect that he asked them if it was normal for a partner to keep harping over past relationships or something like that. ( I wish I could find the source for that, but I read it years ago). But the story of his affair continuing from the beginning has been repeated so often that it is accepted as fact.

That is exactly the reasons I have seen for Charles and Camilla not marrying in the first place. When he was posted away from the UK in the midst of their relationship, he actually (by his own account) did not really communicate with her. She had dated Andrew Parker-Bowles previously and that relationship resumed in Charles' absence. Charles learned while still away in the Navy that they were engaged and that was that. The Queen had absolutely nothing to do with it. If there was any influence it was more Louis Mountbatten who was pushing the idea on him that he must find an innocent girl with no known relationships for appearances sake. But Mountbatten had an ulterior motive as he was pushing for his granddaughter, Amanda Knatchbull who eventually turned Charles down as she saw that they were incompatible and she didn't want that life.

Charles had a knack for misinterpreting his parents, attributing malice to them where there was none and misunderstanding their advice and concerns. The Diana mythology includes the story that he proposed to her because Phillip told him he had to in a letter. Phillip actually told him that if the relationship was not serious, he needed to end it for Diana's sake as the press attention was becoming overwhelming for her. He never said he had to immediately propose.

Teachers and staff at Diana's school suspected bulimia in her time there as did her sister Sarah. It actually is evident that her eating disorders began when she copy catted Sarah who was treated for anorexia before Diana was ever involved with Charles. But none of that fits with Diana the Martyr/Charles the Villain mythology. The martyr has to be a spotless victim, of course.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I think this sums up most of what is known. I particularly agree with the statement that the Crown would never have approved of a marriage between Charles and Camilla before she married.

Overall, the majority of royal biographers have agreed that even if Charles and Camilla wanted to marry or did try for approval to get married, it would have been declined, because according to Charles's cousin and godmother Patricia Mountbatten, palace courtiers at that time found Camilla unsuitable as a wife for the future king. In 2005, she stated, "With hindsight, you can say that Charles should have married Camilla when he first had the chance. They were ideally suited, we know that now. But it wasn't possible."[…][53] "it wouldn't have been possible, not then."[…][54] When Charles heard of the engagement of Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles in 1973, he wrote to Lord Mountbatten: "I suppose the feeling of emptiness will pass eventually."[55] Nevertheless, they remained friends.[56][57] In August 1979, Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA. Charles was grief-stricken and relied heavily on Camilla for solace. During this period, rumours began circulating among family, friends and neighbours that they had rekindled their intimate relationship.[58] A source close to Camilla confirmed that by 1980 they had indeed rekindled as lovers.[38] However, other sources assert it occurred earlier.[59] Reportedly, Parker Bowles gave consent to the relationship during their marriage,[60] while he also saw other women.[61] In 1981, Charles married Lady Diana Spencer.[62]

 

[ballettmaus]

Do you have a source other than a poster on FSU?

Currently? No. I've heard about it years ago, probably on one of those documentaries that interviews historians and observers and biographers etc. It might well be what AxelAnnie linked to that I've heard though. I just remember hearing that Charles wasn't or wouldn't have been permitted to marry Camilla because of who he was.

Regarding what AxelAnnie posted, as the Queen, wouldn't a blessing of hers have overruled anyone else's objection?

Do I think Diana is completely innocent? No, definitely not. But I also don't think that the blame should be put solely on her (and certainly not on a mental illness). I do believe first and foremost it's the institution which is to blame as I believe that it pressures people into roles (or used to, it seems that the whole Charles and Diana story led to a less stricter system) and that what happened between Charles and Diana was a consequence of that.

 

[MsZem]

Time for me to once again interrupt the discussion of British royals (past and present) with Swedish baby news: Princess Sofia and Prince Carl-Philip's second child was born earlier today. No information on the baby's sex or name yet.

 

[Lorac]

Time for me to once again interrupt the discussion of British royals (past and present) with Swedish baby news: Princess Sofia and Prince Carl-Philip's second child was born earlier today. No information on the baby's sex or name yet.

Interrupt away . When you click on the link the headline says it is a baby boy - still no name!!

I'm trying to avoid the news at the moment here in the UK and all they can talk about it Diana and show pictures of Kensington Palace with people putting flowers in front of the gates. That is something I never understood - not then and not now. OK maybe I can partially get why then but now - come on people - donate money to one of the charities she supported or one of the Princes charities instead of spending £10, £15, £20 on flowers that will just die

 

[skatesindreams]

The anniversary will end soon; with that, the "super-coverage" will fade.
However, interest in Princess Diana will not; as Charles will become King, in time.

William and Harry will have an increasingly active role, thereafter.
It is hardly reasonable to expect their mother not to be "present" in their public life, in some way.
I doubt that it would be acceptable to the average citizen, were her importance never acknowledged, again.

 

[MLIS]

Interrupt away . When you click on the link the headline says it is a baby boy - still no name!!

The Swedish royals tend to announce the baby's name (and title, as they are all given a duke or duchess of somewhere on birth) by the king at a cabinet meeting a day or two after the baby's birth. I just saw a tweet saying this cabinet meeting has been postponed to Monday, and will be followed by a Te Deum (thanksgiving church service), attended by members of the royal family (but traditionally not the new mother or baby). So a few days to wait yet.

 

[MsZem]

Interrupt away . When you click on the link the headline says it is a baby boy - still no name!!

They usually announce royal baby names at a cabinet meeting a day or two after the birth. Better than in Denmark, when they only announce them months later at the Christening!

Speaking of Denmark, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine started school earlier this month, and Prince Nikolai turned 18.

 

[Jenny]

The anniversary will end soon; with that, the "super-coverage" will fade.
However, interest in Princess Diana will not;

Maybe it already is - In Memories of Diana, a Vast Generational Divide (NY Times).

 

[aftershocks]

Well, everyone has their opinions surrounding the Charles & Diana saga. Bottom line: they were both needy, sensitive, emotional people completely ill-suited for each other. Diana was extremely young, virginal, and psychologically damaged by the very public and scandalous divorce of her parents during the 1960s. Neither of her parents were attentive to this emotional damage that Diana in particular suffered from. Diana was protective of and nurturing toward her younger brother, Charles. They did not get along with their stepmother Raine (Barbara Cartland), but Diana apparently found solace and dreams of romance from reading the novels of her stepmother. Diana reportedly as a school girl, had a crush on Prince Charles (who at one point during the 1970s dated her sister, Sarah).

Why should the burden of responsibility have been placed upon Diana to know what she was getting into, by marrying into royalty? Surprisingly, apparently neither her grandmother nor the Queen Mother who were partly behind the matchmaking understood the trap they were responsible for setting. Antiquated attitudes about the royal wife of Prince Charles needing to be a virgin are also responsible for the star-crossed drama of their marriage.

Charles is responsible for not having enough courage to put his own foot down and declare that he was determined to marry Camilla. He dithered and dathered betwixt and between until Camilla decided to marry her army officer boyfriend. (Both Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles had an on-again, off-again relationship during which they both cheated on each other often; btw Princess Anne also at one point was involved with Andrew prior to his deciding to marry Camilla to please his parents. Reportedly Anne was so taken with Andrew, that after they broke up, she ended up marrying Mark Phillips on the rebound). Interesting, no?

Camilla and Charles remained friends and eventually hooked up with each other again romantically, despite Camilla's marriage. Camilla is even said to have steered Charles in Diana's direction because apparently Diana was seen to be a pliable young innocent who could be managed without much fuss. After all, the British upper classes have always tended to marry and then to have affairs as a matter of course, if they were unhappy in their marriage. The kicker though is that the wife of the royal heir to the throne was expected to suffer in silence. Everyone underestimated the strength and stubbornness of Diana's personality. When modern British royal history is exhaustively written, it will likely be divided as follows: Before Diana -- After Diana.

Here's a very interesting and thought-provoking perspective about Diana Princess of Wales, the dilemma of her marriage, and the inconsolable grief that the public worldwide experienced in the immediate aftermath of her death:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/diana-warning-women-tragedy-princess

 

[taf2002]

Well, everyone has their opinions surrounding the Charles & Diana saga. Bottom line: they were both needy, sensitive, emotional people completely ill-suited for each other. Diana was extremely young, virginal, and psychologically damaged by the very public and scandalous divorce of her parents during the 1960s.

WTF? Diana was born in 1961. How do you know that she was "psychologically damaged by the very public and scandalous divorce of her parents", something that happened when she was very young? I think it's always a mistake to try to analyze someone who 1) you don't know in RL, & 2) you're not qualified to analyze anyone.

 

[aftershocks]

WTF? Diana was born in 1961. How do you know that she was "psychologically damaged by the very public and scandalous divorce of her parents", something that happened when she was very young? I think it's always a mistake to try to analyze someone who 1) you don't know in RL, & 2) you're not qualified to analyze anyone.

Diana was 7-years-old when her parents separated (and their divorce was finalized in 1969) at a time when divorce was not that common in England. In addition, it was a very public scandal because of a fierce custody battle, and her mother leaving home for another man. I commented as I did because I read a lot about Diana when she came on the scene. I've read a number of biographies that mentioned how emotionally difficult it was for Diana and her younger brother after their parents' divorce, which was finalized in 1969.

Here's a recent article with commentary by an au pair and a nanny who took care of Diana (one from the time Diana was 3, and the other from when Diana was 9). While this is not definitive proof of Diana's parents' break-up causing her psychological and emotional damage, it is certainly information and observations from persons who did know Diana during her childhood. Plus the information in biographies about how adversely Diana was affected by her parents' divorce is not necessarily questionable or inaccurate. In fact, it's fairly common knowledge that the divorce deeply affected Diana. Nor is the psychological impact of divorce on young children unusual or anomalous.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/15/diana.childhood/
"[Nanny] Mary Clarke said the failed marriage had a resounding effect on Diana ... [her] broken home made Diana feel different from her classmates... Divorce was uncommon at that time in England..."

In addition, the recent release of tapes with Diana expressing how "devastating" her childhood experience of parental conflict was, is certainly proof that she suffered emotionally from her parents' acrimony and the public nature of their break-up (a hard-fought custody battle was widely publicized). Diana's mother left the family home in 1967 to live with Peter Shand Kydd, a wallpaper tycoon. To top it off, Diana speaks about knowing that her parents were unhappy when she was born, a third girl instead of a boy, which they'd hoped for after losing a baby son, named John, in 1960.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...od-trauma-devastating-prince-charles-marriage
"'For my [younger] brother [Charles] and I, it was a very ... painful experience.' Diana described her childhood as 'very unhappy', adding that as children, she and her brother saw their mother in tears almost all the time... Speaking about the moment she saw her father slap her mother across the face, Diana recalled hiding behind the door as her mother cried."

You've previously mentioned reading a lot about various royals yourself, and then forming your opinions and analyzing their characters, emotions, and motivations. Perhaps you should take your own advice. I'm not questioning all of your specific judgments of these particular royals and royal relative, just pointing out: 'pot, kettle, black.'

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

... to me [Margaret] seemed like a royal spoiled brat who wanted to have her way but not suffer any of the consequences... And no one said she would be cut off from the family, just give up her title. Since she had to know she would never be queen I guess her love/obsession wasn't all that strong.

I said in my post that Charles cheated "every day" because he was unfaithful in his mind & he lied when he took his vows...

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.

... I have been reading about [Charles] my whole adult life. Long before he met Diana he had a pretty seamy reputation of being a playboy & his affair with a married woman & a love-'em-&-leave-'em type. I remember being outraged that he was dating a virginal 19 yr old & when they got engaged I couldn't believe it. My friends & I talked about robbing the cradle. Even without the mental health problems everyone could have seen disaster coming way down the road...

... apparently Pippa is a bridezilla. I read that she is asking her guests to wear a different outfit to the reception than the ceremony...

 

[taf2002]

Wow, I haven't had anyone obsessed with me for a long time. And he was arrested for stalking.

 

[Parsley Sage]

Well, everyone has their opinions surrounding the Charles & Diana saga. Bottom line: they were both needy, sensitive, emotional people completely ill-suited for each other. Diana was extremely young, virginal, and psychologically damaged by the very public and scandalous divorce of her parents during the 1960s. Neither of her parents were attentive to this emotional damage that Diana in particular suffered from. Diana was protective of and nurturing toward her younger brother, Charles. They did not get along with their stepmother Raine (Barbara Cartland), but Diana apparently found solace and dreams of romance from reading the novels of her stepmother. Diana reportedly as a school girl, had a crush on Prince Charles (who at one point during the 1970s dated her sister, Sarah).

bolded by me. Novelist Barbara Cartland was the mother of Raine Spencer

 

[loulou]

And as for the relationship continuing after his marriage- I read that he actually only returned to Camilla after a few years of marriage- he really did try to make it work (as did she, I suppose).

It doesn't matter: he, as a grown man, led a young girl believe he loved her, asked her, and married her. None of which he meant. Then and there it was never going to be a marriage, as we and Diana understand/stood it. That alone shifts on him responsability for everything that descended.

BTW, I was watching stuff that past week, and I think it was mentioned the scandal that called into question Diana's virginity before marriage: the blond on the Royal Train with Charls. A believe there was a written statement from a bodyguard or something, backing the journalist up. Diana knew it wasn't her. People eventually knew too. At which point Charles proposed after his father supposedly told him: "Now you either piss or move off the pot".
That would mean Charles and Camilla were sleeping together during the engagement.

After all, the British upper classes have always tended to marry and then to have affairs as a matter of course, if they were unhappy in their marriage. The kicker though is that the wife of the royal heir to the throne was expected to suffer in silence. Everyone underestimated the strength and stubbornness of Diana's personality. When modern British royal history is exhaustively written, it will likely be divided as follows: Before Diana -- After Diana.

Thanks.

 

[loulou]

BTW - how come someone with such serious mental illness is so capable to carry herself in public, all around the world, with presidents and prime ministers, capable to to be so damn captivating to play the press and countless others? That's a switch many with mental illnesses I bet would want.

 

[taf2002]

BTW - how come someone with such serious mental illness is so capable to carry herself in public, all around the world, with presidents and prime ministers, capable to to be so damn captivating to play the press and countless others? That's a switch many with mental illnesses I bet would want.

Because (despite all the armchair psychologists) maybe she didn't have serious mental illnesses prior to the marriage. Maybe she just had the same anxiety & lack of confidence that many young girls do. Maybe having your illusions stripped away & your bubble burst in the most public way possible led to other issues. IDK, I'm not a doctor.

 

[Coco]

A lot of issues don't emerge until the late 20s, too.

 

[Vagabond]

BTW - how come someone with such serious mental illness is so capable to carry herself in public, all around the world, with presidents and prime ministers, capable to to be so damn captivating to play the press and countless others? That's a switch many with mental illnesses I bet would want.

Because (despite all the armchair psychologists) maybe she didn't have serious mental illnesses prior to the marriage. Maybe she just had the same anxiety & lack of confidence that many young girls do. Maybe having your illusions stripped away & your bubble burst in the most public way possible led to other issues. IDK, I'm not a doctor.

People with Borderline Personality Disorder (the diagnosis usually given Diana, albeit without any known evaluation by a mental health professional) can be very charming with some people and belligerent with others. These and other symptoms can appear in childhood but are often not fully recognizable until adulthood.

A relative of mine has what I (and others who are familiar with this person and who have more knowledge of psychology and psychiatry than I do) believe to be BPD and I have seen this close up.

For anyone who is curious about BPD, I would suggest following these links.

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Borderline-Personality-Disorder
http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/what-is-bpd/bpd-overview/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/16brod.html?em
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml1

And from that last link:

While mental health experts now generally agree that the label "borderline personality disorder" is very misleading, a more accurate term does not exist yet.

 

[SHARPIE]

William and Kate are expecting baby number 3.


Duchess of Cambridge expecting third child
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41148027

 

[MsZem]

William and Kate are expecting baby number 3.

Duchess of Cambridge expecting third child
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41148027

Congratulations to them though I see Kate once again has severe morning sickness, poor thing. I hope she'll feel better soon.

Meanwhile in Sweden, the newest prince now has a name: Gabriel Carl Walther.

 

[PDilemma]

People with Borderline Personality Disorder (the diagnosis usually given Diana, albeit without any known evaluation by a mental health professional) can be very charming with some people and belligerent with others. These and other symptoms can appear in childhood but are often not fully recognizable until adulthood.

A relative of mine has what I (and others who are familiar with this person and who have more knowledge of psychology and psychiatry than I do) believe to be BPD and I have seen this close up.

An on and off again friend of mine, who was my best friend in childhood was actually diagnosed with a personality disorder but would not tell me which one. She immediately stopped seeing the psychologist who diagnosed it, insisting nothing was wrong with her and something was wrong with the psychologist. Based on her traits, life experiences and behaviors, I suspect it is BPD. It all matches up. She is the most charming person you would ever meet. People are instantly friends with her. Borderlines also tend to open up quickly and draw you in to a close relationship. But they are clingy. This friend has come and gone and come and gone over and over and over 30 years in my life. When she is around, she is clinging, I am her very best friend, and when she goes, it is in a rage over something relatively minor that she picked out because she was feeling abandoned. Last time, it was because I wasn't interested in reading a book she liked. Absolute rage followed. A day of angry text messages that would not stop coming--about a minute apart for three straight hours--I had to turn off my phone. She also has struggled with eating disorders her entire life since adolescence.

Diana's behaviors, well documented and revealed to biographers by close family and friends, match up to BPD. While the causes of BPD are not well understood, it is believed to be rooted in childhood traumas. Like Diana, my friend was abandoned by parents in childhood--in her case, both parents rather than just one. Blaming a spouse for causing an illness that is rooted in childhood trauma is beyond ridiculous.

Charles made some bad choices in all of this; I would not dispute that. But he did not cause the worst of Diana's problems. She likely could not have sustained a relationship with anyone. My friend has never been able to. At 42, she told me she had never actually loved any of the men she's been with, she was divorced then and had lived with a long string of other men before and after the marriage, including one for five years that she was engaged to but never married. At that time, she was living with a guy she practically had a platonic relationship with (occasional pecks were their only physical relationship) and shared no emotional intimacy with either. She declared that the "healthiest" relationship she had ever had and called it perfect because "he keeps us safe" (never had a clue who "us" was in that--she did not have children). But for someone with BPD, she had what she needed--someone somehow attached to her who made it so she didn't have to be alone. Reading about BPD, it is clear to me that that has colored ever "romantic" relationship she ever had.

 

[skatesindreams]

Talk about "armchair expertise" and diagnosis!