Prince Charles only proposed to Diana to protect her from gossip, basically

Prince Charles & Camilla Duchess of Cornwall Visit Florence

Here are some photos of Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, in Florence, Italy on Friday. Much like your new Brexit Ambassadors, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla and Charles are also going to spend a lot of time touring Europe this year. I would argue that Charles is probably a better diplomatic tool than his son, even if his son gets more headlines. I also kind of like Camilla’s polka dots.

Meanwhile, did you know there’s a new biography of Charles? Of course you knew that, because for weeks now, obvious headlines have been saturating the media. Did you know that Charles and Diana had so many issues??? OMG, that’s brand new information! The biography is called Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life. I don’t know if it’s authorized, but I suspect it is, meaning that Charles cooperated – however loosely – with author Sally Bedell Smith. I also suspect that he cooperated because the old-school stories are pretty generous towards Charles. Here are some of the stories floating around from the book:

Charles wept the night before his wedding to Diana. Like, anyone who’s ever read a biography of either Charles or Diana knows that both of them got cold feet before the wedding and they were both basically talked into it by their respective families. This biography claims that Charles was so distraught about it that he wept the night before the wedding, mostly because he was thinking about his one true love, Camilla, who was already married to Andrew Parker Bowles.

Prince Philip “bullied” Charles into proposing. Charles wasn’t in any hurry to propose to Diana but his father “sent a letter to Charles saying that Diana’s reputation was on the line and that he had to make a decision about their relationship. Charles read it as an order to get engaged, but he ‘wasn’t in love, he wasn’t ready. Psychologically he assumed his father bullied him, so he read it as a bullying letter,’ writes Bedell Smith.” But really, Philip was basically saying that if Charles hadn’t already made his mind up about Diana, Charles should just break up with her so they could both move on. Patricia Mountbatten claims that Charles proposed to Diana to protect her, saying: “He realized that if he called it off, it would ruin Diana’s future. If Prince Charles didn’t want her, who would?”

They tried to drug Diana. Charles didn’t know what to do about Diana as it was quickly obvious that they had nothing in common and that Diana’s eating disorder was making her increasingly unstable. So he basically encouraged her to get therapy with his friend, Laurens van der Post, and van der Post encouraged Diana to see his friend, Dr. Alan McGlashan. Dr. McGlashan prescribed Valium for Diana but she “refused to take the drug after she became convinced that the royal family was trying to sedate and control her. She also stopped attending therapy with Dr. McGlashan after eight visits.” Apparently, Charles went into therapy too.

Prince Charles wanted to delay the American/NATO invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan happened weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Prince Charles asked the American ambassador to delay the invasion because it was the beginning of Ramadan.

Prince Charles & Camilla Duchess of Cornwall Visit Florence

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

162 Responses to “Prince Charles only proposed to Diana to protect her from gossip, basically”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kaz says:

    Saw some other pics of these 2 on tour, doing lots of things separately and covering lots of ground. Good on them!

    • MamaHoneyBadger says:

      He looks sad, lost, or utterly bewildered in that solo photo. Or all three.

      • Chaine says:

        Sad, lost and bewildered because he is a relic from another era who finds himself adrift in the twenty-first century…

    • Felicia says:

      While I think that he and Camilla are a very good match, let’s face it. She “settled” and then cheated on her husband with Charles. He caved to pressure, married for duty and cheated on his wife. That makes both of them weak P’sOS. Sorry. Putting out stories that attempt to make him some sort of victim, when he basically was so weak that he destroyed the life of another person makes him a selfish POS, no matter how he’s trying to portray being “gallant” and concerned about the reputation of a 19 year old girl. The truth is that he probably needed an heir, Di was served up on a platter and he thought he could put one over on an innocent 19 yr old.

      • marjiscott says:

        Thank You, Felicia, for speaking up!

      • Anitas says:

        Diana was an incredibly difficult person I’m sure, but I’m convinced Charles knew from the start that he would cheat on her sooner or later. Camilla was likely the same. F*ck them both. It’s easy to normalize them now when they don’t have to be ruthless anymore, there are no more lives and relationships to mess up so they can just reinvent themselves as royals who take their public duties seriously. Morality has a different definition in these circles, and these people are simultaneously incredibly self-centered and under intense pressure to adhere to some ridiculous expectations. And Elizabeth and Philip, well I would never want them for my parents, that’s for sure.

      • suze says:

        The alternate story is that Camilla really wanted to marry Andrew Parker Bowles, then they all (Charles, Camilla, and Diana) all merrily went about their way and cheated with various partners because that is what the upper class Brits do and have always done.

        Charles had at least two, and perhaps more, extramarital partners during his marriage. Diana had affairs with at least three men, one of whom was married.

        Not that it’s a contest or it says anything about them, really. It says everything about expectations and their social circles.

      • Felicia says:

        It’s all “Mommy and Daddy’s fault”… and her reputation… as if they haven’t been trashing her in one way or another for years.

        He gets no pass for “regrets” about decisions he made and even less empathy for decisions he was too weak to make when it counted. The attempt at a “do over” that we’re seeing now is disgusting. He may as well just admit that he needed heirs, he missed the boat with the love of his life because he let Mommy send him away for a year, and then eventually settled for “suitable”, all the while continuing a relationship with Mrs. Unsuitable.

      • Lilly says:

        Yep. What you said.

      • TryingToThink says:

        @ Felicia

        Excellent comment!
        Charles is just trying to constantly improve his image with his pr sob stories.

      • Chetta B. says:

        Right on, actually. And in Diana’s own words, “He didn’t really want to get married at all but was just under pressure to find the best-looking titled virgin.”

      • WendyNerd says:

        I think generally, Charles is/was an emotionally stunted person. Very smart and decent in some ways (I actually do believe he tried to get Diana help, and I honestly do think he cares about Britain big time, takes his work seriously, was a far better father than Diana gave him credit for), but hopelessly immature in so many others. I always got the feeling that his thing with Camilla has a sort of “Mommy” element… Not in an incestuous way, but in a “Take care of meeeeee!” way. Sort of like what Will has with Carole, almost (aside from the sex part, thank god). I think Camilla loved/loves him, but was similarly immature and also had no interest in being Charles’s caretaker at the time, and really only came around to it once she’d grown up a bit (and once some of the heat came off of her).

        From everything I’ve read about the aristocratic set, particularly the Brits, is that this absurd, arrested development thing is actually really, really common. That’s what happens when you grow up among the idle rich.

        William does have a lot of Charles in him, only I don’t think that Charles had QUITE the sense of entitlement his son has. But he was/is hopelessly immature, self-centered, and insensitive about the whole Diana thing. I don’t believe this “he cried for Camilla” thing at all. I do believe he went into that marriage believing Diana would be more “game” than she turned out to be (19 she may have been, but she also grew up amidst tons of adulterous drama and the aristo set. And if that seems like a really, really cold way of looking at her situation… Well yeah, it totally is. And I think Charles was totally capable of it). I honestly think he was too self-centered to figure out until it was too late what the reality was. He may have been 31 at the time, but emotionally, he was a typical selfish teenager. (And let me make it clear: That IS on him. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why he was sent away: to make him grow up a bit. But clearly, that did not take)

        I hope this biography is not authorized, because otherwise… Not cool. I understand the strong desire to rehabilitate both his and Camilla’s images (they’re royals, that’s basically their whole thing). But this… This is not how you go about it. Diana was manipulative and definitely went after Charles big time (and she knew what she was doing), but Charles was ALWAYS capable of defending himself. This? Now? Granted, almost none of this is new stuff, but bringing up this spin is really dumb.

        Obviously, you can’t tell Charles’s story without Diana, and of course these Diana bits are what the press will focus on. But I think he’d do better for himself by just airing dirt on HIMSELF and/or stuff we already know, and pipe down the sob stories. I’d buy his regrets more if he’d stop with the self-pitying crap. As for Camilla… The two of them have actually been doing a very good job, IMHO, at rehabilitating their images simply by DOING THEIR JOBS. Just get on with it!

      • notasugarhere says:

        As said by others, Camilla never wanted to marry Charles. She wanted an affair with the POW, but wanted to marry APB (just like Princess Anne wanted to). I’m not sure she wanted to marry him in 2005 either, but pressure from the Church among others made that marriage happen.

  2. Maya says:

    The royal family is one messed up family especially Charles and Diana..

    Of all of the royals in the world, the Jordan and the Danish royals seems to be the most sane and loyal as well..

    • Danishgirl says:

      I know nothing about the Jordan royals but as a dane i must say that the Danish isn’t that sane or popular in Denmark. Right now there is a prince missing, an exwife that Denmark financially supports, a snobish prince and so on. A lot of us thinks of them as the most expensive family on welfare…

      • frisbee says:

        @Danishgirl -what a co-incidence -that’s exactly how I think of the BRF “the most expensive family on welfare – and we have an arrogant snobby Prince (William) too…

      • Shelley says:

        Danish girl… Where is Henrik? What is the deal with Mary??She gets a free ride with the press for doing so little and her nonstop designer gear.

      • Danishgirl says:

        Shelley – Henrik is of somewhere whining about how we won’t let him be king. Big baby. I don’t get the thing with Mary. Apparantly she can do no wrong in the press.

      • Danishgirl says:

        I wish the monarchy would close. I don’t know about other countrys but I can’t see what good they do in Denmark. It’s an archaic institution. It’s very undanish…

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m confused by Henrik’s semi-retirement. It was announced he would be retiring and not participating in certain things, but then he shows up at things where I’d expect him to be absent.

        They pulled a fast one on the taxpayers with Alex, but wasn’t she really popular for awhile? Then the second marriage, now second divorce, and Marie also working? Too many royals on the payroll in a country of that size. Maybe Alex will be cut off from funding once their second son turns 18.

        Marie was given ownership of half of the new mansion in Copenhagen, which looks like her divorce settlement is taken care of with that if she and Joachim ever divorce.

    • Amelia says:

      The Norwegian Royal Family seem to have most of their shit together, if memory serves.

      • Ankhel says:

        The Norwegians aren’t too bad. Still, they’ve pressured for (and gotten) substantial, repeated increases to their funding in recent years. This despite the fact that oil revenues are sinking, and Norwegian industry struggles. So schools, infrastructure etc. now suffers from budget cuts.

        To top the matter, the royals tend to spend a great deal on travels, Italian designer clothing etc, rather than on the necessary upkeep of historic buildings. Such upkeep is their duty, a point they use to push for more money, while refusing to divulge even the barest outlines of how they actually spend. Some politicians have shown open dismay over the last year or two, which is unusual in Norway. Most people here are monarchists, and not fond of public strife.

        There’s also the matter of our recently divorced, very silly, airy-fairy princess, Märtha Louise. She fancies herself a healer, and has been using her royal title to build a surprisingly lucrative business, taking large sums from gullible people who want to learn how to work miracles and speak with angels. Märtha’s personal angel, as her “school”, is called Astarte. Astarte happens to be the name of a demon in the Bible. Some people connected with Märtha and her school even claim they can heal lethal ailments, or raise the dead.

        The King, Märtha’s father, head of the very grounded Norwegian Protestant Church, is presumably DELIGHTED by all this.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It does seem that they’ve been criticized more in recent years. Mette-Marit cannot fly for work, but has no problem flying to NYC for the Met Gala or to India to find herself again. She does like a lot of designer clothes and goes on vacation with her designer friends. The CP couple’s tropical vacations have gotten negative comments too, right, especially when they complained about being photographed by the press?

    • Scal says:

      I think overall the swedes seem pretty normal. Carl XVI aside-Victoria, Madeline and Carl Phillip all seem pretty with it.

      • WendyNerd says:

        Uhhhh… I have some bad news about Carl Philip…

      • aquarius64 says:

        @WendyNerd – what news did you hear about Carl Phillip?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Victoria has a huge blind spot when it comes to rising Republicanism in Sweden. She doesn’t understand why anyone would question having a monarchy, and that is incredibly naive in this day and age. Add to that a king with a fondness for mobsters and strip clubs, CP’s choice of spouse, and CP & his wife staying on the taxpayer dole instead of supporting themselves? Not sure we’ll see another Queen Victoria when the time comes.

      • Amy says:

        NO, I love Carl Philip and Sofia!

      • Wendy says:


        Well, aside from his wife being a softcore porn Star who has made some VERY messed up statements regarding rape, very likely defrauded tons of donors to her charity, and broke up his earlier relationship, Carl Philip is a notorious overspender, layabout, and plagiarist.

  3. Lainey says:

    Can’t we just let the women rest in peace? She’s been dead for 20 years FFS. They should stop rehashing stories that we’ve all heard to make a quick buck. Just let it go already.

    • spidey says:


    • kri says:


    • Oshin says:

      Yes. How every new biography attacks the woman who can not answer back. Must be preparing for Queen Cam. Can they not let Diana RIP.

    • bluhare says:

      In her defense, the biography is about Charles. Everyone’s lifting the Diana bits to promote it because that’s the big story.

      • Craven says:

        And Charles is counting on that which is why he is corperating. He is sanitising the public narrative in preparation for Camila taking the full title when he ascends the throne. And he is doing it at the expense of a dead woman and her memory. He is still just a coward who in his thirties claims his daddy-kins pressured him into marriage. But he is dumb. The only way to get some public respect back is apologise for being a lilly livered coward who tricked a 19 year old into a prison-marriage and almost killed her in the process, and stop the transparent propaganda machine of the last few years.

      • Shambles says:


        I’m so interested in this– the changing narratives, Charles manipulating a 19-year-old… I’d really love to find out more about it. Can you recommend any reading?

      • perplexed says:

        This book makes his part in the marriage look bad though. Or at least the excerpts seem to, imo.

        Maybe he cooperated (I don’t know) but these excerpts make him seem kind of wimpy.

        Even the title of the book is a little cheesy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t think it makes Charles look good at all. If he had any hand in this, it is a huge misstep from his usually strong PR game.

    • minx says:


    • Liberty says:

      Does this book include the photo of Camilla at the Charles+Diana wedding, giving the bride a soul-rattling flame-throwing look as she walks down the aisle to be married?

    • Chrissy says:

      I agree. I hate it when any of the Royals use Diana’s memory for PR purposes and, in this case, to sell yet another biography of the weak and spineless Charles. You’d think he would at least keep in mind that this is the 20th anniversary year of her death and that maybe, just maybe, his sons (especially Harry) and the general public might be ultra sensitive to any perceived wrongs done to Diana done by the BRF.

      • LAK says:

        Based on the extracts, Charles comes across really badly. Yes, the Diana extracts have been summed up in one click baity ‘diana was unhinged’ article, but overall, he comes across badly. Not so much cold hearted manipulator, but someone who is pretty hopeless and needs a carer….cue Camilla, his nanny wife.

        He is hopeless because he has enablers. Since he was born. Whatever difficulty or pleasure in life was to be enjoyed or ignored because he was enabled and others smoothed the path for him.

        As an example, if he really wasn’t sure about Diana, why not date her alittle longer instead of proposing to her 6months after officially dating? Would it have been a catastrophy to date a full year before proposing?

        At 31, he should have known his own mind better than everyone enabling him.

        At 31, he should have been so easily pushed and persuaded to go down that road.

        I don’t think the situation was as clear cut as all our speculations or even as presented by this book, but at 31, he should have been enough of an adult to know better no matter the circumstances.

        It shows that at 31 he was still incredibly immature.

      • WendyNerd says:



        Like, I like Charles for the most part. I do. I don’t think he was a callous monster. I think he genuinely cares about a lot of worthy things, takes his work seriously, and is a smart person. And I do think that once Diana got thrown into the pile, she clawed her way out and WAS manipulative very often. I like Camilla, too.

        But Charles seems to me the classic idle-rich arrested development type. He SHOULD have been enough of an adult, but he wasn’t. Oddly enough, I actually think in some ways Diana was good for him, because that whole mess seemed to finally give him something of a wake-up call. But that was post-mess.

        Charles was twelves years older than Diana, but emotionally, he may as well have been younger than her.

    • Natalie S says:

      Yes, please. Does Charles have no dignity? Why won’t he stfu about the mother of his children unless to say something he regrets his part in all the pain that happened, loves his children and is grateful for them, they lost their mother way too early, and Diana was someone he hoped had found peace after their unfortunate mariage. That’s it! Say that and only something like that and then publicly stfu!

      Whatever he’s said and authorized his friends to say in the past, if he wanted this kind of a message out there, it would be out there even as a response to the book from “friends of the prince.”

    • TryingToThink says:

      Well, Diana is dead and that is why Charles can tell his stories about his late first wife in order to make himself look better. Pathetic, really.

      Charles had many advisors who did surely tell him what they thought about him marrying a young (hapless) girl and this is who Diana was at the time of their marriage.
      At 31 years of age Charles must have had an idea that times are changing and that “traditional” upper class marriages for mutual financial and social benefits are no longer reasonable. I would go so far as to say that at 31 years of age Charles did abuse Diana by marrying her and he knew what he was doing. He thought he could control her and apparently he never spent a thought on the fact that people mature beyond the age of 19/20 which Diana did.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I’d like it if people would let her rest in peace, but also if people accepted that she was not a saint. She had serious emotional issues long before meeting Charles, and that info comes from her family not Charles.

      She thought the world was a Barbara Cartland novel, that the ingenue marrying the experience older man would “reform him” and bring him to heel. She wanted a fairy tale prince to save her, someone she thought would never be allowed to divorce her. He needed someone who would be a good royal wife. Neither made a good decision.

      20 years later, we’re getting the revamped PR spin that she was 100 % wonderful. I think that is unfair to her memory.

  4. COSquared says:

    Riiiiight. And water is wet. Another Windsor-related book offering very little new information.

  5. Indira says:

    I’ve noticed that there are a lot of Diana-Charles-Camilla stories this year. Sounds like “Operation please love future King Charles + Consort” has started.

    • mika says:

      I don’t believe that because the stories are NOT Flattering to Charles. If anything the stories just make it worse. No way he wants to dredge up this old stuff. He would prefer no talk of Diana , imo

      I think it’s just GREEDY author’s cashing in on the 20th Anniversary.

      • Craven says:

        He has to talk about Diana to prepare her fans for Camila taking every title they promised us she would never have. There are a lot of subjects who could do away with the monarchy right this second but still have a heart for Di and havent forgotten what those over privilleged monsters did, like me. I tolerate the Queen just because I found the old biddy there, but my tolerance ends with her reign.

  6. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    None of this is new, except the Afghan war bit. I do Cams’s style – she manages to dress young while being age appropriate.

    They were also in Romania where they love Charles – I think he owns a property there and visits often as he loves the country. I think one of his foundations is very active there, not sure if its the Princes’s Trust. Its one of the countries on my bucket list – very beautiful landscape and an amazing history.

    Chuck maybe a difficult man but he is passionate about his causes and puts a great deal of time into them, I think he will be a good King.

    • frisbee says:

      I think he’ll be a good King too, at least he gives a flying f–k about other people. Normal Bill appears incapable of caring about anyone but himself – he seems gyroscopically selfish to me.

    • Original T.C. says:

      Talk about burying the lead, the Afghanistan tidbit is HUGE!! Who would have thought, the one ‘somewhat leader’ with no political power was the only way using his brain and thinking about the cultural ramifications to the greater Islamic world of attacking Afghanistan during Ramadan? Shocked out of my chair that Chuck was smarter than military strategists and the PM both!

      • Sixer says:

        Chuck has always been a big promoter of dialogue with Islam, right back to the days of Salman Rushdie and book burning.

        See his big speech here, way back in 1993:

        Of course, over the years this has also got him into various amounts of hot water as being seen to whitewash the Saudis as well as to promote general interfaith dialogue.

        He’s also promoted interfaith issues over whatever the current geopolitical issues are/were in other areas. Anyone remember him boycotting a Chinese state visit over Buddhism and Tibet?

        I think, as a future head of the CofE, that’s the angle he would take as King. I can imagine some constitutional arguments over it – King not supposed to be involved in politics; head of church supposed to be involved in interfaith dialogues.

        Overall, I think he will be a good King too, if we must have such a thing. But there will be some fabulous headlines!

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        This isn’t the first time Chuck has shown he’s smarter than the politicians – he’s gotten a lot of stick from the press over the years over his interest in politics. He’s been a big environmentalist for years (long before it became a ‘thing’) and petitioned the gov to get the troops better/new kits and weapons as during one of his visits he’d been made aware that they were BUYING their own kit (his leaked ‘spider’ letters are quite interesting).

      • Original T.C. says:

        Thanks for the information @Sixer and @Digital Unicorn, you ladies are wonderful at providing educational material 🙂 Good on Chuck!! Off to read the speech linked.

      • Luca76 says:

        See I agree with the particular sentiment it I don’t think it’s appropriate at all or even legal for him to butt his nose into foreign affairs and he should tread very lightly when it comes to matters of state.

      • Sixer says:

        Luca – yes, quite. See: the Black Spider memos. Most of us liked the content of them if we’re honest, but the content isn’t the point. The point is anti-constitutional lobbying of govt by a royal.

        But the monarch of the UK has a dual role as head of state AND head of a church. So there are circles to square.

        As I often say around here – the joys of an unwritten constitution. We’re a very old country. Most of the UK’s democratic institutions include this sort of constitutional fudge. It’s how we avoided revolution post the Civil War. We achieved democracy by attrition, not by upheaval.

      • Shambles says:

        See, I think it would be wonderful to have the head of the church promoting interfaith dialogue. I think we need much, much more of that. But it doesn’t really matter what I think, does it? It’s what’s legal/constitutional in the U.K.

      • Becky says:

        I’m sure in an interview years ago, he said he wanted to be defender of all faiths (the monarch has that title going back to, ironically Henry VIII, and is head of the Church of England).

      • Sixer says:

        Becky – he did.

        Shambles – like I say, joys of an unwritten constitution. Royalists in the UK have no problem with the monarch acting as, say, the conscience of the government. It’s not as though public dialogue is the same thing as making laws. Republicans in the UK – I’m one of those – don’t like it and think it’s anti-democratic. Most people are either somewhere between the two or don’t really care either way, though, since most people aren’t that interested in the intricacies of constitutional arrangements. Those most people will usually like it if they agree with what Chuck says and hate it if they disagree – which, as Luca says, isn’t really the point!

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, he has invested Duchy money in Romania, to bring back crumbling estates and promote sustainable agriculture. Not sure how he’s allowed to do that with Duchy money, but he does.

  7. Luca76 says:

    He was so much older and the most famous bachelor in the country of not world? She was 19 years old . He needs to just take responsibility for screwing up admit he regrets it and stop trying to justify his current life. He loves Camilla great. Diana was troubled ok then but she was still a great woman.

    • Craven says:

      Agreed. But it also has to be said that many teenage girls overcome their eating disorder challenges within a supportive environment. Being married to a self centered ass with staff dedicated to torturing you and video cameras permanently trained at you, would damage even the most self assured nineteen year old. He cant just say he found her broken when its clear that he crushed her. I’m just glad that Diana lived in the late twentieth century. Even a century prior, she would have found herself in the Tower as soon as she delivered Harry The Spare.

      • Ankhel says:

        It’s hard to say, IMO, how many of her difficulties stemmed from Charles personally, as opposed to her troubled childhood, the conflicted Spencer family, and her personal decision to accept “a great marriage” to a virtual stranger.

        At least Charles cared enough to want to help her into therapy, even if he never loved her.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Craven–thanks for saying this, and saying it so well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Agreed, Ankhel. I think he loved her, just wasn’t in love with her. They loved the idea of each other not the reality.

    • Oshin says:


  8. frisbee says:

    This is not new information, it’s been known for years he was pushed into it and she wanted to back out – a tragedy for both of them.

    • Citresse says:

      Exactly. There is no new information. The writers are greedy, milking the 20th anniversary and shame on Charles if this book was authorized. His mother ordered a divorce to stop the digs between Charles and Diana years ago. A dead person (Diana) can’t defend themself.
      Charles may care about his role as future King but as a person IMO he’s a jerk. He didn’t have to bring photos of his mistress on his honeymoon. I think he enjoyed rubbing the affair right in Diana’s face. And Diana was no saint. She was a scheming, manipulative person with serious mental health issues. Yes, she did a lot of charity work and I do believe she cared to some degree but she mostly enjoyed and used the limelight to stick to Charles and the rest of the BRF.
      I know there are people who have grown to like and respect Camilla but that marriage shouldn’t have been allowed.

      • SwanLake says:

        Well said. I was never Diana’s fan. I always thought she loved the position rather than the man.

      • Tigerlily says:

        Hear hear Citresse. Diana was a product of her environment: trust fund, aristocratic, spoiled. She totally knew what the score was with royal/aristo marriage. She set her cap at Charles and if she wasn’t aware of all the mistresses prior to their engagement, then she was an idiot. I am done with all the whitewashing of the “sainted” Princess.

        And can anyone tell me what the appeal was with Andrew Parker Bowles? Even pics of him from back in day don’t indicate an attractive man to me.

    • Liberty says:

      I’ve always sort of side-eyed the “Diana’s mental issues” binding on the book of her life. Yes, she was coping with ED and childhood baggage. She made dopey choices for love.

      Yet she got up and did the job, and then some. Her compassion, and penchant for fun, drama , glamor, and in the end, for not keeping things a secret were perhaps not RF standard.

      But, neither was her icky reptilian RF marriage, at least to the human soul.

      Post-death press seems to suggest she did charity outreach to stick to the the RF. And she was “scheming” too. PR? Or, did she feel a reason to do good, full stop. And did she also employ some tactical moves of her own in the web where she lived, for a reason?

      Her “healthy” husband was smitten with the sort of woman who didn’t want him, then did, all fueled by “my great granny did your great gramps” stuff. Issues? Scheming? He lost some of the power card to a milkmaid-cheeked bride who turned out to have some skills. Issues?

      Both were broken birds who could fly, through some inner force of will. He had a public wake-up call and the chance to be seen doing better for 20 years. He had time to find a way to wedge Cam into the show, while grass grew over the scorch marks. PR? Fine, but…

      I can see why the Diana fans get/stay miffed, the more the puff flies out of books like this.

      • Anitas says:

        The simple truth is, a dead woman can’t defend herself and is always going to be an easy target for whichever narrative anyone wants to construct about her. Especially her ex husband and his PR machine.

      • tmot says:

        I still think the British Secret Service bumped her off.

  9. RussianBlueCat says:

    What was the reason Charles did not marry Camilla years ago when they were both single? I thought they had dated for quite some time before Camilla married someone else.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      He faffed about and then joined the Navy, she didn’t wait for him and married APB in the meantime. Parker Bowles was quite the catch in those circles a the time, Princess Anne was after him. Plus from what I can recall she wasn’t really interested in marrying him, the royal life didn’t appeal to her.

      • Chrissy says:

        Wasn’t Charles also told that Camilla was the “wrong sort” because of her less-than-pristine personal history? If he really loved her enough, he would have found a way to marry her in the early 70s. Instead, he did what the BRF expected of him by joining the Navy and he played the field until he was told it was time to find a bride when he turned 30. Like I said above, he was and is a weak, spineless man IMO.

    • PHAKSI says:

      Camilla didnt wanna marry Charles. She was in love with the guy she eventually married

      • marjiscott says:

        No, no and NO to that! Camilla famously rode up to Charles at a Hunt and let it be known she was interested and available. Everyone has read this ad nauseum. “My Great Grandmother was YOUR Great Grandfather’s mistress” or some such rot. Obviously , that ‘s all it took for Charles to start in immediately, all the while she was married to Andrew Boles. Charles had always fancied himself as a James Bond type. He loved it. Andrew Boles famously kept out it “It” as a favor to the Royal Family. Later on, Princess Anne quietly took up with him after all of their mutual divorces .

      • suze says:

        The whole Alice Keppel anecdote has been completely debunked.

        Princess Anne did indeed bonk Andrew Parker Bowles but it was pre Cams.

    • Jellybean says:

      There is no way that Charles could have married Camilla in those days. She would have been ripped to shreds by the media and dismissed as a sl*t . She was a commoner and she had been in several relationships before she hooked up with Charles. I was a fair bit younger than Diana when she got engaged, not even a teenager, but I knew enough royal history and I was aware enough of the tabloid press, to cross my fingers for her and hope she had no ‘past’ that could be exposed. Times have changed, which is why Wiliam and Harry get to make their own choices; you can’t judge Charles by today’s standards.

      • LAK says:

        Quick point that everyone who isn’t a peer is a commoner. The Queenmother was as much a commoner as Camilla as she had no peerage title.

        The reasons Camilla was unacceptable were due to her very obvious past and the fact that she wasn’t keen to marry Charles. She was after Andrew PB, the man everyone in their circle wanted, and Charles was simply a good time because she just wasn’t into him to marry.

        The story has been spun to make it appear that Charles being shipped off without first proposing was the spanner in the relationship, but Camilla was laser focused on Andrew PB, and she got him.

        By the way, considering Charles managed to start a second long term mistress situation with another woman a few months after he started a relationship with Camilla, a relationship that ran concurrently into the mid-80s to extent that he declared that second mistress was the only woman who understood him shows what a pile of revisionist poo the Camilla-Charles true love story is.

      • Maria says:

        By any standards a man who is 32 should have known better than to marry a girl of 19 just to please his father and to save her reputation, especially if he was in love with another woman. It was 1981 not the Middle Ages. And Camilla should have known better than to involve herself with a newly-married man. I accept that she makes Charles happy, but that’s it.

      • Maria says:

        Agree LAK. Dale tryon was the other part of the triangle between Charles and Camilla. She has totally been airbrushed from history.

      • bluhare says:

        I’m totally borrowing “revisionist poo”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you for bringing the facts out, LAK. Camilla never wanted to marry Charles, and I think would have been happy not to marry him in 2005 either.

  10. Kate says:

    The Camilla Rehabilitation Campaign is still going strong I see.

  11. Bobbysue says:

    If only he could have found another attractive virgin of marrying age in all of the UK, maybe the sweet Prince could have been spared the anguish.

    • SwanLake says:

      I thought she wasn’t a virgin, just fairly “untouched”? In Tina Brown’s Diana book, she tells that Di and Chuck had trysts before they were married. I seem to remember (I’m Charles’s age.) that her egotistical father considered his family above the royals, but he wanted his blood to run through the veins of the English monarchs.

  12. Jeesie says:

    ‘They tried to drug Diana’ is a very melodramatic way of saying Charles tried to get her help. Diana had a plethora of mental health issues. Therapy and Valium was an extremely mild treatment plan given the state she was in. If anything they should have tried to get her on more meds and tried to get her into an ED treatment centre.

    • LanaK says:

      Did you ever stop to think that her so-called mental issues were caused by a cheating husband who literally wanted nothing to do with her? My Dad’s side of the family did the same thing to my Mom, blaming the victim of neglect and abuse.

      • spidey says:

        @ Lanak that may have had a lot to do with it but she also had a seriously ****** up childhood.

      • cindyp says:

        Diana cheated first with her Protection Officer. Charles did not “abuse” her. Sorry, very rarely is one person wholly at fault when a relationship breaks down.

      • Jeesie says:

        She’d already had a lot of issues throughout her teens, unsurprisingly given her upbringing, and she was in the throes of the ED long before Charles started cheating.

        She didn’t suddenly become unstable when Charles hooked up with Camilla again. She struggled immensely even when their marriage was going well (and it was, for quite a while).

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        ‘Mental issues’ can be exacerbated by life circumstances but are mostly due to ones own predisposition. While I’m a lifelong Diana fan, she had her own coping deficiencies and it’s unfair to pin it all on Charles, especially her well-documented emotional issues.

      • Citresse says:

        I don’t believe Diana cheated first. Charles had sex with Camilla a couple days before the wedding and he had sex with her again during the honeymoon in Balmoral.

      • Becky says:

        Diana’s had issues going back to her childhood, she was particularly affected by her parents’ separation when she was 7. She and her siblings had a difficult relationship with her stepmother.

      • suze says:

        Diana had issues from childhood on, and they were exacerbated by her marriage and sudden, insane popularity. It would have been incredible if that hadn’t happened.

        The thing that always gets lost is that initially, Diana and Charles did have a functional marriage. They had happy moments. It feel apart under the pressure of fame and mismatched expectations and incompatibility.

        Charles deserves much blame, but Diana had her issues, too. She was a fabulous Princess of Wales, but their marriage was a mess after a few years. They were wrong for each other.

  13. dodgy says:

    The soft face of Brexit… big whoop. The Tories are advocating Theresa May do her tacky Thatcher cosplay by declaring war on Spain if they want Gibraltar. I’m so depressed right now.

    • JK says:

      I really wouldn’t worry too much. It’s all about pre-negotiation posturing. The EU: we won’t let you have Gibraltar unless you stop making ridiculous demands. The UK: If you don’t let us have Gibraltar, we’ll defend it by force.

      • spidey says:

        Excuse me, the UK have “had” Gibraltar for over 200 years as a British Overseas Territory so I don’t know what it has to do with the EU. It’s a Spain/UK thing.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Spain conceeded Gibraltar to the UK (in perpuity) in 1704 after the Spanish war of Succession.

        The EU giving Spain that veto is a) in relatiation to the ‘veiled’ security threat in May’s Article 50 letter b) political posturing by showing the UK that they will stick up and defend the rights/complaints of member states against the UK and c) Gibraltars status as a tax haven for the uber wealthy where companies launder money legally. A lot of gambling/gaming companies are registered in Gibraltar where they only pay 10% corporation tax, in the UK its 20% and in Spain its 35%. I read an interesting article in the Guardian that in reality the Spanish wouldn’t use the veto if the UK gov agrees to get rid of the airport (the Spanish say its illegal) and abolishes its tax haven status/increases the corporation tax – I believe a lot of Spanish companies are registerted there. An open trade agreement with the Spanish mainland is essential to the territory, they need to have unfettered access to the EU market.

        This veto is only at this point a recommendation and it could very well be dropped in the final draft. The EU doesn’t have the authority to make the UK hand the territory over the to Spainish. The people of Gibraltar have stated many times that they want to remain British. The EU has stated that while its an issue for the UK and Spain, they will take Spain’s side (members sticking together).

        Gibraltar was only going to be used as a pawn in the negotiation regardless if May put them in the Article 50 letter or not. The Spanish were always going to make a lot of noise about it.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Post to correct my typo in the last para: “Gibraltar was always going to be used as a pawn in the negotiation regardless if May put them in the Article 50 letter or not. The Spanish were always going to make a lot of noise about it. “

      • Sixer says:

        What goes around, comes around. The UK vetoed Spain’s accession to the EU until it agreed to open the border with Gibraltar during the 1980s. We voted Leave, now we have to have the same negotiation in reverse. Them’s the breaks.

        Gibraltar is indeed a tax haven and an enclave of money-laundering, existing solely to undermine the tax regimes of individual EU countries, including Spain and the UK!

        By the way, as Craig Murray points out today, the Treaty of Utrecht ceding Gibraltar to the UK, also also gave Brazil to Portugal, much of Italy to the Hapsburg Empire and Britain the monopoly on the shipping of African slaves to South America. I think we all would agree that it’s just as well none of THOSE things were in bloody perpetuity.

        Every member of the EU27 can veto any Brexit deal for any reason. It is in NO WAY a Spain/UK thing. NOTHING is a Spain/UK thing, a France/UK thing, a Germany/UK thing. EVERYTHING is an EU/UK thing. THAT’S THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF BREXIT FFS.

        As for Michael Howard and the Telegraph actually seriously discussing war with Spain. Well, surely at SOME POINT we will realise that every grown up in the room – ie the rest of the word in its entirety – is pissing itself laughing at us? Surely?

        ETA – dodgy, I sympathise. Here’s something to make you laugh, cos it’s better than crying.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @sixer – I had forgotton about the UK and Spain’s accession. Indeed what goes around comes around.

        The cynical part of me thinks that May deliberatly left Gibraltar out of the Article 50 letter as an excuse to force the territory to abandon its tax haven status during the negotiations. It could be one of her bargaining chips. Even thou I’m against tax havens am not sure how I feel about the tactic if true.

        Been reading about the ‘defeding by force’ nonsense, seriously effed up and yes, very embarrassing. Sounds like the kind of thing Trump would say. Are there actually any adults in parliament? It sounds like a creche during PMQs.

        I do understand that any of the 27 members can veto a Brexit deal but given that the EU singled out the Gibraltar/Spain issue it kinda goes against what they are saying that they will negotiate as a bloc. The EU themselves have made it a UK vs Spain thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if this opens a can of worms where other countries in the bloc start demanding special concessions that benefit their country only (which goes against their whole ‘we are one’).

      • Sixer says:

        Betti – I hope that didn’t read as shouting at YOU, m’dear. I’m just ranting into the void at the stupidity of it all. Soz!

        I forgot to say as well – the UN has supported the return of Gibraltar for years as part of the decolonisation process. Resolutions on it and everything. I’m sad for the people there if it all goes tits up during negotiations but then I’ll be sad for EU citizens who have been living in the UK for years if the negotiations take away their rights, and UK citizens living in the EU if negotiations take away their rights. But specifically vis a vis Gibraltar itself rather than the people who live there – we don’t have many legs to stand on under international law and I would never mourn the passing of a tax haven that’s undermining the UK’s tax base and therefore its public services.

        While it has been in the EU, the UK has threatened to use or actually wielded its veto more than any other member. We had a vote. We deliberately put ourselves in a position that makes us vulnerable to exactly the same veto or threat of veto as we have used ourselves time and time again. This is, I am told, the will of the people.

        I think we call this the will of the people meeting reality. Be careful what you wish for, eh?

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @sixer – no worries I thought you were. All good point sweetie.

        Yep – the reality of this divorce won’t be a pretty sight.

        And to top off a sh!tty week the hard drive on my MacBook just failed catastrophically and refuses to boot. Hadn’t done a proper backup either 🙁

      • Sixer says:

        Sixlet Major tipped a drink into the Xbox One today. I feel your pain.

  14. Shambles says:

    I’m always a sucker for a “he was thinking of his one true love who was married to someone else” story. I know it’s bad, but it tugs at my heart strings. My first love just got married to someone else, and I can’t lie, it’s been hard. I’ll always love that man, but I’ve let go of the idea of a relationship with him, if course. Still, the love is always there. I had a dream about him last night and woke up feeling strange this morning. But I know my situation is much different and much less tragic than the tale of Charles, Camilla, and Diana.

    • Beth says:

      I know what you mean. 16 years after my first true love and I split, it still hurts when he’s with someone else. I’ve been in love with others since then, but he’ll always have a special spot in my heart

      • Shambles says:

        Thanks for sharing this. I felt a little silly after re-reading my comment, so you’ve helped me to see I’m not the only one. And I feel the same way you do. He’ll always have a special place in my heart, and I’ll always have love for him. There will always be a millisecond when my heart stops when I hear his name. It sucks to know he’s on the other side of the country, married to someone else.

        Good lord, I am a sap today. Just know that I’m right there with you, Beth, and we can pine over our first loves together! But, also, we are strong ladies and we’re okay.

      • spidey says:

        Neither of you are saps but see my comment below!

      • Beth says:

        I’m a huge sap too @shambles. My first love was also my best friend. Leaving him behind when I moved to Florida was really stressful. It took him longer to move on than me. That was actually a good feeling knowing how much he missed me too. I’ll always love and miss him.

        It takes me a while to get over guys when the relationship ends. I’m happy with my boyfriend and I hope we last forever, but seeing my last ex I split with 18 months ago still hurts. That guy lives in my neighborhood and is with someone else now. I was good friends with his family and since he moved on, they feel bad and won’t talk to me. Ouch.
        We’re definitely not silly for still having feelings for our first love, it just shows we have hearts. It’s good to know I’m not the only sap!

    • spidey says:

      I see my first love (he is the brother of my best friend) from 45 years ago and think “what a lucky escape” seeing how he has turned out! And that is even though I am single 😆

    • robyn says:

      I know two women who actually married their first loves that several years later turned out to be horrid men ensnaring their wives into unhappy relationships they emotionally can’t escape. You can never tell how some guys behave privately in the end … even the ones we can’t shake from our romanticizing minds. Sometimes we’ve made lucky escapes but don’t know it.

  15. grabbyhands says:

    While none of this is exactly new information, I still find it incredibly disrespectful. What possible good could any of this do this many years later?

    That both had issues, plainly. And they both used their respective strengths (Him, the royal family, her the public adoration) to put themselves in the best light during the end of their marriage. But for god’s sake-do your children REALLY need to be subjected to stories about how much you didn’t want to be married to their mother? That you were FORCED into it?? Just because they are adults now doesn’t make it better.

    If in fact he signed off on this, it makes him look worse, not better. She wasn’t a saint, but she was troubled and from all angles it looks like she didn’t get a lot of help or sympathy. She died horribly enough-just let her rest in peace. Find some other way to score points.

  16. Kitty says:

    There was a story on the DM a while ago about how Diana slapped Charles head while he was praying. Do you guys believe that?

  17. Bettyrose says:

    So, Charles’s marriage and the entire future of the RF was based on wanting to spare young Lady Di from rumors? Is the RF really that selfless? And, like, couldn’t they have just spun the story as an amicable break up?

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Its a similar situation to W&K – the story is that when they got back together in 2007 Charles asked William if he intended to marry her and if not should end it for good. i think Charles and William mistook said advice from their fathers with the point being don’t string her along unless you intend to marry her.

      • spidey says:

        I do think the D of E pushed Charles because of the need for and heir, an Charles didn’t stand up to him.

      • Bettyrose says:

        I get that Diana was young, healthy, and well bred, a perfect candidate for producing two healthy, preferably male heirs, which she did. I don’t doubt Philip was like “get on with it already.” I just don’t buy that they were overly concerned about ruining her reputation, and thus there was no other option but to marry.

    • LAK says:

      Considering Charles proposed to 2 other women, is this another revisionist factoid being put about?

      A case of he had to marry for reasons we shall not know for 100yrs and asked every woman he was involved with.

      First woman turned him down flat.

      Second woman said yes, then backed out.

      Diana, third choice fiancee as well as being second choice Spencer romantic interest, said yes and went through with it.

      • bettyrose says:

        Poor Diana. Whatever the stories about her own complicated personality traits, she was still very young and naive when she was swept up into all of this.

  18. robyn says:

    Charles let Diana down terribly!!! He is a weak-kneed creature. I can’t stomach the man. AGAIN he is trying to make himself the victim of a young girl the Royals used and then threw away like garbage.

    • minx says:

      Diana was a virginal teenager and she was in love with Charles. I’m not saying Diana was perfect, she certainly wasn’t. But all the trouble started because Charles married her knowing he loved someone else. His attitude of “well, I’ll marry her and hope for the best” was just so wrong on every level. He was older, he should have stood up to his parents. It’s hard to have any sympathy for him or the RF on the subject of Diana.

  19. Tania says:

    How sad that your father has to write you a letter to communicate with you. Did they not speak to each other?

    • Jeesie says:

      They’ve never been close, but I given the time frame I expect the letter was due to them both doing a lot of travelling/tours and not being in the same place too often.

    • LAK says:

      That’s how the royal family communicate with each other.

      They all write letters to each other and ask the PAs to schedule family time.

      It’s not a simple case of they aren’t close. It’s just how they do things.

      It’s strange to us and implies distance, but it’s their normal.

      And some of the released letters are unbelievably romantic or tearjerking.

      Eg the letters between George V and his wife Queen Mary are scorching. Yet publicly, and perhaps privately, they were coldfish.

      Philip’s letters to Diana are very sweet. They reveal his support though publicly she claimed that they abandoned her.

  20. spidey says:

    I won’t believe this is an authorised biography unless it is proved to be. What has Charles to gain by all this being dragged up again?

  21. Citresse says:

    Gossip wasn’t the issue. Diana’s own sister dated Charles and it didn’t hurt her reputation. Didn’t Lady Sarah go on to marry and have a happy marriage?

  22. dave says:

    I wonder how Diana would have been viewed if she had lived and gone on to marry Dodi Fayed.

    • LAK says:

      She wasn’t going to marry Dodi. That’s a narrative put out by her father and has become a truth because they died together.

      Dodi was a summer fling, designed to make a previous boyfriend jealous.

      She had every intention of dumping him after that last holiday.

      • dave says:

        Hardly – her father died iin 1992. Did you mean his father?

      • dave says:

        Fayed, who was persona non grata in the UK?

      • LAK says:

        Sorry. Typo. Meant HIS father. Fayed.

        Fayed was persona non grata for years, but that didn’t stop him pushing for this narrative. The ring Dodi allegedly bought to give to Diana was revealed by him as conclusive proof that they had marriage on the brain.

        Nevermind that Dodi didn’t actually give her the ring.

        It is now part of that grotesque dedicated altar/ memorial in harrods together with a wine glass with what is alleged to be her lipstick print.

      • Citresse says:

        I’m sorry but that lipstick print is just completely disgusting. Fayed must be seriously messed up to believe it’s even remotely romantic. It’s more like Forensic Files.

      • WendyNerd says:

        The Fayed dude is so loathsome. What’s the sister up to these days?

  23. katrina says:

    so Charles was a knowing adulterer when you took the throne. how can you become king and be head of the church of England?
    marrying Camilla does not absolve you before God when your duty to God is to be truthful. let alone your kingdoms you are meant to represent.

    • LAK says:

      The church of England was set up to facilitate the divorce of a King and absolve him of later foibles. I think you are 500yrs too late and the wrong doctrine to pearl clutch at Charles’s antics.

      And it’s not as if the Kings between Henry 8 to Charles were faithful or didn’t have mistresses.

      FYI: Diana and Fergie ( and many aristocrats) are direct descendants of Charles 2’s illegitimate offspring, born of his mistresses.

      • Kitty says:

        Well LAK, I think today’s monarchy is different 500 years ago.

      • WendyNerd says:

        @Kitty, maybe, but what makes you think that, in particular, has changed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, so many forget that the Church of England was founded by a philandering king who divorced or killed 5 out of 6 wives. 40 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce. Remarriage has been permitted in the Church since 2002.

        To worry about a divorced man being head of the Church seems disingenuous in 2017. Well, technically he was divorced, his ex-wife passed away, and he married a divorced woman.

    • dave says:

      @ katrina let he that is without sin……

  24. DiamondGirl says:

    I’m the same age as Diana, and it’s hard for people who are younger and have the internet as a normal part of life to imagine how incredibly famous and adored she was when this all started.

    Charles was quite resentful of how much people loved her, and when they would “work” an event on separate sides of a street, people would actually tell him they wanted to meet Diana.

    He’d been around for what seemed like a long time as an adult and just didn’t have the charisma she had, whatever their personal problems were. I think that’s one reason he preferred Camilla – she certainly doesn’t overshadow him.

  25. Ruyana says:

    He does realize that his two sons will be reading this, doesn’t he?

  26. Marina rose says:

    Why i see more and more of camilla style copying diana’s. He wept because of camilla. I bet.

    • spidey says:

      I don’t see any of it.I think Camilla dressed appropriately for her age. Although I do think her hats can be bit too big at times.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t see any of Diana’s style in Camilla, not even the pearl chokers which have been worn by royals for hundreds of years. If anything, she channels the Queen or Queen Mum with her giant feathery hats.

  27. Shelley says:

    I actually always liked Charles and Camilla together.

  28. Dani says:

    Omg. Just let the woman be dead already. 20 years and they seriously won’t stfu. He married Camilla, yay! Charles got the happy ending he wanted! Diana is DEAD. I would be unstable too if my husband was openly in love with another woman throughout our marriage. JFC.

  29. Bread and Circuses says:

    “Prince Charles asked the American ambassador to delay the invasion because it was the beginning of Ramadan.”

    You know, he’s not a perfect person, but Charles can be a very matter-of-factly decent man, much the way the (older) British monarchy has been since the second world war. I can’t help liking him, unflashy as he is.