Molland's Community

[Mandy N]

 I  know what you said. I don't agree with you.
Whether you like it or not; It is not enough for me to condemn Diana for the same
 mis-deeds as her husband.
More likely a case as with the 2 parties involved, namely Charles and Diana,
HM and Phillip could not wait for the entire divorce proceedings to be over; quite a natural reaction.

[Cyberlibrarian]

What do you disagree with me about?  I said he was immoral.  "Immoral" and "illegal" are not the same thing. 

Do you disagree that what she did was illegal?  I'm sorry, but since we are not a judge or a member of Parliament, our opinions have nothing to do with legality.   Think back to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.  They were beheaded because they committed treason.  They had affairs while married to the king.  Which is EXACTLY the same thing Diana did. 

I don't normally quote Wikipedia, but I don't have any better sources at my fingertips right now (and my father, who has a PhD in History and who taught British legal history for 50 years, doesn't know how to use a computer).  But here goes:

From Wikipedia, via www.reference.com

The Princess of Wales later admitted the affair with James Gilbey (which technically constituted high treason by both parties). As it now seems likely this adultery took place in 1989, the tapes would have existed for a number of years before publication. There is conjecture that Diana, knowing of the existence of the tapes, instigated contact with the journalist Andrew Morton. This resulted in the publication by Morton of the book Diana: Her True Story, and the start of the "War of the Waleses."

Emphasis mine.

[Deb R.]

Julie, I would not use Wikipedia as a reliable source either, knowing that nearly anyone and his brother can submit entries -- BUT -- I will accept that your father knows his stuff.  That said, I think we all can agree that Charles was a jerk for marrying Diana in the first place -- remember his response to the engagement press interview question "Are you in love?":  "Well, what is love actually?"     HUH?  He couldn't even bring himself to say "Yes, I love her."    He still only loved Camilla, but she was not considered "suitable" because among other "crimes", she had had several serious relationships and was not a virgin.

Diana was a young girl with stars in her eyes, being courted by The Prince of The Kingdom.  Who can blame her for being swept off her feet?  Or for desperately seeking friendship/companionship/love when the dream fell apart? Yes, what she did was "wrong" according to her marriage vows and "WRONG" according to her royal station in her country, and I'm sure she knew it and was reminded of that by her confidants.  What Charles did was WRONG WRONG WRONG from the git-go ... pressured into marrying a "suitable" heir incubator to appease his parents, while having no intention of ending his relationship with another woman.  The double standard is never fair whether it involves royals or rednecks -- one party is scandalized and risks ruination while the other gets a free pass. Thank God Diana was able to get a divorce instead of being beheaded or tucked away in a tower for life!

When you look at the love lives of Royals all over Europe, makes you wonder if any Cinderella story has had a happy ending?  Would we, given the chance, marry a frog in Prince's clothing in order to live out every little girl's fairytale dream?

[Cyberlibrarian]

Which is why I said it was necessary to separate "immoral" from "illegal."

Yes, Charles is a creep.  But Diana did more than just sink to his level.  She was a master manipulator of the media and used them to her advantage.  That's fine, but don't blame them when they turn the tables and take advantage of that access.

[John]

I saw The Queen, finally.

Helen Mirren is very good. She catches a little of the consecrated aura which Her Majesty has. (Having been presented to her in the flesh, it is very genuine, and you don't see it in photographs).

I detest Tony Blair, so I make no comment on him. I'm with the artist who is painting HM's portrait, the man is a viper.

I adore the Queen Mother:

 "Say it!"

"I declare before you all that my whole life, long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and the service of the great Imperial commonwealth to which we all belong".

"That is a vow to God. You sit on a glorious throne. Do you think that any of your illustrious ancestors would have rushed back to London to help people with their grief?
  Quite right, too.

I detested Diana. She was incredibly selfish. Patrick Jephson's book, along with several others written about her, shows that clearly. Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty magazine, did an excellent account which was both balanced and truthful.

It is easy, Mandy, for those with no ties of allegiance to the Family to gripe and groan about the outdated nature of the Imperial crown. As a subject of Her Majesty in right of her New Zealand realm, I cannot and will never agree with you. She is and will by God's grace remain, Queen of New Zealand and Defender of the Faith. I think the same of the Prince of Wales, yes, he is, to put it mildly, not ideal. However, he is a good-hearted and dutiful Prince, and I have every confidence that when he becomes King Charles III, he will discharge his duties properly. Once he has been anointed, crowned and acclaimed, the King is the King, God save him. We've had bad princes before who have made excellent kings.

[Cyberlibrarian]

Good going John!

I had a long talk with my father about this movie and about the discussion here.  He's most definitely on the same page as you.  He described Diana in a nutshell: a selfish girl who didn't want to do her job.

Diana was a commoner, but not in the same sense that we are.  The only one of her 3 siblings who was on her side in this whole thing was her brother, and he was having his own marital problems.  Both of her sisters (one of whom dated Prince Charles years ago) sided with the Royal Family.  Diana was raised around the Royal Family (Prince Andrew was a playmate of hers), and she should have known better what to expect (and I'm not talking about Charles' behavior -- I'm talking about the whole "kit 'n' kaboodle", including how she was supposed to behave).  Both of her grandmothers were ladies-in-waiting.  Her father was affiliated with the Royal Household.  Diana was raised with these people.  Her grandmother and his grandmother arranged the match because of this proximity to the Royals.  In short, she really should have known better.

This is not to say that Charles did the right thing in waiting so long to get married and ended up having to marry a teenager because she was the only eligible virgin around.  But she is not completely blameless in that she refused to accept the consequences of her own actions. 

[Mags]

a selfish girl who didn't want to do her job.

What precisely WAS her job?

She produced an heir and a spare. She lent her celebrity to good causes such as AIDS research and treatment and the elimination of the use of landmines. Isn't that pretty much her job?

[Cyberlibrarian]

Yes, her job was to produce the heir and the spare.  Which she did very well. But her job didn't involve taking the spotlight from the Prince of Wales.  But that's exactly what she did.  And it wasn't by accident.  The woman was a master manipulator of the media who seemed determined to make herself look good at the expense of the Royal Family. She became more well-known even than her charities.  It was all about *her*.

If we go back less than 100 years, we will see that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was very popular when she married Prince Albert of York.  She continued to be popular when she became Queen Consort when her husband inherited the crown from Edward VIII.  But she understood that the wife of the King did not have a constitutional role.  She did not take advantage of her popularity and use it to make her husband look bad.  Instead, she protected him (he was a stutterer and not interested in publicity) and used her popularity to help make him popular also.  For Queen Elizabeth, the Crown was the important thing, not her own interests.

[Kelley B]

I just had to say that I finally saw "The Queen" and now understand what all the fuss was about regarding Helen Mirren's performance.  Bravo madam!  Bravo!

[John]

Exactly right, Julie. Her job was to properly steward and serve the institution into which she had married. At that, she failed miserably, not only scorning the long-suffering help and support of the Queen, not only writing a ghastly and flatly untruthful book in collaboration with Andrew Morton, not only splashing herself on every tabloid front page, but then going on "Panorama" to tell everyone all about it. Unforgivable.

[Mags]

Yeah, you're supposed to keep your icky conversations with your lover secret, but stupidly have them on a mobile phone so that they can be intercepted and printed in the broadsheets! How silly of Diana to not know that.

Honestly, I don't care enough about these people to really have a dog in this fight, but I think it wouldn't kill you two to admit that some blame could be laid on all sides of the royal trainwreck.

And Helen Mirren remains a goddess.

[Cyberlibrarian]

I've said Charles was immoral several times.  How does that mean that I approve of what he did?

And yes, Helen Mirren IS a goddess.

[John]

Blame away on all sides, with the possible exceptions of Their Majesties the Queen and the Queen Mother. I don't see they have anything to apologise for.

After reading on the subject, I've gone from sharing the blame equally to thinking Diana deserves a bigger bit of it than she has received. Her staff agree, the public Diana was awfully different than the private one. Some of the tabloid attention she didn't deserve, but a large part of it she courted, and the Panorama interview was all her idea. You can't tell me Martin Bashir hid behind the curtains and listened to her talk to herself. I think tell-all interviews, whether done by the Prince or the Princess of Wales, are flatly stupid.

[Mandy N]

 Oh my ! From one crisis to a right royal...trainwreck !?

I dropped by to reply to the Jan 31 post but find a civil war 

I was under impression Discussion had revolved to Charles & Diana's marriage.
Not the Queen.

Well, harking back. I agree with you we are not judge, MP or jury yet I see discussion
has become more technical, okay.
I wouldn't use Wickpeida either. On some sites it's banned as a resource without another reference to back it up.

Both parties broke their marriage vows yet Charles, by accident of birth is not guilty of treason, only adultery...there'l be quibbles there !
Diana, although a Peer's daughter, as wife of the Prince of Wales was technically guilty of both adultery and treason.
However, The Royal Marriages Act 1772 has been criticized in the modern era by lawyers on grounds it no longer applies to any member of the Royal Family, if indeed anyone....,
including I'd add a rejected wife.
That is why I stated it is not enough for me to condemn Diana for the same misdeeds as her husband...but I'm on a jingoistic spin, right ? 
Actually, I have a distinct impression some regard Diana's real crime as being in the pres spotlight. I can understand some of the views expressed, yet can't cry 'treason'  for being photogenic. 
Charles also had several TV 'fireside chats' with a TV interviewer talking on his marriage and private life.
Look, I've read the press and the mentioned recent books or extracts and there will be many more...with Diana dead, it's hard to say she's plotting for press attention !
Diana's grandmother whom you reffered to is Ruth, Lady Fermoy a close friend and
Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen Mother. (but I googled, ...right ?)
I shouldn't be obliged to mention this but with my mum, I met both Charles & Diana in 1984 at a day function.
I do not question your dad's authority as a history professor. Yet I'm fully qualifeid as a teacher of Legal Studies and History. You probably realize a statutory law can be subject to different interpretations acccording to the times, such as the 1772 Royal Marriages Act.

As I stated earlier, we can agree to disagree. I'm not complaining if people disagree with me !
I am unsure how a personal remark 'no ties of allegiance' is relevant but I'll be discreet there.
I believe I have made my points clear so I will leave this discussion to others and move on.
Cyberlibrarian, chin up ! I do believe your saying you consider Charles was immoral.
Mags, I quite agree blame can be found on all sides for the royal trainwreck as I believe everyone is fallible.
And yes, so agree Helen Mirren is a goddess. She was divine as Elizabeth I.   

Well, thanks for the discussion !

I will post on an earlier point you made re: Catherine Howard and Anne Boleyn below.

[Mandy N]

Catherine Howard and especially Anne Boleyn have also been subject of TV interest.  People here may have viewed 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII', 'Anne of the Thousand Days', 'The Other Boleyn Girl',  'Elizabeth I' etc. All of varying interest and historical accuracy.

I also consider Catherine Howard as guilty of adultery and treason against the King's body.
As we know, she was commited to the Tower and executed.
(Just out of interest, Catherine's case did not go to trial. I think a Parliamentary act was brought against her.) 

Yet, on the basis of the flimsy evidence against Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth I, i cannot agree she was guilty of treason or adultery.
In early 1536, Anne miscarried a stillborn baby boy, her fourth miscarriage.
King Henry, long tired of Anne and her inability to give him a male heir, ordered Cromwell
to get rid of her... Anne was arrested on May Day.
In the trial, there was a long statement of Anne's alleged crimes yet no witnesses were called to testify. I believe the only 'proof' of adultery offered was gifts Anne had exchanged with her favourites-- a royal custom.
None of the 4 gentlemen accused with AB could be forced to admit adultery with her.
The only confession of guilt with the Queen came from her musican, Smeaton after torture.
 

So much for Master Secretary Cromwell's confession to Archbishop Cranmer before his own execution in 1540.
Well, I'll leave you to agree or disagree. 

I'm glad to hear 'The Queen' is so great as my mum and I want to see it.