Royal Gossip
April 26, 2019, 03:21:11 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Diana and Charles had a daughter?  (Read 6690 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2663



« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2015, 10:10:08 am »

^" I agree Meememe.  One thing I was led to believe was that not only did anyone she slept with commit treason, but she actually committed treason herself.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. "

what does this mean then? Why was treason brought up?>

If you had read my post you would see why treason was brought up as I explained why in that post.

Just because no charges were brought doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed and Diana actually admitted that she slept with Hewitt - thus she admitted that she committed treason. As she wasn't caught in the act they couldn't bring charges but that doesn't mean that she didn't commit treason - she did. As the wife of the heir to the throne different laws applied to her than to anyone else. Kate, today can sleep with anyone she likes and not commit treason but once William is the heir to the throne the rules change for her.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2015, 03:00:23 pm »

Diana did not commit treason. She went along with Hubby's idea of being civilized and Charles was said to be relieved that she was not around as much complaining about Camilla. Charles would have been exiled if he even thought of charging his wife with treason. And if Diana were called to testify there would be some embarrassing testimony she could give about hubby and his "morals."This is not the middle ages. Let's get real. Kate can't be accused of treason either no matter where William is in line of succession. It would make the royals look like hypocrites and laughingstocks. When was Charles punishment for sleeping with a fellow officer's wife. IT was against regulations.  Charles had enough brains not even to try to accuse Diana of treason. Ridiculous.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 03:02:08 pm by sandy » Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2015, 03:37:06 pm »

I recall not one person after the Bashir interview said Diana committed treason. Also, the main complaint by critics was Diana's comments about Charles and the "top job" and what was paid a lot of  attention to was the "three in this marriage" comment.
Logged
CathyJane
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5377


« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2015, 12:58:08 am »

Please, Diana did not commit any treasonous act. She was doing exactly what the royals (and upper classes) have done for generations. She provided the 'heir and spare' so was therefor free to do what she wanted with whomever she wanted and Upchuck was said to be thrilled she had someone so she wasn't having fits about Cammie.
I doubt it ever entered his stupid little brain to have Diana arrested for treason, he was too busy playing tampon with Cams.
Logged
AnaBolena
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3614


We Read To Know We Are Not Alone - C.S Lewis


« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2015, 01:57:00 am »

Thank you Meememe, and I agree as would the law, just because charges were not brought doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

Diana and Hewitt committed 'treason against the state' according to the existing Treason Act.

And No, I don't think she and charles had a daughter, and neither do I think camilla and charles had a daughter.

Logged

“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2015, 02:13:29 am »

They did not commit treason they were not charged with it. Should they have thrown rocks at Diana for being civilized and playing nice by being like APB and seeking comfort elsewhere. Or maybe put her in stocks in London so Camilla could snicker at her. I think this sets back women's rights 1000 years to accuse Diana  of treason. It's not like Charles was a real husband to Diana, he was being faithful to his mistress or so it was said. What punishment should Diana have received for this?

On paper Charles should have been drummed out of the service for bedding a fellow officer's wife. But no charges were pressed.

Men had the right to seek satisfaction if they were dishonored. Is that law on the books in which case APB could have challenged the Prince to a duel.

two posters saying it is treason does not make it treason. Or maybe Diana should be posthumously charged with it.

Maybe Charles marriage to Camilla should be re-examined to see if it's legal. I heard more comments about this than Diana being charged with treason.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 02:21:08 am by sandy » Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2015, 02:40:11 am »

Please, Diana did not commit any treasonous act. She was doing exactly what the royals (and upper classes) have done for generations. She provided the 'heir and spare' so was therefor free to do what she wanted with whomever she wanted and Upchuck was said to be thrilled she had someone so she wasn't having fits about Cammie.
I doubt it ever entered his stupid little brain to have Diana arrested for treason, he was too busy playing tampon with Cams.

I agree.  Charles fun would have been spoiled if he took time away from Camilla to press charges. Diana would not spoil his fun with Camilla if she were with someone else. Camilla delivered APB's kids then could resume playing house with the Prince. Kanga Tryon pinch hit for her in the bedroom with Charles whilst Camilla was having the babies. He also might miss buying an expensive bauble for his mistress if he were immersed in dull legal matters. Theoretically, APB could have named Charles co-respondent in a divorce but he was getting a lot of perks by sharing his wife with Charles.
Logged
AnaBolena
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3614


We Read To Know We Are Not Alone - C.S Lewis


« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2015, 05:32:40 am »

Sandy, let me put this in terms you "might" understand. 

I am driving down a street and I knock over a pedestrian.  I don't stop and no one catches me, but I run because I panic.  The person I ran over dies.  However, because no one saw who did it, and no one ever catches me until it's past the statute of limitations it means I was guilt free of the act. 

That above is what you are claiming.

Just because she committed treason along with hewitt and who knows who - does not mean I want her stoned, harmed or anything.

Regardless; the act of treason occurred and there is nothing in this world you can do to change that. 

"If" you personally have an emotional attachment to Di I could understand your defense of her to the point where I wouldn't speak about her.   You don't say you have a blood tie to her and yet I do get a strange feeling and am trying to understand what exactly it is.  If she's a member of your family could you perhaps say something even in private - I would be far more sensitive.

 

Logged

“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2015, 02:48:18 pm »

I thought personal comments were not allowed on these threads.

I stand by my opinion and don't agree with you and mememe which I am entitled to do. Diana was not charged with treason. A Fact.
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15384



« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2015, 03:10:14 pm »

^You are correct, Sandy. Those are in our Forum Rules and unacceptable.  So,

^^No personal comments or provoking other posters by very slightly veiled condescension, AB.  This is not a warning yet but will be recorded.  Please be mindful that, on this site, everybody's personal opinions are to be respected but this is out of line and out of character for you.  I'm disappointed.  Thank you.  YM
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Ariel
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4012



« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2015, 05:54:46 pm »

without trying to be anyone's advocate - if I was stuck in a marriage where my husband treats an old ugly duckling as a wife and me as part of the support staff with a role - to smile for the cameras and look happy, there's little you can do - you can get depressed, get anorexic or bulimic, you can try to commit a suicide ... and if you see that nothing works, you can just give up and find a lover with whom to forget it all. imo, Diana was too young to be able to respond maturely with what is being tossed at her. what also worked against her is that she could run to the press and tell them what is Charles really doing only at and after the divorce. Before that she had to shut up and put up, powerless and rightless. just like in a very bad middle east situation. so, imo Diana is a victim of circumstances and the circumstances are called cheating husband and overly arrogant mattress. and whatever she did is on Charles, not on her. she as an inexperienced child when she married and couldn't defend herself and her family. And Charles did everything he could to not keep the family.
Logged

india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6874


« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2015, 12:51:25 pm »

And she couldn't turn to her own family. None of the Spencers supported her.
Logged
memyselfandroyals
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715


Good and bad things return


« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2015, 02:13:30 pm »

I assume Diana was a very lonely woman. Stuck in a awful marriage - without her own family support. And she had only 19 years....
Logged

All my comments/posts are only assumptions, thoughts and belifs. I don't make affirmations about facts i don't know about.

india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6874


« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2015, 04:00:24 pm »

Camilla has a lot to answer for.
Logged
Jane23
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2015, 05:00:29 pm »

^^ I am soooooooooooo tired of people saying that ... if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... I don't feel sorry for 19 years old Di as C & C got together in 1986 so whatever happened in her marriage she is the one who has a lot to answer for as her husband obviously wasn't happy and left ...
Logged
Ariel
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4012



« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2015, 05:36:57 pm »

jane, not exactly. there is a huge difference between a 19 years old woman who is inexperienced in relationships and a 30 years old woman who already know how to make a man gaga for her. the first one hopes that sharing her heart would be enough for the man to stay with her, the later one knows that it takes work to keep a man, and feelings are not enough, and that you've got to be crafty in order to keep a man who has many options and women ready to throw themselves at him at any corner. Diana was just inexperienced and for this reason Camila was able to dictate things. i'm sure that it was love between Camila and Charles - they look in sync and happy together, but if Diana was not a relationship baby - Charles might have grown to understand that taking responsibility may not always be pleasant. I bet my money on it that Diana never had Charles' heart and if Charles was a dutiful husband, she would have stayed with him for 15-20, 25 years at most and would have left him, in search for the man who would love her the way she deserves: wholeheartedly. but he didn't and there are consequences.... Carole and co.  
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 05:39:16 pm by Ariel » Logged

sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2015, 05:37:03 pm »

Handle him?! She made her feelings known about how she felt about Camilla. He had no business keeping the other woman around as some sort of security blanket. She was 12 years younger than Charles and barely out of her teens. It was not an equal playing field by any stretch of the imagination. IMO. If Charles wanted a broodmare that he married for expediency's sake he should have spelled out chapter and verse what was expected of Diana and what she was expected to accept if she wanted to marry him. C and C were always together one way or another. She sent him gifts on the honeymoon, he rang her up on the honeymoon and they met up at the hunts. Diana did not ask for it--she was young and inexperienced and maybe old fashioned if it is old fashioned to think a man would forsake all others including his mistress after he took the vows.. Charles was never really "with" Diana all the way so he never really "left" her. He admitted to his biographer he preferred Camilla to Diana when he married Diana. Camilla was in there pitching undermining Diana every step of the way. I'm not so sure Camilla and Charles are so fired up happy together--they are stuck with each other. If he really had loved her he would never have married Diana or looked at another woman and married Camilla Shand when he had the chance. He could not have been even bothered to tell her to wait for him when he went to sea. Camilla IMO wanted the perks and privileges of being the mistress of a powerful man and coveted what Diana had and she saw to it that she got it all.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 05:43:20 pm by sandy » Logged
Jane23
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2015, 05:59:36 pm »

^ You mean they were friends? The horror ... I don't get why he should have gotten rid of a friend who was essential latter when his life was in shambles and would have prevented the marriage from ending? I doubt it as he left after harry was born , Cam having nothing to do with it ...
Logged
Ariel
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4012



« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2015, 06:12:26 pm »

once a home wrecker always a home wrecker  king
Logged

sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11199


« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2015, 06:28:11 pm »

^ You mean they were friends? The horror ... I don't get why he should have gotten rid of a friend who was essential latter when his life was in shambles and would have prevented the marriage from ending? I doubt it as he left after harry was born , Cam having nothing to do with it ...

More to the point friends with benefits. Charles told his biographer the times he and Camilla were intimate. Camilla had everything to do with it IMO. A man knowing the mistress is "there for him" has less incentive to work on his marriage. And it is apparent to me at any rate that once Charles had his duty fulfilled (heir and spare) that was it for him. It spoke volumes that he minded Harry was not a girl since IMO he had no intention of trying for one with his wife. Camilla was not "essential" to him.  The shambles came when the man was not grown up enough to drop his mistress when he married another woman.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!