Harry and Camilla and Charles and Andrew: Some Questions

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir.

There is also commentary that Harry's memoir will be damaging to the Royal Family. Most of the commentary is around fear of what he will say about Camilla.

I am struggling to understand what Harry could say that is more damaging about Charles and Camilla than we already know. The admitted adultery, the divorce, the whole ghastly Tampongate leaks happened, and they are now King and Queen.

Andrew paid out millions to put out fire on a sex scandal involving a minor and Epstein.

And recently, a biography of Camilla by Angela Levin has, I am informed, a whole chapter that seems gratuitous as it is extremely critical of Harry. Angela Levin has suggested that friends of Camilla cooperated with her on the book with her knowledge.

So why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

Step parenting relationships are inherently fraught, as we see here all the time. it can't have been easy for a 12-year-old boy who lost his mother to grow up learning that his father was involved to another woman. He will have heard about his mother's own affairs but it is hard to judge someone who died, and was his mother.

Of course, he may have overcome his resentment of his stepmother by now, but why is he not allowed to talk about what he was feeling then, and perhaps his struggle to accept the situation?

And why is what Harry may say about Camilla a bigger thing, and more damaging, than what Andrew did?

Not just that but Harry said his father and brother were trapped in the Institution, which implies they're being kings against their will. Why would Harry go to support what is ostensibly a captive to the system, and a system he doesn't have any time gor or approve of?

But no one has any idea if he'll go or not. There was speculation at the time whether the Duke of Windsor would attend his brother's and niece's coronations (he didnt) or his brothers funeral (he did). So of course people have always gossiped about family members. But the papers know nothing and neither does anyone on MN.

I guess ultimately it depends on what context it was discussed in I.e. mixing the blood line etc?

I have a friends whose in-laws rushed to inspect the baby after he was born to see what the skin tone was like and if indeed it was their son’s child and if he had any of his features as they couldn’t believe he would be interested in someone of different ethnicity.

These things happen in all cultures and can be horrible depending on the context. Judging by what the couple said it doesn’t sound like it was being discussed in a respectful way.

Interesting that her family thought she was paranoid, and yet it was her brother who introduced her to Martin Bashir.

Interesting that her family thought she was paranoid, and yet it was her brother who introduced her to Martin Bashir.

I think that's why Charles Spencer followed it up so strongly with the BBC and didn't let it drop. He fell for the evidence that Bashir faked as well. It was only when the three of them sat down together and Bashir went into full flow with his lies, that Charles realised he was just a liar. He actually apologised to Diana for wasting her time.
How awful for him, that that paranoia that his introduction helped fuel, led to her refusing state security which probably contributed to her death.

You'd never get over that would you. Makes you wonder if that was why his eulogy went so hard on the RF - (understandably perhaps) trying to pass the guilt?

I'm glad that Bashir has now been seen for the person he is.

It's fair point, ajandjjmum, though remembering Charles Spencer's own marital record and his alleged refusal to allow Diana housing on his estate when she was desperate, he may have more to feel guilty about than most

Whether he's capable of that is anyone's guess, but like his father before him he's always struck me as being rather cruel

FFS don't step mothers get enough of a hard time on here without you bringing it into every bloody situation!

It's fair point, ajandjjmum, though remembering Charles Spencer's own marital record and his alleged refusal to allow Diana housing on his estate when she was desperate, he may have more to feel guilty about than most.

A think it was portrayed that he just abandoned her and refused her help when she needed it. But I think that's a bit harsh. He offered her the choice of quite a few houses but the police advised, for security reasons, the estate wouldn't be suitable.

I miss Diana terribly but she was a bit of a twit. RIP Diana

I think her big problem was that she was a poor judge of character and ended up taking poor advice from the wrong people, As a result she got out of her depth. But I think she did mean well in her charity work.
I don't really ever think of her except when there are telly programmes on. Which is rather sad, really.

people.com/royals/princess-dianas-brother-charles-spencer-wins-new-legal-victory-over-lie-that-he-deprived-diana-of-a-home/

^^ Charles Spencer has successfully sued newspapers for repeating the lie that he didn’t give Diana sanctuary! Papers make things up!

I am nearly the same age as Diana and so she loomed quite large in the media when I was growing up. I always liked her and spoke to several people after she had visited their charity and they all said the same thing - that everything about her was incredibly clean and bright and she glowed with health - and that she developed a great intuitive rapport with both the staff and end users of the charity within about 5 minute of arriving, even those who were quite cynical and unenthusiastic about the visit.

The problem with books and interviews is that it is just a snapshot; a moment in time, whereas things may change over time, and perceptions may change, but the book and/or interview is always there.
I read somewhere that Charles and Diana had reached a new kind of rapport before her death, and were more friendly to each other, but we would never know if this is true or not, because what we see is always the Bashir interview, etc

The problem now Diana is dead is that people can claim whatever they want about what she said privately.

The fact is that Harry’s childhood WAS hard, and losing his mum and going through adolescence and young adulthood without her (and with a stepmum) would have made navigating life and love harder for him.

And the fact is that the things that hurt Harry so badly were the same things that gave Camilla her happily-ever-after. If given the chance to go back in time and keep Diana alive AND happily married to Charlies, Harry would probably give anything to do this. Camilla would not. I don’t see how this can’t effect their relationship. She got her happy ending BECAUSE OF the events that traumatised Harry as a child and young man.

So I’m very sorry for Harry due to the criticism he is getting. His feelings aren’t considered correct and socially acceptable,but he can’t change them, and I do think the unfortunate truth is that his feelings are valid and reasonable, they just make people uncomfortable. Poor Harry.

Sigh, all this gossip.

my sister in law has links and saw the boys with Camilla growing up. The relationship was warm and relaxed, mutually loving and comfortable.

but I guess that’s just dull and not worth gossiping about

I work with children. In my experience, step mothers DO generally have different feelings for their step children. It is very damaging for a child to realise that nobody puts him/her first, to know that mum or dad made a decision to benefit themselves knowing that this decision is not, in fact, the best for the child.

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I have worked with many, many children who were clearly damaged to some extent by the addition of a step mother.

I know we are all supposed to pretend that a child can have just as happy and healthy a home with a step parent as without, but based on my experience with many children, this isn’t the case.

I don’t think it is gossip to observe that losing a parent as a child and then having a step parent is harmful to a child, no matter the attitude of the step parent. And that’s what happened.

The small details are gossip and don’t matter, but we do know the relevant facts about what happened to that little boy.

Have you had a name change fail? I thought it was clear etiquette that if you didn’t tag someone you were responding to the op?

I was responding to the poster I quoted. Why else would I quote?

Have you had a name change fail? I thought it was clear etiquette that if you didn’t tag someone you were responding to the op?

Never come across that one before, and I think it's absolutely fine to just chip in (as long as you're reasonably on the topic)

Have we forgotten that William also lost his Mum ? He is only 2 years old than Harry yet to read some posters , it’s as if Harry was the only one .

😂

It’s all so Rita Skeeter.

According to Lady C, no one mentioned Archie's skin colour (or possible skin colour depending on when the conversation tok place). Lady C maintained that a senior royal suspected that Meghan would not stay and thought this could be a problem if they had children. This was taken to be racist, whereas the senior royal was meaning a logistical problem, not suspecting that Harry would leave as well.
However, Lady C is far removed from Royal circles and who knows where she got her info from. Harry could have been meaning an entirely separate conversation.
In fact Harry and Meghan related different accounts; Harry said one conversation before they married, and Meghan said several conversation while she was pregnant, but not to her; but to Harry.
Charles and Diana were ill-suited to start with, and Diana herself said thay had only met about 12 times before the wedding. Clearly, she could not have loved Charles, anymore than he loved her. Presumably she was in love with the prince, rather then the man. There was a lot of pressure on Charles to marry, although that does not excuse him.
Diana herself said she was unfaithful first.
Both Charles and Diana were 'needy' people, and needed support, which neither received, in Diana's case, her parents had split up, and her mother lost custody. I am not sure in what way the RF failed Diana, as it appeared that P.Philip was very supportive towards Diana, though he would not have approved of her interview or the Andrew Motion book.

Diana did not say she was unfaithful first. That is simply not true. She said Camilla had continued to see Charles right from the beginning of their marriage.

Diana was 19 years old. She was too young to get married to anyone much less a much older man.