Earl Spencer says Prince Charles was excited and giddy after Diana died.

[Flufffluff11]

News articles today have released a new snippet from Earl Spencer's book.

Earl Spencer says Prince Charles was 'excited, elated and giddy' after Diana died.

What are your thoughts on this comment?

I think it was a good thing that Margaret was dissuaded from marrying Townsend. Seems like he had a thing for much younger women considering the age of his second wife. I don’t think it would have been a happy marriage as Margaret aged.

Prehaps it is just a case of him mis reading CS reaction. Charles had to tell his children their mother was dead, that must have been absolutely heartbreaking, he would have had a million feelings swirling around, shock, grief his Children, worry about being blamed, perhaps even some relief.

Prehaps he was giddy and hyperactive. He had been trained to hold in his emotions. This is unhealthy and he may have had an odd reaction.

🍿

"That was down to the government to decide. And decide they did -without any help or intervention from the Church"

Eh what?

Everywhere online says that the government made their decision - because the Church of England would not recognise Margaret's marriage to Townsend.

'Winston Churchill informed the Queen that both his Cabinet and the Dominion prime ministers opposed the marriage, and that Parliament would not approve a union unrecognised by the Church of England unless Margaret renounced her rights to the throne.'

It's sad for Margaret that both the Government and Church could even have a strong opinion on who she married though

From online: Winston Churchill informed the Queen that both his Cabinet and the Dominion prime ministers opposed the marriage, and that Parliament would not approve a union unrecognised by the Church of England unless Margaret renounced her rights to the throne.

So she could have married him, she just chose not to.

Elizabeth had two children by that time, so Margaret's rights to the throne were somewhat irrelevant.

She didn't have a totally free choice though did she.

If she married him she would have had to leave the Royal Family. I'm sure they all remembered the royal scandal of the king who had left the Royal family to marry the American divorcee

. She would have been very heavily pressured by the church, government and Royal family not to marry him

She would not have had to leave the Royal Family - all that would have happened is she and her kids would not have been in the line of succession.

She would have kept her lovely apartment in Kensington Palace - she would still have had her social life. She would still have been at the heart of any Royal activities the Queen wanted her at.

Agreed - also, C didn't have to go to France and oversee the transport arrangements. Can't see why he'd have put himself through all that while feeling secretly excited & elated.

The idea that anybody would react to the unexpected death of a family member with elation is a tad far-fetched. I couldn't stand my dad but, when he was killed in a road accident, all I felt was shock. It's a very sudden, massive change to the circumstances of your life and it takes some time to absorb it. Then I was thinking about the impacts on other family members and how to navigate the many things that need doing after a death. It wasn't until after the funeral that I first thought I might be quite relieved.

She would have had to leave. The King that married the American divorcee (not long before Margaret's time) was not allowed to participate in the Royal Family in any way again once he married the divorcee. . He was totally shunned by the Royal family.

Actually, that's unlikely to have been the outcome. She would still have had a royal home, and be part of family events- much like Andrew. Times had changed since Wallis & Edward, the Queen was supposedly very supportive of Margaret and Townsend marrying.

The scandal with Edward wasn't so much because he married an American divorcee, or a woman of whom his family or the government didn't approve, but because he abdicated the throne. While Margaret would also have been giving up her royal duties, she was not the heir and, as I said, the Queen was supposedly very supportive. She would not have been shunned or exiled.

Edited to add that additionally, the royals came to know Edward was a traitor to the country.

I don't believe it. And actually it is inconsistent with Harry's account in Spare of how Charles was at the time- he says Charles would sit stroking his head while he fell asleep because he was afraid of the dark after his mother died. It seems unlikely that same man would be expressing jubilation to the boy's uncle about the death of his sister.

That’s because he abdicated as monarch and threw the whole country into disarray on the eve of WW2!

The Queen’s sister being taken out of the line of succession wouldn’t have changed a thing about her regular life.

She would still have been a loved sister and daughter within the family.

Yes I think that about so many book or other ‘revelations’ by a lot of people. When someone says or does something you don’t like, deal with it, be assertive, or move on and forget it, but show some maturity instead of behaving like a bitchy kid at school stirring it for the attention, or a gossip in a village.

I think his 4th divorce was last year, its probably quite expensive....

It's rare to see someone so wrong be so sure they're right.

The King that married the American divorcee (not long before margarets time) was not allowed to participate in the Royal Family in any way again once he married the divorcee. . He was totally shunned by the Royal family.

The circumstances were entirely different. Edward was King. Margaret was third in line, with the possibility that she might drop further down.

PT was a bona fide war hero and trusted equerry. The only objection to him was that he was divorced.

If he and Margaret had married, as pp said, they still would have been part of the private family.

Wallis had supposedly had an affair with von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador - which the security services and govts. would have known but which of course couldn't be made public at the time.

Then the war came and Edward and Wallis were kept well away because the Germans couldn't be allowed to get their hands on them.

If the war hadn't come, maybe they would over time have joined the family sometimes on private occasions. But after the war, with the then Queen blaming them for the ruin of the King's health, it was too late.

I am right. Your posts are just crazy. Also writing that someone else is wrong without adding a thing to the discussion, is a very lazy argument.

Literally every article about Margaret's potential marriage online says that the church of England did not approve of Margaret's marriage. The government then did not approve of Margaret's marriage because of the church of England's decision. Show me exactly where I'm wrong?

If it wouldn't have changed a thing, Margaret would have married him.

She didn't. She was pressured not to marry him.

This was the speech she gave at the time

“I would like it to be known that I have decided not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend. I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But, mindful of the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have decided to put these considerations before any others.”

There's a whole lot more involved in that, than just his marriage to Wallis Simpson. The whole Nazi support thing, the overthrow the Govt, oust the King and install him as a Nazi puppet, handing State secrets to the Nazis stuff.
You may not realise, but that was a big thing in postwar Britain.

How has he treated a succesdion of women abominably ?

She didn’t want to lose her place in the line of succession. She chose status over the relationship.

A completely disingenuous response, when it's been clearly detailed on other threads you're currently on.

Show me exactly where I'm wrong?

You are wrong in saying the CofE 'would not allow' anyone to marry a divorced person.

As pp have pointed out, they would not allow a divorced person to marry in a CofE church. There was nothing to prevent them marrying in a registry office. The PM Anthony Eden was divorced and remarried. How do you think he managed it?

Actually it’s more common on here than you’d think!