Got to disagree with you here, Serge. I've always thought of Charles as being a bit 'dim.' This is the man who talked to animals and sat in the triangle if I remember correctly. Besides they're so inbred that it's unlikely he's that smart. He was always a mediocre student. Besides, he was a monster to his wife. His indifference towards her drove her to her early death. He may have been forced to marry her even though he didn't love her and Diana may have been naive to believe that he loved her but that's no excuse for the way he treated her. As for the rumor about Orthodoxy, I've read similar things about how Charles met with the pope and secretly considered conversion to Roman Catholicism.Serge said:I like Prince Charles and think he is very intelligent.
That’s often the upper-class way - they don’t have to be brilliant at anything because they can live off a huge unearned fortune. Plus constitutional monarchs are largely ceremonial anyway. However, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York had careers as naval officers (like their father), which counts for something - line officers in warships, not staff either.He was always a mediocre student.
Call me nutty, but I talk to my dog. If anything (having come to know something of the man, apart from tabloid splatters and tacky stereotypes of the royals being nothing more than inbred wasps), he strikes me as someone who was always a bit whistful, and perhaps even something of a prankster. He certainly seems to have a sense of humour.I've always thought of Charles as being a bit 'dim.' This is the man who talked to animals and sat in the triangle if I remember correctly.
Couldn't be you're confusing his marital difficulties with how intelligent or otherwise kind/interesting a person he may be.Besides, he was a monster to his wife. His indifference towards her drove her to her early death. He may have been forced to marry her even though he didn't love her and Diana may have been naive to believe that he loved her but that's no excuse for the way he treated her.
He wasn't kind to his wife and I think that unkindness caused a lot of her psychological problems. Of course she was naive. She believed he loved her. If she'd been of an earlier generation she probably would not have been so naive, of course, but how can we blame an extremely young woman for believing in fairy tales? I think Diana was an extremely troubled woman who probably only needed someone to care about her and unfortunately she was surrounded by people who didn't care about her. And to make things worse Charles was jealous of her popularity and did not understand how deeply troubled she was and was unnecessarily cruel to her. The public remarks about her bulemia are inexcusable IMHO. Of course it was a loveless marriage that he was forced into and he blamed the wrong person. BTW, as much as Diana was unwilling to 'tow the line', Charles was too. He rubbed his infidelity in her face. He was cruel to her. He wouldn't/couldn't play the good husband to her.Seraphim Reeves said:Couldn't be you're confusing his marital difficulties with how intelligent or otherwise kind/interesting a person he may be.
As for the marriage, from what I know there was enough blame to go around. Unfortunately, because Charles was/is not a beautiful, mesmerizing young woman with a soft voice and an almost angelic air to him, he will never get the sympathy or even handedness that any assessment of him deserves. While it is shameful that he committed adultery, his wife was also an adulteress, and by no means an angel. Even her charity work (as good as it was) was over-rated (for example, considering it was only a fraction of the efforts the less comely, and less media savvy Princess Maragret did over the years).
In the end, I think Diana was extremely niave, and was in the end, not willing to "tow the line", and make the personal sacrifices that come with being nobility/royalty.
With that said, she also had a good side (like most sane, normal people do), and did do a lot of wonderful charity work. However, balance is necessary (the whole "St.Diana" mythos being quite frankly, absurd.)
Yes, this is the Honourable George Spencer , born in 1799 son of the second Earl Spencer, who became Father Ignatius C.P. when he entered the Passionist Order in 1847. He had entered the Anglican ministry in 1824 but converted to Catholicism in 1830. Here's a quote about him from a booklet published by the Catholic Truth Society referring to the gallery of Victorian paintings at the Passionist Monastery on the Coelian Hill in Rome:Jennifer said:BTW, a relative of Diana's is being considered for sainthood by Rome. A Spencer younger son/Anglican cleric in the early 19th century converted to Catholicism and became a priest. Apparently he was quite holy and ministered to the poor of London.
Oh give me a break! What went on behind closed doors is a pretty well known story here. We're all "authories" on the intimate details of their marriage. Everyone knows he had an affair. Everyone knows his affair devastated his wife. Everyone knows his wife had bulemia. He made public comments about her bulemia.prodromos said:Jennifer, please be careful about what you say about people. I have some very good friends who I am close to, yet I could not presume to really know all the in's and out's of their married life. You speak like you are an authority on the intimate personal details of Charles and Diana's married life but unless you were a close personal friend of the couple, I doubt that you really know terribly much of what went on behind the scenes.
Thanks for the info about Fr Ignatius, CP — I never knew about him before. But how could he be seen as ecumenical? Like Newman he rejected a false church. (But Fr I's conversion pre-dates the Oxford Movement/Anglo-Catholicism.) Sincere but misguided ecumenists in this scene included Viscount Halifax, who thought corporate reunion of the Church of England with the Catholic Church was possible.He's buried beside Blessed Dominic and is today hailed as pioneer of ecumenism between Anglicans and R Catholics in Britain
Father Spencer's doubts about the C of E according to my book centred on 2 issues: I'll quoteSerge said:I talk to dogs too.
Thanks for the info about Fr Ignatius, CP — I never knew about him before. But how could he be seen as ecumenical? Like Newman he rejected a false church. (But Fr I's conversion pre-dates the Oxford Movement/Anglo-Catholicism.) Sincere but misguided ecumenists in this scene included Viscount Halifax, who thought corporate reunion of the Church of England with the Catholic Church was possible.
Yes Father, I agree with you absolutely about that one. Diana was very good at giving it out as well as receiving it, I watched the infamous Panorama interview on British TV at the time and she manipulated the audience like a consummate professional. Her mother, btw, has converted to Catholicism, the last high-profile Royal convert being the Duchess of Kent (the woman who presents the trophies on finals day at the Wimbledon tennis championships) about 10 years ago.Father Serafim said:The tabloid image of HRH, the Prince of Wales as a cad married to a naive fairly-tale princess is a blight on the integrity of the Royal Family.
Brigid of Kildare said:Father Serafim said:The tabloid image of HRH, the Prince of Wales as a cad married to a naive fairly-tale princess is a blight on the integrity of the Royal Family.
How would all you Orthodox across the pond feel about having a King again? Can one be both Orthodox and a republican? ???
Unnecessary for most people and a top-heavy safety hazard.I hate SUVs
Proabortion types who put Clinton in the White House - twice., Soccer moms,
Can't go near the stuff or my gut definitely will have something to say.and Mcdonalds.
Exactly.Why would anyone want to drive a car that gets 6 miles to the gallon?
SUV + bourgeois, peer-pressure liberal, nouveau-riche soccer mom + cell phones is something I really hate. Every time I see one of those people yakking away while driving I want a cop car to materialize, pull her over, confiscate the thing and give her a whopping ticket.
How about bourgeois, cell phone-owning, gated community- living right-wing soccer moms? ;D
They DO exist!!!!!
If they're talking on cell phones while driving I'd want the same thing to happen.How about bourgeois, cell phone-owning, gated community- living right-wing soccer moms?