Why did Charles ever choose Camilla over Diana?

Why would a man prefer a woman to a giddy girl?

No class.

you mean you think frumpy camilla has class and Diana didn't? HUH? Haven't you seen Camilla trying to wear her hair and her dresses like Diana? It's a scary sight to see!

Also, Diana wasn't giddy. She was young and inexperienced but that was part of her appeal. She was poised and elegant; & the people loved her. She walked thru landmines and held babies dying of AIDS in Africa. And she was genuine, which Camilla isn't and the people know it. I'd like to hear from some folks in England who have thoughts about this.

Ole Rottweiler will never hold a candle to her. Class cannot be acquired. One is born with it.

Tis the other way 'round, my friend.

C.I.--

Do you sense a generation gap?

Yeah, it's a huge one too! LOL

from here as well.

Uh, 'cause he loves her?

Now there's a wild concept. To quote one of my favorite films, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

^^ What jespah said.

Love knows no boundaries.

People are beautiful from the inside out.

I am from England, and for one an pleased that Charles is finally able to be with the woman he loves. Diana may have held babies with AIDS, walked across fields of landmines etc, and her sons are carrying on her good work. Camilla appears to be staying out of the limelight for now, which is understandable after the treatment she has received.

I suggest you watch some documentaries about Diana, she was a wonderful caring woman and did alot of charitable deeds, and had a fairly sordid personal life.

And on the other note, as far as I know, Diana's death was an accident involving paparazzi who didn't know when to stop.

I sense the generation gap here too, Noddy. Diana was a kid, whereas Charles was a sophisticated man of the world, when they married.

They really had nothing in common, and having a cute chick on your arm wears very thin after awhile, if there are no other interests to share. They each went their separate ways, even within the marriage, with nothing but the children to hold them together. Eventually, even that was not enough.

Can't judge a book by it's cover.

Wow, this is a tough room! Poor Diana!

Englishmajor, I agree with you. I've always been a big Diana fan.

I think people often forget how young she was at the time of her marriage to Charles. She was only 19!! One year later, she gave birth to Prince William.

Now, getting married and becoming a mother at such a young age would be a lot for anyone to take on -- but she also had to adjust to becoming a member of the royal family. From what I've heard, there is no "training" for that very difficult position. Even though Diana came from an upper-class background -- being a member of the royal family is something else again!

In addition, she became the object of an overwhelming, rapacious interest from both the media and public. She became a "superstar" with all the invasions of privacy that involves, literally overnight.

I don't think Charles -- or the rest of the royal family -- gave her enough time and support to adjust to the demands that were suddenly a part of her life.

I also think that Diana genuinely loved Charles. But I always got the impression that she was basically used by him and the royal family. They needed someone to fill the role of Princess of Wales and provide an heir, and she "fit the bill."

If he was so sophisticated and mature, why didn't he choose a woman closer to his own age (he could picked someone, say 30 years old, who still would have been able to bear children).

But if you're going to pick a very young woman -- then at least give her a chance to grow up a little. That's only fair.

A good and thoughtful post Cat. Perhaps Charles didn't have the guts to abdicate for his "true love"

Remember Diana actively sought publicity starting with the courtship days. When other members of the royal family tried to explain royal tradition she called them "Boooring!"--in public.

Throughout her marriage and divorce she used the press. Remember she was in her early 30's when she died--old enough to distinguish between publicity and notority.

Because of her personal tantrums she wasn't able to keep most personal servants for more than a few months. Her faithful butler managed to serve for six or seven year--and this was exceptional.

Camilla seems to be interested in being a helpmeet instead of founding a cult of personality. I wish her well.

It was very simple. The "marriage" of Charles and Diana was a "merger". The monarchy needed an heir to the throne. Diana was a beautiful, young, fertile woman who could do just that. She gave Charles, as the princes are called, "and heir and a spare". Charles no longer had any use for her, and went to his long time love, Camilla.

Remember, Camilla was married when her affair started with Charles, even though they had been friends beforehand. She also was Charles' age, and not likely to produce a royal offspring.

Charles was in love with Camila long before he met Diana, and should have married her then. All but for the divorce thing.

Is fortunate that I did not have to get approval to fall in love with and marry the man of my dreams. There were those who did understand why we would be together, but that quite frankly, was none of their business, as Charles and Camilla are none of yours.

englishmajor, I hope the day does not come for you that you have found your soulmate, only to hear others who know nothing about you tell you the best way to live your life.

No one deserves that.

How horrible it must be to live in a fishbowl and have complete strangers give opinions on who you should marry.

But Charles is a wimpy fellow and had to follow Mom's wishes. He managed to get a divorce when he wanted one. After the heirs were produced of course.

Camilla and Charles deserve each other. They are both insufferable, chinless snobs, & can't relate to the common people. Camilla doesn't like to even touch people in a crowd, like Diana did. Thank goodness Harry and William are like their mom.

When a person is famous, they live in a fishbowl. I'm sure my opinions and those of anyone else really do not matter to such people.

I hear Charles may have another mistress already. Guys who cheat on their wives usually cheat on their mistresses, when/if they marry. Ole Camille may be getting a taste of her own medicine.

I've never truly understood the English obsession with royalty nor the American obsession with celebrities. I just don't get it. They aren't that interesting

BTW: Am I the only one who doesn't find Diana particularly attractive?!
She's ok, but if I had seen her on the street I wouldn't have thought she is beautiful. She was kinda ugly actually.

Love is love. Hopefully, two people have found it and are happy.

I've always admired Princess Di for the way she handled herself at such a young age, and also for her charity work that got international recognition for people with AIDS.

From Wikipedia:

Charity work
Starting in the mid-to-late 1980s, the Princess of Wales became well known for her support of charity projects, and is credited with considerable influence for her campaigns against the use of landmines and helping the victims of AIDS.

[edit]
AIDS
In April 1987, the Princess of Wales was the first high-profile celebrity to be photographed touching a person infected with the HIV virus. Her contribution to changing the public opinion of AIDS sufferers was summarised in December 2001 by Bill Clinton at the 'Diana, Princess of Wales Lecture on AIDS', when he said:

In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserved not isolation, but compassion. It helped change world opinion, helped give hope to people with AIDS, and helped save lives of people at risk.
[edit]
Landmines

Diana in Angola, 1997Perhaps her most widely publicised charity appearance was her visit to Angola in January 1997, when, serving as an International Red Cross VIP volunteer [1], she visited landmine survivors in hospitals, toured de-mining projects run by the HALO Trust, and attended mine awareness education classes about the dangers of mines immediately surrounding homes and villages.

The pictures of Diana touring a minefield, in a ballistic helmet and flak jacket, were seen worldwide. (Mine-clearance experts had already cleared the pre-planned walk that Diana took wearing the protective equipment.) In August that year, she visited Bosnia with the Landmine Survivors Network. Her interest in landmines was focused on the injuries they create, often to children, long after the conflict has finished.

She is widely acclaimed[2] for her influence on the signing by the governments of the UK and other nations of the Ottawa Treaty in December 1997, after her death, which created an international ban on the use of anti-personnel landmines. Introducing the Second Reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the British House of Commons, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, paid tribute to Diana's work on landmines:

All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGOs that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines. [3]
As of January 2005, Diana's legacy on landmines remained unfulfilled. The United Nations appealed to the nations which produced and stockpiled the largest numbers of landmines (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States) to sign the Ottawa Treaty forbidding their production and use, for which Diana had campaigned. Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), said that landmines remained "a deadly attraction for children, whose innate curiosity and need for play often lure them directly into harm's way".