Charles didn’t go on Panorama and suggest that the entire succession be centered on her son because Charles didn’t make her happy or fulfilled. And Charles didn’t call into question the lineal legitimacy of her second son in front of the entire world. All because Diana, despite her NUMEROUS blessings, didn’t feel fulfilled.
If I had a daughter-in-law that did that, I’d be beyond ticked. Charles didn’t pick that fight, everything he did was in response to what Diana did. Charles is an eccentric, not a bulimic drama addicted nutjob who made it her personal mission to destroy the life of her husband, his family, and her second son. How many numerous articles are there that Harry looks just like Hewitt?
She brought a lot of her misery onto herself. She marketed herself as a sexpot and then proceeded to wonder why men might not want to commit after bonking her. Stalking a married man and tormenting his wife with threats and screaming and making it so bad that the husband had to call Scotland Yard because he thought it might be terrorism.
Then cavorting with Dodi on his yacht and not caring about what her sons might see and read about. Not caring about her reputation to make their lives a little bit easier. I can’t imagine how William must have felt, seeing his mother on television going on a paranoid psychotic rampage against his own family that loved him, no matter the problems of his mother. Telling him about Camilla, but omitting her own adultery.
It’s a known fact that she discussed her relationships with her barely adolescent son who likely couldn’t understand half of the stuff she shoved on his shoulders and into his mind. She went over the divorce terms with him. I find it completely unforgivable. No mother who loves her children does that sort of thing.
The only sane answer is that the entire sickness is based upon the royal system. Charles was as crazy as she was,,, and both were as crazy as his mom. Elitist spoiled child, raised to think she is somehow superior. She really thinks that,,, doesn’t that amaze you?
Where does this idea that royals must be deferred to come from? Im sickened everytime an America leader curtsies, bows, etc etc to royalty,,,but especially British royalty. They should be the ones showing deferrence to an American president. The french had the right idea about royalty,, and have been the better for it as a society.