What happens if Prince Charles and Princess Diana had as strong a marriage as Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip?
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Step one would be butterflying Charles meeting Camilla entirely.
Maybe Prince Harry being born female, as Charles reportedly hoped for would help as well.
Last edited:
I think that you have change their both's personality before their marriage could work. Even without Camilla marriage would be doomed with way or another.
Butterflies would are intresting. It is possible that them would have third child. William and Harry would are quiet different people and perhaps even better relations. Harry probably would stay as working royal and never marry Meghan Markle.
I agree on big personality changes.
I might also add if Harry was born a daughter his name might be Princess Harriet? I wonder who she would marry.
Has Harriet usually used on British royal family? I think that if he would has born as girl, Charlotte or Mary would are quiet plausible. And Harry's real name is Henry so its femine form would be Henrietta. But not sure if such name has usually used either.
I was trying to avoid Henriette because of a certain queen consort, but agree Charlotte or Mary are more plausible.
Perhaps Diana could have therapy, it helped Margaret. Charles needs to make an attempt to understand her. Since he believes strongly in an organic lifestyle perhaps he could be won over to her AIDS and Anti land mind work. For her part, Diana needs to quit living in a dream. She could have a Philip type role, to the King if they could calm down.
I never bought into the Diana mythology.
For me, Charles and Diana always looked ill-matched from the start. I know some people adapt to awkward circumstances very well, but it's not easy to see Diana changing at all, while Charles always appeared to be serious and working to do the right thing which (if I am right) would leave little room for any difference from OTL.
My take is that Charles and Camilla might have had a strong and lasting marriage, but I can't see any way for Charles and Diana to work any better than it did.
For me, Charles and Diana always looked ill-matched from the start. I know some people adapt to awkward circumstances very well, but it's not easy to see Diana changing at all, while Charles always appeared to be serious and working to do the right thing which (if I am right) would leave little room for any difference from OTL.
My take is that Charles and Camilla might have had a strong and lasting marriage, but I can't see any way for Charles and Diana to work any better than it did.
Agree. You would need massive personality changes on them. And not sure if high age gap was good thing either.
This.
The largely uninformed public, ignorant of the fact that Charles and Camilla's romance began long before Di entered the picture, loves to decry Camilla as 'the other woman', but in truth, Di was the interloper.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
You'll also need to change Diana's appalling treatment of those working for her and the firm, which upset Charles considerably.
I'm struggling to see how a belief in an organic lifestyle translates easily to AIDS and anti-land mine work.
She would also have to give a damn about things like the Prince's Trust, set up to help disadvantaged (and not always photogenic) youth, and which Charles set up long before Diana was on the scene (1976, if memory serves). She'd also have to, well, work, rather than just do photo-opportunities.
To the OP, it would be a lot easier to have the Queen accept Camilla from the start, and remove Diana from the equation entirely. Charles and Camilla have maintained a relationship (with varying degrees of separation) for some 50 odd years. I'd argue that is prima facie evidence that the relationship would last.
I just meant, perhaps they could come to a understanding based on a frank discussion of what each needed and brought to the marraige.
Lady Diana Frances Spencer wed the Prince of Wales. Prince Charles just happened to be the unlucky man with the title. Who the f**k marries someone they've only been out with 12 times? Someone from an ambitious family and someone emotionally stuck in Barbara Cartland novels. She told someone Charles "couldn't divorce her" as a reason for marrying him. Serious emotional issues there. Charles was brought as strictly as the Spencer children were allowed to run free (throw nanny's clothing out windows, ride a horse up stairs indoors - all of them seemed in need of serious therapy).
To make it work? Push back the wedding at least one year. Have Diana spend that year learning the job and her 'secret' fiance's personality as well as therapy when the eating disorder shows up under pressure. If Diana still wants to wed him when the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother signs off on her having achieved job (career would be better word) goals, then announce engagement February 1982, with the wedding in June/July of 1982. Also, Diana can do some negotiating, like not going overseas without her husband for the first X number of years. Obviously, this means different children: the firstborn son born in 1983, a daughter in 1985 and a second son in 1988. Keep up the counseling, perhaps QEII can send the Parker Bowles overseas for an appointment that will last at least 2 years, maybe 4. That keeps Charles from the temptations of Camilla. Diana can find out the return date of the PBs and hopefully get herself pregnant again. If she can curb her desire to outshine Charles (which caused problems OTL), they might make it. She will be motivated by the daughter to remain HRH Princess of Wales.
To make it work? Push back the wedding at least one year. Have Diana spend that year learning the job and her 'secret' fiance's personality as well as therapy when the eating disorder shows up under pressure. If Diana still wants to wed him when the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother signs off on her having achieved job (career would be better word) goals, then announce engagement February 1982, with the wedding in June/July of 1982. Also, Diana can do some negotiating, like not going overseas without her husband for the first X number of years. Obviously, this means different children: the firstborn son born in 1983, a daughter in 1985 and a second son in 1988. Keep up the counseling, perhaps QEII can send the Parker Bowles overseas for an appointment that will last at least 2 years, maybe 4. That keeps Charles from the temptations of Camilla. Diana can find out the return date of the PBs and hopefully get herself pregnant again. If she can curb her desire to outshine Charles (which caused problems OTL), they might make it. She will be motivated by the daughter to remain HRH Princess of Wales.
Last edited:
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Yeah. Good luck with that happening.
Charles was in love with Camilla from before Diana was ever on the scene. OTL, he dutifully stayed apart from her for the relatively brief period Diana was true to her marriage vows, and for some considerable time thereafter. It was only when it became impossible for anyone to turn a blind eye to Diana's transgressions that he started to stray.
To remove the temptation of Camilla, one pretty much has to write Camilla out of it such that they never meet and fall in love. To remove giving in to temptation, you've not got to do anything other than stop Diana's wanderings.
Diana and Charles were never, ever going to get on. Their personalities pretty much ensures that. Short of giving one or other or both a major personality transplant, any marriage between them is going to be a very unhappy one.
Raises hand. Me, for one. Admittedly, my first date with the lady who became my wife lasted two months and included a trip on a luxury liner. I gather, however, that this is not normal practise for a first date. Strangely, Mills & Boon rejected the plot premise as being "unrealistic".
I don't understand that reaction from Mills and Boon. Unless their commissioning editer thought fiction had to look more plausible than real life. Though "wounded war hero and the nurse whose devoted care restores him to (near) full health while on a luxury liner" should fit one of their standard tropes.
I met my parner while on holiday in a French camp site. Where I was a hanger-on to a party of Morris & Clog dancers (one of them shared a bachelor pad with me) with their families. Was introduced to her by chance as being Scottish she and her friend were chatting to the Scots family of the group when I passed by.
Discovered we had the same birthday (she being a few years younger) and it was while we were both at the camp site. So things proceded from there. Standard long distance Romance ensued* and 2 years later we were married.
Now, is that so much a stereotype as to be unrealistic?
* With usual difficulties including bride's father (Presbyterian Kirk elder) mild disapproval of groom being both Catholic and either English, Irish or both (depending on how you measured it). Can't decide which element was worse!
A happy marriage would give the tabloids less to work with. Maybe they pick on another royal or celebrity instead. Without the infidelities and paparazzi interest, her death is avoided so her children grow up without their personal tragedies and Britain doesn't go bananas over Diana's death. That's two wins already.
Hello magazine and its rivals go out of business, Martin Bashir doesn't embarrass himself and the BBC (yet more wins).
So far I'm seeing a lot of good!
Um, my mom & dad had only known each other for six weeks when they tied the knot. That was April, 1962. They celebrated sixty years this past spring...
I usually don't love speculating about the Royal Family, as it always seems a bit invasive. But since I have seen this used in TL's before I figure I will give it a go.
Anyway, apologies for the thread derail, but I have to wonder at what the long term prospects would have been for Charles and Amanda Knatchbull. IOTL by the time Charles proposed, the loss of both her grandfathers and her younger brother in the assassination of Mountbatten made her unwilling to join the royal family. If the assassination had been butterflied and she had accepted the proposal how would they have gotten along long term. By 1979 I understand that Charles attachment to Camilla would already be a factor, but as Lady Amanda at least appears to be a more level headed choice, there seems a good chance that she would not have a string of affairs in the same way Diana did. She has also been involved in social work for her entire adult life, which might mesh better with Charles interests. Though they may or may not be a love match, there seems like a much better foundation for a strong partnership there than there was IOTL.
Anyway, apologies for the thread derail, but I have to wonder at what the long term prospects would have been for Charles and Amanda Knatchbull. IOTL by the time Charles proposed, the loss of both her grandfathers and her younger brother in the assassination of Mountbatten made her unwilling to join the royal family. If the assassination had been butterflied and she had accepted the proposal how would they have gotten along long term. By 1979 I understand that Charles attachment to Camilla would already be a factor, but as Lady Amanda at least appears to be a more level headed choice, there seems a good chance that she would not have a string of affairs in the same way Diana did. She has also been involved in social work for her entire adult life, which might mesh better with Charles interests. Though they may or may not be a love match, there seems like a much better foundation for a strong partnership there than there was IOTL.