Hi Simon,

I don't think it's about anyone's "fault". I don't think Diana was any saint, either. But for me, it's a question of character, ethics, and good judgement. If Charles is meant to a leader in his church and of his country (even if it's only symbolic), his judgement and character can be questioned by the public.

He chose her, which reflects on his judgement and common sense, especially for those who want to see her as a "headcase." He concealed facts from her, which relflects on his honesty. I think many women identify with the kind of betrayal Diana experienced, and they tend to overlook some of her reaction to it as understandable. Charles is less understandable because he created and controlled the conditions from the outset. He also knew what life was like as a royal and was 12 or 13 years older than Diana, so he had a great deal of knowledge that she lacked.

I don't see why he could not have sat down with some noble young woman and told her all about Camilla, and then offered that young woman a chance to be queen, to be the mother of the heir, to have all the perks, etc., all the while making it very clear to her that his heart would never be hers. And after she'd given him the heir and the spare, she would be free to pursue her own affairs quietly. If he'd put it that way, I'd bet any number of women would have jumped at the chance, though I don't think Diana would have been one of them. However, I think what I've described is the life Charles intended for Diana, and it would have been honest on Charles' part if he'd leveled with her.