Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Di on Charles: lousy lover

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Conservativesux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:38 PM
Original message
Di on Charles: lousy lover
Di on Charles: lousy lover

BY ELLEN TUMPOSKY

SPECIAL TO THE NEWS

Despite Diana’s obvious charms, her husband, Charles, had sex with her only once every three weeks — and eventually not at all, late princess says on a newly surfaced video.

LONDON - Prince Charles was a "hopeless" lover who rarely slept with Princess Diana, according to a never-before-seen video to be shown next week.
The late princess also claims her husband brazenly admitted carrying on an affair with his mistress and Queen Elizabeth brushed off her complaints.

Diana recalls - in the 1993 tape made by her former voice coach - how "absolutely traumatized" she was when a TV interviewer asked the newly engaged couple if they were in love and Charles replied, "Whatever 'in love' means."

After their marriage, their sexual relationship was "odd," with Charles sleeping with her about once every three weeks.

"It followed a pattern," she says - suggesting Charles used to see his lover, Camilla Parker Bowles, once every three weeks before he married Diana.

After about four years, sex between the royal couple "fizzled out" altogether, she says.

The 83-minute video will be shown in two hour-long specials on NBC's "Dateline" - on Monday and a week later on Dec. 6.

On the tape, Diana says she confronted Charles over Parker Bowles but he said it was his birthright to fool around.

"I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales who never had a mistress," she recalls him saying.

In tears, she went to the "top lady" - Queen Elizabeth - to complain about her husband, but was rebuffed. "I don't know what you should do," the queen replied, Diana says. "Charles is hopeless."

The most sinister revelation by Diana, who was killed in a 1997 car crash at age 36, concerns her bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, who she says was murdered in 1987 for having an affair with her.

She calls Mannakee, a married police officer, "the greatest fella I've ever had."

Mannakee was moved out of the job when rumors of a liaison with Diana surfaced. Less than a year later, he died in a mysterious motorcycle accident.

"It was all found out and he was chucked out. And then he was killed. And I think he was bumped off. ... We'll never know," says Diana. She calls his death "the biggest blow of my life."

More at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/256678p-219819c.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sannum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not the Diana worship again...
She was a very, very mentally unstable woman who refused all attempts to get help. Why in god's name would she say these things to "the help"? I am certanly not a royal, or famous, but sometimes one just needs to have some decorum and keep the laundry within a certain circle. Trotting all of this out does nothing but hurt her sons.

It does keep the media from reporting less important things like voter fraud and war crimes:eyes:

I do hope that Queen Elizabeth continues to reign for years to come. The more I read about her and her personal beliefs, the more I just adore the gal:).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. damn you're mean
why don't you dig her up and beat on her some more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sannum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It is not mean to state facts.
The sad fact is, if she had gotten help, she would probably still be around to see her sons grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Facts are not like opinions
oh, wait :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Gotten help? For what the paparazzi stalking her?
She seemed pretty well adjusted after she left her abusive husband.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. It is mean to state facts in a mean way
you're pretty insensitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. You can tell by looking at him.
Edited on Sat Nov-27-04 07:43 PM by BlueEyedSon
OTOH, she was HOTTTTT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleonora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Charlie's an ugly troll anyway
Who would want to sleep with him??? His mistress is in for the money. SHE MUST BE.

His 'birthright' is to fool around? ROFLMAO! Not only is he UGLY, he's DELUSIONAL too. I bet he thinks he's hot stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Andrew struck me as the best looking and most sane of the brothers
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lgardengate Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Right,But the Mistress is no better.Both Ugly Ducklings
There both total misfits who would be "nobodys" if he wasn't royal and she wasn't rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Its long been rumored that Prince Phillip

the royal consort (i.e. Elizabeth's husband) has had numerous affairs but has been discreet - and the Queen is not likely to have gone public.

So one can possibly see where Charles come by his attitudes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. We need this info., why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. NEWSFLASH!
"This just in...BEAR SHITS IN WOODS!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amazona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. well boo hoo hoo
She knew when she married him that they were marrying for political reasons and not because of love. How much sex is the poor man supposed to deliver to someone he doesn't care for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Conservativesux please read
In the future please limit your snips of articles
to 4 paragraphs as per the Democratic Underground
copyright rules .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC