I’m sure she didn’t give it a lot of conscious thought at first-like any young woman, she had stars in her eyes-we’ve all been there...
As my neighbor pointed out-quite rightly, too-Brits are far more aware, proud of and into their very long recorded history than we are for obvious reasons-I’m sure Diana was no exception. I’m also sure she took more than a cursory glance at that history and saw that damn near all of the kings were horndogs at the very least-and there is no doubt that some well-meaning friend told her about the Cammie situation-she admitted many times that she knew what the deal was with her. It has also been customary for the wives of noblemen to look the other way as far as their husband’s mistresses for centuries-they are not like we are here...
I understand it was basically an arranged marriage, but that is no reason to not be prepared to deal with the obvious facts. You agree to the marriage without insisting on certain things, you agree to the status quo. I don’t know a 19 yr old woman-virgin or not-who would not give at least some consideration to glaring facts. I don’t think Diana was deliberately calculating-just someone wanting attention when she wasn’t able to get a king to go against centuries of royal privilege-that doesn’t qualify her for sainthood...
Nobody has nominated her for sainthood. But Charles acted badly, royal precedent or not. He had many years to sow his wild oats and then behave appropriately, or at least discreetly. His grandfather, Elizabeth’s father, did not dishonor the Queen Mother. His father Phillip has kept his rumored dalliances completely out of the limelight, and never has wavered in serving the Queen with distinction over 60+ years. And no queen has been beheaded for disappointing the King since Henry VIII. Charles was not “entitled” to humiliate a young girl and enter falsely into a non-committal union at the altar of the Church of England, as heir to the title Defender of the Faith. He has played the weasel at every level, including the Church.