Saturday, November 19, 2011

The Love Triangle of the Century

This is a worn-out story and already gone with the way of the apes, but because it reminded me of something being "argued" recently, I decided to bring it up here again for the sake of telling a controversial history, the world-famous issue of Prince Charles' adultery with his former flame, Camilla Parker-Bowles, which had been the caused of misery of the late Princess of Wales.

Everybody knows this royal scandal and "that" period was one of the most trying times of the British monarchy which many of the Queen's subjects began reassessing their positions if they really need a monarchy after all. Prince Charles was painted badly in the public as a repulsive, dithering, incompetent and irresponsible King-in-waiting because of his adultery and the media even called for his graceful "exit" in the line of succession. 

For others who are not familiar with this scandal. Here is what happened.

Prince Charles had met Camilla Shand in 1971 and started a brief relationship, because of her commoner background, the possibility of making her a future Queen Consort was simply unthinkable. They separated eventually. Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles in 1973. Charles remained single. But unknown to the public, the two continued seeing each other. 

Fast forward 1980. Because he was an heir to the highest throne on Earth, the Prince of Wales, whether he like it or not, and whatever his preferences are, should marry and provide the throne with heirs to ensure the continuation of the House of Windsor. His position in life guaranteed him no freedom to choose just any woman, she should come from a suitable, aristocratic background, no previous relationships, pretty, socially inexperience and most of all, a virgin to rightfully produce royal children (a commoner with no aristocratic background was never considered a suitable bride of a future British King before the 21st century). It did not take long for Prince Charles to look for an ideal candidate.

Lady Diana Spencer, then 19 years old, lived and raised within the upper-class system of Britain, her grandparents were very close to the British royal family, in fact because of this closeness, Diana's parents were granted permission to live in the luxurious, ten-bedroom apartment called Parkhouse for free, this classy royal home is located inside the Queen's private estate in Northamptonshire, Sandringham.

Diana was beautiful, an aristocrat whose father, a wealthy British nobleman named John Spencer, who would become the 8th Earl of Althorp, was a direct descendant of King Charles II of England and owned a large estate called Althorp in Northamptonshire, England. Diana's mother, the Honourable Frances Burke-Roche, was also a daughter of a British nobleman named Edmund Burke-Roche, the 4th Baron Fermoy. Diana was socially inexperience and most of all, a virgin. She was pronounced as the most suitable candidate to become a future Queen Consort of England.

But few years after the wedding of the century, Diana slowly found out that her husband secretly resumed his relationship to Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he pronounced as the only woman he ever love. But the true love of his life, unfortunately, was very much married. Immorality issue, scandal and the succeeding twists of events, put Camilla's reputation and image into someone who had been condemned to die in public. She was badly ridiculed, humiliated, mocked and bitterly judged as a home-wrecker and was dismissively called as Charles's "weather-bitten mistress" who smell like a horse, Diana called her a rottweiler and famously said, "a woman who sucked into our marriage and refused to go". 

The Princess of Wales, who won the sympathy of the public during her turbulent period within the royal family, was portrayed as a "saint" while her husband was considered an insecure, fickle-minded and irresolute man. The popularity of Prince Charles continued to sink and even with the presence of  the influential publicity machines of the palace, the future King's image was a public disaster. His father, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who did not want a royal divorce, called his son "irresponsible whose brain had been sucked dry".

Well, we all know what happened many years later and the rest is history....

Okay, analyzing this "tragic" love story, I could not help but think what really love means? Based on what  happened, love can be described here as a very selfish love, a futile emotion and badly depicted as something that people overtly abused and misused when the very purpose of it is to provide harmony and respect. If the circumstances did not cooperate for them to end up together, there are lots of reasons why God did not allow it to happen and therefore must not tolerate the feelings anymore, it will never bring good to both parties. In fact, God does not want everyone to suffer all the time because of it. Therefore, Love itself is a responsibility.

If only Prince Charles used a true Christian principle that love is not an emotional duty but a gift from God, maybe modern British history might have been very different. The Prince of Wales was very famous with his controversial line he uttered during the announcement of his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer in February 1981 "Whatever love means".

But how can we really gauge true love? Is it enough to say that it never ceases in our heart? An emotion that could not gotten over? Does it really remains longer? Or are we just pretending to believe it's still there because we just wanted to relish the idea of being in love, but in love for what? For imagination? Is it a mind trap? Or just an idea of longing for something we failed to realize, coated with a different form of regret and  guilt and the concept of what-ifs and might-have been, hoping to correct the mistakes.

It would be very ridiculous to continue wishing for time to do a form of magic and turn back the clock and rewrite our destiny or nourish some hope that we could still reconnect the past in the future. Sometimes the very meaning of it mislead us, often, people think the other way around and assumed a different identity of the feeling associated with it. Click here to read related story

Prince Charles unfortunately, did not live the good example set by his father, Prince Philip, in treating a wife with respect despite the absence of feeling the "real love"(click related story here) well, whatever love means.

Here are hints how to distinguish True Love from infatuation or the idea of just falling in love with love according to the book "I Love You" by Gordon Martinborough.

"True Love is not controlled by feelings. It does not do anything and everything it feels. If Infatuation is ruled by feelings, in True Love, the feelings are under the control of principle."

"Infatuation is in a hurry, like a spark of lightning but a spark easily fades and ceases, it never last because the feeling is very temporary and conditional, so as long as the spark is still there, the feeling survive but when it dies down, everything fades too. But True Love takes time, it slowly develops like tender, precious plants, it takes long to notice its blossoming buds because knowing a person always takes time, there's no short cut and growing a relationship takes time and God expects couples in love to grow up (Ephesians 4:15), a spark is temporary, it easily fades and ceases, "

"Infatuation is obsessed with externals and the fashion and is intoxicated with sex appeal while True Love is concerned with internals and compatibility."

""Infatuation considers only the "labels" of the partner. True Love let the two people know each other well, and see beyond misgivings and shortcomings, providing attention, supporting and expressing concern to each other's well-being."

"Infatuation is a human pit while True Love is a divine ladder." Read related story



No comments: