Charles and Diana and Chastity

 Of course none of us really know anyone else's inside story.

So the following is not a deep analysis of the relationship between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer.

 

It is a statement on chastity and its deeper meaning.

Evidently, the future king of England was instructed to marry a virgin. 

He apparently was not instructed as to what that means.

Those societies and individuals who protect chastity have an entire culture, both social and personal, built around the maintenance of healthy boundaries between men and women.

Protecting virginity is not simply in order to preserve an intact hymen. It involves a whole range of personal characteristics that prevent free interpersonal socializing between men and women.

Chaste societies limit interaction between men and women. When a man and woman interact, they should be focused on a goal, and not bantering freely, not sharing deep feelings, and not in isolation from others and in no area that could lead to intimacy.

Men and women who believe in chastity are modest in their demeanor and in their interactions. They are naturally guarded.

Lady Diana Spencer was known as "shy Di". Evidently she had not had a boyfriend, not due to her surrounding culture, but uniquely so due to her insecurities borne of a sensitive nature, a nature that would eventually lead to the whole world adoring her loving and charitable nature.

In a traditional society, she would have fit right in, but she was at odds with the upper crust British set in which one is expected to shine at social occasions with witticisms, fashion and culture. Getting attention is considered a good thing, strutting and one-upmanship to be admired. The heir was often seen in such social situations in his youth, and fitting in well to that milieu.

Do witticisms, fashion, high culture and outshining others in a one-upmanship fashion in social situations amount to promiscuity? 

What is the connection?

Well there is a connection. Social competitiveness and climbing can easily lead to attraction between men and women and then to relationships - and those relationships that are borne of social climbing are part of efforts in outshining the Other. Besting the other, competing and winning is the goal, love is secondary, should it exist at all.

Part of the future king's adultery was that he and his mistress had bested Diana. Enough said.

One-upmanship pervades social interactions in British high society already, as it does in liberal society in America. It continues in other parts of life - including the bedroom.

Diana went on to devote her passion to advocating for children and in promoting charitable work. She was not into social one-upmanship, but devoted to helping others.

I believe Diana's love affairs were a product of her pain and not commensurate with her nature. We will never know if she would have married David, the man she was killed with, but the affairs she did have were disastrous for her.

And that is because Diana's nature was a chaste one.

It is a cynical hypocrisy that any man is instructed to marry a virgin but not appreciate one, nor behave himself in a chaste fashion, with all the personality traits and social mores that accompany the virtue of chastity. 

There is a connection between chastity and charity, and between competitive socializing and promiscuity.

And one who has a chaste nature, wed to one who decidedly lacks it, can only make for a situation that ends in tragedy.