"Diana vs The Queen" (2014) - PBS Documentary


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Everything Charles and Diana did over time is what lead to The Queen writing to her son and daughter-in-law about divorcing. It all was too much to bear and the media was having a ball with the Waleses drama.

And you know that how? The facts are The Queen refused Charles' requests for a divorce until the Panorama Interview. It was only then that she finally relented.

Also, the media was having a field day with the the antics of the Princess of Wales, not with Charles. He was not in the headlines at that time. Have you read my full post? Please go back and read my post because I fleshed it out a bit more. Diana was subject to police action due to the stalking of a man via harassing phone calls. She was also admitting, not only adultery with another man, but being in-love with another man.

What were the antics of Charles?

I have a hunch the narrative for you must include Charles being complicit in the 'antics'. Diana must not be at fault. That's my hunch.

Diana did actually love the country. She grew up on the Sandringham Estate and Althorp and enjoyed the freedom countrylife had to to offer.

We can only go by what she did. Fact is, she told Charles she loved Balmoral before they were married. She evinced pleasure in the country pursuits and family life up at Balmoral, but once married she quickly made it clear that she hated Balmoral. This is what took place.

She did not care for blood sports though.

But another example where she pretended otherwise before the engagement, and only after the marriage made an issue of it.

The Queen knew Diana since she was a baby. She was very good friends with Diana's father and of course knew the Spencer's very well. Like many mother-in-laws and daughter-in-law relationships, The Queen and Diana had their moments, but they loved and respected each other very much.

This is all reasonably accurate, which is why the television show's statements to the contrary, attempting to create a competition between the two women, is false. In fact, The Queen was so cognizant of Diana's troubles that while every other family member (including her heir) must make an appointment to see her, Diana was allowed to drop in at any time she felt the need. The Queen made herself absolutely available to Diana. This was not in the television show.
 
Last edited:
And you know that how? The facts are The Queen refused Charles' requests for a divorce until the Panorama Interview. It was only then that she finally relented.

Also, the media was having a field day with the the antics of the Princess of Wales, not with Charles. He was not in the headlines at that time. Have you read my full post? Please go back and read my post because I fleshed it out a bit more. Diana was subject to police action due to the stalking of a man via harassing phone calls. She was also admitting, not only adultery with another man, but being in-love with another man.

What were the antics of Charles?

I have a hunch the narrative for you must include Charles being complicit in the 'antics'. Diana must not be at fault. That's my hunch.



We can only go by what she did. Fact is, she told Charles she loved Balmoral before they were married. She evinced pleasure in the country pursuits and family life up at Balmoral, but once married she quickly made it clear that she hated Balmoral. This is what took place.



But another example where she pretended otherwise before the engagement, and only after the marriage made an issue of it.



This is all reasonably accurate, which is why the television show's statements to the contrary, attempting to create a competition between the two women, is false. In fact, The Queen was so cognizant of Diana's troubles that while every other family member (including her heir) must make an appointment to see her, Diana was allowed to drop in at any time she felt the need. The Queen made herself absolutely available to Diana. This was not in the television show.

I'm not going to go much further into the Waleses drama, because this isn't the right forum to do so. As I stated, both Charles and Diana brought down their marriage and the years of drama is what lead to their divorce.

Yes, Diana did like countrylife and I'm sure she was taken by the beauty of Balmoral. She just didn't like the shooting sports much. She went on shoots with Charles and she herself took part, but it turned out not to be her thing. I'm sure Charles fully understood that. It's not a lie. One can love countrylife without taking a liking to the sport of shooting.

Diana had a pretty good relationship with her mother-in-law, father-in-law and even her grandmother-in-law. There are letters that show their affection for each other as well. Their relationships wasn't all that and a bag of chips though. There were difficult times too. The support was there, but Diana need other support too. Princess Michael of Kent can tell it better than I or many others can.
 
Lady Nimue, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, Diana was in no way the best looking member of the family. Princess Margaret was 10x more stunning and looked like perfection some Hollywood producer created out of thin air. George VI is the best looking man in the family imo, and I know people apparently found Philip an attractive young man. My point is that by the time Diana came along all those people were 50 or above and to the masses they wouldn't be able to compete with the young, pink cheeked blonde Diana. Yes her youth is what appealed to so many and is perhaps part of the reason people started to be more interested in her as opposed to Charles. I am not saying that it is right, but I do think her age difference between those around her as well as her face made her stand out more. At the time of the 80s there was no one in the family who could compete with her. But if Princess Margaret circa the 1950s were in a room with her, there would be no competition.

I also don't know if agree that Diana didon't love Charles. I don't think she necessarily married his title and wealTh, I think she was an immature little girl who fell in love with a dream (the stupid Prince Charming crap) and similarly Charles fell in love with an image not the real person. They didn't spend enough time together to really delve under the surface. It is like when we first date a guy and the first months we love everything they do and every sport they watch....then the honeymoon period ends and reality comes back to all parties; Diana and Charles didn't wake to reality until it was too late.
 
Last edited:
Lady Nimue, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, Diana was in no way the best looking member of the family. Princess Margaret was 10x more stunning and looked like perfection some Hollywood producer created out of thin air. George VI is the best looking man in the family imo, and I know people apparently found Philip an attractive young man. My point is that by the time Diana came along all those people were 50 or above and to the masses they wouldn't be able to compete with the young, pink cheeked blonde Diana. Yes her youth is what appealed to so many and is perhaps part of the reason people started to be more interested in her as opposed to Charles. I am not saying that it is right, but I do think her age difference between those around her as well as her face made her stand out more. At the time of the 80s there was no one in the family who could compete with her. But if Princess Margaret circa the 1950s were in a room with her, there would be no competition.

There's no doubt that Princess Margaret was a true beauty in her youth. I would even include Her Majesty too.
 
My point is that by the time Diana came along all those people were 50 or above and to the masses they wouldn't be able to compete with the young, pink cheeked blonde Diana. Yes her youth is what appealed to so many and is perhaps part of the reason people started to be more interested in her as opposed to Charles. I am not saying that it is right, but I do think her age difference between those around her as well as her face made her stand out more. At the time of the 80s there was no one in the family who could compete with her.

I also don't know if agree that Diana didon't love Charles. I don't think she necessarily married his title and wealTh, I think she was an immature little girl who fell in love with a dream (the stupid Prince Charming crap) and similarly Charles fell in love with an image not the real person. They didn't spend enough time together to really delve under the surface. It is like when we first date a guy and the first months we love everything they do and every sport they watch....then the honeymoon period ends and reality comes back to all parties; Diana and Charles didn't wake to reality until it was too late.

The press was on Diana's side long before the engagement because she and her family were already talking to the press.

Suggested reading: Colin Campbell's book Diana in Private.

Colin goes into detail on Diana's and her family tactics to ensnare Charles.

Diana used everyone to make her POW, including the press, her sisters, mother, grandmother, uncle, brother-in-law, Sarah Armstrong Jones, Amanda Knatchbull, etc.

Diana was not a little girl. She was a woman who stalked her prey, played with it and tried to kill it before she tossed it aside, only to try to grab it back when someone else revived Charles.

The RF could not compete with Diana not because she was beautiful, which she was not, but because she was using the press and they were not. She and her family were media savvy.

Bleached blonde.:lol:


 
Last edited:
Here's an article from People about the Harry Christening Debacle.

A Windsor War - Feuds, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, Princess Diana : People.com

It was such a big deal that Charles and Diana were asked about it during their pre-American-1985-tour interview, and Anne was asked about it during an interview in Australia. Up to that point, the relationships between Diana and other members of the BRF really weren't an issue, at least not that I recall.

I hadn't heard this. Interesting. :flowers:

Re the Queen's ordering Charles and Diana to divorce. I think that it was definitely in response to the Panorama interview. Public opinion in the UK was divided between those who were pro-Charles and those who were pro-Diana. It was affecting the nation. I think that the Queen had to do something to stop the tit-for-tat actions, and the Panorama interview was the last straw. For Diana to publicly suggest that Prince Charles wasn't up to being King and that William should take his place was truly beyond the Pale.
 
The press was on Diana's side long before the engagement because she and her family were already talking to the press.

Suggested reading: Colin Campbell's book Diana in private.

Colin goes into detail on Diana's and her family tactics to ensnare Charles.

I have ordered Colin's book this evening. You have me intrigued. :flowers:

As for the talking, I have been aware that when all those pictures were being taken of Diana walking to her car and to her apartment in the very early days, she was apparently actually talking to the photographers before and after the photos, to the point of sitting in their cars, talking to them, with them being charmed by her. This got them on her side and they rallied to her 'cause' as a result. Imagine were that to happen today? :ermm: I've read that in only one location. Is that accurate from what you know, Queen Camilla?

Diana used everyone to make her POW, including the press, her sisters, mother, grandmother, uncle, brother-in-law, Sarah Armstrong Jones, Amanda Knatchbull, etc.

I've read about Diana's presence in Amanda Knatchbull's life when Amanda was still with Charles. Also, that Diana was present for lots of what was going on around Charles before she was a 'viable' contender as his wife. This idea that Diana was 'innocent' and had no knowledge of Charles' circle has always seemed 'odd'. I even read that Diana was present when 'Whiplash' Wallace walked out on Charles during the dance, which means she would have seen Charles and Camilla dancing. Only one source for that so don't know if accurate. Is it?

I have always felt that Diana's choice of Camilla to throw under the bus was calculating. She knew that the friendship was sufficiently well known by that point that any accusation could stick. In a way, Camilla was an easy target.

In the television show it does get mentioned that after Diana targeted Camilla openly, the Queen was directly seen with Camilla a few days later. The show speculates whether that was just a coincidence, or a conscious show of support, but I had never heard that factoid before. It's an interesting one. Fast forward to the second marriage and one has to doubt that Camilla would ever have been allowed into the royal family had she really been a home-wrecker. More a wronged friend, I have thought.

Diana was not a little girl. She was a woman who stalked her prey, played with it and tried to kill it before she tossed it aside, only to try to grab it back when someone else revived Charles.

Interesting view. Haven't heard it spoken in exactly those terms. I could see such being true, though. There is so much in Diana's spin (basically the Morton book) that doesn't ring true to human nature, that is: regarding human nature in general, and to her own nature (Diana's nature).

The RF could not compete with Diana not because she was beautiful, which she was not, but because she was using the press and they were not. She and her family were media savvy.

She definitely was using the press. I have always been impressed (not in a good way) with how adept she was with the press. She had the instincts of a Publicity Agent. She was fearless. (Where did she get that?) The Morton book, for example, the sheer moxie of it, belies innocence. Where did she get that idea? On her own? Perhaps a journalist friend? And the choice incidents, how perfectly they all resonated to the public's sensibilities. It's like someone wrote the script for her. She couldn't have gotten it better had she been a Phd in PR tactics. That Morton book is a standout.

Bleached blonde.:lol:

Was she? After all this time, I never considered that.
 
Last edited:
Here's an article from People about the Harry Christening Debacle.

A Windsor War - Feuds, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, Princess Diana : People.com

It was such a big deal that Charles and Diana were asked about it during their pre-American-1985-tour interview, and Anne was asked about it during an interview in Australia. Up to that point, the relationships between Diana and other members of the BRF really weren't an issue, at least not that I recall.

Thank you, Moonmaiden, it's a fascinating article. :flowers:

This bit of text struck me (the article is written in January of 1985):
"Undeniably, Diana has shown a new assertiveness of late by giving her first speech without Charles by her side at the launching of the liner Royal Princess and by making her first appearance in uniform as patron of the British Red Cross Youth. Yet the 23-year-old princess is a gadfly compared to Anne, the hardest working of all the Windsor children. She represented the Crown at 201 events last year, compared to 93 for Charles and 51 for Diana. One Palace insider was quoted as saying: "Anne works very hard and sees her sister-in-law picking up the glory. She's sick to the back teeth with it all."

I find the event count remarkable given what I see being done these days by the Queen and Anne and Charles, etc.. Anne did 201 events in 1984, whereas now she does around 500. :ermm: I must get over to the event thread one of these days and start asking some questions. :flowers:

Then there's this:
"In one important way, however, Diana and Anne are very much alike: They both have iron wills. Anne rules Gatcombe Park, the sprawling estate her mother bought as a wedding gift. Diana's purview is nearby Highgrove, where her household staff has dubbed her "the Boss" and where she has earned a reputation for changing her mind. So far, however, Diana has remained firm in her unwillingness to reach out to her sister-in-law, a 10-minute drive away, and vice versa: The two families rarely socialize."

Some observations: that Diana was no push-over in her marriage; that she ruled the roost at Highgrove; and that it was being reported that the two families did not socialize as of 1984. Regarding the last, Mrs Barry (The Housekeeper) arrived at Highgrove in 1984/85 (I think, if my memory serves me) and she describes the marriage as already in a state of decline/breakdown. (She mentions the visits of James Hewitt btw). But what she also does mention is the fact that Anne visited her brother, and that Anne's children were regular playmates, showing up at Highgrove at will.

Re the Queen's ordering Charles and Diana to divorce. I think that it was definitely in response to the Panorama interview. Public opinion in the UK was divided between those who were pro-Charles and those who were pro-Diana. It was affecting the nation. I think that the Queen had to do something to stop the tit-for-tat actions, and the Panorama interview was the last straw. For Diana to publicly suggest that Prince Charles wasn't up to being King and that William should take his place was truly beyond the Pale.

Thank you for the insights. :flowers: In all I have read, the Panorama Interview was what broke the camel's back. Even Diana was keenly aware of that fact. So much so that somewhere just before her death she expressed regret to a friend about having done it. Even Diana had come to realize that she had gone too far. She lost everything that had mattered to her. She thought she was invincible for some reason. She had always been able to manipulate/use the press to her advantage. It backfired that time. She didn't realize what a razor edge she had been walking with the Queen.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Just sad. May God rest her soul.
 
The press was on Diana's side long before the engagement because she and her family were already talking to the press.

Suggested reading: Colin Campbell's book Diana in Private.

Colin goes into detail on Diana's and her family tactics to ensnare Charles.

Diana used everyone to make her POW, including the press, her sisters, mother, grandmother, uncle, brother-in-law, Sarah Armstrong Jones, Amanda Knatchbull, etc.

Diana was not a little girl. She was a woman who stalked her prey, played with it and tried to kill it before she tossed it aside, only to try to grab it back when someone else revived Charles.

The RF could not compete with Diana not because she was beautiful, which she was not, but because she was using the press and they were not. She and her family were media savvy.

Bleached blonde.:lol:


[/

You always go just too far really uncalled for.
And I wouldn't read anything by Colin cambell there is so much to do in this world that is fun and helpful to spend your days reading book after book about Diana


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The first part was from Queen Camilla I don't know why it looks like I posted it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I had a big problem with Campbell's book. To me, it reeked of non truths and was full of "sources close to the palace (couple, Diana etc) and "a highly placed source". It sounded more like a repetition of gossip rather than having credible information.

But that's just me.....
 
The first part was from Queen Camilla I don't know why it looks like I posted it.

You lost some of the code, royal rob. :flowers:

Look at the end of the quote. You see this: [/ What that is missing is this: quote] If you just place what I indicated second: quote] continuing from the [/ with no space, you will find that the whole of it will pop back into a 'quotation' mode.

Hope that helps. :flowers:

You always go just too far really uncalled for.
And I wouldn't read anything by Colin cambell there is so much to do in this world that is fun and helpful to spend your days reading book after book about Diana.

But I don't mind. :flowers: I've gone ahead and ordered some of the books recommended and will have some fun reading them on vacation with my family this summer.
 
Last edited:
Re hair colour: she was light-brownish with a reddish tinge. You can see pics of her as a child through adolescence with natural hair colour changes. She had visibly dark roots at times, too.

\
Was she? After all this time, I never considered that.
 
I've seen interviews with Lady Colin Campbell and have not been impressed. I've a couple of her books, and they seem to be full of venom and spite. Of all the people who've claimed to be biographers (omitting people such as Diana's psychic and so on), she's the least professional IMO. I'd put her on the same level as Kitty Kelley.



I had a big problem with Campbell's book. To me, it reeked of non truths and was full of "sources close to the palace (couple, Diana etc) and "a highly placed source". It sounded more like a repetition of gossip rather than having credible information.

But that's just me.....
 
Oh don't throw tomatoes at me, but I love Kitty Kelly's book.
 
Oh don't throw tomatoes at me, but I love Kitty Kelly's book.

Sorry, I'm out of tomatoes right now so no veggie tossing. Oh wait, a tomato is a fruit. Ok... no fruit tossing.

Seriously though, some of the books published that scream out gossip, fictionalized facts and just plain out of left field can be so very entertaining. I like to read them too but would never hold them to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 
Colin Campbell's 1991 does list some of her sources. Some are only listed in the preface.

I did not find it very gossipy and I liked it because it was current to the time.

I have not yet read her updated version where she lists even more of her sources but I'm hoping to get a copy soon.
 
People have to remember that there's so many crazy things that's been written about Diana over the years. People have taken the time to paint her in so many different lights it's not even funny.
 
Colin Campbell's 1991 does list some of her sources. Some are only listed in the preface.

I did not find it very gossipy and I liked it because it was current to the time.

I have not yet read her updated version where she lists even more of her sources but I'm hoping to get a copy soon.

Oh, I hadn't thought of the book being updated. I am guessing, then, that the one I ordered must be the updated one.

That's good. :flowers: Expecting it to arrive next week.

People have to remember that there's so many crazy things that's been written about Diana over the years. People have taken the time to paint her in so many different lights it's not even funny.

It flashes that the same could be said of Charles. :sad: Pretty harrowing what he has had to deal with over the years imo, and continues to have to put up with. But through it all, the truth will out. Or it's semblance.
 
It is not about how she was portrayed.

We were discussing her ability to use the press to her advantage.

I mentioned she was already skilled in using the press even before her marriage and mentioned Colin Campbell 1991 book which does into detail about Diana's early relationship with the press.
 
It is not about how she was portrayed.

We were discussing her ability to use the press to her advantage.

I mentioned she was already skilled in using the press even before her marriage and mentioned Colin Campbell 1991 book which does into detail about Diana's early relationship with the press.

Ah, yes, thank you, Queen Camilla. :flowers: Exactly so.
 
Oh, I hadn't thought of the book being updated. I am guessing, then, that the one I ordered must be the updated one.

That's good. :flowers: Expecting it to arrive next week.



It flashes that the same could be said of Charles. :sad: Pretty harrowing what he has had to deal with over the years imo, and continues to have to put up with. But through it all, the truth will out. Or it's semblance.

True, so many things have been written about these people, and people have ran with a great deal of it and made of it what they wanted. The truths are buried and the years of rumors and speculations are presented as the truth. I guess that was going to happen after tons of books, several movies, documentaries and articles have been made and published over the years. It's said, because not everything about the Waleses were bad and tragic.
 
Diana had a pretty good relationship with her mother-in-law, father-in-law and even her grandmother-in-law.

You're right. The Queen was very fond of Diana and they had a very good relationship. She had a pretty good relationship with Philip too, but not when she died.

Her relationship with the Queen Mother was very frosty. They did not like each other, but they were quite similar in two different ways.


It is not about how she was portrayed.

We were discussing her ability to use the press to her advantage.

I mentioned she was already skilled in using the press even before her marriage and mentioned Colin Campbell 1991 book which does into detail about Diana's early relationship with the press.

You're right. Diana had the ability to use the press to her advantage. She also used charities to boost her popularity.
 
You're right. The Queen was very fond of Diana and they had a very good relationship. She had a pretty good relationship with Philip too, but not when she died.

Her relationship with the Queen Mother was very frosty. They did not like each other, but they were quite similar in two different ways.




You're right. Diana had the ability to use the press to her advantage. She also used charities to boost her popularity.

Yes, Diana had a pretty good relationship with her father and mother-in-law. Before her passing, the divorce was fresh, I'm sure things would have smoothed out over time.

Diana did not use her charities for her own selfish needs. Diana popularity was high since her engagement in 1981. She used the spotlight and her public platform to boost her charities. The royals work with their charities are very important to them and the country, but none of it hurts their PR;)
 
Could you say how? :flowers:

They both had the ability to form an emotional connection with people, and getting people to like them. They were both manipulative and did not stop until they got what they wanted.

I am no Queen Mother / Diana or Margaret fan.
 
Diana did not use her charities for her own selfish needs. Diana popularity was high since her engagement in 1981. She used the spotlight and her public platform to boost her charities. The royals work with their charities are very important to them and the country, but none of it hurts their PR;)

This is such a difficult one because I can see that you are a strong believer in Diana being a certain way. Fact is, Diana was an expense for some charities given her demands regarding how she was arranged for 'off set'. She could also be a burden given the preparations and intrusion a visit by her entailed, but I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss all that.

Saying that, I concede that no matter her real motivations (or character) she did good work, and she likely had a worthwhile impact on people who went no further than the charismatic moment. (I know too many 'charismatic' people, having had a father who was such - and is still such). Massive impact (charm) in the moment is a significant skill-set (it can be learned, and any good actor has it as a given).

They both had the ability to form an emotional connection with people, and getting people to like them. They were both manipulative and did not stop until they got what they wanted.

I am no Queen Mother / Diana or Margaret fan.

Thank you for saying. :flowers: I see that. Yes, very similar in those ways, and it's interesting that Diana and the Queen Mother had a difficult relationship. I think Princess Margaret, too, had a pretty jaded eye when it came to Diana. They all three likely saw through each other. Must have been interesting times at Sandringham and Balmoral with all three ladies in the drawing room together. :p

No wonder Diana was not keen on the family gatherings. One can imagine. There's a novel in that! ;)

BTW I currently am dealing with a very beautiful, and talented, young niece, who could charm her way out of a rubic's cube. Our greatest challenge with such a charismatic child is teaching her ethics and morals vis-a-via other people. She just has to smile and the world melts to do her whim. She has too soon learned her power. You can imagine the problems as she is entering adolescence. She inhabits the 'aristocracy of charisma' and it is a deadly, albeit seductive, landscape to travel, for the world bows before one with hardly any effort on one's part. It sounds like Diana may have had a smidgeon of that, just a bit. I heard she had her father wrapped around her finger, as girls often do. That would do it for starters, though it's a bit more than that.
 
The Queen Mother, Margaret and Diana were manipulators. The Queen Mother had a kind and good side. Diana cared for people. Her physically touching an AIDS patient was groundbreaking. Royals don't touch, least of all the very ill. Margaret's life had been ruined by family politics. All 3 liked to be the center of attention. Each had their own failings.
 
I had a big problem with Campbell's book. To me, it reeked of non truths and was full of "sources close to the palace (couple, Diana etc) and "a highly placed source". It sounded more like a repetition of gossip rather than having credible information.

But that's just me.....
I've seen interviews with Lady Colin Campbell and have not been impressed. I've a couple of her books, and they seem to be full of venom and spite. Of all the people who've claimed to be biographers (omitting people such as Diana's psychic and so on), she's the least professional IMO. I'd put her on the same level as Kitty Kelley.
People have to remember that there's so many crazy things that's been written about Diana over the years. People have taken the time to paint her in so many different lights it's not even funny.
I think you might have insulted Kitty Kelly by likening her to Colin Campbell . . . maybe not, they both knew how to spin a good yarn a la Dallas or Dynasty.

Dman, you forget, it may not have been the age of the internet, but video and photos were everywhere. There is no time needed to make up stories if you had been following the whole ghastly episode play out in the reputable papers and on the six o'clock news and then of course there was Morton's book.

The truth about her participation, revealed after her death, with Diana's handwritten notes on the galleys and accompanying tapes, telling the "story" the way she wanted it told. The Settelen tapes merely underlined her feelings about what was happening when it was happening. At least we cannot quibble about what she had to say, merely whether it was true or not.

"She accused a particular young teenager of making the anonymous calls the Police were investigating her for: - False, the Police duly investigated but were never swayed from the truth, merely how to handle HM's ex-daughter-in-law doing such things. Time revealed the truth, but the way she used the media obfuscated any truth back then.
 
Back
Top Bottom