Charles and Diana

[CyrilVladisla]

Would it have been possible for Princess Diana not to have divorced Prince Charles? Could she have kept a separate court? She would have remained in the Royal Family. She would have kept her children and her title as Princess of Wales.

 

[Pranter]

Well yes...they were separated for some time but kept her children and titles, if they had wanted they could of remained married legally. A separate court..no don't think that would of been allowed.


LaRae

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I think Diana wanted the opportunity to carve out of her own role apart from the restrictions of being married to The Prince of Wales and the potential to have a new married life in the future. Let us not forget that she was only 34 when she divorced, around the same age as her own youngest son when he married, and it was not unthinkable that she might re-marry and even have more children. Staying married to Charles would have prevented this.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Would it have been possible for Princess Diana not to have divorced Prince Charles? Could she have kept a separate court? She would have remained in the Royal Family. She would have kept her children and her title as Princess of Wales.

Only if Diana & Charles had handled their private lives more discreetly. Because of all the scandal the Queen ordered them to divorce.

 

[Osipi]

That was the original intent of the separation. They'd lead separate lives, have separate households, share raising their children and keep a public role as The Prince and Princess of Wales. It could have remained that way for their lifetime if it hadn't been for the full scale "War of the Wales" that played a big part of their separation.

After the disastrous Panorama interview, the Queen said "enough is enough", got fed up with the both of them and ordered the divorce. I personally think that both Charles and Diana would have had happier lives if they were able to just divorce without going through that separation. Cut the cord, let go, get on with life.

The up side of all the misery of the Wales marriage did bring about a good change. The importance of actually being in love with each other and *wanting* to marry and becomes partners in life through thick and thin became a predominant requirement for marriage.

 

[Queen Claude]

Would it have been possible for Princess Diana not to have divorced Prince Charles? Could she have kept a separate court? She would have remained in the Royal Family. She would have kept her children and her title as Princess of Wales.

IIRC Charles divorced Diana.

The Panorama interview was what prompted the Queen to "order" the divorce.

I think a big factor would have been how accepting the public would have been of Charles and Diana being legally married but living separate lives especially if it was known that they were in other relationships.

 

[Denville]

IIRC Charles divorced Diana.

The Panorama interview was what prompted the Queen to "order" the divorce.

I think a big factor would have been how accepting the public would have been of Charles and Diana being legally married but living separate lives especially if it was known that they were in other relationships.

Once they had separated and their affairs were common knowledge, it was probably inevitable...

 

[Osipi]

During their separation, they basically had their own homes, their own staff, their own RPOs. The only thing that they really had jointly was their office which manages their "official" roles and events.

I don't think there would have been a need for a separate court during the separation.

 

[Denville]

During their separation, they basically had their own homes, their own staff, their own RPOs. The only thing that they really had jointly was their office which manages their "official" roles and events.

I don't think there would have been a need for a separate court during the separation.

They were in essentially separate courts during their separation.. THey had their own staff... they lived separately. They did occasionally have some kind of engagement together but they were working separately.. and they had arrangements for who had the children, because they were separated. I think the queen hoped it could go on like that for a longer time.. I don't know if she had hopes that perhaps tehre might be some kind of reconciliation for the sake of the monarchy, but I think that both of them didn't want to wrok or be together ever again.. I think the queen stalled on the idea of divrorce because it would cause a fuss about Charles being future Head of the church, but in the end, she had to give in on their getting a divorce.. because the 2 of them were fighting in the papers, the war ws causing more damage to the Monarchy than a clean cut of divorce would do...

 

[Iluvbertie]

IIRC Charles divorced Diana.

The Panorama interview was what prompted the Queen to "order" the divorce.

I think a big factor would have been how accepting the public would have been of Charles and Diana being legally married but living separate lives especially if it was known that they were in other relationships.

From 1992 until 1996 - during the period of the official separation it was well-known that they were both in other relationships.

The Queen had no choice but to order the divorce once Diana made the claims she made and the admission she made of committing adultery (and note the date that interviewed was screened - no accident there either - it was the Queen's wedding anniversary).

 

[Kataryn]

And as I recall Diana said she took 50% responsibility for what went wrong.. which seems a fair bit to me.. hardly "Only a little bit".

There used to be this interesting paper about that:



I Take Full Responsibility, I Take Some Responsibility, I'll Take Half of it But No More Than That': Princess Diana and the Negotiation of Blame in the `Panorama' Interview



JACKIE ABELL, ELIZABETH H. STOKOE



First Published August 1, 1999 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001003002





















The focus of this article is the conversational management of blaming and accountability. In particular, we explore how involved speakers routinely allocate and avoid blame in everyday talk. In considering such a problematic notion of social interaction, we analyse the BBC interview between Princess Diana and Martin Bashir that was aired on British national television on 20 November 1995. In the analysis, we consider how different discursive strategies are employed by speakers in ways that work up credible and authentic accounts. More specifically, we argue that Diana attributes blame to external `others' within a negotiated context of routine description of past events. Categories such as `the media', `the royal household' and `Charles' are constructed and made relevant throughout the interview and the analytic interest is what is accomplished rhetorically for both Diana and Bashir. Of further interest is the overall script design of the interview and how devices such as script formulation, stake management, footing shifts and progressive narrative function in the negotiation of blame. We conclude that `doing blaming' is attended to and managed locally by participants in conversation and this `doing' can be accomplished in a number of ways.


It used to be in the public domain but now I can only find it behind a pay wall - but if someone has access to the paper, it is a very interesting read about what went on in the interview and while Diana Said she takes half of the responsibility, the whole interview makes it clear that she in reality didn't do it.

 

[Denville]

I think I'll accept that Diana was wiling to take some blame for what went wrong.. Charles according to a report, asked someone what they thougth of HIS interview, and when the person responded a bit criticially, he sulked furiously.. was HE taking responsibility for his actions?

 

[Osipi]

I think I'll accept that Diana was wiling to take some blame for what went wrong.. Charles according to a report, asked someone what they thougth of HIS interview, and when the person responded a bit criticially, he sulked furiously.. was HE taking responsibility for his actions?

And so goes a war. Did they make the right move or not? None of the interviews should ever have happened. They should have just have realized that it wasn't working and divorced much, much earlier but because of who they were, it was in the best interest of crown and country to present a facade that started with a "fairy tale" wedding of the century.

Appearances were deceiving and the cancerous relationship had time to grow, get a good hold on the both of them and turned into something ugly. It also made us realize that these were not marionettes but actual sentient human beings that made a bad decision to marry.

 

[Denville]

No of course not.. they should have either made the best of the marriage.... or kept on pressing the queen to let them divorce. I think it would have taken ages, as she did not want to allow a divorce.. but I think ti was just a marriage that had never worked.. and as time went by, they found it harder and harder to pretend in public...
and with the press attention to boht of them, particularly Diana, it was hard to keep any side interests secret. The press wanted to buy into the fairytale romance, in the first years, I think but there was a lot of leakage that things weren't going well and that the marriage was not just difficult, but very unhappy. They kept up a front but with the Press snooping around, counting the days they spent together, looking around eagerly for evidence of other romances, I think the 2 of them just could not keep up a front by the late 80s.
But I think both of them were reluctant to really take any blame, and both thought they were justified in making the mess public, and fighting in the newspapers...
I think Charles was a bit more discreet because he was reared in that tradition, but still, he did fight back when Diana seemed to be much more popular with the Press than he was.. and when he had done the interview with Dimbleby and it didn't really get him any sympathy except among those alraedy on his side, he was sulky..

though I think after that he DID give up the serious fighting, because he realised he did not have Di's charm and charisma and that she was better at TV appearnaces than he was...

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Before the formal separation took place, had anyone thought of the Archbishop speaking to Prince Charles and Princess Diana to reconcile their differences and to save the marriage?

The people involved in the wedding were Charle and Diana. They were adults, though Diana was young.. and I can't see that it was anyones duty to interfere. Moreover Im belive that even if Charles himself or Diana had gone to the queen and said that they weren't sure, they would be told they had to go on with it..
I think they only way they might have successfully gotten "out" would be if BOTH of them approached the queen and told her they could not go through with it...

If Charles and Diana would have both approached Elizabeth II and told her they could not go through with the wedding, is this something the Queen can quickly approve of?

 

[Osipi]

I really don't think it would have done much good as by the time they separated, the marriage was too far gone to be reconciled.

I also find it ironic that up until the actual divorce, Diana was patron of Relate that specializes in marriage and relationship counseling.

Sometimes a relationship just isn't salvageable at all no matter what.

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps Archbishop Runcie should have had a word before the wedding, with all parties concerned, including the Queen. His chaplain and assistant Richard Chartres (said by Runcie to be a very perceptive person) noted that Charles seemed depressed when the couple came to the Archbishop for pre-marital discussions.

Runcie himeself later stated that he noted that Diana was very young and unformed (age gap.) There were rumours going around London of Charles's continuing thrall to Mrs PB, articulated by Princess Margaret to friends. The Archbishop may have heard them.

The time to halt a probable train wreck is the moment red lights start flashing not after all the warning signals have rung themselves out and the train has gone over the bridge into the water.

Observers who were involved in this wedding, and that included the Archbishop, had a duty IMO not to wrap themselves in the fairy tale glow cast by the media in the run up to the engagement/marriage, (or to drink the KoolAid) but to ask some serious questions of the two people concerned, difficult though that would have been.

 

[Denville]

The people involved in the wedding were Charle and Diana. They were adults, though Diana was young.. and I can't see that it was anyones duty to interfere. Moreover Im belive that even if Charles himself or Diana had gone to the queen and said that they weren't sure, they would be told they had to go on with it..
I think they only way they might have successfully gotten "out" would be if BOTH of them approached the queen and told her they could not go through with it...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles did approach the Queen and tell her he didn't want to go through with the marriage. Diana was telling her own family the same thing but regardless both families contintued to talk them into it rather than listening to their respective child.

The Queen could have announced that the marriage was going to be delayed to allow the couple to spend more time together had she wanted to do so but as she had fallen in love almost at first sight she, I suspect, believed that much the same thing had happened here. She was also worried that Charles would never marry and having an heir was important for her as much as for Charles.

 

[Denville]

If Charles and Diana would have both approached Elizabeth II and told her they could not go through with the wedding, is this something the Queen can quickly approve of?

if they had, she wuodl have told them that they had to do it...and I think they would have given in...

 

[Curryong]

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

 

[csw]

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

Thank you! This is a fantastic read

 

[Denville]

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

rather off topic, but it seems like they got about 50% of things right and 50% wrong. little hints about Camilla... and rather unkind about Anne....

 

[Curryong]

I don't think that this was meant to be anything but a piece filled with light gossip, impressions, incidents, events, (like the garden party) that had been picked up by this person at the time of that week in 1981. That's why I posted it. It's a moment in time curiosity piece now.

I didn't post this in the wedding thread because it specifically wasn't really about the wedding ceremony or its preparations. It concerns itself IMO with a man and very young woman who were only a week away from a new life together, but also about how some Londoners and visitors reacted to it all, and to Diana. It was a very exciting week for locals who were swept up in the celebrations, balls, dinners that were being held. I remember the sense of excitement and happiness was almost palpable, and I think these pages reflect that.

 

[MARG]

You have to watch out for "light gossip". All too often it has barbs and stirs animosity that should have long been dead and buried. It is most definitely not harmless, it just keeps the pot simmering and in this case it's about stuff that happened over 35 years ago.

"Brixton aside" ? Hardly harmless. Pretty poison is more like it.

 

[Curryong]

One allusion to something happening in Brixton in a series of articles of over five pages! Really!

I posted this as a curiosity piece, about one week in London in a lead up to a royal wedding not as a document about race relations in Britain nearly forty years ago. It's a light piece, meant to be enjoyed, a moment in time in 1981. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.

 

[Denville]

I don't think that this was meant to be anything but a piece filled with light gossip, impressions, incidents, events, (like the garden party) that had been picked up by this person at the time of that week in 1981. That's why I posted it. It's a moment in time curiosity piece now.

I didn't post this in the wedding thread because it specifically wasn't really about the wedding ceremony or its preparations. It concerns itself IMO with a man and very young woman who were only a week away from a new life together, but also about how some Londoners and visitors reacted to it all, and to Diana. It was a very exciting week for locals who were swept up in the celebrations, balls, dinners that were being held. I remember the sense of excitement and happiness was almost palpable, and I think these pages reflect that.

I found it rather bitty, but as I said, it got some things right and others not. But I did notice that the reporter wasn't very nice about Anne.
I remember reading all the stuff about Diana, back then.. and there was a ltot of excitement.. but some thought then that it was all a bit too much and there were other things going on in the world besides a royal wedding...

 

[Lilyflo]

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

What a gem! I remember that week so well & she captures it in hilarious, knife-sharp detail.

My favourite sentence is this one:
"Charles, for his part, seems charmed with his bride-to-be. Apparently, he fell in love with her during those weeks he was in Australia alone."

 

[Denville]

What a gem! I remember that week so well & she captures it in hilarious, knife-sharp detail.

My favourite sentence is this one:
"Charles, for his part, seems charmed with his bride-to-be. Apparently, he fell in love with her during those weeks he was in Australia alone."

seems a bit "diggy"...

 

[Lilyflo]

seems a bit "diggy"...

Perhaps better having a sarky dig than saying what everyone else was saying openly - namely that it was as clear as day that Charles wasn't even a tiny bit in love with Diana.