Charles and Diana

[Denville]

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.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

 

[Osipi]

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

 

[Lilyflo]

I don't remember anyone saying that.

That's fair enough - I wouldn't wish to deny your memories. For myself, I do remember everyone I knew saying it so the article resonates very much with me.

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

It's certainly written with humour but there's much more truth than satire in there IMO (except for some of the US people she mentions - I never met or knew anything about them).

 

[Denville]

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

why satire?

 

[Denville]

That's fair enough - I wouldn't wish to deny your memories. For myself, I do remember everyone I knew saying it so the article resonates very much with me.



It's certainly written with humour but there's much more truth than satire in there IMO (except for some of the US people she mentions - I never met or knew anything about them).

I think that mostly people were willing to believe that it was a genuine love match.. perhaps not wild passion but not that there were so many issues as there actauly were

 

[Ista]

I read the article as having been written with a fair degree of skepticism directed at the whole fairy tale perspective of the wedding. While I agree that the overarching popular narrative was that it was a love match, I also recall distinctly that there were recurring comments about the age difference, the difference in interests and personality, Charles's attachment to Camilla, the famous "Whatever 'love' means" comment from Charles, and so on. With the benefit of hindsight, many of the points and issues brought up in the New Yorker article make it obvious that the problems that later rocked the marriage were there from the very beginning and obvious to the discerning eye.

 

[Osipi]

why satire?

Because in so many places in the article, it took something that really happened and put a satirical slant to it. The garden party for example and the Maynards from Maidenhead and the riposte back and from between them and Charles. The bridal registry items and the plates that resembled Anne's hat at said garden party. Stating Charles "fell in love" with Diana while off to Australia alone and seeing her plastered over all the media.

It looked to me like the author of the piece took what was and elaborated on it as a parody of British society. I found the article to be quite amusing.

 

[Denville]

Because in so many places in the article, it took something that really happened and put a satirical slant to it. The garden party for example and the Maynards from Maidenhead and the riposte back and from between them and Charles. The bridal registry items and the plates that resembled Anne's hat at said garden party. Stating Charles "fell in love" with Diana while off to Australia alone and seeing her plastered over all the media.

It looked to me like the author of the piece took what was and elaborated on it as a parody of British society. I found the article to be quite amusing.

so what was the point of it exactly? I think it took digs at people which were unkind...

 

[Osipi]

so what was the point of it exactly? I think it took digs at people which were unkind...

For me, it was a lighthearted parody of the (at the time) recently held "wedding of the century and all the hoopla surrounding it. The "digs" were done tongue in cheek as I saw it. Kind of like an artist doing a caricature of their subject.
From Charles having an inane nonsensical conversation about Maynards from Maidenhead using maiden names back and forth to Anne's hat and the Queen perhaps being at an after party.

So, I found the article to be highly amusing to say the least. Remember this was written for the New Yorker and the author really wouldn't have been privy to the conversations, the guest lists or the bridal registry whatsoever. Pure invention.

 

[Denville]

For me, it was a lighthearted parody of the (at the time) recently held "wedding of the century and all the hoopla surrounding it. The "digs" were done tongue in cheek as I saw it. Kind of like an artist doing a caricature of their subject.
From Charles having an inane nonsensical conversation about Maynards from Maidenhead using maiden names back and forth to Anne's hat and the Queen perhaps being at an after party.

So, I found the article to be highly amusing to say the least. Remember this was written for the New Yorker and the author really wouldn't have been privy to the conversations, the guest lists or the bridal registry whatsoever. Pure invention.

so if the author didn't hear any conversations, what is the point really? If she was at the Garden party, did she really hear the conversations Diana and C had with people? if not, was it really right to make up stuff?
I thought It was rather sharp and not very kind, to many people. how does she know that "Charles fell in love with Diana when she wasn't there?"

Britisih journalists DID notice the various "differences" between C and his 19 year old bride.. that she was young and not very educated. He was 32 and very serious minded and liked to study and learn.. that he had been involved with several women, including Camilla and that Di famously had had no real boyfriends...and that he wasn't all lovey dovey with her. But they didn't necessarily think that that meant he did not love her in a quiet way, and that the marriage would not work out. THey realised that if he had to marry a girl with no past, she was likely to be young.. and that Charles beign royal and British, was not likely to go all kissy kissy in public with his fiancée,but he might care for her just the same.

 

[Osipi]

Have you ever heard of the magazine called Private Eye? They do parodies of the British royal family and things of interest in the UK and have for years. Here in the States, we have a show that does basically the same thing called Saturday Night Live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_and_organisations_frequently_parodied_by_Private_Eye

I guess we'll have to disagree on how we saw the article. S'ok because its our differences in how we see things that make for a good discussion. ?

 

[Denville]

yes of course I've heard of Private Eye but it is a spoof magazine. I thougth that this magazine was meant to be "for real....

 

[Osipi]

The New Yorker is listed as "The New Yorker is an American magazine featuring journalism, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. It is published by Condé Nast. Started as a weekly in 1925, the magazine is now published 47 times annually, with five of these issues covering two-week spans."

Its also been pretty well known for its satirical cartoons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker

 

[Denville]

Not to me.. Im afraid. I don't know much about it.. so I assumed it was normal reportage.. Perhaps americans would know automatically that it was largely satirical articles. But to me, it came across as rather inclined ot make digs at the RF.. in an unkind way.
I've never read Private Eye, but I think that it is so "outrageious" that it is obvious its not meant to be taken seriously....

 

[Dman]

This couples star power was beyond this earth-

 

[Mermaid1962]

One of Prince Charles' serious biographers made the same claim, that he realized that he "had a winner" when he saw public reaction to her. Perhaps it was Robert Lacey.

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."

The New Yorker has serious articles as well as more frothy and satirical pieces. The writer seems to be someone who is well-connected (attended the Buckingham Palace garden party, for instance) and is onto the undercurrents of what people were talking about at the time.

I could have done without the disparaging remarks as well. There was definitely an "edge" to the article.

Not to me.. Im afraid. I don't know much about it.. so I assumed it was normal reportage.. Perhaps americans would know automatically that it was largely satirical articles. But to me, it came across as rather inclined ot make digs at the RF.. in an unkind way.
I've never read Private Eye, but I think that it is so "outrageious" that it is obvious its not meant to be taken seriously....

 

[Denville]

well kind of funny, because its often been said that when Charles realised how popular Diana was with the public he started to become jealous of her and it caused tension between them....so is It likely that he "fell in love" with her when he realised she was a "winner" with the public.
Anyway I certainly didn't like that article. It didn't make any sense and if it was meant to be satirically funny, it didnt' come across that way

 

[theroyalfly]

Today in Royal History is supposed to be the 38th Wedding Anniversary of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Did Prince Charles inform Diana that he would not always be able to accompany her at every royal event?

Did Prince Charles persuade Princess Diana to give up the title Her Royal Highness?

Would it not have been better if the courtship of Lady Diana and Prince Charles had lasted quite a lot longer?

'A woman not only marries a man,' Prince Charles once said. 'She marries a way of life - a job.'
Do you think it was true that Princess Diana not only married Charles but his job of royal duties as Prince of Wales?

 

[Countessmeout]

Did Prince Charles inform Diana that he would not always be able to accompany her at every royal event?

Diana would have known even if he didnt say it out right.

Diana hadn't just grown up watching the royals on television and in news, which would have given her some idea. She had grown up with the royals. Her grandmothers were ladies in waiting to the Queen Mum. Her sister had dated Charles first. She was playmates to Edward and Andrew when she grew up on Sandringham. Her grandmother Lady Fermoy had warned her about royal life as she didn't think Diana would ever be able to handle it. Though the Queen Mum wasn't that helpful she did live with her at Clarence house for part of her engagement and would have also got some instruction in that time.

 

[Denville]

Diana would have known even if he didnt say it out right.

Diana hadn't just grown up watching the royals on television and in news, which would have given her some idea. She had grown up with the royals. Her grandmothers were ladies in waiting to the Queen Mum. Her sister had dated Charles first. She was playmates to Edward and Andrew when she grew up on Sandringham. Her grandmother Lady Fermoy had warned her about royal life as she didn't think Diana would ever be able to handle it. Though the Queen Mum wasn't that helpful she did live with her at Clarence house for part of her engagement and would have also got some instruction in that time.

I don't think she lived with the QM at all.. she stayed a couple of night and then moved to Buck Palace.

 

[Curryong]

That's correct, stayed very briefly.And Diana was only an occasional playmate of Andrew and Edward's. I read in one bio that she and Charles, her brother, didn't like going to Sandringham House much. And Ruth Fermoy by her own recollection only had that one conversation with her about fitting in with the BRF.

 

[Osipi]

One thing I do remember with reading various books is that one of Diana's complaints after they were married is that she felt Charles spent too much time with his duties and engagements and charitable works. She wanted him at home more with her rather than having him accompany her on her engagements.

Charles is known for not slowing down and is always doing something and could be defined as a workaholic. Camilla even joked once around his birthday that she'd have to hold up a sign stating "Happy Birthday, Darling!" as he rushed past her to another engagement.

I do believe that Diana found living the life of a senior royal and being married to the heir to the throne wasn't all it was cracked up to be. She was often lonely.

 

[Denville]

Yes she didn't really know that much about the lifestyle of the RF at work.. nor I think how much time Charles spent working or worrying about work and "doing good"...So in the ealry years, she was lonely because the children were very small, she was not always out at engagements herself, and Charles was very busy

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't think the PoW or anyone "persuaded " her to give it up.

I have read from numerous sources that the Queen told Diana in writing that as part of her divorce settlement, she must bid adieu to HRH.

 

[JR76]

Did Prince Charles persuade Princess Diana to give up the title Her Royal Highness?

Diana didn't give up her HRH voluntarily. It was taken from her and from Fergie by a Letters Patent published in The London Gazette on the 30th of August 1996.

"The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness."

 

[Denville]

Did Prince Charles persuade Princess Diana to give up the title Her Royal Highness?

No, she was not persuaded at all..

 

[Osipi]

Most definitely. Even during courtship, Charles' duties and engagements in his royal role as Prince of Wales kept him extremely busy and still does to this day.

This was an aspect of contention between Charles and Diana when they first married. Diana wanted more of Charles' time and more or less, put Diana ahead of everything and Charles just couldn't do that. I think Diana should have seen the handwriting on the wall as how busy Charles was before they married would be the way things were after marriage. Thinking she could "change" Charles was a pipe dream for Diana as she found out.

 

[Denville]

'A woman not only marries a man,' Prince Charles once said. 'She marries a way of life - a job.'
Do you think it was true that Princess Diana not only married Charles but his job of royal duties as Prince of Wales?

obviously, since as princess of wales, she had her own duties, and had to support Charles in his role.

 

[Rayal]

Would it not have been better if the courtship of Lady Diana and Prince Charles had lasted quite a lot longer?

If it had gone on much longer I don't think the fairy tale wedding would have taken place. It was just a day or so before the wedding that she realized that Camilla was his real lover. I think she was determined in her own mind that she could still turn him away from Camilla. It was her immaturity at that point that made her think she could. I think the longer that it went on she would have seen his obvious inept personality. I truly think he had a corrupted sense about women and it may have been from how he was brought up.