Charles and Diana


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Diana also loved her work and enjoyed supporting her charities and organizations of which she was royal patron or president. Diana also enjoyed a great relationship with her regiments which she served as Colonel in Chief. The Royal Hampshire Regiment renamed their regiment in honour of her and now they are known as The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.

Diana was young and it took her a while to find her feet and get used to things but once she gained a great deal of experience in her official royal role, she did a great job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diana was also moved into Buckingham Palace the day the engagement was announced to take "Princess lessons" from the Queen mother. I think she had a lot of people who wanted to help her be a royal.

The issue was that Diana wanted to do things differently, which was fine. The problem was that she expected to agree with her and praise her constantly, and then got really upset when they didn't. Then she lied and said that no one tried to help her.

I believe there were a lot of people who wanted to help Diana become a royal, however information on the QM's help and advice is scanty. The QM could have offered Diana insights into how she (the QM) coped with royal protocol, the restrictions on her private life etc. for all I know, but that would depend on how much the QM was willing to reveal, actually help Diana or how willing Diana was to listen.

Oliver Everett gave her a reading list and suggested she read biographies of previous PoWs, which Diana wasn't prepared to do, how much reading about previous PoW.s would have been of any use is debatable.

I think the problem was more Diana not being willing to listen or be instructed and the relevance of the advice being given.
 
Diana must have listened to something or somebody because despite her personal problems with her marriage, Diana was a pretty successful Princess of Wales and enjoyed going about her official duties, supporting her various charities, organizations, regiments and establishing a connection with the people whom she met personally or didn't even get a chance to meet.
 
There are always two sides when it comes to NOT taking advice..
a)some people may not want to take advice and believe they know everything better.
b)Some people who give advice think that they are the only one who knows how the world works-they may treat a young,inexperienced girl like the 19-yrs-old Diana in a paternalizing way that may have made her feel uncomfortable. We do not know, we can only speculate!

Princess Diana has taken a lot of advice in other areas that are important for a royal- like learning how to dress accordingly,wear jewellery and how to act in front of a camera etc. That´s why I believe that she was willing to listen & learn, she was trying to do a good job and be what people expected of a royal princess.
Before she got married she was dressing and acting like an average girl, talking very shily and being very uncomfortable in front of cameras. She was called "Shi Di" by the press because she was always looking away of the camera,talking with a small voice and not showing many signs of self-awareness and confidence.
I am sure there were people who wanted to help Diana to adjust to her new life, but maybe she was afraid that they were trying to "change" her while she wanted to listen to her instincts and act according to she felt was the best thing to do...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, she eventually found her way. Over the years, Diana gained a great deal of confidence and experience in her role as HRH The Princess of Wales and she did her duty.

The main help Charles & Diana needed was marriage counseling and therapy. Even if they couldn't pull things together and remained husband and wife, perhaps the professional help would've prevented some of the heartache and pain the couple caused each other privately and publically. To help them resolve their issues peacefully and respectively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whatever the cause, Charles and Diana are poster children for the old adage:

Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
 
The saddest, most frustrating thing for me is that I am convinced that-given time-Charles and Diana would have become very close friends and confidants with a deep sympathy and respect for one another.

I don't think they would have ever grown into romantic love-their sexual and emotional natures seem to have been too different. But with age and maturity everything was in place for them to heal their relationship, especially if Diana had been able to find contentment in her personal life. (with Hasnat Khan?)

By some reports, it was already beginning to happen at the time of her death.:sad:
 
4. No one brief Diana on Royal Life or protocol including her Family, Charles or the palace.
This is not correct, but unfortunately it is what Diana led people to believe and it's still bandied about and repeated to this day.

Sir William Heseltine was the Australian-born Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen from 1977, and from 1986 to 1990 he was HM's Private Secretary. A few years ago in Sydney he revealed that Diana had spoken some "untruths" regarding the education and support she had received from within the Palace during the early days pre-and post-marriage. Sir William stated that Diana, contrary to the impression she gave, was in fact given extensive briefings, advice and ongoing support and assistance from a wide range of people within the Palace and from outside (he mentioned arrangements for Diana to meet with newspaper editors, for example). No surprise there, it's what most people would have expected to have happened at the time.

The problem lies with Diana having made certain claims or assertions during her "pity me" phase which were and continue to be accepted without question by some, despite their obvious implausability.

Also often forgotten or overlooked is the fact that the Queen's Assistant Private Secretary (1977-1986), Deputy Private Secretary (1986-1990) and Private Secretary (1990-1999) was none other than Diana's brother-in-law, Sir Robert Fellowes. Given that her own sister's husband occupied such a central and pivotal position in the palace hierarchy, I find it difficult to accept at face value the claim that Diana had been virtually abandoned and left quite alone and unsupported from day one.
.
 
Frankly, that is a cop out. I think it was a sink or swim situation. Diana sunk and then rose to the top with great vigor. Pushed past all of them She was the centerfold, continually. Her, "pity me" phase was that they did not like that she was first and they were a distance behind. I think she wanted to be accepted as one of them, which is not easy. Warm and loving have come after Diana. I am sure they told her to keep her place and never overshadow one of them. I think she didn't care after a while and the media was far more entranced with someone different, warm and lovely. I am sure she knew protocol, but she like them, wanted the spotlight. She just had a better ability than they. Sir Robert was never her advocate.
 
You are never suppose to 'Intentionally overshadow the Queen!! and it doesn't matter who you are! Even if you are 20 have Blond hair and blue eyes! It was not always about Diana and she hated that. She had to be the center of attention

If I had to choose between the two on who to have Tea with it Would be the Queen in a second!

If you haven't watched Elizabeth R a documentary from 1992 you should because it show the Queen up close and personal. First time I ever heard her laugh (and it a nice laugh too!) also it does show her personality more which cones across as warm and it shows her caring side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diana should never have been first. Diana should never, ever, have overshadowed the Queen or the Prince of Wales, but particularly not the Queen. She had a skewed sense of her importance and her position in the RF. She made this abundantly clear in the Squidgy tape, and in the Panorama interview. She played up to the media to get their attention and draw it away from those who should have had that attention. She was physically attractive and knew how to stand and pose and she had some acting skills, too, and she knew all these things. Unfortunately she didn't use these talents to draw attention to those to whom she was subordinate and had a supporting role; she wanted to be the star.

I totally accept Sir William Heseltine's word about the advice Diana was given. She was either unable, or unwilling, to understand that advice and follow it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is unfortunate that sometimes dignity gets in the way of truth.
Being dignified and not responding publicly to the mass about of nastiness spoken about the BRF, and HRH PoW, in particular has cost the BRF some public favour.
 
I think the late Princess of Wales tried her best to deal with the attention that was on her and just coped with everything. I don't think she tried to overshadow The Queen and members of the royal family. Not purposely anyway.

I think it was easy for her to standout amongst a very stiff, stale and starchy family in those days. Diana's beauty, youthfulness and bright light she had around her was (I think) refreshing. People liked her and she liked them right back. The Queen, Princess Anne and other royals all dressed way older than they were in those days. I think they were stiff and too formal at the time. I think the media was obsessed with Diana but I think the people was just drawn to her and she tried to accept and respond to the kindness and respect that she received from the people. I don't think it's right for people to come down on her for the attention she received.

The Queen may be the main star of the royal family but there are supporting stars as well and Diana was one of them at the time.

The royal family has changed a lot since Diana's heyday. The Countess of Wessex has that wow factor, The Duchess of Cambridge has her wow factor and Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie also have their wow factors. The media interests isn't as intense as it was with Diana but these royal ladies now stand out and are less stuffy, stiff, starchy and formal. Even William and Harry are major stars within the royal family. The media and the public is very interested in them and I think The Queen and the older members of the royal family know and accept the interest in the younger and more attractive members of the royal family. The palace is now even using the media interest of the younger royals to their advantage.

I can't imagine how Diana felt when everyone was probably telling her that everything she did was drawing too much attention and that it was bad form on her part. Her smiles, hair, clothes and laugh. It seems to me, that her whole personality was under attack and it continues to this day. No wonder that woman was throwing up, slicing her wrist, throwing herself down the stairs and was badly depressed.
 
Last edited:
Diana always reminded me of Queen Alexandra. Beautiful, elegant, enjoyed attention and ultimately incredibly shallow.
 
In the Andrew Morton Book I got the feeling that Diana did not like The Monarchy (As a whole or any type of monarchy) and did not support it or like it as a form of Government and was probably a bit of a Republucan (UK Republican not US Republican) in some ways. That is fine and I am not going to criticise her or bash her for that as she is allowed to have opinions and feelings like the rest of us. But If she did not like The Monarchy and she felt that it was 'outdated' and did not 'fit' in society then why did she marry Charles when she knew that she was marrying into it?
 
From all I've heard and read on Diana, I don't think I've ever seen it expressed that she felt anything about any kind of government. TBH, to me she just wasn't the type to concern herself about politics at all. She wasn't overly scholastic at all.

During the later parts of her marriage, whatever opinions she may have had on the monarchy was more or less aimed out of personal reasons against Charles and his family and not because she cared about how the government worked or was run. Being Princess of Wales and knowing her son was a future king meant a lot to her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone who has read the Squidgygate transcript will know that as at 31 December 1989 Diana did not have a particularly high regard for the British Royal Family.
 
In the Andrew Morton Book I got the feeling that Diana did not like The Monarchy (As a whole or any type of monarchy) and did not support it or like it as a form of Government and was probably a bit of a Republucan (UK Republican not US Republican) in some ways. That is fine and I am not going to criticise her or bash her for that as she is allowed to have opinions and feelings like the rest of us. But If she did not like The Monarchy and she felt that it was 'outdated' and did not 'fit' in society then why did she marry Charles when she knew that she was marrying into it?

Well,I have a similar impression,but I am sure she enjoyed the glamour and lifestyle of a royal. Some of her anti-monarchy feelings may have come from the resentment in her disappointing marriage,it is not difficult to understand that she hated the whole system that she made responsible for her unhappiness. On another account I remember many of the traditional aristocrats did not approve of how P.Diana wanted to change the monarchy,they did not like her modern ideas and that she was not behaving the way they expect a Princess to do.
That´s why in her later years she had more contacts with people from showbusiness and various charitable organisations and not so many aristocrats. I do not know if Princess Diana had any political preferences or really cared about politics,she usually did not talk about such topics in public.
 
Hm, I am not that happy with the feedback of some. I have the impression that for many it is "Diana´s fault". I think, this is unfair. Yes, she had a lot of mistakes, there were many soap opera stories, maybe she was too young in the beginning and did not follow some guidance of RH experts. But: I am not sure whether she did everything in order to become a media star. She was one already prior to the engagement and the interest increased increased increased.... not only because of her but also because the media wanted her to get pics and increase selling.
I remember that on every occasion WITH the Queen Diana made the impression of really being one step back and keep her mouth shut, but media were more interested in her than the Queen. Similar happened to Charles, everybody wanted to see her, nobody Chales.... so "outshining" is an issue, that happened naturally - because of her beauty and charisma, she simply outshined verybody with her warmth & personality.
This became extreme, but it is happening (in a lesser depth, thank god) until today, the young royals are selling better than the old ones, thats they way it is, no-one to blame.
Sooner or later the media attention also was a source of "at least I am loved by "someone", if not by my husband", but who can blame her for that?

Last argument: "re-new" or modernize the monarchy. I think, Diana did an EXTREMLY important first step to modernize the Monarchy. She in the end started with something, which is been done by the monarchy (and YES, INCLUDING the Queen) since and is happening until today, they have opened, and I think this is KEY for todays monarchies, opening to the public without loosing the mysticism of the Crown. If you ask me, that was thanks to Diana.

BYe Bine
 
In the Andrew Morton Book I got the feeling that Diana did not like The Monarchy (As a whole or any type of monarchy) and did not support it or like it as a form of Government and was probably a bit of a Republucan (UK Republican not US Republican) in some ways. That is fine and I am not going to criticise her or bash her for that as she is allowed to have opinions and feelings like the rest of us. But If she did not like The Monarchy and she felt that it was 'outdated' and did not 'fit' in society then why did she marry Charles when she knew that she was marrying into it?

That's an interesting take. I haven't looked at the book for a while but overall, I got the feeling Diana was a big supporter of the monarchy form of government. I think the issue was that she wanted be the queen, independent of the current royal family.

Look at her reaction to losing the HRH title: the great "humanitarian" resigned from over 100 charities in protest. After the divorce, she made it clear that she wanted to be referred to as "Diana, Princess of Wales." I also got the impression that she loved it when people curtsied to her.

Diana was in love with the lifestyle of the royal family. In the beginning, she had a crush on the Prince of Wales, but she was never in love with Charles.

Her beauty, charisma, and charm naturally drew the media to her. She was extremely videogenic and she couldn't help that. At the same time, she undeniably did things to deliberately draw cameras to her. She also deliberately scheduled appearances when she knew it would conflict with other members of the royal family's appearances. She also called the media and let them know where she would be for informal photo shoots.

She liked the attention. There was no harm in that for the most part, but Diana crossed the line. Not only did her need to be in the center of the world stage hurt her marriage to Charles, it hurt her children. Charles and the Queen were adults, but her children were not. When she wanted a headline, she often called the media when she took her William and Harry out in public. She also used them as pawns in her vindictive campaign to ruin her husband, which was wrong no matter how posters try and justify her actions.

My second criticism is that she was a hypocrite. She and her supporters criticized Charles for being jealous of the attention she received, which he may have been. But at the same time, Diana was clearly jealous when other members of the royal family received attention. No matter how many times some posters deny it, many of her media supporters, like Andrew Morton, acknowledge her need for headlines. It is hypocritical to criticize Charles for being jealous when Diana was clearly jealous, too.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

That is one of the best analyses I have read of Diana - well done.

She would often set out to upstage the other royals - and she enjoyed doing it.
 
Diana respected the institution she married to and in which her children was born. I think she would like how relaxed the Monarchy is today. She, like many others, knew that some things had to change.

Where is the evidence that Diana called members of the media when she took the boys out and about? Also where is the evidence that Diana scheduled public appearances to take the attention away from other members of the royal family?

The lifestyle of the royal family is appealing and, trust me, all those who marry senior members of the family or was born into it, love the lifestyle.
Diana was The Princess of Wales, future Queen Consort and mother of the future King, she deserved to be curtsied to.
 
I know I am wasting my time, but here is one source. There are many others--as Dman knows. Some people seem to live in a constant state of denial. But no matter how many times they say it isn't true, there are too many people who actually knew Diana and even supported her (Andrew Morton and Richard Kay), who admit that she deliberately upstaged members of the royal family and used her children as pawns in the divorce.

The real Diana was a fascinating person. Unfortunately, some people believe that the media image was the truth and are very resistant to discussing facts.

Evelyn Dagley | Battle royal: Diana proves to be mouse that roars - Baltimore Sun
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I am wasting my time, but here is one source. There are many others--as Dman knows. Some people seem to live in a constant state of denial. But no matter how many times they say it isn't true, there are too many people who actually knew Diana and even supported her (Andrew Morton and Richard Kay), who admit that she deliberately upstaged members of the royal family and used her children as pawns in the divorce.

The real Diana was a fascinating person. Unfortunately, some people believe that the media image was the truth and are very resistant to discussing facts.

Evelyn Dagley | Battle royal: Diana proves to be mouse that roars - Baltimore Sun

Well put. There are many people who blindly promote, love, or follow people who they will never know personally. Ive never understood it.

She wasnt a saint, she was human with all the human frailities. That didnt stop her trying to do good, charity work. everyone makes mistakes but the TV interview and stating that Charles wasnt fit to be king was malicious and unforgivable. And the embarassment that it caused her sons is beyond thoughtless.
 
Had Diana been a saint, we would not have found her so engaging. It was her flaws (shyness, softness, confusion about her life) that endeared me.
 
I think we all know that Diana wasn't a saint and she didn't marry into a sanctified family either. I know she often did things that she shouldn't have and she made her mistakes. I know I'm not making any excuses for her behavior or immaturity but I don't think Diana tried her best to upstage members of the royal family. Diana couldn't control the intense interest in her.

There were charities and organizations that preferred and requested the Princess of Wales to be their royal patron, president and even officially open their centers, over other members of the royal family. There wasn't her fault and she turned many of the offers down. It wasn't Diana's fault that whenever she appeared at public official engagements, the media focused a great of attention to her over the others. Despite the attention, she had to continue on doing her duty as the wife of the Prince of Wales and future Queen.

Her 1995 interview was a major mistake and she later admitted that she should have never given the interview.

No one is denying that Diana made her mistakes and that she wasn't a heavenly creature the media tried to make her out to be. I think the media's praises and glorification of the late Princess did her memory no favors. She was beautiful and kind woman, who was a good mother and did a pretty good job in her royal role.
 
Had Diana been a saint, we would not have found her so engaging. It was her flaws (shyness, softness, confusion about her life) that endeared me.

I agree with this except: Shyness is not a flaw, it is a characteristic. I have a daughter who is shy, but she is very self confident in many ways. There is a difference between being shy and being insecure. I don't think Diana was shy as much as she was insecure. It still made her fascinating.
 
Diana called members of the media when she took the boys out and about? Also where is the evidence that Diana scheduled public appearances to take the attention away from other members of the royal family?
.

You mean besides several members of the press saying exactly that? Surely you are not so naive as to believe that the British press corps normally hang out at Thorpe Park or outside of Carolyn Bartholomews apartment.
 
Last edited:
The photographers followed Diana everywhere. They were waiting for her car (coming and going) at Kensington Palace on a daily bases. They knew when she went shopping on Kensington High Street, they knew when she were visiting friends, lunch, taking the boys out and everything. The photographers were on Diana's tail like white on rice.
 
The photographers followed Diana everywhere. They were waiting for her car (coming and going) at Kensington Palace on a daily bases. They knew when she went shopping on Kensington High Street, they knew when she were visiting friends, lunch, taking the boys out and everything. The photographers were on Diana's tail like white on rice.

You are confusing the paparazzi with the media. Yes, freelance photographers would stake out the palace, as they do with many celebrities. They got candid (not posed shots) and sold them to the tabloids. Even so, Diana was often able to come and go without the photographers seeing her. She took the boys out to movies and shopping at times without being seen.

The regular reporters sometimes hung around to get stories, but not all the time. There is not one reporter who was dedicated to writing about Diana only. Even royal reporters (Richard Kay and Andrew Morton) had to cover other royal family members. To cover Diana, they had to be other places to talk to sources and file their stories. Remember, it was not just before the Internet, but most were covering her before mobile phones were common.

Television camera crews never just hung around the palace (or anyplace) waiting to see if someone comes and go. They will if there is a major story happening, but not at random. Professional video equipment is too expensive to just have sitting outside of the palace on the off chance that she may do something interesting--and it was even more expensive in the 80s and 90s.

One example of Diana's use of the media was the famous video of Diana taking her sons to an amusement park. She absolutely called the media in advance--no question. IIRC this was to upstage a speech Charles gave on economic development in Africa. The great "humanitarian" didn't care enough about relieving suffering of the poor people in Africa to refrain from using her sons to grab the headlines.
 
Back
Top Bottom