Charles and Diana

[Mermaid1962]

I've been asked to post come comments that I made in a PM conversation. So here goes:

Diana was quite close in age to me, almost exactly a year older. I remember that she was really adored in those early years. My husband met her and Prince Charles when they were in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1983. What he remembers about her is her youth, her interest in the people around her, and the fact that, at almost six feet tall, he could look her directly in the eye. He said that both she and the Prince were very warm, friendly people, but that she had the stronger handshake--a real grip.

I think that with Diana, there was an individual who became greater in the public eye than the role she fulfilled. At first, I think that it was because she appeared to be so perfect for her role, and also because of the tabloid war that was raging at the time. But afterwards, her fame took a different trajectory that was never seen before in the Royal Family. Edward VIII was famous as Prince Charming as Prince of Wales, and Princess Margaret was considered one of the most beautiful women of her time, but Diana was something else again.

I think that she did have a natural kindness and interest in others, and a real love for children, but her personal problems overwhelmed her. Not that I excuse her. She was responsible for everything that she did, and I think it's awful the way she had different men in her life when her children were at a vulnerable age.

t's all just tragic. She had real gifts for communication and making people happy in her presence--that is, the people in her public work, not necessarily the people in her personal life. By the end of her life, I think that she was somewhat delusional and that she created her own world inside her mind to explain the circumstances she found herself in. That world is what's found in Morton's book and also in her Panorama interview.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

[As I say, my mother used Diana as a cautionary tale with me, that's why I know as much as I do, though I would never claim to have an exhaustive understanding of either Diana or her world back then. I find her enormously puzzling, though if I posit her as spoiled with an arching sense of privilege it all makes sense. My mother had other theories that I don't subscribe to.

My summation of Diana is that she was a fool. Is that too harsh? She worked hard to land Charles. That's how I see it, and once she 'had it all' she squandered it all. Defies understanding. ]// quote

Hi Lady Nimue-

I usually agree with your wonderful insightful posts and opinions, but not on this point. I think the late princess behaved foolishly, no doubt. But she was not a fool, far from it. A true fool would never have come as far in life as this uneducated young woman with minimal coping skills did.

She would have crashed and burned(no pun intended) much earlier than August 1997.

Her working hard to land Charles and then squandering it all does indeed seem incomprehensible if one does not understand the massive insecurity that was the root of her character.

Given what I have learned about her upbringing, her childhood and her emotional makeup my over arching opinion about Diana is that she was essentially a damaged, wounded soul. To say that she was "spoiled" is true only in the material sense. She was emotionally malnourished early on, all of the Spencer children were. She did what she felt was necessary to fill the giant hole she had inside of her, and to do that she used what she knew she did have....charm, beauty, charisma, cunning. She had that in spades, and for a long time it all worked brilliantly in her favor. She ran circles around her more sophisticated, worldly, powerful enemies in the Establishment, almost up to the end.

But she did, as you point out, fall for her own propaganda and spin a web for herself that was her own undoing. I believe it all started with the Morton book, and her final undoing was the Panorama interview.

So yes in a sense, the not so secret weapon that made Diana wielded so brilliantly to make her image is the one that ultimately brought her down.

 

[COUNTESS]

This may be a bit off topic, but why was Anna Wallace called Whiplash.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She was supposed to have had a very bad temper and a very strong hunter.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Since I cannot recall which book my information comes from - I have read a few - I will cite this one: Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess by Sally Bedell Smith. It is a book that was initiated by Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair (if I have my facts right) shortly after Diana's death. In keeping with Vanity Fair's mission to record current society, Diana's life fell within those bounds. It's a very journalistic tome, filled with sources and notations and bibliography.

It's a book that literally documents the time line of Diana's life from a to z. It's pretty thick going. I had to set it aside several times. It chronicles not only Diana's major life events but her press, so that one can see how the events unfolded when and how, and what was said when and how, that precipitated further events. Sources are copious. Every attempt was made to get people to talk openly, without anonymity.

The view was that such a book, written so soon after her death, would preserve the facts while the story was still fresh in everyone's mind who had something to contribute. It's an outstanding compendium imo, but hard-going because some of what's described is difficult to read about.

Hope this helps. I've read other books but as I say the information sometimes gets unwittingly conflated in the mind. Even I get confused.

Sally bedell smith writes sensational books. I would say the reading is meant to be entertaining but wouldn't take it as true. She has had many lawsuits

 

[Pranter]

In this respect, I think we have a pretty good example of Charles' public support of his ex-wife in how he acted and reacted when the accident in Paris occurred. I don't think that if there was animosity or loathing between Charles and Diana that Charles would have gone to Paris and was with her being transported back to the UK. To me, he acted above and beyond what would be expected of an ex-husband.

They both very much agreed on things is regards to their sons and I find it easy to believe that they were on friendly terms towards the end.

Of course he went beyond....she was the mother of the future king. Not a normal ex spouse situation at all.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

Sally Bedell Smith writes sensational books. I would say the reading is meant to be entertaining but wouldn't take it as true. She has had many lawsuits.

Not that I see. To be frank, it sounds like a 'shoot the messenger'. Nothing shows up on-line. Quite the reverse, but even if it did it doesn't mean much. Biographers of living people always run the risk of litigation. She is a respected journalist known for investigative reporting. Read the book. It's not an easy read by any means. It is thick reading.

It's also an important book imo because written so close on the heels of Diana's passing. The memories were fresh when spoken and written, within her time. It's fair if you decide you don't agree with her summation of Diana, but Bedell Smith's journalism cannot be faulted in this case.

I will quote an Amazon review that says it best: "This book is extremely well written. It is extensively researched. It has 30+ pages of notes and citations at the end, appendiced for anyone to reference. The author has read just about every paparazzi article on the Princess and compared them on a timeline of actual events in the Princess' life, interviewed dozens upon dozens of people, most of whom are actually named (and in fact specifies that 68 are not named), and has laid bare every iota of this woman's existence.[...] incredibly detailed book [...] The author of this book may be wrong. But as a writer and researcher myself, i can tell she definitely did her homework."

That pretty much says it for the book. One is never obliged to accept a biographer's view of their subject. In this case, you may not share Smith's conclusions, but she presents an invaluable and thoroughly researched time-line of Diana's life.

The Amazon reviewer ends their review with this: "Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go write a letter of apology to the Prince of Wales for all the mean things I believed and said about him." I think that's the essence of the objections to this book, because if one reads this timeline laid bare, you develop a different view of exactly what the BRF was dealing with, Charles in particular. In fact, we now know even more about the personal timeline. Even Bedell Smith didn't have the full story. No one ever will. Except Charles (maybe).

Yet, saying the above, I want to stress that I also see the warmth and goodness of Diana. Charles' grief and respect speak to that aspect of her. I've read enough to be smitten, too. She had demons like we all do. As Charles does, I'm sure. But it's not a contest. It just was the way it was and it's good to understand it.

 

[Lady Nimue]

As I say, my mother used Diana as a cautionary tale with me, that's why I know as much as I do, though I would never claim to have an exhaustive understanding of either Diana or her world back then. I find her enormously puzzling, though if I posit her as spoiled with an arching sense of privilege it all makes sense. My mother had other theories that I don't subscribe to.

My summation of Diana is that she was a fool. Is that too harsh? She worked hard to land Charles. That's how I see it, and once she 'had it all' she squandered it all. Defies understanding.

Hi Lady Nimue-

I usually agree with your wonderful insightful posts and opinions, but not on this point. I think the late princess behaved foolishly, no doubt. But she was not a fool, far from it. A true fool would never have come as far in life as this uneducated young woman with minimal coping skills did.

You have a good point. But fools can still be clever and savvy, as Diana was, as you say. I'm not going to back down on this : I still think she was a fool to have believed her press, to have thrown away her life of ultimate status and privilege in her social world.

Her working hard to land Charles and then squandering it all does indeed seem incomprehensible if one does not understand the massive insecurity that was the root of her character.

I don't really want to parse this too much but I don't actually see her as insecure. I see her in other ways. I don't see her as a victim, nor as an innocent. She was too clever and powerful (in her way) for insecurity. (If you mean the story she spun about Camilla, that was all part of her self-defense. She made it all about Charles and his love. I just don't buy it).

Given what I have learned about her upbringing, her childhood and her emotional makeup my over arching opinion about Diana is that she was essentially a damaged, wounded soul. To say that she was "spoiled" is true only in the material sense. She was emotionally malnourished early on, all of the Spencer children were. She did what she felt was necessary to fill the giant hole she had inside of her, and to do that she used what she knew she did have....charm, beauty, charisma, cunning. She had that in spades, and for a long time it all worked brilliantly in her favor. She ran circles around her more sophisticated, worldly, powerful enemies in the Establishment, almost up to the end.

Good points. Yet.....imo she was spoiled, she was privileged, she got her way. She lied without compunction or regret. In her golden glow one was favored until she was displeased. Diana used people. I don't like people like that.

But she did, as you point out, fall for her own propaganda and spin a web for herself that was her own undoing. I believe it all started with the Morton book, and her final undoing was the Panorama interview.

The difference between your view of Diana and mine is that I have never excused her. She has never lived in my mind as a victim in any way.

I don't think she ever believed what she spun. (She believed she was unsinkable because of the public's adulation, and in many ways she proved she was just that, unsinkable). In fact I think she played by the rules (having a lover early on in the marriage) as long as it suited her. The moment it didn't suit her, she was done without a backward glance, though she would profess to 'adore' the jilted lover when survival demanded it. She would also throw a young boy under the bus (not just Camilla) when it suited her (in the Panorama interview, when she fingered the boy making the stalking phone calls, when it was her, she knew it was her, and the police knew it was her). How can anyone respect that aspect of her? Allow for it? Excuse it? I can't.

So yes in a sense, the not so secret weapon that made Diana wielded so brilliantly to make her image is the one that ultimately brought her down.

She was running on empty. She had alienated and dismissed too many people in her life. Hearing about her tears at learning about Charles throwing the party for Camilla is heartbreaking. We are told she was quietly weeping in the restaurant with Dodi Fayed the night she died. Heartbreaking. What to say? Conceit driven to despair. Maybe that was her turning point but fate played it's hand. I'm sure she is happy now. R.I.P. Diana.

 

[Dman]

[As I say, my mother used Diana as a cautionary tale with me, that's why I know as much as I do, though I would never claim to have an exhaustive understanding of either Diana or her world back then. I find her enormously puzzling, though if I posit her as spoiled with an arching sense of privilege it all makes sense. My mother had other theories that I don't subscribe to.

My summation of Diana is that she was a fool. Is that too harsh? She worked hard to land Charles. That's how I see it, and once she 'had it all' she squandered it all. Defies understanding. ]// quote

Hi Lady Nimue-

I usually agree with your wonderful insightful posts and opinions, but not on this point. I think the late princess behaved foolishly, no doubt. But she was not a fool, far from it. A true fool would never have come as far in life as this uneducated young woman with minimal coping skills did.

She would have crashed and burned(no pun intended) much earlier than August 1997.

Her working hard to land Charles and then squandering it all does indeed seem incomprehensible if one does not understand the massive insecurity that was the root of her character.

Given what I have learned about her upbringing, her childhood and her emotional makeup my over arching opinion about Diana is that she was essentially a damaged, wounded soul. To say that she was "spoiled" is true only in the material sense. She was emotionally malnourished early on, all of the Spencer children were. She did what she felt was necessary to fill the giant hole she had inside of her, and to do that she used what she knew she did have....charm, beauty, charisma, cunning. She had that in spades, and for a long time it all worked brilliantly in her favor. She ran circles around her more sophisticated, worldly, powerful enemies in the Establishment, almost up to the end.

But she did, as you point out, fall for her own propaganda and spin a web for herself that was her own undoing. I believe it all started with the Morton book, and her final undoing was the Panorama interview.

So yes in a sense, the not so secret weapon that made Diana wielded so brilliantly to make her image is the one that ultimately brought her down.

Both Diana and Charles had damaged childhoods.

 

[royal rob]

Both Diana and Charles had damaged childhoods.

When did Charles mum pack her bags and leave her children ? Apart from royal tours


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

When did Charles mum pack her bags and leave her children ? Apart from royal tours


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Charles did feel neglected as a child and he hasn't had the most easy relationship with his parents. Diana's family system was terrible when she was a kid. I think they tried hard to give their own children a better life than they had. I think they succeeded that, despite their marital problems.

 

[Jacknch]

Once again, several posts have been deleted to get this thread back on topic, which is the relationship/marriage between Charles and Diana.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have seen in a documentary or read it in an article, I don't remember, I thought it was the program with the Prince telling about Highgrove and the park around: in the princely study there is a picture of the late Diana and in his order every day fresh flowers must be placed in front of it.

So whatever the problems were during the War of the Waleses, after the divorce the relationship normalized and both seemed to have re-found appreciation for each other again. After all they shared a marriage and two sons.

 

[Osipi]

I have seen in a documentary or read it in an article, I don't remember, I thought it was the program with the Prince telling about Highgrove and the park around: in the princely study there is a picture of the late Diana and in his order every day fresh flowers must be placed in front of it.

So whatever the problems were during the War of the Waleses, after the divorce the relationship normalized and both seemed to have re-found appreciation for each other again. After all they shared a marriage and two sons.

I remember reading this also in a couple of places. It is not unusual for two people to really care about each other but yet find it impossible to maintain a marriage together. I think Charles showed his true colors very well just by his actions at the time of accident in Paris. To me, it looked like he stepped in and took care of things (and her) in such a manner that a husband would.

We only have a glimmer into Diana's last year from various activities and reports that were made public. We'll never ever have the full complete picture.

 

[Dman]

I remember reading this also in a couple of places. It is not unusual for two people to really care about each other but yet find it impossible to maintain a marriage together. I think Charles showed his true colors very well just by his actions at the time of accident in Paris. To me, it looked like he stepped in and took care of things (and her) in such a manner that a husband would.

We only have a glimmer into Diana's last year from various activities and reports that were made public. We'll never ever have the full complete picture.

Yes, I wish people would understand that although their marriage didn't work, there was still love and and a bond between Charles and Diana. When he heard that she was in a car accident, Charles immediately prepared himself to go to Paris to be at her side. Afterwards he found out that she had passed, he went to collect her body and bring her back home. I can't even imagine how hard that was for him.

I too heard about Diana's picture and the flower he leaves there.

We talk about her legacy and how she left behind two young princes. I think she left behind three princes and that will never forget her. I know with George and Charlotte arrivals, they must think about her during these precious times.

 

[Dman]

Picture Clip-
Diana celebrated her 22nd birthday while on tour of Canada (Edmonton, Alberta) with Charles. For the plane ride back, at the request of Charles, a cake was made. Also at the request of Charles, the cake was decorated with…"I Love You Darling."
#teamgordons

 

[Mermaid1962]

Very nice, Dman.

 

[Blog Real]

Yes, I wish people would understand that although their marriage didn't work, there was still love and and a bond between Charles and Diana. When he heard that she was in a car accident, Charles immediately prepared himself to go to Paris to be at her side. Afterwards he found out that she had passed, he went to collect her body and bring her back home. I can't even imagine how hard that was for him.

I too heard about Diana's picture and the flower he leaves there.

We talk about her legacy and how she left behind two young princes. I think she left behind three princes and that will never forget her. I know with George and Charlotte arrivals, they must think about her during these precious times.

True. That's what I think too.

 

[Mirabel]

When did Charles mum pack her bags and leave her children ? Apart from royal tours


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Right away.
She succeeded to the throne when he was a toddler, and she was simply overwhelmed for some time. Charles was mostly left to the nanny.

Also, Charles and Phillip were simply not on the same page- ever.
They were very different. Charles rather resembled his maternal grandfather, George VI, and had little in common with his somewhat didactic father.

 

[Pranter]

Anything I've ever heard/read indicates that Ann was always close to Phillip.

I don't think a real manly man like Phillip knew what to do with a sensitive boy like Charles.


LaRae

 

[COUNTESS]

The sad part is that they both needed love. They both were flowers, what they needed was one being a gardener. Diana never found that love and died too soon. Charles has found that with Camilla and that is great. I think Camilla is able to give him the warmth he never had in his family.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The sad part is that they both needed love. They both were flowers, what they needed was one being a gardener. Diana never found that love and died too soon. Charles has found that with Camilla and that is great. I think Camilla is able to give him the warmth he never had in his family.

In fact, Diana did find love. James Hewitt was a relatively long relationship (for Diana), longer even than her (intimate) relationship with her husband. Diana appears to have needed blind devotion and that she had in Hewitt. She had other loves, too, some of them enduring, but Diana had a different agenda than Charles, though saying that, I'm not sure what it was. She was a restless soul, for sure.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When did Charles mum pack her bags and leave her children ? Apart from royal tours

From the very beginning she would leave the children in the UK while she went and spent time with Philip in Malta.

There was at least one occasion when she returned from being overseas when she went straight to Sandringham while Charles was left in London with the nanny. It was a week or so before she went to see her young son.

That was before she became Queen.

 

[Nico]

The sad part is that they both needed love. They both were flowers, what they needed was one being a gardener. Diana never found that love and died too soon. Charles has found that with Camilla and that is great. I think Camilla is able to give him the warmth he never had in his family.

Very wise words, thank you.
I think the same about Charles and Diana as a couple.

 

[Mirabel]

In fact, Diana did find love. James Hewitt was a relatively long relationship (for Diana), longer even than her (intimate) relationship with her husband. Diana appears to have needed blind devotion and that she had in Hewitt. She had other loves, too, some of them enduring, but Diana had a different agenda than Charles, though saying that, I'm not sure what it was. She was a restless soul, for sure.

She may have been infatuated with Hewitt, but I really doubt whether she truly loved him. (If she did, I'm sure it turned to repulsion later, when he lost no opportunity to cash in on the relationship).

And the fact that he sold her out every chance he got makes me question whether he ever genuinely loved her, either! If he did, he would never have betrayed her the way he did.

 

[TLLK]

The sad part is that they both needed love. They both were flowers, what they needed was one being a gardener. Diana never found that love and died too soon. Charles has found that with Camilla and that is great. I think Camilla is able to give him the warmth he never had in his family.

This is the perfect choice of words to sum up both Charles and Diana as individuals and why IMO they were not going to last as a couple.

 

[Jacknch]

Something drew Charles and Diana together and I agree, they both had the need for being loved and supported. It makes me think that they recognised that in each other and that helped draw them together. Just a whole set of needs from each of them, from the practical to the emotional, and it all came together to a point where marriage seemed the right thing to do.
But as has been suggested, for the marriage to work out the long term, one of them was going to have to put aside what they needed and be the nurturer (or gardener as Countess mentioned) or be the strength that the marriage needed.

 

[Queen Claude]

Diana got Charles' attention when she told him he needed someone to look after him when she saw how devastated he was over Lord Mountbatten's death. Diana had a nurturing side to her as demonstrated by her job choices of being a nanny and kindergarten teacher. Also, even though her parents' divorce was painful, it seemed like the silver lining was that she liked being the woman of the house and taking care of her father and brother. What it boiled down to is that Diana also needed someone to look after her / take care of her, and neither she nor Charles was able to look after the other in a way that was needed.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

She may have been infatuated with Hewitt, but I really doubt whether she truly loved him. (If she did, I'm sure it turned to repulsion later, when he lost no opportunity to cash in on the relationship).

And the fact that he sold her out every chance he got makes me question whether he ever genuinely loved her, either! If he did, he would never have betrayed her the way he did.

What James has done is crude, but Diana mistreated him before he sold her out. She apparently got upset when he was stationed elsewhere and couldn't be at her beck and call. I wonder if she truly loved him if her love depended on if you were devoted to her or not.

 

[Lady Nimue]

She may have been infatuated with Hewitt, but I really doubt whether she truly loved him. (If she did, I'm sure it turned to repulsion later, when he lost no opportunity to cash in on the relationship).

In fact she told the world in a very famous interview that she 'adored' Hewitt. Her own words. She was (in her view) in love with him. So there you go.

As for your parenthetical observation, I am always (vaguely) surprised that people view the royals as having primary rights on their own royal lives. Others must stay subservient to that primacy. That's the 'social contract'. I'm reading a book on the British royals right now that actually explains that. I think one has to be British (or in some way 'buy-in' to the royals' social supremacy) to successfully navigate down this reasoning. JMO.

P.S. I also understand that royals and celebrity are not the same and that in many ways royals do need that social protection. Just to be clear, as i realized the way I originally phrased my post could mis-represent my view.