Dman, you have taken this (my) response from another thread so the context is lost. Not sure I agree with a poster doing this to someone else's text, but....
As often happens, two divergent points are being conflated here: Diana and Charles agreeing that the two boys would not be spoiled is one thing. Subjecting the boys to photo-ops while engaged in 'normal' activities is quite another. The latter is an issue of placing the boys front-and-center in front of the cameras and crowds for (Diana's) parental PR purposes. Charles never did such. His activities with his sons were always out-of-sight of the cameras, except for the photo-ops on family skiing holidays, etc.
a la the norm of other European royal families.
I don't get the pairing of these two factoids. One can be 'young' and still appreciate, and even like, country living, as well as city living. The one does not preclude the other. In fact, Diana did the two (city and country) when she lived at Highgrove on the weekends and commuted to London during the week. Or have I got that wrong?
So 'the country' you mean is Balmoral. That you know she did not care for life at Balmoral, and that she thought it was 'stuffy', is an indication that Diana was doing a lot of talking about the BRF. She was disrespecting the lifestyle not simply of her in-laws in a difficult marriage, but of The Queen and her family (what is the dividing line between institution and family in this instance?). My point (from the other thread) is that Diana was bringing the BRF down (and potentially the institution) with her incessant tittle-tattle.
Ah so. Didn't know that, so she did like 'the country'. She didn't like the BRF, and maybe Charles?
I assume this is your rebuttal to my statement that the sons are perceived (by some) as work-shy royals.
That's your opinion. What these men really are will be forever an unknown since the BRF really does maintain silence (if only Diana had been so inclined).
We can assume good intentions. What these men absorbed as children, and how it shaped them, only they know. 'Raised well' is always relative. It depends on context.
For sure, but I'd put a lot of it (as well) to the photo-ops Diana subjected her sons to while she was showing off her parenting style. (As well as the searing experience of the very public funeral where they were forced to be watched by multitudes). As a parent of young children I cannot fathom what Diana thought she was doing placing those two children so much in front of the camera. I assume it was the times back then and a lack of understanding regarding what was healthy. In that, Diana was just of her times, though I do note that Charles did not so engage the media.
Diana did the interview because of James Hewitt going public regarding their affair, and because of the police threatening legal action against Diana for stalking a married man. The rest was just smoke-and-mirrors, distraction onto Charles rather than herself. She'd done the same with the Morton book. Prior to the Morton book she knew her affairs were going to be coming to light in the press, she was becoming an issue around then in the newspapers, so she deflected attention onto the 'stuffy' BRF and the crowning claim, her victim-hood. How else to 'explain away' her infidelities? make it Charles' fault. Panorama was more of the same slight-of-hand deflection away from her 'sins'.
Quite so. It cost her the marriage (her social standing) and becoming Queen.
Pretty dire consequences for her. I feel so very sorry for her. I can never come to this part of her story without pain for her. She lost everything that really mattered to her. I cringe when I think of what she went through in those ensuing years.