Charles and Diana

[Pranter]

I watched the Charles and Diana wedding (I was around 16 I think) and after that didn't really pay much attention to the BRF for quite some time ..maybe 10 or so years later I started paying attention to them again...not long before the book came out.

THE book...it was quite shocking in it's details and myself I had no idea she was involved and considered it was probably like the tabloid stories and not as much truth to it.

After more and more was known...I started to realize things were quite a mess and there was more truth to the book. Now Dr Phil says something along the lines of it's their perception of what went on, it's their truth how they saw it. Because you don't see it as the truth doesn't negate how they viewed it or if they are right or not.

I think this is the case here....this was mostly Diana's version of how she saw things...and therefore to understand it you need to look at things thru her viewpoint....and in all fairness the same applies to Charles and his view.

I watch the Panorama program as it happened ...(and I saw Charles's interview also). Honestly I have more sympathy to Diana (in some things) simply because I think it was badly done of him to ask him to marry her considering everything we know.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

You know what they say about the road to hell....well Charles learned that one.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

... and had to walk it barefoot it seems at times too.

 

[Pranter]

Permanent scars I'd say.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

You know what they say about the road to hell....well Charles learned that one. LaRae

... and had to walk it barefoot it seems at times too.

Permanent scars I'd say. LaRae

Yep. And it's never really over for him. Sadly, the sons he loves are not his support.

What a lesson: consider well who you marry! Listen well, my children, to this story, of a Princeling long ago, who took a maiden for to marry......who could have predicted all the woe!

 

[Pranter]

I have always gotten the impression the boys supported Charles and had a good relationship with him.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

I have always gotten the impression the boys supported Charles and had a good relationship with him. LaRae

Not if one follows the breadcrumbs. It's the great unsaid. Very sad.

 

[Pranter]

Hmmm I haven't seen that and I'm usually pretty good at body language and catching things.




LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Again, I think there's is something at play here. To the public eye and the press, what is seen is the boy's relationship with their father, The Prince of Wales. In private, that's where the closeness probably shines with the relationship between father and sons.

Bearing the scars from everything and anything splashed all over the tabloids of what was going down in the private lives, do we really blame them for keeping a lid on their private relationships with each other? I believe these people are a lot closer with each other than what we actually see and hear.

 

[Curryong]

This is from Penny Junor's book. She spoke to many of Charles and Camilla's circle and has spoken on many occasions to Charles and to Camilla herself, so she knows quite a bit about them.
She herself notes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult'. She quotes a friend of Harry and William about it and no doubt believes his statement to be true or she wouldn't have put it in the biography.

'There is no doubt they' (W and H) ' love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'

'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service'. (The tenth anniversary memorial service for Diana, where people have noted seeing that Charles looks over Harry's written tribute to his mother when he greets him.)

The friend remarks 'He, Charles, was very sensitive about where he sat and what it said.'

That memorial service was to bring together the Spencers and the royals, two sides that had been divided since Diana's death. Junor notes that Charles 'made a meal of the seating arrangements via his aide Michael Peat' (raising various objections.) William gave up but Harry said 'F... this!' and phoned his father. He said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah. Are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said. 'I suppose so'. ' William sat with his father at the service, Harry with the Spencers, opposite.

Now that portion of the latest bio from Penny Junor 'The Duchess' shows that there is some creeping about on eggshells going on in Charles and William and Harry's family relationship and it's Charles who's cracking the eggs. If this is coming from one of Charles and Camilla's greatest supporters, Penny Junor, heaven knows what really goes on!

 

[camelot23ca]

This is from Penny Junor's book. She spoke to many of Charles and Camilla's circle and has spoken on many occasions to Charles and to Camilla herself, so she knows quite a bit about them.
She herself notes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult'. She quotes a friend of Harry and William about it and no doubt believes his statement to be true or she wouldn't have put it in the biography.

'There is no doubt they' (W and H) ' love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'

'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service'. (The tenth anniversary memorial service for Diana, where people have noted seeing that Charles looks over Harry's written tribute to his mother when he greets him.)

The friend remarks 'He, Charles, was very sensitive about where he sat and what it said.'

That memorial service was to bring together the Spencers and the royals, two sides that had been divided since Diana's death. Junor notes that Charles 'made a meal of the seating arrangements via his aide Michael Peat' (raising various objections.) William gave up but Harry said 'F... this!' and phoned his father. He said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah. Are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said. 'I suppose so'. ' William sat with his father at the service, Harry with the Spencers, opposite.

Now that portion of the latest bio from Penny Junor 'The Duchess' shows that there is some creeping about on eggshells going on in Charles and William and Harry's family relationship and it's Charles who's cracking the eggs. If this is coming from one of Charles and Camilla's greatest supporters, Penny Junor, heaven knows what really goes on!

It's no secret that Charles isn't an easy character. And walking on eggshells around things like seating arrangements is something that's familiar to many children of divorced parents - this situation being compounded by the fact that the parents are who they are and one of them is dead!

William and Harry have both spoken highly about their father in the past, though, and he seems to get on quite well with Kate. Hopefully they'll all keep making an effort to overcome any issues they may have.

 

[Denville]

I would imagine that it was bound to be difficult, the 2007 service with the Spencers being present, and the row over Camilla going.
however i'm surprised that the boys are "dancing arournd" with what they say about their mother In public.. as it seems to me that they talk about her quite a lot.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, there have been changes I would guess in the last couple of years. Maybe the brothers have just got sick of the dancing around the subject. However, I think Charles's sensitivities still have to be considered.

 

[Denville]

I would say they have talked about her quite a bit over the years, long before now. However, he is their father and even if he is a bit prickly, I think that they love him and it is right that they take his feelings into account. he is paying for a lot of their lifestyle after all.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts relating to the Panorama Interview have been moved to the following thread: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/the-panorama-interview-november-20-1995-a-15636.html - lets please stay on topic.

 

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Denville


No 'Diana seems to have said' about it.

The entire world heard him say it in the engagement interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtF034h41Q

His actual words are 'whatever in love means' as clearly heard here.

I said that she said he used the words "whatever love means" at the proposal.. I know that he said it at the interview, but Diana said that he said to her when proposing in answer to her saying "I love you".. "whatever love means". And I take leave to doubt that....

 

[Queen Claude]

This is from Penny Junor's book. She spoke to many of Charles and Camilla's circle and has spoken on many occasions to Charles and to Camilla herself, so she knows quite a bit about them.
She herself notes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult'. She quotes a friend of Harry and William about it and no doubt believes his statement to be true or she wouldn't have put it in the biography.

'There is no doubt they' (W and H) ' love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'

'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service'. (The tenth anniversary memorial service for Diana, where people have noted seeing that Charles looks over Harry's written tribute to his mother when he greets him.)

The friend remarks 'He, Charles, was very sensitive about where he sat and what it said.'

That memorial service was to bring together the Spencers and the royals, two sides that had been divided since Diana's death. Junor notes that Charles 'made a meal of the seating arrangements via his aide Michael Peat' (raising various objections.) William gave up but Harry said 'F... this!' and phoned his father. He said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah. Are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said. 'I suppose so'. ' William sat with his father at the service, Harry with the Spencers, opposite.

Now that portion of the latest bio from Penny Junor 'The Duchess' shows that there is some creeping about on eggshells going on in Charles and William and Harry's family relationship and it's Charles who's cracking the eggs. If this is coming from one of Charles and Camilla's greatest supporters, Penny Junor, heaven knows what really goes on!

Thank you very much for this summary.

I don't dispute Junor's representation and assessment of things but I do wonder if it is outdated since obviously William and Harry do discuss their mother in public without feeling the need to give equal time to Charles nor presumably letting his sensitivities be paramount, and I highly doubt that Charles has become substantially more sanguine about the matter.

 

[Osipi]

Thank you very much for this summary.

I don't dispute Junor's representation and assessment of things but I do wonder if it is outdated since obviously William and Harry do discuss their mother in public without feeling the need to give equal time to Charles nor presumably letting his sensitivities be paramount, and I highly doubt that Charles has become substantially more sanguine about the matter.

I am leaning towards the opinion that, over the years, Charles probably did mellow into a state where he could happily recall the good times he had with Diana. Emotions and thoughts about an acrimonious marriage and divorce tend to be a lot different while actually going through it than years later.

Charles proved that he could do right by his ex-wife just by the examples he set around the time of the fatal accident. He didn't have to go to Paris to escort her body back to the UK. He didn't have to get so involved in assuring that Diana's funeral was fitting for who she was. He didn't have to walk behind her coffin with her sons. He did these things. He loves his sons and at one time, loved their mother.

Twenty years after all this happened, he's a man much more comfortable in his own skin. He's happy and secure in a loving marriage and his children have grown into adults. He's moved on with his life. I don't think it would be difficult to imagine that he'd happily share the good memories with his boys because, when we think about it, his boys are two of the best things that came out of their marriage. Diana is a part of who they all are and as time passed, the hurts and anger fade away and the good is what remains.

 

[Queen Claude]

I think we may be talking about different timeframes. I think that Charles' harshest feelings towards Diana had mellowed even before her death, in fact I am not sure that Charles even had the same level of bitterness towards Diana that she had towards him. However that does not mean that Charles did not have, if not issues with Diana herself, issues that were rooted in his bad marriage to Diana, the War of the Wales and the response to her death that affected, among other things, his relationship with his sons. Also it should be noted that (IMO) Charles also has issues and shortcomings that can't be totally attributed to his and Diana's messy relationship.

My interpretation is that Curryong's summary was mostly about the years after Diana's death and Charles is described as "a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky." It seems like William and Harry reacted by themselves being sensitive to Charles sensitivities. The example given to illustrate how William and Harry "danced around" Charles's sensitivities was to relay what happened during the planning of a memorial service that took place ten years after Diana's death.

My point is that William and Harry's current behavior does not jibe with what is being described in Junor's book and that (IMO) it is not Charles who has changed in the ensuing ten years, rather it is William and Harry who have changed and they are no longer allowing themselves to be hamstrung by Charles's "sensitivities".

 

[Osipi]

Its just occurred to me reading your post, Queen Claude, at the root of everything were two people that had some serious issues of their own but expressed them quite differently. Charles, the introvert and sensitive, kept things that bothered him pretty close to the vest. Diana, with a more extroverted nature, expressed hers openly and sometimes even exaggerated them. William and Harry grew up with the both of them and knew them both extremely well.

Both Charles and Diana were seeking the same things from each other but neither one of them could fill that role. I do think Charles has mellowed and has become a more confident person due to having found a relationship that is nurturing and supportive. Its just sad that Diana never really had the chance to find her own nurturer to balance her out.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree with Osipi's previous comment re Charles and Diana's courtship: "
Actually, at the onset of their courtship and their subsequent engagement, I do believe there were three in the picture. Diana, Charles and The Prince of Wales."

I'd add that once the courtship became known about, there was a fourth person: Lady Di, the creation of the press.

I believe that it was Anthony Holden (or perhaps Robert Lacey) who wrote that Prince Charles really fell for Diana during his tour of Australia after their engagement, when he saw the reaction of how people responded to Diana--which was the media image of her.

 

[MARG]

He certainly gave the impression of being positively smitten, if not besotted, by his wife on the NZ leg of the tour.

 

[Osipi]

In the early days, it wasn't unusual to see Charles beaming at his wife with pride and catching the two of them stealing glances at each other across the room. There was magnetism there. The two of them also looked so perfectly in tune when they were on the dance floor too.

 

[Curryong]

I think I posted something a while back, that was quite a long piece from a person who was a witness to Charles and Diana's first Aus and NZ tour. He said that although they did relax with baby Wills on their rest days at a particular location, that there were strains even then, that Charles would make sarcastic remarks to her about her popularity with the people and she wouldn't know how to reply and would cry. So what we saw (and I can remember that tour quite well. I saw them and thought how lovely it all was) was often only a bit of the picture.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think I posted something a while back, that was quite a long piece from a person who was a witness to Charles and Diana's first Aus and NZ tour. He said that although they did relax with baby Wills on their rest days at a particular location, that there were strains even then, that Charles would make sarcastic remarks to her about her popularity with the people and she wouldn't know how to reply and would cry. So what we saw (and I can remember that tour quite well. I saw them and thought how lovely it all was) was often only a bit of the picture.

Doesn't jive with what we know of the character of the man. It is inexplicable what you are suggesting. It would be nice to see the source again as this is a very damning assertion (that plays too neatly into a certain narrative). It's contrary to everything I have ever read. So could you please supply the link to the source?

 

[Curryong]

From Sarah Bradford's biography Diana. Chapter 7. 'Di-Mania'

'I think they were happy, they had William out there, a sort of family enclave', a member of staff recalled. 'But one was aware of little tensions. He couldn't understand that people wanted to see her. He couldn't understand that people wanted to see a beautiful woman rather than a man in a suit. And that was really sad actually. It was so unnecessary because together they were absolute dynamite.
But one was just aware of a sort of petulance in him and she I think, found it very difficult, knowing how to cope with that. And she was quite emotional at that time...there were tears...she didn't understand and it was all very stressful..'

Bradford goes on 'Things however were to go from bad to worse and Charles's resentment at his wife's popularity began to poison their relationship. His puzzlement at people's reaction to her was palpable, as he once said to a friend 'Why do they love her so much? All she ever did was say 'Yes' to me.'

There are plenty of references in biographies I've read, including pro Charles ones written by Junor and others to Charles's petulance at his wife's popularity, to sarcastic put-downs of her testified to by others. I have chosen this one because that's the former post I referred to.

 

[MARG]

Well I can assure you that on their first Australasian visit they were definitely still besotted. I and several people with me spoke with him and he looked soo happy that he had to bring Diana back and introduce her and we were nobody important whatsoever! He just wanted to introduce his lovely wife, and here I will say that of every photo I had ever seen, and by then it was probably thousands rather than hundreds, not one had fully done her justice. She was glorious but more than that she was charismatically magnetic. She radiated. Stunning, absolutely stunning and Charles looked at her with such joy and gentle love.

Being spiteful and mean enough to bring her to tears in public just plain doesn't ring true on any level at this or any stage. That they got to the stage that either of them could hurt or bring the other down or to tears is quite probable as their marriage was crumbling around them before their separation. But to say that at that stage sounds like the words of someone in the "it was an arranged marriage where Charles never loved her at all and only needed a brood mare" brigade! Nasty, very nasty.

Edit: "Tasteless, one vulgarity too far, Sarah Bradford", who wrote of Prince Philip's infidelity yet offered no source nor proof and who now says that perhaps she got it wrong and Philip just likes to flirt! A very sound source there when you consider cards and letters sent from both Charles and Diana are falling into the hands of the next generation and the auctioneers block soon after. And Philip lives in an age of letters and notes, not texts, tweets and emails.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Curryong. I seem to have read the same books you have (and even recently in one straight go) and yet do not recall there being issues of this kind early in the marriage. Maybe in the mid to late 80's? What I do recall are stories of his solicitude and care with her, and one can see it in his body language with her.

It's a puzzle. It's not at all a given (imo) that these stories, if true, are giving the full picture. Diana had her part to play in all the action-reaction going on between them. There is something selective going on in order to give substance to a certain narrative that has as it's aim something pretty nasty. JMO. But something doesn't ring true.

Just saw this -

Being spiteful and mean enough to bring her to tears in public just plain doesn't ring true on any level at this or any stage. That they got to the stage that either of them could hurt or bring the other down or to tears is quite probable as their marriage was crumbling around them before their separation. But to say that at that stage sounds like the words of someone in the "it was an arranged marriage where Charles never loved her at all and only needed a brood mare" brigade! Nasty, very nasty.

I agree. There is something not adding up when these claims are made for so early in the marriage.

 

[Osipi]

After a lifetime of everyone kowtowing to him and being surrounded by cowering "yes sir" people for all of his life, its easy to see where all of a sudden, he's being pushed to the wayside because of his wife. Its something he couldn't even begin to fathom. It was totally foreign to him. Diana, at that time wasn't seeking to overshadow Charles, it just happened.

 

[Lady Nimue]

After a lifetime of everyone kowtowing to him and being surrounded by cowering "yes sir" people for all of his life, its easy to see where all of a sudden, he's being pushed to the wayside because of his wife. Its something he couldn't even begin to fathom. It was totally foreign to him. Diana, at that time wasn't seeking to overshadow Charles, it just happened.

You are accepting Curryong's claim as reflecting the truth. We simply never saw this take place in public, however, we for sure saw Diana's glee putting Charles down in public in the later 80's. It's on tape. Charles never spoke ill of Diana, ever, never once did he, or has he even to now, spoken ill of her. Plenty have spoken ill of Charles, and many are eager to hear it. Why is that?