Diana's mother

[maryshawn]

Oh, yes!!! Without a doubt. He let Diana know what Sarah had said on various TV shows--and wasn't entirely accurate in his portrayals. I think he definitely had "issues" with Diana and wanted to isolate her from friends/family. She never called him "her rock." That was entirely his concoction. Or so say Lucia Flecha de Lima and Lana Marks--and somehow as neither have tried to make a dime off of Diana, I think they are more credible than Paul Burrell. He seems like a very manipulative man who was too nosey and tried to insert himself too closely in Diana's life. And if he cared so much about "the Boss," why write a book which would hurt her sons and hang onto things which belonged to them? He took them through the house after her death when they decided what they wanted of hers. He could've handed over the letters, photos, etc., then and there and privately.

Originally Posted by Zonk1189

You know..lately I too have questioned Paul Burrell's motives. In the last issue of Majesty magazine (with the Duchess of York on the cover) it is suggested that he had something to do with Diana's estrangement from Sarah. Basically he told Diana that Sarah supposedly said some things about her...before I heard she (Diana) was mad how Sarah depicted her in her book.

Now..I know some question Sarah's methods but it does beg the question: Did Paul Burrell (in order to increase Diana's dependency on him) put little bugs in her ear regarding her relationships with other people? Thus leading to her estrangement from certain people.

[Incas]

Didn't Lana Marks made a hand bag and called it "Diana"? I remember seeing ads for it in Vogue. I'd call that making money off Diana. I saw an interview she gave in which she said she was asked to be Diana's friend and then met her. That's a real strange thing, I had always assumed they met first and became friends.

[maryshawn]

Yes, she indeed made a bag for Diana and then named it after her. It retails for about $20,000.00 USD--or did, two years ago when I was in a boutique and saw one. But I have to assume as she was producing the bag when Diana was alive and their friendship remained intact, Diana either signed off on it or didn't mind. She didn't mind when the house of Dior created the Lady Di bag and Grace Kelly didn't mind when Hermes created the Kelly bag.

It was odd that Lucia Flecha de Lima "screened" Lana Marks before her introduction to the Princess. She told Lana the Princess "needed a friend she could trust" and proceeded to tell her things which Lana could have told others or the tabloids. When she didn't, she apparently was deemed acceptable and her friendship with Diana began. The fact we'd never heard of her before Diana's death lends credibility to her discretion--and de Lima talks about the whole thing in one of the videos done after Diana's death. I wondered about their participation in the videos but it seems they wanted to set the record straight and say some kind things about their friend.

Originally Posted by Incas

Didn't Lana Marks made a hand bag and called it "Diana"? I remember seeing ads for it in Vogue. I'd call that making money off Diana. I saw an interview she gave in which she said she was asked to be Diana's friend and then met her. That's a real strange thing, I had always assumed they met first and became friends.

[Zonk]

You know..if we have learned anything from Diana's death..and the events after her death is this: sometimes its not a good thing to have so many letters, cards around detailing your inner thoughts. When the trial of Paul Burrell was going on..I was actualy quite critical of her mother and sister for shredding her documents. Now..I wish they had gotten rid of all of her personal letters (except those to and from her sons!). Why you ask...I think a lot of things have come out since her death..that she probably would have wished remained hidden.

I read this great chick lit book (Something Borrowed)..and the main character Rachel....stated the main reason she didn't keep a diary, or destroyed any personal communication was this...in the event of her death...she didn't want her parents to lose the image that they had of her and she thought something like that (diaries, letters, cards, etc.) would do that. I think Diana would agree.

[maryshawn]

It's very unfortunate Diana had so much lying about and that it fell into the wrong hands, giving people more chances to exploit her. She bought a shredder after her divorce; pity she didn't use it more often. Like you, I was critical of her family shredding so much but now I think it was a good thing to do--and more of this correspondence should have been eliminated.

Originally Posted by Zonk1189

You know..if we have learned anything from Diana's death..and the events after her death is this: sometimes its not a good thing to have so many letters, cards around detailing your inner thoughts. When the trial of Paul Burrell was going on..I was actualy quite critical of her mother and sister for shredding her documents. Now..I wish they had gotten rid of all of her personal letters (except those to and from her sons!). Why you ask...I think a lot of things have come out since her death..that she probably would have wished remained hidden.

I read this great chick lit book (Something Borrowed)..and the main character Rachel....stated the main reason she didn't keep a diary, or destroyed any personal communication was this...in the event of her death...she didn't want her parents to lose the image that they had of her and she thought something like that (diaries, letters, cards, etc.) would do that. I think Diana would agree.

[Christo's Girl]

After reading these posts it is very clear that on many levels Diana and her mother were very much alike. I think Diana may have felt that as well, and didn't want to end up like her mother.

[CasiraghiTrio]

ABACA gallery This link is valid and gives you a search result for Frances Shand Kydd. Picture count: 23
In the third picture from the top row, you see behind at Diana's funeral Frances and Lady Sarah, Lady Jane's daughter Laura (in brown) and Lady Sarah's daughter Emily.
Behind them you see Lord Fellowes (then Sir Robert) with Alexander and Eleanor. In the back: Neil McCorquodale and son George.
In picture 14, you can see Diana walking with Harry (holding hands), Frances holding the hand of Eleanor Fellowes, and Prince William and Alexander Fellowes walking out front, in September 1989, during events around Diana's brother's wedding.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Christo's Girl

After reading these posts it is very clear that on many levels Diana and her mother were very much alike. I think Diana may have felt that as well, and didn't want to end up like her mother.

Her mother made her feel bad because he dated muslim men. I don't think she felt that she would end up like her mother.

[CasiraghiTrio]

I think Christo's Girl might have been indicating that there were some valid comparisons between Diana and Frances, even though there were also differences. Frances married at age 18; Diana was just turned 20 when she married. Both were unhappy in their marriages, and therefore, both women were unfaithful, as they met their emotional needs elsewhere.

I doubt anyone meant to say they totally the same. I think what was meant here was simply that there were some strong similarities, and this shouldn't be surprising, given that they were mother and daughter. DNA has a powerful bearing.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by maryshawn

Unfortunately, Frances did not have the chance to reconcile with her own daughter after giving an interview saying she was glad her daughter had lost her HRH title.

in sarah bradford's book, which i'm reading now, it says that the reason for the final fall out between mother and daughter was not that she was glad that diana had lost the title but that frances told the interviewer that diana had been the one to give up the style HRH, not that she'd lost it. diana was very angry because she didn't want this to be public knowledge. she wanted the public to believe that BP had taken it away from her thus making it appear that they were the ones to blame for the mother of the future king not being an HRH.

someone correct me if i've misinterpreted it.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Duchess

in sarah bradford's book, which i'm reading now, it says that the reason for the final fall out between mother and daughter was not that she was glad that diana had lost the title but that frances told the interviewer that diana had been the one to give up the style HRH, not that she'd lost it. diana was very angry because she didn't want this to be public knowledge. she wanted the public to believe that BP had taken it away from her thus making it appear that they were the ones to blame for the mother of the future king not being an HRH.

someone correct me if i've misinterpreted it.

It may be so that Diana wanted to use this thing as a way to acquire more public sympathy. I don't know. But what bothers me is the idea that she had an option to keep her HRH. I don't understand how she can be divorced from the royal family and still maintain royal status. What I can understand is possibly her being restored to HRH by her son when he is King William, because if she had not died, then william becoming king makes her the King's Mother. It seems appropriate for the King to restore his mother to HRH status. However, at the time of Diana's divorce, she was just ex-wife of the Prince of Wales. For her to keep HRH status would have had implications: an HRH is a member of the Royal Family, carries out engagements on behalf of The Queen, accompanies the Family to official events, and if the HRH is an adult with own household, has an income from the Civil List. Most of these things ceased to apply to Diana. She carried out her own engagements after the divorce, no longer representing her ex-husband or The Queen. She only accompanied her sons and Prince Charles to certain events involving her sons or having some connection to their married life. She did not have any Civil List income. She, in short, ceased to be a working part of the "firm", but rather became her own entity. She lived and worked for Diana, according to what was important to Diana. So I fail to see how a private individual, especially an ex-spouse, can be an HRH.

[Duchess]

i totally agree Casiraghi. this whole story is the "other side of the coin" to the duchess of windsor scenario but that's a whole other thread.

[Myriam]

Originally Posted by Duchess

in sarah bradford's book, which i'm reading now, it says that the reason for the final fall out between mother and daughter was not that she was glad that diana had lost the title but that frances told the interviewer that diana had been the one to give up the style HRH, not that she'd lost it. diana was very angry because she didn't want this to be public knowledge. she wanted the public to believe that BP had taken it away from her thus making it appear that they were the ones to blame for the mother of the future king not being an HRH.

someone correct me if i've misinterpreted it.

With all my respect to diana's memory but her mother was a real victim of her daughter's anger. Diana wanted everything just like she wanted and she thought others were there to obbey her (including her mother, Frances).
Can everyone tell me if Frances had a good relationship with her other daughters and son?

[Duchess]

i agree with you myriam. i think frances was telling the truth when she spoke to the interviewer but diana didn't want the public to know the truth about this particular situation so she froze her mother out. i can say i've ever read anything regarding her relationships with her other children.

i've always felt sorry for frances. she was called a "bolter" but in my opinion she was forced out of the lives of her children. after the miscarriage of baby johnnie she was, at one point, locked in her room and later made to endure all sorts of tests to determine "what her problem was" that she couldn't have a boy when in reality the sex of the baby is determined by the sperm. also, because her mother and viscount spencer testified against her, she didn't stand a chance of retaining custody of her children . yes, she did have an affair and that was wrong but i've always felt that she was treated very poorly but her mother AND diana.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Duchess

i totally agree Casiraghi. this whole story is the "other side of the coin" to the duchess of windsor scenario but that's a whole other thread.

Yes, true, for another thread, but I have to say just one thing: The Duchess of Windsor should have been HRH, as wife and widow of an HRH, regardless of anyone's opinion of what kind of person she was. It was her legal right and was only denied her because of petty feelings of prejudice or jealousy.

I agree about Frances! She was always regarded harshly by her children, by the media, especially by her mother. She was horribly betrayed by her mother. I know Frances made mistakes, some very serious mistakes, but she did love her children, and it's plain to see she loved all of her grandchildren too. I believe her heart was in the right place. She cheated on Diana's father, yes, but she was still a good mother and it was wrong for the kids to be taken from her as they were. There was no justification for that. They should have had a joint custody arrangement. But stupid Lady Fermoy betrayed her own daughter.

[pinkie40]

Every bit I learn about Frances is something that helps me understand Diana more. Perhaps Diana was the rebel she was because she saw how unhappy her mother was...and she didn't want to end up like her mother. I believe Diana's skills as a mother was due to the happy memories she had of her mother (in several of the "home movies", Frances is a loving and hands-on mother, clearly enjoying her children).

Alcoholism, physical, verbal and emotional abuse battered Frances into a woman who became a virtual recluse. Diana was probably very aware of all of these issues but there were few she could confide and turn to to vent to and ask for healing of these scars.

Diana's abandonment issues and the feelings she would provoke in her father had she attempted to press the issue to go live with her mother, made Diana a very confused and emotionally fragile person...

I think Diana saw her own family pattern within the aristocratic families of her friends. I don't think she could ask for much help from others without causing more pain. I just can say Diana was an emotional pioneer and a catalyst for women to discuss and face issues that occur both in small cottages and grand castles. We are a better society (than we were in 1981) because we can discuss dozens of more mental health issues, because of Diana's difficult plight and her extreme courage to search for herself.