Charles and Diana

[TheTruth]

I didn't know that TheTruth. Well then that makes Diana's decision to hire Bashir as her speechwriter after the interview even more puzzling.

MJ's interview was done after Diana's death, in 2003. Apparently Bashir had used untolerated ways in journalism to get what he wanted. It was terrible for Jackson because the aim of the documentary was to get back his popularty he had lost with the rumours of him sleeping with young kids, etc. Bashir manipulated both, Jackson and Diana by implying polemical subject in his questions without them being suspicious because they trust him. I think that's how he did it, make friend with them so they can relax and say things which in a normal situation they wouldn't tell to a simple journalist.

 

[sirhon11234]

Yes that Martin Bashir is a snake I remember watching the interview and then hearing about MJ sueing Bashir for false representation. Now he's on ABC on either 20/20 or Primetime.

 

[ysbel]

MJ's interview was done after Diana's death, in 2003...

Hi TheTruth, I guess I suspected that Michael Jackson's interview came after Diana's death but I wasn't really thinking that Diana knew about the MJ nterview.

However then if Diana felt she was totally manipulated in the way Bashir's made her answers to his questions sound, don't you think she would have tried to set things straight after she realized the effect the interview had on people and don't you think that she would make sure that people knew exactly what she meant in the interview and not what Bashir wanted them to think?

It appears to me that the editor of the Sun gave her a great chance to go back and correct some of the perceptions of her words that Bashir's interview had left with the public and yet it seemed she wasn't interested in correcting the perceptions that people had of her interview and turned him down and then later she trusted Bashir enough to hire him to write her speeches.

It still seems to me like she was pleased with the effects of the interview on the public's view of her and Charles for a long time after the interview happened.

Don't you think if she was unhappy with the way her message appeared to the public and the way Bashir treated her, that she would have reacted against him and the interview before she did?

 

[TheTruth]

Hi TheTruth, I guess I suspected that Michael Jackson's interview came after Diana's death but I wasn't really thinking that Diana knew about the MJ nterview.

I know what you mean. I'm not saying she wasn't for it, he couldn't force her. It was her way to take her revenge and she did it without thinking about the 'post' reaction. She was pleased to have the possibility of doing it but when a single doubt pop into her mind, Bashir was there to say : 'You're doing the right thing, don't worry, etc.' Hard to fight against someone who finds it's great what you're doing and yourself who is so uncertain like Diana was. She did it alone but Bashir didn't give her one chance to get out of it.

 

[Avalon]

Bashir didn't give her the chance, I quite agree with you TheTruth. But the Sun newspaper (rare time of its sensible actions) did give her that chance. But she preffered to go ahead with her revenge, or whatever it was.
However misguided she was, I assume Diana enjoyed that sence of power the interview and its consequences gave.

The Bashir interview was probably her biggest mistake - she didn't harm Charles with it; Diana aimed and hurt the Monarchy itself, tried to ruin the institution she and her children were part of.

 

[TheTruth]

Diana aimed and hurt the Monarchy itself, tried to ruin the institution she and her children were part of.

Yes, she probably thought she had nothing to loose but she could loose everything IMO : her children, her loyalty, her credibility, ... Fortunatly for her, the divorce was the only major consequence to this. Stubborn as she was sometimes, even her closest friends couldn't stop her. The Sun gave her a chance I agree, but like you said, the temptation of hurting the ones who, she felt, had make her so sad was too big. Although I can understand that feeling, she shouldn't have touch to the subject of Charles being King and such stuff. The rest was secondary, not really a damage for the RF. I mean Charles had an affair, she had an affair ... not really shocking IMO.

 

[Elspeth]

I wonder how much the Queen imposed her own opinions on Charles and Diana though Elspeth. Certainly she would have had no concept of divorce for Charles and Diana but I wonder how forcefully she made them acquainted with that fact?

I assume they'd have known her opinion, and the royal family's way of doing things always seems to involve "try a cooling-off period," "see if you can make it work out" and so on, which is what the Queen apparently told them when they first talked about it. Diana is quoted as saying that Charles wouldn't contradict the Queen, which means she'd have had to stand up on her own and insist on it against the Queen's express advice.

From all I have read of Her Majesty she didn't want to interfere with her children's personal lives. Of course she would have had to consent to a divorce and the prospect of just asking the Queen for a divorce even as noncommittal as she seemed would be frightening to me much less Diana. But I still don't see the Queen pointedly telling the couple they must hang in together enough for the Queen herself to act as a deterrent to Diana's asking for a divorce.

I don't think she'd have been able to stop Diana, but Diana knew the Queen was the one with the ultimate power because she had the final say over what happened to the princes, if nothing else. Diana could fight Charles in the media, but she wouldn't be able to fight the Queen that way. Once she and Charles appealed to the Queen and Prince Philip, the Queen would have had to do something, especially if she felt that the situation between Charles and Diana was having wider-ranging harm than just within the immediate family.

The Queen was not a deterrent to Diana's collaboration with Andrew Morton on the book and the action of airing the Royal Family's dirty linen in public (as one onlooker described it) would I think be a lot scarier to do that than simply to ask the Queen for a divorce. Diana's collaboration with Morton caused her the greatest difficulty with the Royal Family and the Palace and it appears from Smith's book it was the beginning of the end.

I think the fact that Diana gave herself plausible deniability over the book and did the Panorama interview in secret goes to show that she was aware that there might be unpleasant fallout if the Queen knew what was going on. If it had come out earlier that Diana was feeding stuff to Morton via an intermediary rather than just authorising her friends to talk on her behalf, things might have come to a head sooner than they did.

 

[Duchess]

That's a good question, Duchess. Quite honestly I think the charges of Diana's manipulating the media came when the media itself came under fire for some of its less than honest portrayal of the Diana-Charles marriage...

your post is very intersting and informative ysbel. i think think perhaps the panorama interview was so strong because diana actually spoke...it wasn't just a photograph. people could, for the first time, hear her speak about her marriage, her feelings about the monarchy and the spoken word can carry a lot of weight. a photograph just doesn't seem to do the same thing. i was quite shocked that she actually said she didn't think charles should be the next monarch. even in this day and age that is a risky thing to admit publicly by someone so close to the RF. it is also an incredible testament to the somewhat protective nature of the queen towards diana that she didn't do anything to distance herself from her daughter in law after the book and the interview.

 

[ysbel]

I assume they'd have known her opinion, and the royal family's way of doing things always seems to involve "try a cooling-off period," "see if you can make it work out" and so on, which is what the Queen apparently told them when they first talked about it. Diana is quoted as saying that Charles wouldn't contradict the Queen, which means she'd have had to stand up on her own and insist on it against the Queen's express advice.

I don't think she'd have been able to stop Diana, but Diana knew the Queen was the one with the ultimate power because she had the final say over what happened to the princes, if nothing else. Diana could fight Charles in the media, but she wouldn't be able to fight the Queen that way.

Did the Queen actually give them this advice though Elspeth or was it just a matter of everybody assuming they knew what the Queen wanted? The book I'm reading doesn't really expand on the Queen's role that much.

I think you're right about the princes though. I think the Queen as Sovereign had definite influence over the children's custody and with Diana's totally nasty grandmother as the Queen Mother's lady in waiting, that couldn't be a comforting thought to Diana.

your post is very intersting and informative ysbel. i think think perhaps the panorama interview was so strong because diana actually spoke...it wasn't just a photograph. people could, for the first time, hear her speak about her marriage, her feelings about the monarchy and the spoken word can carry a lot of weight. a photograph just doesn't seem to do the same thing. i was quite shocked that she actually said she didn't think charles should be the next monarch. even in this day and age that is a risky thing to admit publicly by someone so close to the RF. it is also an incredible testament to the somewhat protective nature of the queen towards diana that she didn't do anything to distance herself from her daughter in law after the book and the interview.

I agree Duchess, the power of television is enormous and in this case I think it was rather bad for the Royal Family although they had used television successfully earlier.

I honestly don't know how the Queen felt about Diana after this; she did tell the couple to divorce after the interview which neither Charles nor Diana wanted but on the other hand she seemed to always want to work pleasantly with both of them through the turmoil.

I think the Queen sometimes keeps her feelings close to her chest. For example, Diana apparently never knew that Andrew was the Queen's favorite son because Diana said she felt sorry for Andrew because the Royal Family always overlooked him.

Actually to Avalon's point earlier about Charles' and Diana's marriage being a mismatch, I agree and I actually think after reading this book that Diana and Andrew would have been a better match. Andrew was good-looking, kind, gallant towards women, not intellectual at all and a bit of a romantic because he was willing to let a woman dominate his life. Charles even said when he first met Diana, he merely thought of her as Andrew's friend.

Of course, being the Duchess of York would not have been such a good launch pad for her successful career as Queen of Hearts and she would not have had the financial means as Andrew's wife that she had being married to Charles, but as a couple I think Diana and Andrew had a better chance to survive than Diana and Charles. Smith called Andrew boisterous but passive and that combination sounds like it would suit Diana fine!

 

[sirhon11234]

I also had thought that Andrew and Diana would've been better suited for each other. But I can't imagine Diana as Duchess of York.

 

[selrahc4]

Andrew and Diana

(I posted this a while back in another forum on the subject of Andrew and Diana)

I can think of two things that would have greatly affected the way her life would have been very different had she been Andrew's wife instead.

She would have been older at marriage. Certainly she and Andrew would not have wed in 1981 when he was just 21. It would have been closer to the year, 1986, when Andrew actually did marry at the age of 26. Therefore, she’d be near her mid-twenties as a bride with the five or so extra years of maturing and life experience.

In addition, it’s very likely that Charles would have married in the meantime. The nation would have had a Princess of Wales already in place. One that, no matter who it was, would have been the focus of interest for a few years, especially if children had arrived by that time. That “need” would have been fulfilled so the wife of the next brother would be thought of as a nice bonus but not a nationally significant thing (just as was the case when Andrew really did marry).

For these reasons, I think that although she would have been a popular royal as Duchess of York, that popularity wouldn’t have reached the overwhelming level that it did as Princess of Wales I don’t doubt that her looks and personality would be extremely appealing to the public and the press, but there wouldn’t have been as much of an element of fairy-tale that enchanted so many in 1981. With less pressure and lesser expectations and the added years of growing up I think it’s very possible that she and Andrew could have been content together.

 

[love_cc]

I think in other forumm this topic was mentioned that there was a possibility that Diana cannot still fit into the BRF because of its distant personal environment and duty first style. What Diana needed was constant attention, the expression of love and passions and a life with a loving and devoted husband without too much work to distract himself from Diana. In Prince Andrew's case, he still has plenty of royal duties to undertake and he had long distance miltary engaments during his marriage to Sarah Duchess of York which may damage his own marriage as a result.

My opinion was that Diana did not suit the royal life. She should have married a man like her sister Sarah's husband not Charles not Andrew not Queen's sons. If Diana were to marry Andrew, what if she upstaged Charles's wife? I do feel a character with strong Spencer characters was too much for the royal family to handle.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes I quite agree. Diana needed attention and care that she didn't really had during her childhood. Andrew was maybe more demonstrative but he was gone most of the time, like Charles, for different reasons but he wasn't there that's for sure. Like with the Prince of Wales, she would have been left alone so I don't think it would have made any difference in the end. Although I believe that Sarah has been less damaged than Diana in her divorce. Diana stayed in the marriage for 11 years (1981-1992) whereas Sarah 'only' 8 years. She had less pressure, probably less important duties and she managed to get out of the RF sooner and without being harassed like Diana. I'm not saying she didn't have a hard time but easier than Diana.

 

[selrahc4]

Diana stayed in the marriage for 11 years (1981-1992) whereas Sarah 'only' 8 years.

Sarah 5 years 8 months. (July 1986 - March 1992)

 

[TheTruth]

Oh yeah, right. Thanks selrahc4 ! That makes it even shorter then.

 

[Duchess]

personality wise diana and andrew might have suited one another better however his time away from might have been the straw that broke the camel's back had they married. it's a shame that diana never learned to be "alone" and that she always felt she needed a man to complete her. had she overcome this aspect of her life she would probably be alive today. not to say that she shouldn't try to find love but i think she'd have been much happier had she learned to live for herself (aside from her children of course).

 

[TheTruth]

The fear of being left alone was permanent in Diana's life. I know that feeling but it's far from being an obsession. As for the part of her being alive today, I don't really believe that. I'm not at all religious or anything but my personal opinion is that when your time has passed then you must go. I prefer thinking this than telling myself "What if she hadn't do this or that ...". Although I absolutely agree that this lonelyness she felt cost her a hell of problems : 'Squidgygate', the homewreker reputation, and no need to mention the book of Hewitt...

 

[ysbel]

I'm not denying what you are saying about Andrew's time away but I still think there is a difference.

Charles, even without Camilla and living under the same roof as Diana, would have been mentally absent to Diana because of his preoccupation with books, philosophy, hunting and fishing. Andrew, even away, would have been more mentally and emotionally present to Diana.

This, I think is important because Sarah had some problems that Diana did not in that her overall behavior in public did not suit the Royal Family. Sarah needed Andrew to guide her for what was and wasn't appropriate public behavior in the Royal Family. Diana never had that problem. Her behavior in public for the first years of her married life was impeccable. Diana's problem was her mood swings and instability in private which caused a hardship to herself and the Royal Family. I think her private behavior would have been much less severe if she had had an emotionally present husband; especially since her most stable lover, James Hewitt, was away in the Gulf War for a large part of their affair. The incident that broke the affair with Hewitt up was when the papers exposed the affair to the public. Hewitt's long absences didn't break up the affair.

 

[TheTruth]

I'm not denying what you are saying about Andrew's time away but I still think there is a difference.

I agree with most of your post but I still think Diana would have been 'sick and tired' to wait for mister to come back. Charles although there sometimes, was like you said, in a complete other world. If I had to say which man would have been better for Diana I'd say Hewitt, Andrew and finally Charles. No royal man in fact. Unfortunatly she was married to Charles before realizing how it could be much better.

 

[Vanesa]

I think in other forumm this topic was mentioned that there was a possibility that Diana cannot still fit into the BRF because of its distant personal environment and duty first style...

Yes. I share your opinion about Lady Diana not suit a Royal style of life. But marrying a Royal is NOT always to marry someone cold or not affectionate . Royals are, in this, like the rest of us: they are cold or warm despite they are or not Royals. I think that Prince Charles and Lady Diana's trouble was that the first one was not in love with the second one. Not even. His love was another one. Ask Duchess of Cornwall what did she thinks about Prince Charles "coldness".

At first, it was Prince Charles who didn't love Lady Diana. Then none of them loved each other. What a sad story...

Vanesa.

 

[TheTruth]

As they are humans, they have different personalities so different ways to express their love. At least I'm happy that Diana was soon enough aware of Charles not loving her to find somebody else that could give her what she wanted.

 

[Letizia_guapa]

Diana was a wonderful Princess of Wales, irreplaceable and precious, however there's no way I'll ever believe she really loved Prince Charles.

We will never know someones true feelings. But Diana was a very young and shy girl. At her age, girls can fall completely and passionately in love with the most ugly men. It is part of the innocence. And besides, peoples tastes for men are diferent.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I just finished up Sarah Bradford's "Diana" and the author says that sometimes Charles discussing Diana(since her death) will occasionally remark "You know, in the beginning we really did love one another very much...we were very much in love......"

It almost makes me cry. Why why thingscould not have worked out for these two? I think in the end they were trying to work their way back to a loving friendship based on their love and pride in their children. I believe that Diana never really got over him and I also think Charles grief at her death was deep and genuine.

 

[sirhon11234]

I really need to get that book... It is sad that things didn't work out for them perhaps if things did she would still be alive today.

 

[iowabelle]

I remember being very young and looking at the en masse photograph of the Royal Family taken to commemorate the Silver Wedding of HM and Prince Philip. Had this marriage endured, we might have had a similar photo two years ago.

It seems strange to think of what Diana might have been like at 45 or now almost 47.

 

[ghost_night554]

Seems strange I can't picture what she may have looked like nowadays at 47 had the crash never occured. I just can't beleive everytime I watch the wedding or see photos of them in the early days I just can't beleive it's been so long and I still can't get it through my head that she's gone it's cause everyday she's mentioned somehow so it feels like she's always been here and never left. Sometimes I think Charles wishes she were around not for him but to help the boys. I think had she still been alive today they might have actually been able to atleast be friends and get along more so then before due to both of them being more mature and all.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I recently finished Bradford's book as well. The whole tragedy of the thing is very sad. I think that they simply had trouble communicating from the very beginning, and the feelings that they had for one another didn't have a chance to develop a really strong foundation. We'll never know exactly why that was, but I think that their inability to "talk" was significant.

It almost makes me cry. Why why thingscould not have worked out for these two? I think in the end they were trying to work their way back to a loving friendship based on their love and pride in their children. I believe that Diana never really got over him and I also think Charles grief at her death was deep and genuine.

 

[TheTruth]

I believe pride and the fear of appearing weak in front of the other played a major role.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. I agree with that, too. For a relationship to work, each person sometimes has to admit that he/she was wrong or said the wrong thing. Pride interferes with that.

I believe pride and the fear of appearing weak in front of the other played a major role.

 

[ghost_night554]

I wanted to put my thoughts of the marriage into this thread. I agree with what alot of you said, from what I've read and seen I think they did love each other but obviously Charles loved Camilla more. I think they both tried especially in the begining but it was obviously not meant to be. Diana had alot of problems made many mistakes, as did Charles I'm sure(I'm not going too into what I mean by this or I'll be here a whole day typing it up) Charles while I'm sure tried to understand Diana was far different then her.They both had affairs, probably fought as couples who's marriage is in truble usually do..um in the later years we saw a fed up Diana which by then we knew the marriage was over..to me I feel like both parties are to blame, Jennifer Aniston once said something along the lines of even if your 98% to blame your partner has to take 2% of the blame, but it seems even early on you could tell they weren't meant to be. Although I do beleive by the end they were getting along and I'm sure they could have worked things out and become friends.