Charles and Diana

[QueenEmpath]

I'd be very surprised if people really thought of them as a possible couple. THey played together as children, and she did joke about his being her friend as a kid but when she was old enough to get married at 19 or so, Andrew was still very young.. plus I think the old childhood friendship had been outgrown...and in any case Andrew and she would have been IMO even more oil and water than her and CHarles. He would have been away at his Naval posting.. He was bumptious and arrogant, and somewhat crude..

As they say, whatever happens, happen for a reason. If Charles and Diana hadn't married , there won't be William and Harry and Her unhappy marriage encouraged her for her humanitarian work. But she didn't deserve the end she got.

 

[Denville]

As they say, whatever happens, happen for a reason. If Charles and Diana hadn't married , there won't be William and Harry and Her unhappy marriage encouraged her for her humanitarian work. But she didn't deserve the end she got.

of course she didn't but I don't see that her mraraige encouraged her to do humanitarian work.. it was part of her duty as Princess.

Andrew might of suited Diana in some ways..she was known to be slightly vulgar/crude at times as well. His kidding and joking would of suited her I think...but the separation might of been too much.


LaRae

I don't think so. He has no manners and Diana was well mannered, had always been brought up to be polite to people.. And she liked a bit of fun and an occasional dirty joke but I can't see her enjoying Andy's much cruder sense of humour.. plus she might have found his preferring to stay home and watch golf videos irritating just as Sarah did..

 

[QueenEmpath]

Moving on from sad things, one thing How come, Diana, got the title of a Princess after marriage when her sisters-in-law were/are Dutchess and Countess. Even her daughter- in- laws are Duchesses. As I know the title of Princess is only for the daughters of the royal family eg Princess Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Charlotte. In Louise' case, she didn't get the title since her father refused. So, how Diana get the title of Princess when she was the bride of the family?

 

[Denville]

Moving on from sad things, one thing How come, Diana, got the title of a Princess after marriage when her sisters-in-law were/are Dutchess and Countess. Even her daughter- in- laws are Duchesses. As I know the title of Princess is only for the daughters of the royal family eg Princess Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Charlotte. In Louise' case, she didn't get the title since her father refused. So, how Diana get the title of Princess when she was the bride of the family?

Her dauaghters in law are princesses too, and royal duchesses. Diana was a Princess by virtue of sharing her husbands title...

 

[Osipi]

Truth be known, Diana could have been known as the Duchess of Cornwall if she had preferred to use that styling. She legally could take the feminine version of any title that Charles holds. As the Prince of Wales is the most esteemed title Charles has, Diana took the feminine version of the Princess of Wales. In Scotland, Diana was known as the Duchess of Rothesay.

Camilla chose to use the styling of the Duchess of Cornwall which is actually the oldest title that Charles holds. She legally though *is* the Princess of Wales should she have preferred to be known as such.

You might find the thread Questions about British Titles and Styles of interest. Loads of information there. ?

 

[Queen Claude]

Moving on from sad things, one thing How come, Diana, got the title of a Princess after marriage when her sisters-in-law were/are Dutchess and Countess. Even her daughter- in- laws are Duchesses. As I know the title of Princess is only for the daughters of the royal family eg Princess Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Charlotte. In Louise' case, she didn't get the title since her father refused. So, how Diana get the title of Princess when she was the bride of the family?

Diana took on the highest title of her husband which was Prince of Wales. Prince of Wales superseded all of Charles' other titles including his ducal ones. Note, she was not Princess Diana, but The Princess of Wales during her marriage, and Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce.

For Andrew, William and Harry, et. al., their ducal titles are their highest title which is why their wives are / were Duchess of X.

When Charles is King he will presumably create William the Prince of Wales and when that happens, his wife will become the Princess of Wales.

 

[MARG]

And right there lies the meat and the potatoes along with the gravy and hot biscuits of reasons that Diana and Charles shouldn't have gone into a marriage without really getting to know each other more intimately than they did. Its the oil and the vinegar reasons they'd never truly be compatible.

Now I'm hungry. Go figure.

It wasn't that Charles was that much of an introvert more that he had a reserved nature. Diana didn't understand that in Charles world he got up and "went to work" every day. Diana had never really thought about the royal lifestyle per se. It's really the requirements and obligations of Charles and her positions as Prince and Princess of Wales.

Diana resented that obligations outweighed whether or not she felt like doing an engagement or Charles spending all his time with her. I think growing up in an Aristocratic House her perception was that both her mother and father had the odd engagement but mostly her father ran the estate and her mother would have engaged in the local WI as patron perhaps, but mostly it was shopping, lunching with friends and black tie dinners. The married version of the single Sloan Rangers.

Finding that the BRF was the living embodiment of Queen Mary of Teck's oft-mentioned quote: "You are a member of the British royal family. We are never tired, and we all love hospitals." Not a whole lot of fun and romance there except when they attended polo games. I just watched a "romantic clips" of the BRF and was surprised at the sheer number of photos of Diana presenting Charles with a prize along with very romantic kisses.

Basically, it wasn't all bad.

 

[COUNTESS]

It wasn't that Charles was that much of an introvert more that he had a reserved nature. Diana didn't understand that in Charles world he got up and "went to work" every day. Diana had never really thought about the royal lifestyle per se. It's really the requirements and obligations of Charles and her positions as Prince and Princess of Wales.

Diana resented that obligations outweighed whether or not she felt like doing an engagement or Charles spending all his time with her. I think growing up in an Aristocratic House her perception was that both her mother and father had the odd engagement but mostly her father ran the estate and her mother would have engaged in the local WI as patron perhaps, but mostly it was shopping, lunching with friends and black tie dinners. The married version of the single Sloan Rangers.

Finding that the BRF was the living embodiment of Queen Mary of Teck's oft-mentioned quote: "You are a member of the British royal family. We are never tired, and we all love hospitals." Not a whole lot of fun and romance there except when they attended polo games. I just watch a "romantic clips" of the BRF and was surprised at the sheer number of photos of Diana presenting Charles with a prize along with very romantic kisses.

Basically, it wasn't all bad.

I think that it was that he loved another woman. Still does. That is a hard pill to swallow. The work didn't bother her, and she loved the lime light. And to his distress he was a second banana. It was not a good match.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was watching a documentary about Diana and Sarah yesterday. Where I learnt that both Diana and Andrew had known each other since half of their childhood and teenage years, they were in the same friend circle, they were around the same age. People thought they would end up marrying each other but everyone was shocked when Diana married Charles instead. Later it was Diana who introduced Sarah and Andrew
IMO mebye she got married to the wrong person

Sarah and Andrew knew each other as children as well and there is photographic evidence of the together aged about 10 - 12.

Diana didn't introduce them - as she claimed later on - but rather believed they would be suited together and so sat them together at a lunch.

Moving on from sad things, one thing How come, Diana, got the title of a Princess after marriage when her sisters-in-law were/are Dutchess and Countess. Even her daughter- in- laws are Duchesses. As I know the title of Princess is only for the daughters of the royal family eg Princess Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Charlotte. In Louise' case, she didn't get the title since her father refused. So, how Diana get the title of Princess when she was the bride of the family?

ALL of the wives of the British Princes became Princesses on their marriages as the wives of Princes but in the UK the title of Prince isn't a title for a Peer of the Realm (or someone who would have had a seat in the pre-1999 House of Lords). They are thus commoners and eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons.

What the Queen has done on their wedding days is promote her sons and grandsons from commoner status to that of peer of the realm and so they went from mere princes to Dukes and Earls.

Charles was a peer of the realm from the moment his mother ascended the throne when he became Duke of Cornwall (and Duke of Rothesay etc in Scotland).

The only wife of a British prince who uses the style of princess is Princess Michael of Kent because her husband has no peerage title for her to use.

In the UK the wives don't become Princess with their own name on marriage so it was never Princess Diana, or Princesses Camilla, Catherine, Meghan, Sarah, Sophie, Birgitte, Katherine or Marie-Christine. The public and media constantly referred to Diana as Princess Diana but that was incorrect - she was HRH The Princess of Wales. Only a princess born as a princess in the UK can use Princess own name - Charlotte, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne and Alexandra.

Wives are Princess Husband's name - so Princesses Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Richard, Edward and Michael. Had the Queen not promoted William, Harry, Andrew anad Edward on their wedding days that would have been their wives styles as it was for Princess Richard of Gloucester and still is for Princess Michael of Kent (Princess Richard is now HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - so she stopped using Princess as a style when her husband inherited his father's dukedom. He went from HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester to HRH The Duke of Gloucester and took his wife with him).

 

[Queen Claude]

I think that Diana being matched up with Andrew was due to them being similar ages and neighbors but I think that it was more childhood musings. I don't think that Andrew was deemed unsuitable or incompatible so much as Charles was considered "the big fish." I think that Diana's father and maternal grandmother aspired for there to be a Spencer-BRF union, specifically they wanted eldest Spencer daughter Sarah to marry Charles. I think that at some point Diana set her cap for "the big fish" and when things did not pan out between Sarah and Charles and Charles took an interest in Diana, which Diana gladly reciprocated, then everyone shifted their aspirations to the Spencer-BRF union being between Charles and Diana.

 

[Pranter]

I don't know that she was that close to her sisters. They were quite a bit older too.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I don't know that she was that close to her sisters. They were quite a bit older too.


LaRae

I remember photos from when Diana, William & Harry vacationed at times with her sisters and their children. I think they grew closer as adults, especially after they all married and had children. But things became strained at times, things like the Panorama interview were not viewed favorably by even Diana's own family. And Jane was caught during the War of the Wales between her sister and her husband, who was the Queen's Deputy Private Secretary, then Secretary.

Some of Sarah & Jane's children are of similar ages to William and Harry and seem to be close. Harry attended his cousin George's (Sarah's son) wedding in Africa. Laura (Jane's daughter) is one of Charlotte's godmothers. I don't think those relationships just developed after Diana died.

 

[Denville]

I think that it was that he loved another woman. Still does. That is a hard pill to swallow. The work didn't bother her, and she loved the lime light. And to his distress he was a second banana. It was not a good match.

The wrok DID bother her. NOT that she wasn't good at it, but I don't think she had expected so much of it, that it was a regular routine.. and she liked the limelight, I wouldn't say loved it. She found it stressful, at first and didn't try to outshine Charles, she just did so, because she was charming and had a special quality.

I don't know that she was that close to her sisters. They were quite a bit older too.


LaRae

I wouldn't say they were that much older than her.. sarah was 6 years... that's not a huge amount...And I think she got on well with them and was fond of them.. but they ahd their ups and downs.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I was watching a documentary about Diana and Sarah yesterday. Where I learnt that both Diana and Andrew had known each other since half of their childhood and teenage years, they were in the same friend circle, they were around the same age. People thought they would end up marrying each other but everyone was shocked when Diana married Charles instead. Later it was Diana who introduced Sarah and Andrew
IMO mebye she got married to the wrong person

I'm not sure that "people" per se, gave them a thought. Certainly not the general public. No one had ever heard of Lady Diana Spencer. Prince Andrew had numerous girlfriends but Diana was never listed as being one of them. Their names, to the best of my knowledge, were never linked, which is probably just as well. Diana would have coped even less well than did Sarah, with his absences.

I wouldn't say they were that much older than her.. sarah was 6 years... that's not a huge amount...And I think she got on well with them and was fond of them.. but they ahd their ups and downs.

Actually, it's a very large age gap -in psychological terms siblings with a 7 year age gap are described as being "only" children- and Sarah had Jane who was closer to her in age than was Diana. Diana -after her mother left- seems to have taken on the role of mother to her little brother, Charles, which may further have isolated her from her older sisters. There's an interesting similarity here with Alix of Hesse who became the last Tsarina of Russia. She, for different reasons -the loss of her mother and other siblings to diptheria- became 'separated' from her older sisters and acted as mother to her brother.
Often, what seems like large age differences between children, blur and lessen when they reach adulthood and childhood differences appear to be resolved. Actually, it's amazing how close to the surface they still can be!!!

 

[Curryong]

After the diphtheria rampage that carried off her mother and baby sister May in 1878 Alix, who was six when her mother died, was the baby of the family. Ernest (Ernie) was four years older than Alix and the only surviving boy. Victoria, the eldest sister, fifteen at the time of her mother's death, became 'mother' to her surviving siblings until she married.

 

[Lady Nimue]

My understanding is Diana's mother did not 'abandon' her children. There was shared custody and Diana saw her mother on a regular basis during visits (later in Scotland), like any child of divorce.

Some of the story Diana told needs to be seen in the context of the timeframe when she characterized the divorce, especially given how fraught the mother-daughter relationship was. As with all things Diana said a great deal of context needs to be taken into account when assessing what Diana claimed about her life.

LINK: Tragic life of Frances Shand Kydd | Daily Mail Online

Shand Kydd did always insist that she did not leave her children.

Initially, Charles and Diana lived with their mother in London, while the two other children were away at school.

But after two unsuccessful courtroom contests, the children returned to their father, then Viscount Althorp, while the defeated Shand Kydds moved to Scotland.

 

[Denville]

I'm not sure that "people" per se, gave them a thought. Certainly not the general public. No one had ever heard of Lady Diana Spencer. Prince Andrew had numerous girlfriends but Diana was never listed as being one of them. Their names, to the best of my knowledge, were never linked, which is probably just as well. Diana would have coped even less well than did Sarah, with his absences.



Ace resolved. Actually, it's amazing how close to the surface they still can be!!!

Im sure tat "people in general" didn't know about Diana and certainly didn't know whether she was likely to be a royal bride. I assume that this "people' refers to people who did know them.. who knew that Andrew and Di had played as kids together and thought of them as a possible couple sicne they were close in age. I think that Diana did joke about "marrying Andrew" as a teenager because they were friendly..however, I think they grew apart.. He was at school, then he was going inot the Navy and Im sure he became more arrogant and DIana was not seriously interested in him anyway. At 19 she was old enough to marry but it wasn't likely that a 20 year old Andy would be thinking of marriage, and he was dating more bouncy girls and not ready to settle down..

 

[Somebody]

You must be responding to my previous post. We should take the Harry discussion to whichever appropriate thread though. I'd love to know what choices you feel were harmful that were made by Harry's parents in his upbringing. If you are referring to their difficult relationship -- I don't think that was a choice, once they were already in the marriage. Should we move this to Charles & Diana thread...

Other than having affairs while married and therefore not being dedicated to making it work, the main problem I see is them fighting things out in the press. They couldn't help all press coverage but surely could have done way better in not contributing to the mess if not for other reasons at least in the interests of their sons.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I do not think we really know enough to make a definitive judgment about exactly how his parents' divorce impacted Harry in terms of 'toxicity.' I sense that both William and Harry were protected by the many adults in their lives who helped lessen the traumatic impact of the dramatic goings-on.

The stories of Diana weeping in the bathroom while William passed tissues to her under the door don't seem very healthy for William.

 

[Denville]

The stories of Diana weeping in the bathroom while William passed tissues to her under the door don't seem very healthy for William.

I don't think it was going to turn him into a terrible emotional mess. She probably did lean too much on him, but I don't think it qualifies as terrible...

 

[Curryong]

It depended on what media people followed. Charles gave lots of speeches when the couple were on tour overseas, and I'm sure his speech in French was appreciated. However the great bulk of the European, US and UK media at that time concentrated on what Diana wore, how she looked, hair, jewels etc. That seems to have been one of the things Charles found frustrating during the marriage.

Media generally does that. Attractive woman in designer dress trumps man in suit in the media's eyes, however important the man is. Didn't JFK say 'I'm the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris...'?

 

[Iluvbertie]

You can see this same phenomenon happening this week. Harry gave a speech at the WellChild awards but what did the media focus on - what Meghan wore.

It is the superficial that interests the media not the greater depth of the reason for the engagements in the first place.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It depended on what media people followed. Charles gave lots of speeches when the couple were on tour overseas, and I'm sure his speech in French was appreciated. However the great bulk of the European, US and UK media at that time concentrated on what Diana wore, how she looked, hair, jewels etc. That seems to have been one of the things Charles found frustrating during the marriage.

Media generally does that. Attractive woman in designer dress trumps man in suit in the media's eyes, however important the man is. Didn't JFK say 'I'm the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris...'?

And it didn't bother JFK at all...he was proud and delighted.

Charles probably felt that way too..in the beginning.

 

[Curryong]

I think he may have tried to, but his insecurities got in the way. He was said to have remarked in bewilderment to a friend 'Why do they love her so much? All she did was say Yes to me.'

JFK had the confidence of elected office behind him. He could joke all he wanted about being Jackie's handbag. It didn't come close to the truth.

Charles's resentments about Diana's popularity were in full bloom during the first Australian tour. An aide there recalled her being upset by Charles's moods. She said later that he took the fact that she was popular out on her.

 

[jacqui24]

I think he may have tried to, but his insecurities got in the way. He was said to have remarked in bewilderment to a friend 'Why do they love her so much? All she did was say Yes to me.'

JFK had the confidence of elected office behind him. He could joke all he wanted about being Jackie's handbag. It didn't come close to the truth.

Charles's resentments about Diana's popularity were in full bloom during the first Australian tour. An aide there recalled her being upset by Charles's moods. She said later that he took the fact that she was popular out on her.

We also have to look at their background. JFK came from a large family with a lot of kids. No one knew from the moment he was born that he’d be the President one day. They’ve had other golden child of the moment in that family.

Charles, on the other hand, has been the future king the moment he was born. The attention was always about him with those around him, for better or for worse.

That, and no one ever adored Jackie by cutting down JFK. I remember the issue about crowd moaning when they realized they stood on Charles’ side rather than Diana. Did not happen with JFK. Jackie was also not like Diana in private, which helped the situation with JFK.

The public reaction to JFK and Jackie is somewhat closer to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex today. Yes, people go insane over clothes and looks and that’s what the papers like to write about, but they still love Harry.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I think he may have tried to, but his insecurities got in the way. He was said to have remarked in bewilderment to a friend 'Why do they love her so much? All she did was say Yes to me.'

JFK had the confidence of elected office behind him. He could joke all he wanted about being Jackie's handbag. It didn't come close to the truth.

Charles's resentments about Diana's popularity were in full bloom during the first Australian tour. An aide there recalled her being upset by Charles's moods. She said later that he took the fact that she was popular out on her.

That's really too bad that Prince Charles and the royal family tended to blame Diana PofW for her charming impact on the populace. Diana was naturally charming and empathetic. However, she was too young when she married to know how to skillfully handle the situation she found herself in within the royal family after her marriage. Her loneliness, her rebelliousness, her lack of confident self-knowledge at 20 years of age, and the melancholy associated with her sad childhood simply added to the isolation she felt in being married to someone equally emotionally needy who did not deeply love her.

There is of course, a complete contrast with the Sussexes who are actually in love and much more compatible, and who share a number of interests in common. Harry is so proud and happy to see everyone bowled over by his wife. He's equally bowled over and charmed by her delightful personality and her many accomplishments.

JFK had a natural in-born confidence. His sickliness from childhood onward also led to him reading lots of books while bedridden, which fed his naturally inquisitive mind. He was witty, charming and handsome, albeit he had a terrible weakness for sexual shenanigans (likely fostered by his father's careless attitude toward women and his own need to pursue physical pleasure to assauge the physical pain he often suffered due to his lifelong bouts of illness -- Addison's disease, etc -- he'd contracted scarlet fever around 3 years of age and nearly died). JFK was definitely self-effacing and he possessed a naughty sense of humor.

 

[jacqui24]

That's really too bad that Prince Charles and the royal family tended to blame Diana PofW for her charming impact on the populace. Diana was naturally charming and empathetic. However, she was too young when she married to know how to skillfully handle the situation she found herself in within the royal family after her marriage. Her loneliness, her rebelliousness, her lack of confident self-knowledge at 20 years of age, and the melancholy associated with her sad childhood simply added to the isolation she felt in being married to someone equally emotionally needy who did not deeply love her.

There lays the problem for them personality wise. Prince Charles was a terribly shy child and needed a lot of comforting. The Queen came to the throne when he was very young, and she was stretched quite thin, and let’s be frank, the women of her days left the child raring to nannies. She was no exception with her older children. Anne got on well with Philip, but Charles was always too sensitive and not what Philip expected a son to be like. He needed someone that’s maternal. Then came Diana, who has her own childhood issues and needed someone that’s more of a paternal figure. Both couldn’t give each other what they needed in the marriage.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

ITA. Exactly... Camilla was who Charles needed actually. But he was too weakly accommodating to the wishes and edicts of his elders to challenge the ingrained view that Camilla was not 'royal wife material.' In any case, it's all worked out in the end. But at a huge personal price for Diana PofW. Still, alls well that ends well in terms of her sons' happiness in love.

We also have to look at their background. JFK came from a large family with a lot of kids. No one knew from the moment he was born that he’d be the President one day. They’ve had other golden child of the moment in that family.

Charles, on the other hand, has been the future king the moment he was born. The attention was always about him with those around him, for better or for worse.

That, and no one ever adored Jackie by cutting down JFK. I remember the issue about crowd moaning when they realized they stood on Charles’ side rather than Diana. Did not happen with JFK. Jackie was also not like Diana in private, which helped the situation with JFK.

The public reaction to JFK and Jackie is somewhat closer to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex today. Yes, people go insane over clothes and looks and that’s what the papers like to write about, but they still love Harry.

I agree with your observations and comparisons. It's all very interesting too. I've read a lot of books about the Kennedys. ETA: Jackie had her sad childhood difficulties too, and problems in her marriage, but she also had a lot of self-knowledge and creative passions that held her in good stead. She truly loved JFK. He loved her too, but in a less deep, romantic way. I read that Jackie reminded JFK of his sister, the effervescent Kathleen 'Kick' Kennedy who had died during WWII, and who of course, had married into the aristocratic Devonshire family. She was the Marchioness of Hartington.

I think you are spot-on about JFK's personality, his charming dynamic, and his having been raised in a large, raucous Irish-American family. Unlike JFK, Prince Charles had insecurities and a lot of emotional neediness. So did Diana. I don't think Diana truly knew how to handle the public's adoration, especially not at her young age. Unlike Meghan, Diana did not enter her royal marriage as a mature woman who was confident and sure of herself, and who had her eyes open to what would be required of her in such a marriage.

The biggest difference is that Diana was infatuated, while Charles (although he was charmed in the beginning by Diana's youthful spirits and lovely grace) was pressured into marrying her. Diana dealt with it all the best she could. She was like a lamb led to the slaughter. Her rebelliousness and her natural lively sense of fun and caring, empathetic qualities, as well as a deep, all-encompassing love for her sons, are probably what ultimately saved Diana Princess of Wales from going mad. But nothing could save the marriage of Charles and Diana.

 

[jacqui24]

I think you are spot-on about JFK's personality, his charming dynamic, and his having been raised in a large, raucous Irish-American family. Unlike JFK, Prince Charles had insecurities and a lot of emotional neediness. So did Diana. I don't think Diana truly knew how to handle the public's adoration, especially not at her young age. Unlike Meghan, Diana did not enter her royal marriage as a mature woman who was confident and sure of herself, and who had her eyes open to what would be required of her in such a marriage.

The biggest difference is that Diana was infatuated, while Charles (although he was charmed in the beginning by Diana's youthful spirits and lovely grace) was pressured into marrying her. Diana dealt with it all the best she could. She was like a lamb led to the slaughter. Her rebelliousness and her natural lively sense of fun and caring, empathetic qualities, as well as a deep, all-encompassing love for her sons, are probably what ultimately saved Diana Princess of Wales from going mad. But nothing could save the marriage of Charles and Diana.

Diana is an interesting psychological case (and I don't mean this in a bad way). There is a lot of juxtaposition about her. By all accounts, she was quite maternal and mature in some ways from an early age, yet she was quite immature in some ways for most of her life, especially when it comes to love. Her view on love is based on Barbara Cartland novels and she never grew out of it. While I don't doubt she loved the men she claim to have loved, she always had this idea about love in real life that she was trying to create. And no relationship could live up to it. And when she didn't get her way, she tries harder in ways that push people away.

 

[Queen Claude]

Yes in the engagement interview.