Charles and Diana

[Tsaritsa]

You're most welcome to set me straight if I get one of the facts wrong. It has been a few years since I read all the books on the subject, and some details are getting a big fuzzy. When I said "Spencers" I was thinking father and maternal grandmother rather than mother, even though Baroness Fermoy was not a Spencer. I had in mind that Diana didn't really listen to her mother. Actually, I doubt she would have listened to any of them if they did counsel her against the quick marriage. She had her mind set on marrying Charles.

Roslyn, how WONDERFUL to find a voice of calm reason in the middle so much emotion, but I feel that this particular Royal marriage will always give rise to it.

The bottom line is, they should NEVER have married each other and at 19 Diana can't be credited with the emotional maturity to realize it wouldn't work long term because whilst she may have known of his friendship with another, older woman, she would have had no idea of the long term implications of it. Realization may have informed her that his commitment to her couldn't be 100% whilst there was someone else he could turn to. Adultery, of itself is just a physical thing. An emotional attachment to another person is FAR more damaging to a relationship. However, I don't want to be seen as Charles "bashing." I think it was probably a relief when a pretty young girl agreed to marry him but a shock when he realized that he had no idea WHO he'd married. Neither truly knew the other and maybe neither WANTED the other to see who they really were. I suspect that psychological wool was pulled over both pairs of eyes. In fairness to Charles, I really don't think that Diana would have been truly happy with whoever her husband was, she was too insecure, too needy of the constant affirmation from others that she was THE BEST but at least with any other man her insecurities could have been played out in private, away from the public gaze. The irony was, that because of what happened to her psychologically when her parents divorced, she made the ONE marriage which she believed couldn't possibly end in the same way, a divorced heir to the throne COULDN'T happen. She didn't seem to realize that the Spencer pattern of failed marriages had been established over hundreds of years and patterns repeat.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I suppose they were both victims:
Charles: a victim of the sense of duty. Of course he must have been pressured by his parents to marry a suitable girl . Only his parents are not ordinary people, they are part of the Establishment. You can say no to your parents, but can you say no to the Establishment? I'm pretty sure Charles was brought up to take full responsibility of his duties. Duty, that's why he married Diana. He knew he could not have married Camilla, who would have been a divorcee. It was 1980, not 2013.

Diana: show me one 19-year old girl who does not fall in love with the idea of being the future queen of Great Britain. One. She must have fooled herself that she loved him, maybe had a crush on him that faded away once married life, duty and the inherent rigors of the Establishment took over. Add to that her native emotional instability and Camilla's shadow lurking in their bedroom and you have the perfect makeup for marital disaster.

I don't blame Charles. He kept himself more in check than Diana did. Throughout the divorce scandal and subsequent behavior, he came out on top.

In a twisted way, the tragedy of Charles' marriage (and Andrew's marriage fiasco, for that matter), modernized the monarchy. Things that seem acceptable for William and Harry today would have never been acceptable for Charles or Andrew.

This is a very thoughtful post and you raise some excellent points. I don't see Charles as a victim though. He was 30 years old when he married Diana. He showed a lot of backbone when he finally stood up to the Establishment (and the world) and refused to dump Camilla. He should have shown that backbone during his courtship of Diana (on another note: I don't believe Camilla wanted to marry Charles when they first met, so I don't think the failure to marry Camilla was a matter of lack of backbone).

Diana and I were about the same age and I understand her wanting to marry Prince Charles, but I don't think every 19 year old girl in Diana's position would have acted the same way. For every girl who applied to St. Andrew's University after it was announced that William would be attending, there were literally thousands of girls who didn't even consider changing their plans. After several dates of fishing, hiking, shooting, and watching Charles play polo, it would have been obvious when most girls were bored.

1980 was a heady time for Diana and she convinced herself that she could adapt to his kind of life--but that is where family and good friends come in. They knew she hated polo and would rather go nightclubbing than fishing. They probably also knew that she had unrealistic romantic fantasies. Her parents should have explained their concerns to Charles or his parents. That would have given Charles and Diana more space to honestly assess their future.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

2. From reading various books, I see that this relationship had problems during the first 5 years. It seems that P. Charles's parents were also trying to intervene/counsel. Parents shouldnt do that. The couple doesn't work it their problems and blame gets shifted to the parents. I have read that Diana was sent for counseling and medication was discussed but I have never read that they went to a family counselor. That would have helped.

I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post. The second point summarizes exactly where Charles (and his parents) failed in trying to save the marriage. A good counselor would helped him understand her illness and helped him develop strategies of how to respond in a constructive way.

But more than that, Charles needed to understand that the problem was not just Diana's mental illness and hysterics, his own behavior was causing problems. In the early years, I think he was emotionally distant, which is extremely destructive in a relationship. His parents, for all their good qualities, are not professional counselors and should have kept out of it.

6. Finally I don't think P. Diana was against the Establishment. I think she was at the end against her in-laws and the whole way the Windsor family firm runs on a day to day basis. In a way in their TV interviews P. Charles and P. Diana did the same thing- blame the Queen/Monarchy for their problems instead of putting their big kid pants on and taking responsibility for themselves. They both showed an immaturity that took aware from all of their positive attributes.

Exactly.

5. They did try to be good parents and the princes love both of their parents. I think that's most important. And by the teen years children do not love their parents unconditionally. If a child has an abusive/absent parent, by 14-15 y.o., that child like love goes aware and you have a troubled young adult.

I disagree here. Children of all ages love their parents unconditionally, they just don't like us very much with the teen years.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Roslyn, how WONDERFUL to find a voice of calm reason in the middle so much emotion, but I feel that this particular Royal marriage will always give rise to it.

The bottom line is, they should NEVER have married each other and at 19 Diana can't be credited with the emotional maturity to realize it wouldn't work long term because whilst she may have known of his friendship with another, older woman, she would have had no idea of the long term implications of it. Realization may have informed her that his commitment to her couldn't be 100% whilst there was someone else he could turn to. Adultery, of itself is just a physical thing. An emotional attachment to another person is FAR more damaging to a relationship. However, I don't want to be seen as Charles "bashing." I think it was probably a relief when a pretty young girl agreed to marry him but a shock when he realized that he had no idea WHO he'd married. Neither truly knew the other and maybe neither WANTED the other to see who they really were. I suspect that psychological wool was pulled over both pairs of eyes. In fairness to Charles, I really don't think that Diana would have been truly happy with whoever her husband was, she was too insecure, too needy of the constant affirmation from others that she was THE BEST but at least with any other man her insecurities could have been played out in private, away from the public gaze. The irony was, that because of what happened to her psychologically when her parents divorced, she made the ONE marriage which she believed couldn't possibly end in the same way, a divorced heir to the throne COULDN'T happen. She didn't seem to realize that the Spencer pattern of failed marriages had been established over hundreds of years and patterns repeat.

It's great to see this thread back on track.

I am very interested in your comments about the Spencer pattern of failed marriages. Limiting the discussion to immediate family: Charles and Diana's parents, grandparents and siblings: Diana and her sister Sarah admitted bulimia and depression and Diana's brother married at least one woman with similar problems. Although the Earl of Spencer's relationship seem even more volatile than Diana's, Jane and Sarah have been married for years.

At the same time, the Queen and her father had solid marriages (I don't know enough about the marriage of her grandfather to comment). There had to have been problems, but the marriages seemed relatively happy within the context of British aristocracy. But the Queen and Prince Philip apparently didn't teach their children about how to maintain a happy marriage: Edward has enjoyed a happy, stable marriage, but we know what happened to Charles, Andrew and Anne.

I have always thought the problem was more Diana's untreated mental illness and the fact that she married a man who was emotionally unsuited to cope with an ill wife. There are many children of divorce who get divorced themselves, but others learn from their parents, like I think William has and really work at their marriage.

I think Diana took what she thought was the easy route. She didn't want a divorce, but instead of thoughtfully choosing a husband who shared her values and interests and working hard at the relationship, she simply married a man she thought could never divorce her.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.

Countess, you are direct, I give you that.

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.

 

[sthreats]

Thanks. What I meant is those children who have an abusive or absent parent.


I disagree here. Children of all ages love their parents unconditionally, they just don't like us very much with the teen years. [/QUOTE]

 

[Mirabel]

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.

I don't know that ending the marriage was the best decision; I tend to agree with Robert Lacey that Diana was on a downward spiral following the divorce.

I can't think she'd have married Dodi or anyone like him, because I can't think she took a relationship with him seriously; I have heard she was bored and planned to dump him once she returned to London. Unfortunately, he was the type of man she was attracting.

Also, I don't see what (positive) things were in store for her; she seemed to be sliding into a lifestyle of socializing with Euro-trash and dabbling in New-Age philosophy. And her loneliness seemed palpable.

(I have always feared that she'd end up like her mother eventually).

 

[Tsaritsa]

You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.

COUNTESS, I hear what you're saying, but in order for Diana to have "played it correctly" I feel it would have been necessary for her to have been a much older and wiser woman. I believe that wisdom comes with age/experience. One comes to realize there's no such thing as a free lunch. There HAS to be compromise but there ARE compensations.

 

[AdmirerUS]

In this case, had Diana stayed in the marriage for convenience, what message would that have sent to William and Harry?

For commoners, children understand it as their parents sticking together because of money or appearances. Kids see through it, but they also see the problems that arise out of sticking it out.

But in the case of Royalty it can send the unique message that love is not possible in many Royal Marriages. That the job precludes love. Or worse yet that royal men are owed a pretty, unloved wife and a bit on the side. I think Diana might have found that a terrible message to give her boys.

Just my musing on the issue.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Countess, you are direct, I give you that.

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.

US Royal Watcher, after my reply to COUNTESS, this may seem like a contradiction. I spoke of compromise to her, but I feel that it would have been unfair to expect this of Diana at HER age because it would have HAD to be a lifetime commitment on her part. A DUTY. I've already said that I don't feel they should ever have married and I think the only chance she stood of being true to herself was by extricating herself from it, partly because she was still young enough to be capable of change. Charles wasn't. I doubt that he ever was, but then he understands duty and I think, to the best of his ability, lives by it. That was a very heavy yolk to place round the neck of a very immature 19 year old.

 

[Argie]

That was a very heavy yolk to place round the neck of a very immature 19 year old.

Age has little to do with it, but following your logic, we would have then expected from her some decorum around the age of 30. Just saying.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

In this case, had Diana stayed in the marriage for convenience, what message would that have sent to William and Harry?

For commoners, children understand it as their parents sticking together because of money or appearances. Kids see through it, but they also see the problems that arise out of sticking it out.

But in the case of Royalty it can send the unique message that love is not possible in many Royal Marriages. That the job precludes love. Or worse yet that royal men are owed a pretty, unloved wife and a bit on the side. I think Diana might have found that a terrible message to give her boys.

Just my musing on the issue.

I think that is a very one-sided view of the marriage. First, I am not sure why "commoner's" children would understand if their parents stick together because of appearances, but royal children would not.

Second, if Diana was worried about the message she was sending to her boys, perhaps she should have refrained from using them as cover for her own extramarital affairs.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I don't know that ending the marriage was the best decision; I tend to agree with Robert Lacey that Diana was on a downward spiral following the divorce.

I can't think she'd have married Dodi or anyone like him, because I can't think she took a relationship with him seriously; I have heard she was bored and planned to dump him once she returned to London. Unfortunately, he was the type of man she was attracting.

Also, I don't see what (positive) things were in store for her; she seemed to be sliding into a lifestyle of socializing with Euro-trash and dabbling in New-Age philosophy. And her loneliness seemed palpable.

(I have always feared that she'd end up like her mother eventually).

She was certainly in a bad place in the couple of months before her death, but I don't see Hasnat Khan as Euro-trash and he certainly wasn't dabbling in New-Age philosophy. I think there were insurmountable problems because he wanted a different kind of life than she did (or could live), but he seems to be a stable, kind man.

Diana made many poor choices in her life, but I think with continued treatment, she would have eventually found a suitable mate.

 

[Princess B]

A lot of people have spoken abt Diana's mental stability, attention seeking behaviour and the need to be loved/best.

It's really not fair to say that she really suffered from all the above mentioned problems.

In the royal family especially then there was always the great divide I being born royal and married royal.

At home Diana was probably made to feel like she was not as good as the others while the public put her on a pedestal.

All this would easily wreck havoc on the mind of a 19 year old. It was probably the royal family that she married into that led to these problems.

Moreover when a spouse goes through a bad phase the other is suppose to stand by her. But in this case that didn't happen.

I won't put the blame on one. Both made mistakes and this was bound to happen. Clearly the weren't in love with each other. I'd like to believe they tried to love each other, but failed miserably.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

US Royal Watcher, after my reply to COUNTESS, this may seem like a contradiction. I spoke of compromise to her, but I feel that it would have been unfair to expect this of Diana at HER age because it would have HAD to be a lifetime commitment on her part. A DUTY. I've already said that I don't feel they should ever have married and I think the only chance she stood of being true to herself was by extricating herself from it, partly because she was still young enough to be capable of change. Charles wasn't. I doubt that he ever was, but then he understands duty and I think, to the best of his ability, lives by it. That was a very heavy yolk to place round the neck of a very immature 19 year old.

I see your point, but where we disagree is who was responsible for helping Charles and Diana come to a more responsible decision in 1980.

I think we all can agree that some 19 year-olds are ready to make that kind of commitment to that kind of life, so I don't think it is fair to simply say that he shouldn't have married her because she was 19. Catherine was about that age when she got involved with William--it was a different situation, but she was obviously more mature and stable than Diana was at the same age.

During their courtship, Charles tried to make sure that Diana understood what she was getting into. Diana had been living on her own in a large city for more than a year. She handled herself well when she was with his family and dignitaries. He famously asked Camilla to talk with her. But Camilla wasn't the only friend he sent to talk with Diana and try get a read on her.

Charles also noted how Diana handled the media and the spotlight. Diana was a great actress and her apparent maturity fooled him.

Again, that's where her parents should have stepped in. I don't think they should get a pass here. If Diana was too immature to realize that she was too immature, her parents should have stepped in.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

A lot of people have spoken abt Diana's mental stability, attention seeking behaviour and the need to be loved/best.

It's really not fair to say that she really suffered from all the above mentioned problems.

In the royal family especially then there was always the great divide I being born royal and married royal.

At home Diana was probably made to feel like she was not as good as the others while the public put her on a pedestal.

All this would easily wreck havoc on the mind of a 19 year old. It was probably the royal family that she married into that led to these problems.

Moreover when a spouse goes through a bad phase the other is suppose to stand by her. But in this case that didn't happen.

I won't put the blame on one. Both made mistakes and this was bound to happen. Clearly the weren't in love with each other. I'd like to believe they tried to love each other, but failed miserably.

I am not sure the royal family was a huge presence in her everyday life. It's not like she and Charles were living in his parents' basement. They had their own house in the country and their own apartment in Kensington Palace.

I don't think they saw the royal family that much. It may have been stressful for her when they spent holidays with his family, but I don't think that is a huge portion of her life. Many women are able to handle poor relations with their in-laws without throwing themselves down flights of stairs.

The two key relationships in her life were with Charles and with herself.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I think that is a very one-sided view of the marriage. First, I am not sure why "commoner's" children would understand if their parents stick together because of appearances, but royal children would not.

Second, if Diana was worried about the message she was sending to her boys, perhaps she should have refrained from using them as cover for her own extramarital affairs.

Yes it is one sided - my side, my opinion. I get to have that here.

 

[Argie]

I am not sure the royal family was a huge presence in her everyday life. It's not like she and Charles were living in his parents' basement. They had their own house in the country and their own apartment in Kensington Palace.

I don't think they saw the royal family that much. It may have been stressful for her when they spent holidays with his family, but I don't think that is a huge portion of her life. Many women are able to handle poor relations with their in-laws without throwing themselves down flights of stairs.

The two key relationships in her life were with Charles and with herself.

Agreed.
It is also quite puzzling how many of the commentators here tend to psychoanalyze Diana, instead of basing their assessment on facts: her actions.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Yes it is one sided - my side, my opinion. I get to have that here.

We're all entitled to our opinion.

 

[Tsaritsa]

A lot of people have spoken abt Diana's mental stability, attention seeking behaviour and the need to be loved/best.

It's really not fair to say that she really suffered from all the above mentioned problems.

In the royal family especially then there was always the great divide I being born royal and married royal.

At home Diana was probably made to feel like she was not as good as the others while the public put her on a pedestal.

All this would easily wreck havoc on the mind of a 19 year old. It was probably the royal family that she married into that led to these problems.

Moreover when a spouse goes through a bad phase the other is suppose to stand by her. But in this case that didn't happen.

I won't put the blame on one. Both made mistakes and this was bound to happen. Clearly the weren't in love with each other. I'd like to believe they tried to love each other, but failed miserably.

I feel that which ever marriage Diana was the female half of, she would have required constant reassurance because of her own insecurities. Charles, because of who he was, was incapable of giving praise for duties performed that he saw as being just part of her job, which was to play second fiddle to him. I don't in any way mean this to sound disrespectful. I simply don't think he realized just how much she needed HIS approval and validation, because she needed to FEEL that he valued and loved her. The problem lay in that she was unable to value/love herself and NO ONE could do that for her. It became a toxic mix.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Agreed.
It is also quite puzzling how many of the commentators here tend to psychoanalyze Diana, instead of basing their assessment on facts: her actions.

But Argie, her "actions" like our own are based on our psychologies which is partly formed by our previous experiences.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

But Argie, her "actions" like our own are based on our psychologies which is partly formed by our previous experiences.

I agree with you. Our actions are based on our emotional needs. On the other hand, although I think Diana was mentally ill, which explained many of her poor decisions, it shouldn't be used as an excuse for some of her very destructive actions: using her sons as cover for affairs, tell all books and interviews, trying to frame a child for her nuisance calls, etc...

Her illness made some of her mistakes understandable, but some of her actions were just plain wrong.

 

[Argie]

But Argie, her "actions" like our own are based on our psychologies which is partly formed by our previous experiences.

Yes, actions are based on thought patterns. But we cannot know what was going on in her head and not even close relatives might have known. I doubt Charles could "read" or anticipate her thought process. Therefore, it seems to me that an assessment of Diana's marriage/relationship with Charles would be more accurate if based on her (and his) mere actions.

 

[sthreats]

I see your point, but where we disagree is who was responsible for helping Charles and Diana come to a more responsible decision in 1980.

I think we all can agree that some 19 year-olds are ready to make that kind of commitment to that kind of life, so I don't think it is fair to simply say that he shouldn't have married her because she was 19. Catherine was about that age when she got involved with William--it was a different situation, but she was obviously more mature and stable than Diana was at the same age.

During their courtship, Charles tried to make sure that Diana understood what she was getting into. Diana had been living on her own in a large city for more than a year. She handled herself well when she was with his family and dignitaries. He famously asked Camilla to talk with her. But Camilla wasn't the only friend he sent to talk with Diana and try get a read on her.

Charles also noted how Diana handled the media and the spotlight. Diana was a great actress and her apparent maturity fooled him.

Again, that's where her parents should have stepped in. I don't think they should get a pass here. If Diana was too immature to realize that she was too immature, her parents should have stepped in.

I just don't agree. I think we all know how to average 19-year-old is when they get their mind made up about something. And a 19-year-old is an adult not a child so her family or friends could've talked until they were blue in the face-- she was just going to do it anyway. I think the time for her parents to intervene was Much earlier when she was young and feeling neglected and abandoned. Those insecure feelings stayed with her and colored a lot of her behavior. The person who should have thought this thing through and pumped his brakes was Prince Charles. But in many ways he was also immature.

But parents can't really tell you much when you're that age. I got married at 20 just out of school and my parents definitely did not want me to get married but it's 30 years later and I'm still married.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I agree with you. Our actions are based on our emotional needs. On the other hand, although I think Diana was mentally ill, which explained many of her poor decisions, it shouldn't be used as an excuse for some of her very destructive actions: using her sons as cover for affairs, tell all books and interviews, trying to frame a child for her nuisance calls, etc...

Her illness made some of her mistakes understandable, but some of her actions were just plain wrong.

US Royal Watcher, I'm inclined to think that it was psychological damage which was the cause of behavioural disorders centred around getting her very complex needs met. It manifested itself physically in the form of bulimia which in my experience is usually linked to psychological problems. The RIGHT sort of counselling can work wonders for sufferers. I tend to see mental illnesses as being something other.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I just don't agree. I think we all know how to average 19-year-old is when they get their mind made up about something. And a 19-year-old is an adult not a child so her family or friends could've talked until they were blue in the face-- she was just going to do it anyway. I think the time for her parents to intervene was Much earlier when she was young and feeling neglected and abandoned. Those insecure feelings stayed with her and colored a lot of her behavior. The person who should have thought this thing through and pumped his brakes was Prince Charles. But in many ways he was also immature.

But parents can't really tell you much when you're that age. I got married at 20 just out of school and my parents definitely did not want me to get married but it's 30 years later and I'm still married.

Okay. I see where you are coming from, and I agree they couldn't have stopped Diana, but I think they could have convinced Charles. Based on what we know now, Charles was very unsure about marriage but feeling pressured to marry Diana. If her parents (or her mother) had discussed her doubts with them, it would have taken the pressure off Charles.

No one can ever know what could have been, but I think Charles, the Queen and Prince Philip would have had a hard time moving forward at that point if they knew that her mother had concerns. I don't know that waiting another six months or so would have changed the outcome, but I think Diana's mother should have tried. I know I would have if it had been my daughter.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Didn't Diana's mother have concerns about her marriage? I also heard her grandmother as well. Maybe her father was just happy to have her married to a prince and didn't consider if his daughter was suited for it or not. As for Diana's mother I could see how it would be hard for a mother to potentially ruin her daughters relationship by raising concerns to Charles or his family. Perhaps she just kept quiet and wished for the best.
I still think that if Charles had dated Diana longer the facade would have begun to crack. We are all on our best behavior when we start a new relationship, but as it progresses the happy fake mask falls off and the real person emerges. "What do you mean you hate my cooking?" "What! You hate football and basketball and all sports?"

 

[US Royal Watcher]

US Royal Watcher, I'm inclined to think that it was psychological damage which was the cause of behavioural disorders centred around getting her very complex needs met. It manifested itself physically in the form of bulimia which in my experience is usually linked to psychological problems. The RIGHT sort of counselling can work wonders for sufferers. I tend to see mental illnesses as being something other.

That is interesting. I do think of bulimia as a mental illness, and Diana admitted that she suffered from depression. I also think she suffered from a personality disorder. There is a long discussion about this issue on the thread covering Diana's bulimia.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Didn't Diana's mother have concerns about her marriage? I also heard her grandmother as well. Maybe her father was just happy to have her married to a prince and didn't consider if his daughter was suited for it or not. As for Diana's mother I could see how it would be hard for a mother to potentially ruin her daughters relationship by raising concerns to Charles or his family. Perhaps she just kept quiet and wished for the best.

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what happened. It was a difficult situation but sometimes you have to be prepared to let your kids hate you.

 

[wyevale]

Diana's mother seems to me to have been congenitally unable to give any valuable advice to her children.

She made a colossal mess of her own relationships, so i doubt she would have shown much insight into anyone elses. Also her 'credit' ,as regards her past behaviour [as a 'bolter'], deserting her young children, would not have inspired confidence in Diana, who seems to have sought marriage to the Prince believing that [with him] there could be no possiblity of a repeat of her parents catastrophic divorce.

Diana's feeings towards her mother were naturally very complex, and i doubt she'd have listened to her on the subject of what makes a secure & happy marriage.