Charles and Diana

[Curryong]

From Tina Brown's 'The Diana Chronicles', 'The Upstaging Problem'.

I think that the complete change of lifestyle that Diana experienced when scarcely out of her teens is underestimated by her detractors. She entered the Royal family and a completely new set of circumstances at just twenty. Within a year she had given birth to her first child.

From Tina Brown's book.

'In 1967 two US naval researchers, Dr Thomas Holmes, a psychiatrist, and Richard Rahe, a scientist, had devised 'The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.' According to that formula Diana scored a 407 on a Scale at which 150-299 could lead to mental illness.
Stress chart indicators included marriage, pregnancy, career changes, changes in work responsibilities, outstanding personal achievements, change in living conditions, revision of personal habits, changes in work hours and conditions, change in church activities, change in residence, change in social activities, change in recreation, change in family get-togethers, holidays and Christmas.'

In just about all these, bar the church activities, there was a complete and utter turn-around from the way Diana had lived her previous life. And yet, she performed her duties as Princess of Wales brilliantly and went through a stressful tour of Wales in early pregnancy.

 

[Osipi]

Now *that* puts a lot of things into perspectives I think. After reading all of that information, I'd have to honestly say that if my marriage at 20 years old and having my first child at 21 had put me through such drastic changes as Diana had to cope with, I don't think I'd have done as well as she did. Just adjusting to marriage and family life was difficult enough for me and I had support from my family and my friends along the way.

 

[MARG]

Perhaps because whenever anything is posted that involves Diana but puts Charles (in your eyes) in a bad light you immediately come in to challenge it, infer it must be untrue, and want the source/links etc.

I have incidentally, in the thread Charles and the Freemasons posted pointing to speeches he made on various important topics.

I'm a Diana fan, I would guess considerably older than you, who can remember Diana's first appearance on the scene. I remember her fondly and I don't need to have an inquisition on my feelings.

I too remember Diana's first appearance on the scene but that does not absolve me of the need to provide valid sources for anything other than my own personal opinion. That requirement and our moderators is what keeps TRF a good place to visit, free of personal attacks and slanging matches.

Osipi: Never forget that this was the eighties. Women expected to be married with a child by 20. As a member of the British nobility she, like all her friends, was educated for far more than half of what the BRF required of her. She was provided with an average education and "Finished" in Switzerland. However, she did or did not apply itself was her choice just as is ours. She was an accomplished pianist, among other odd things. She, along with her girlfriends, were the ultimate Sloan Rangers, living in style in London, first in her mother's flat and later in one her mother bought her for her birthday.

She attended a cooking school while she was there, worked as a aide part-time at a nursery school, as a nanny, a dance instructor and a hostess at parties. I assume because she knew who was who socially and could facilitate introductions and socialise with ease. A timid ingenue hiding in the corners would have been no use as a dance instructor or hostess.

The expectation of she and her friends was that they would marry into the aristocracy or gentry, settle down and run the family home and provide an heir and a spare (that rings a bell). Weekends at the pied-à-terre to shop and socialise. She knew how to socialise and she knew how to shop and her marriage required both those skills in spades.

I have met young women who cut themselves, as a result I always dismissed Diana's claims of doing the same. She didn't have a mark on her arms, legs or thighs and "cutting" leaves scarring. And throwing herself down the stairs . . . hmm.

 

[Curryong]

Diana taught children not adults, dance, for a very short time. She was not 'finished' in Switzerland. She was sent there but was back in a matter of weeks because she became homesick. I have never read anywhere in any biography that she had a job hostessing parties.

Not every young woman of twenty or so was married by any means in the 1980's, whether they were Sloane Rangers or not. We aren't talking about Victorian England. Neither of Diana's sisters were married that young. None of Charles's former girlfriends were married at that age. And in fact Tina Brown remarks that when Diana became pregnant that removed her further away from her former flatmates, none of whom were even engaged at that time.

 

[Denville]

^I"m glad to share my experiences.

I
The only reason she had problems in life were when she realized that she wasn't some special snowflake entitled to having Charles BE the solution to her problems and be the best of everything and be willing to give it up all the time all for her sake. She then messed with Hasnat and wanted him to quit his day to day life so he could be a world doctor and basically be all over the place where she was. Then Hoare and Carling, she had no excuse for any of that. Third, Dodi was practically engaged to someone else at the time, but she had no problems stealing the guy and got outraged that someone had the gall to call Dodi out on his jilting behavior. She kept getting surprised that she ran into men who weren't going to drop it all, all for her. She ended up in a car wreck since drama became the drug she was addicted to, not booze or drugs, but drama.

what a nasty post. I don't recollect that she ever said anyting about Doidi, so I don't know where you get this "bit about calling Dodi out on his jilting behaviour.

 

[Denville]

Diana taught children not adults, dance, for a very short time. She was not 'finished' in Switzerland. She was sent there but was back in a matter of weeks because she became homesick. I have never read anywhere in any biography that she had a job hostessing parties.

of whom were even engaged at that time.

She didn't have such a job. She worked for a shrort time teaching ballet or dance to kids and didn't stick at the job for long. She didn't have any job "hostessing parties" . She had a couple of jobs as nanny or nursery helper and enjoyed them probably because while not a "mouse" she was clearly shy and preferred the company of children to adults. I would nto say she was an accomplished pianist, she could play fairly well but I'm not sure what the point is anyway.
True that she didn't stay long in Swtizerland, and she did learn to cook at the school but I don't think ti was a job she particularly wanted to train for, she enjoyed her jobs with chidren and stayed with them during her shrot life as a single girl.
I do think she cut herself- but I don't think It was as bad as her detractors are making out. She hurt herself but slightly and it was possible to conceal the problem. I dotn think she made suicide attempts, though she may have said she did.
She did have problems and I think that they weren't easily fixable, partly because her positon as Princess meant that she was not going to be able to go away and have time off work to have in depth therapy or "have a breakdown". Given her postion and the stigma attaching to mental health issues, it was understandable that the RF were likely to advise concealing her problems, and hoping they'd go away with minimal help.
However I think the fact that they DID succeed in concealing them, apart from her losing weight, shows that the problems while real and severe in a way were not outrageously so, or that she was a danger to herself and others as her detractors seem to want ot say.
I agree that its nonsense to say that all debs were "educated for marriage, shopping and socialising" and were married at 20. Most of Di's flatmates didn't marry for a few years, nor were her sisters married at 20.
She was, because Charles needed a young girl with no past, so the odds were that a girl past 20 would have such a past ..
And I think Diana wanted to marry young, because she wanted to "fulfil herself" by a splendid marriage and motherhood, and she was not into having a career. But had she not met Charles, she would likely have been a few more years as a single girl before marrying.
And I think its obvious that whle she liked to socialise (and shop) her idea of socialising was relatively quiet stuff. She had quiet dinner parties with her girlfriends, had a few boyfriends, went home or on visits at the weekend. She wasn't shopping til she dropped, or drinking and partying wildly.. She was essentially a quiet girl who hoped to have a home and kids and find her happiness in that.

 

[Osipi]

If I remember right, Diana also did a stint cleaning apartments for her sister. Most of the jobs she held were menial jobs that a young person would do. I'd equate it almost like a lot of teenagers get their very first jobs at McDonald's. Nothing Diana worked at ever pointed to a career. Nothing wrong with that at all. She had jobs to keep herself occupied and the jobs were such that she could live the lifestyle of a Sloane Ranger with dinner parties and weekend house parties even. It was the way of things.

 

[Denville]

If I remember right, Diana also did a stint cleaning apartments for her sister. Most of the jobs she held were menial jobs that a young person would do. I'd equate it almost like a lot of teenagers get their very first jobs at McDonald's. Nothing Diana worked at ever pointed to a career. Nothing wrong with that at all. She had jobs to keep herself occupied and the jobs were such that she could live the lifestyle of a Sloane Ranger with dinner parties and weekend house parties even. It was the way of things.

yes she did some cleaning jobs, I think she enjoyed housework anyway..
but her major interest was working with children.
And her "Sloane Ranger" life was a quiet one. She didn't have a lot of boyfriends, she didn't drink or do drugs, she didn't even party a lot. I think she was happy with that life, cooking and cleaning for her flatmates, watching Tv and chatting and goig out on a few dates..
I think she did enjoy socialising more, after her marriage, when she had had her kids and was finding Charles' friends very dull, she began to go to parties more. But as a girl, she was not really into that except in a mild way.
But I don't know what the implication is that she "had all these social skills". I don't think she did. She was shy with people, found it hard to make conversation, at first. She grew more confident and found talkign to "ordinary people" was something she had a knack for..
But she wasn't really geared toward "being a Society hostess".. like Raine was...

 

[Lady Nimue]

what a nasty post. I don't recollect that she ever said anyting about Doidi, so I don't know where you get this "bit about calling Dodi out on his jilting behaviour.

It's not nasty. It's saying it bare bald, without caveats, without the excuses. (That takes bravery in a fan-world that will not have it spoken so). Consider what those on the receiving end of this behavior had to deal with. Have you thought of them? It's a litany of problematic behavior that those around her were never able to control or reflect back to her in a helpful way. She wouldn't listen and so it all got played out in a very public way.

Of course there were wonderful aspects to her, of course she was not 'bad', of course she loved and had a wonderful way with the public, but she was deeply troubled, beauty and grace notwithstanding. It is so. I know it's hard but there it is.

It matters that none of this gets glossed over. I have known too many like Diana. I have two little girls I pray never get caught up in the extremity Diana modeled. One thing we can be grateful for: she never did drugs. Imagine the pain had that been part of it all, too.

 

[Osipi]

Experiment on how I see Diana.

#1 First draw a circle. Just a circle.
#2 Draw another circle and put a dot in the middle of it.

Some people are like circle #1. They become adults and part of their circles (groups, society) around them. Some people are like #2. They are the dot in the middle and the circle revolves around them.

Being either way isn't wrong. Its just how people look at their life and people around them. I think Diana would fit into the #2 category. I think also with the way that Charles was raised, he'd also be in the #2 circle as he was used to having his world revolve around himself. With this in mind, it would have been quite a challenge for Charles and Diana to form their own little circle together. Their dots would have to become part of the circle.

 

[Dee Anna]

I'm not srue what you mean Dee Anna, but I think that if it is about Will Harry and their dad, it problaby is not quite "Charles and Diana", and maybe we should take it ot another thread? I Did say that Charles is paying for Will and Harry, is that what you mean?

Some kind mod has merged my posts so thanks for that! I really need to be more observant of what page I'm on!

Yes, the original post was referring to Charles paying for William and Harry's upkeep. I didn't know that. Just assumed both men would have had the means to support themselves by now.

But yes, you are right, it's not on topic for C&D.

 

[Dee Anna]

Diana taught children not adults, dance, for a very short time. She was not 'finished' in Switzerland. She was sent there but was back in a matter of weeks because she became homesick. I have never read anywhere in any biography that she had a job hostessing parties.

Not every young woman of twenty or so was married by any means in the 1980's, whether they were Sloane Rangers or not. We aren't talking about Victorian England. Neither of Diana's sisters were married that young. None of Charles's former girlfriends were married at that age. And in fact Tina Brown remarks that when Diana became pregnant that removed her further away from her former flatmates, none of whom were even engaged at that time.

My thoughts exactly! The last thing any twenty year old wanted back in the eighties was to be married - socialising, relationships yes! But not the serious stuff. Plenty of time for that.

Wasn't Diana only 19 when she got engaged? Not exactly a lot of time to have held down several jobs before embarking on a relationship that led to marriage at just turned twenty.

 

[Osipi]

My thoughts exactly! The last thing any twenty year old wanted back in the eighties was to be married - socialising, relationships yes! But not the serious stuff. Plenty of time for that.

Wasn't Diana only 19 when she got engaged? Not exactly a lot of time to have held down several jobs before embarking on a relationship that led to marriage at just turned twenty.

Yes. She turned 20 within the month of getting married. The courtship was short and if Bedell Smith is to be believed, Charles and Diana had 12 dates before getting engaged.

I don't think Diana could have been seen as a progressive, modern young woman that wanted to take on the world with both hands but was a rather lived a rather sheltered life that some young British aristocratic women did. She wasn't prepared to have a career and probably didn't want one nor was she prepared to take on a marriage that involved a very senior role in the BRF's "Firm". Its easy to believe that Diana's attitude towards love and marriage were basically straight out of a Barbara Cartland novel. The reality was quite an eye opener for her.

 

[Dee Anna]

Expect, when from the right breeding pool, class wise and at just 19, holding the attention of the most elegible (not to mention older and Royal!) man in the land, with whom you are smitten, quite heady stuff!

As you say, all the stuff of a Barbara Cartland paperback.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts referencing Camilla have been edited or removed.

 

[AristoCat]

Yes. She turned 20 within the month of getting married. The courtship was short and if Bedell Smith is to be believed, Charles and Diana had 12 dates before getting engaged.

I don't think Diana could have been seen as a progressive, modern young woman that wanted to take on the world with both hands but was a rather lived a rather sheltered life that some young British aristocratic women did. She wasn't prepared to have a career and probably didn't want one nor was she prepared to take on a marriage that involved a very senior role in the BRF's "Firm". Its easy to believe that Diana's attitude towards love and marriage were basically straight out of a Barbara Cartland novel. The reality was quite an eye opener for her.

I think her age and sheltered life was an obstacle; the minute she hit the world, the press and public wanted her to be as perfectly intellectual as possible and apparently in the eyes of the editorials and press, she wasn't supposed to like fashion, she wasn't supposed to want to have fun, and she wasn't supposed to enjoy jewels. There was a lot of pressure on her to be as non-frivolous as possible and she was pilloried for being young and wanting to wear nice stuff and indulge in jewels. I also think that it was unfair that she was expected by the press to be some kind of fully mature icon before she was ready. When it was complained about how she didn't have too much to say, I thought that was unfair since she was a kid who was expected to be more than any mentally healthy person could be.

She viewed the world in a limited way mainly since she was happy in her own immediate set and sphere and that was her right. The issue is that it wasn't the amount of duties or the amount of pressure, but the expectations that all the wrong people had of her. Too many self-appointed mandarins of culture and other self-appointed experts of royal dignity were bashing her nonstop about being a kid, being happy, being playful. Apparently the only way to royal dignity is being miserable, dressing horrendously, and being snotty and uncouth according to Diana's relentless critics. Dressing nicely and putting in an effort to make a memorable favorable impression is a sign fo respect for the hosts.

 

[Leopoldine]

My thoughts exactly! The last thing any twenty year old wanted back in the eighties was to be married - socialising, relationships yes! But not the serious stuff. Plenty of time for that.

Wasn't Diana only 19 when she got engaged? Not exactly a lot of time to have held down several jobs before embarking on a relationship that led to marriage at just turned twenty.

Here in the States in the 1980's, a woman of Diana's wealth and family prominence would be in college at the age of 20 with marriage a few years in the future.

 

[Pranter]

Hmmm teenager in the 80's , graduated in 84 ....and there were quite a few girls in that age range getting married. 20 wasn't an uncommon age to marry.


LaRae

 

[ladongas]

Here in the States in the 1980's, a woman of Diana's wealth and family prominence would be in college at the age of 20 with marriage a few years in the future.

But unlikely to have been able to fulfill the purity requirement...

 

[Pranter]

The purity requirement...much has been made about that (even back when they were 'dating')...but I'm not sure how real or how much of an issue that would of been.


LaRae

 

[Curryong]

I think her age and sheltered life was an obstacle; the minute she hit the world, the press and public wanted her to be as perfectly intellectual as possible and apparently in the eyes of the editorials and press, she wasn't supposed to like fashion, she wasn't supposed to want to have fun, and she wasn't supposed to enjoy jewels. There was a lot of pressure on her to be as non-frivolous as possible and she was pilloried for being young and wanting to wear nice stuff and indulge in jewels. I also think that it was unfair that she was expected by the press to be some kind of fully mature icon before she was ready. When it was complained about how she didn't have too much to say, I thought that was unfair since she was a kid who was expected to be more than any mentally healthy person could be.

She viewed the world in a limited way mainly since she was happy in her own immediate set and sphere and that was her right. The issue is that it wasn't the amount of duties or the amount of pressure, but the expectations that all the wrong people had of her. Too many self-appointed mandarins of culture and other self-appointed experts of royal dignity were bashing her nonstop about being a kid, being happy, being playful. Apparently the only way to royal dignity is being miserable, dressing horrendously, and being snotty and uncouth according to Diana's relentless critics. Dressing nicely and putting in an effort to make a memorable favorable impression is a sign fo respect for the hosts.

I don't know where all this 'press and public didn't want her to dress well, have great jewels or enjoy herself' comes from. From what I remember, and I lived through those years, it was directly the opposite.

The Press, newspapers, magazines, and the public took a very great interest in Diana's appearance. If she wore a new outfit or had a new hairstyle or wore beautiful jewellery it was featured on the front pages of newspapers and weekly magazines had pages on her fashions, complete with glossy photos. People bought these magazines in their millions. Diana was regarded as a fashion icon later and as an ambassador of British fashion all the time.

Nor can I ever remember her being under constant attack for her manners or demeanour. People in the early years thought she was very young and very sweet, lovely in fact. A few intellectuals who met her thought she was lacking in serious conversation, but by and large, they kept these thoughts to themselves, and these only came out in published diaries and memoirs after her death.

There was a period of criticism after Sarah Ferguson married Andrew and she and Diana were silly and poked a courtier's behind with their umbrellas at Ascot one year, but that criticism was muttered comments by older courtiers etc not the press or the people as a general rule.

She also came under attack from the Press for behaviour in the last couple of years of her life, but before that there was certainly no attempt by Press and public to criticise Diana for having fun. People used to love seeing her beaming and laughing.

There may have been a difference in the age of marriage on both sides of the Atlantic. However, from my own experience in England I can't ever remember anyone, aristo or not, getting wed as young as Diana. I used to take a look at aristocratic weddings too and it was exactly the same. Neither of Diana's sisters married at twenty. That sort of marital age was more indicative of the 1950's in Britain (Diana's mother's generation) than the 1980's.

 

[MARG]

Well her parents can't have thought she was too young since she moved into her mother's (mostly unused) flat at 17 years old. She shared the flat with friends but it was not small and not dingy but somewhat grand and in an enviable area of town. Diana's mother bought her her own flat for her 18th birthday

So there you have it, on her own, unchaperoned in any way living in London at 17.)

Diana’s Flat ~ Coleherne Court, London – My Blog

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but Diana was living with friends, none of whom were married at 20, and she certainly wasn't living in a grand style, more little restaurants, the cinema and going to parties with friends. She cleaned for friends and her sister, looked after a child and did housework and then worked at a child nursery.

Diana and her friends weren't holding grand dinner parties or soirées or balls, none of which she was particularly used to before she married. There would have been the odd dinner party at Althorp during Raine's time, and a house party or two but nothing particularly flash.

She certainly didn't hostess grand parties, and she taught children ballet for a short while until she injured her leg and never went back.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Does anyone besides me find it strange that a 17-year-old was living in her own apartment in London, even if she was with friends? I suppose that having her maternal grandmother and her older sisters* in London was a mitigating factor. She could contact family if she needed them.

*Sarah was living in the country after her marriage, I assume.

Well her parents can't have thought she was too young since she moved into her mother's (mostly unused) flat at 17 years old. She shared the flat with friends but it was not small and not dingy but somewhat grand and in an enviable area of town. Diana's mother bought her her own flat for her 18th birthday

So there you have it, on her own, unchaperoned in any way living in London at 17.)

Diana’s Flat ~ Coleherne Court, London – My Blog

 

[Denville]

I the press and public wanted her to be as perfectly intellectual as possible and apparently in the eyes of the editorials and press, she wasn't supposed to like fashion, she wasn't supposed to want to have fun, and she wasn't supposed to enjoy jewels. fo respect for the hosts.

Where on earth was she "expected to be intellectual" or pilloried for liking fashion or jewels?

I don't know where all this 'press and public didn't want her to dress well, have great jewels or enjoy herself' comes from. From what I remember, and I lived through those years, it was directly the opposite.

as an ambassador of British fashion all the time.

Nor can I ever remember her being under constant attack for her manners or demeanour. People in the early years thought she was very young and very sweet, lovely in fact. A few intellectuals who met her thought she was lacking in serious conversation, but by and large, they kept these thoughts to themselves, and these only came out in published diaries and memoirs after her death.


There may have been a difference in the age of marriage on both sides of the Atlantic. However, from my own experience in England I can't ever remember anyone, aristo or not, getting wed as young as Diana. I used to take a look at aristocratic weddings too and it was exactly the same. Neither of Diana's sisters married at twenty. That sort of marital age was more indicative of the 1950's in Britain (Diana's mother's generation) than the 1980's.

there were plenty of women/girls who married as young or younger than her.. but I agree that girls of her class, while they were "bred to marry" still didn't usually marry at 19 or 20... problaby more like abt 23 or 4.
but I agree also that I can't remember Diana being attacked over "not being intellectual". For gods sake she was MEGAAA popular. The press went mad over her clothes, her looks, her hairstyle and her jewellery. The public liked to look at pictures of her. She was seen as sweet, fun, light hearted, lovable and fond of kids. the fact that she had no O levels and liked to dress prettily and was into all that stuff, was certainly not held against her by the public or most of the press. After years of the queen and Anne, who dress dully and were certainly not "charming" or uplifting, Diana was a delight to photographers etc.
I have no idea where this came form that she was attacked for being light and "not serious" in her younger days and for liking ot dress fashionably.
There were some journalists who did feel that she was sweet and nice, but she wasn't very clever and that "she didn't make speeches" or do very heavy stuff, and left all that in the early years to Charles..
And as she grew older, she did become more serious about her charity wrok, learned more about issues and tried to "make a difference" with what she did as a royal. but she still looked pretty and dressed well. And she was certianly not attacked for this.

Does anyone besides me find it strange that a 17-year-old was living in her own apartment in London, even if she was with friends? I suppose that having her maternal grandmother and her older sisters* in London was a mitigating factor. She could contact family if she needed them.

.

why would they? I was living in a shared house at a little older..
I would find it strange if a young woman was NOT living in a flat, rather than at home...

 

[AristoCat]

Some commentators mentioned how 'there is more to being a princess than fashion' and there were criticisms sent to the palace about how Diana wasn't being substantial enough.

 

[Denville]

Well her parents can't have thought she was too young since she moved into her mother's (mostly unused) flat at 17 years old. She shared the flat with friends but it was not small and not dingy but somewhat grand and in an enviable area of town. Diana's mother bought her her own flat for her 18th birthday

So there you have it, on her own, unchaperoned in any way living in London at 17.)

Diana’s Flat ~ Coleherne Court, London – My Blog

Sorry but what is your point? She was living in her own flat? that didn't mean she was out every night or hostessing society dos. She was living a quiet life wit her girlfriends, mixing with a small circle of friends, going to the country at weekends.. there is a big leap between that and "high society" life, of the kind that Raine Spencer went in for and which was beginning to die out a bit. and there's a lot of difference between living in your own flat and assuming the responsilbiites of marriage and motherhood.

Some commentators mentioned how 'there is more to being a princess than fashion' and there were criticisms sent to the palace about how Diana wasn't being substantial enough.

Who? Did these people really expect a girl of her age, and education, to be ? Well what exactly did these people want her to be doing?

 

[Pranter]

What a slacker she was! 19 and no career yet! LOL


LaRae

 

[Denville]

My thoughts exactly! The last thing any twenty year old wanted back in the eighties was to be married - socialising, relationships yes! But not the serious stuff. Plenty of time for that.

Wasn't Diana only 19 when she got engaged? Not exactly a lot of time to have held down several jobs before embarking on a relationship that led to marriage at just turned twenty.

I cant quite see how one could say that no 20 year old wanted to be married. Many girls married at that age or younger. Many girls wanted to be married by that age. Diana Did want to marry young, she wanted the security of a serious and permanent relationship. She wanted a family and she did not want sexual relationships without commitment.

 

[Osipi]

Sorry but what is your point? She was living in her own flat? that didn't mean she was out every night or hostessing society dos. She was living a quiet life wit her girlfriends, mixing with a small circle of friends, going to the country at weekends.. there is a big leap between that and "high society" life, of the kind that Raine Spencer went in for and which was beginning to die out a bit. and there's a lot of difference between living in your own flat and assuming the responsilbiites of marriage and motherhood.

As to why Diana was living in a shared flat in London at 17, I think you've hit on the magic word. Raine.

At this point of her life, she wasn't away at school anywhere and if the stories are to be believed, hell would freeze over before she'd live under the same roof as Raine Spencer. Frances lived in a too remote part of the UK that would appeal to a young girl such as Diana was. London was the obvious place that Diana would have wanted to be at that time.

Its just logic and putting two and two together that adds up to placing Diana starting her own life in London.