Diana's Relationships with The Queen and Other Members of the Royal Family

[Mermaid1962]

No indeed. They'd be fascinating to see though. Haha.

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

I would imagine not every get together of the royal family was photographed for public viewing or made public.

[sunshine_93]

I think Diana had a good relationship with Sarah Fergusan ! And they both were isolated from the royal family......

[IloveCP]

I wonder how exactly close Philip and Diana were.The media made it look like they hated each other after the seperation.

[ghost_night554]

I guess I'd put this here...
Diana and The Queen: Her Majesty was the Princess's greatest supporter, sending her to a psychiatrist and hosting a family therapy session | Mail Online

[Nico]

And here we go again :

Diana and The Queen: Her Majesty was the Princess's greatest supporter, sending her to a psychiatrist and hosting a family therapy session | Mail Online

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Nico

And here we go again :

Diana and The Queen: Her Majesty was the Princess's greatest supporter, sending her to a psychiatrist and hosting a family therapy session | Mail Online

It's always the same: people often comment about Diana's initial impression, the way everyone thought she was an ideal choice, the way everyone liked her and thought she'd fit in. They thought her a jolly girl, game for anything, as one person put it.

So what happened in the space of one year? How could Diana possibly change so much?
Was she putting on an act in the beginning? Or was she so upset to discover the depth of Charles' involvement with Camilla that she had a sort of meltdown?

[Tyger]

She apparently didn't change - after all, the 'initial impression' is exactly what fuels(ed) the public fascination with her: that 'initial impression' was what 'sold' the image and was always maintained but was only one element of who Diana really was as an entire person. Charles did not know the 'details' of who she was in her character. Certainly the Queen and the RF as a whole did not really know her - not in the way the article is claiming. Her immediate family and circle of friends did, though. Her own father and grandmother - ten years later - in the midst of the meltdown of the marriage and public humiliations - expressed regret that they had not 'spoken up' to the relevant people about Diana's problems - which were (according to them) present before the marriage.

Repeating the claim that Diana made many years later regarding Camilla and Charles - making her say-so 'the truth' because she said it - does an enormous injustice to the other people who are being smeared with every repetition of the slander.

The article seems particularly crafted to foment all the animosities and hatreds Diana championed at her lowest points in her life. The article is a pot-stirring. We will never know - unfortunately - how a wiser and maturer (and healed) Diana would have amended remarks and 'facts' she stated earlier - later in her life. We are told that she and Charles were becoming friends when she so tragically died - that, in fact, it was Charles she called when she was upset or in need of something. It was Charles who calmed her down and dealt with what she needed. IMO There is a truth in Charles' and Diana's story that is not evident in the cartoon being portrayed in that article.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Tyger

...We are told that she and Charles were becoming friends when she so tragically died...

I know that was the case at one point, and that Diana was touched and happy that Charles was there for her.

But I read that, very soon, the warmer relationship with Charles eroded. Diana came to realize that Charles was withdrawing from close contact and becoming more involved with Camilla.

Camilla gradually became chatelaine of Highgrove (Diana resented that Charles gave her a 50th birthday party there), and Diana gave up on hoping they would have any sort of friendship at all.

[Tyger]

It was at the end of her life - that is the sad part - that the friendship was forming just as she tragically died. The marriage was long over. The friendship was not eroding (as I understand) - it was beginning, or achieving a new plateau? Can anyone else speak to this?

Your comment about Camilla is a 'spin' - Camilla had her own house and world. It wasn't Highgrove. And Diana had nothing at that point to resent - she already had had lovers whom she 'adored', and would have more. We are entering into the heated passions of a personal world - why take sides to the extent that demonizes others in that heated personal world? The truth is never there.

[Mermaid1962]

I wonder whether Diana could have said anything to change the way their dark days were perceived? She was under a "gag order" as part of her divorce settlement. She wasn't allowed to speak of her time in the Royal Family at all.

Originally Posted by Tyger

We will never know - unfortunately - how a wiser and maturer (and healed) Diana would have amended remarks and 'facts' she stated earlier - later in her life. We are told that she and Charles were becoming friends when she so tragically died - that, in fact, it was Charles she called when she was upset or in need of something. It was Charles who calmed her down and dealt with what she needed.

[Mirabel]

I was going by Tina Brown's biog.; she was the one who said the friendship dissolved almost before it got started.

[NGalitzine]

Well lets face it, a lot of Diana's friendships came and went. She was well known for stopping talking to people and then suddenly calling up much later as if nothing had happened.

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. IMO her tragedy was her inability to have long-term, close, loving, relationships. A person with so much media coverage and public responsibility has to have honest, dependable relationships to stay grounded.

[MARG]

IMO there have been a couple of articles about Camilla that did not actually vilify her so here we go again. Once more round the block.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by MARG

IMO there have been a couple of articles about Camilla that did not actually vilify her so here we go again. Once more round the block.

How does the above commentary vilify Camilla?

I don't see that it vilifies her to mention the fact that Diana loathed her; that is common knowledge.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by MARG

IMO there have been a couple of articles about Camilla that did not actually vilify her so here we go again. Once more round the block.

I don't understand what you mean - maybe because I am not often (at all) on this thread. What do you mean?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

It's always the same: people often comment about Diana's initial impression, the way everyone thought she was an ideal choice, the way everyone liked her and thought she'd fit in. They thought her a jolly girl, game for anything, as one person put it.

So what happened in the space of one year? How could Diana possibly change so much?
Was she putting on an act in the beginning? Or was she so upset to discover the depth of Charles' involvement with Camilla that she had a sort of meltdown?

She didn't change.

She lied during the courtship about the things she enjoyed - like enjoying Balmoral. During her honeymoon she started to make it clear she hated country activities and Balmoral - despite the fact of pretending to enjoy them the year before.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Tyger

I don't understand what you mean - maybe because I am not often (at all) on this thread. What do you mean?

What she means is that this will be another case of the eternal CDC triangle with the usual Camilla and Charles were horrible to poor little innocent Diana - rather than actually look at the article itself. It is another chance for the bash/defend Camilla and Charles brigade to say the same things they have said for years and the bash/defend Diana brigade to say the same things they have said for years with no one changing their stance.

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Yes. IMO her tragedy was her inability to have long-term, close, loving, relationships. A person with so much media coverage and public responsibility has to have honest, dependable relationships to stay grounded.

I think this may have led to her choosing William as her confidante. Very sad that an adult had to depend on a child for moral support. Of course this is just my guess and I could be very wrong here.

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I agree. I think that William carried an unusually heavy burden for his tender years. This IMO is why Catherine is good for him. She seems to be self-assured. I think that he can rely on her as much as she relies on him.