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

[Mermaid1962]

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

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]

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]

...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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[MARG]

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.

Unfortunately you are right. Camilla has had the odd nice article written about her and so the have to "balance" things out.

I hate this article as it brings absolutely nothing new to the table and it uses quotes and statements from the the ubiquitous "people" with no names excerpt for Paul Burrell, which is no endorsement of truth. It even goes to far as to quote sources about HM's feelings and the contents of her written correspondence. It is filled with "factoids" with no verification and will inevitable stir the "hate brigade" on both sides. After all this time, no doubt that is it's purpose.

 

[Tyger]

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

Did she mean at the end of her life? I have always understood that Charles and Diana were forging a friendly rapport just as she died. Am I mistaken?

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.

I have worked with children in the US and the unusually intense nature of the relationship between single mothers and sons is often noted. What Diana did with William is not out of the norm - though it is best not to happen, of course (according to some), but life happens, after all. It is what every child of addictive parents (drink or drugs), or any dysfunction, has to deal with. Raises them up fast, makes them older than their years. They lose something - but something is also gained.

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.

Well, I did read the article in question (not sure if you were pointing at me but just to be clear) - it is very long and is a curious entwining of the sound and the not-so-sound to the out-and-out fabricated. In sum, it is a very dangerous piece of 'journalism'. I defer to Marge above who states in her post: It is filled with "factoids" with no verification and will inevitably stir the "hate brigade" on both sides. After all this time, no doubt that is it's purpose. My point as well - its meant to stir the pot.

 

[Mirabel]

Did she mean at the end of her life? I have always understood that Charles and Diana were forging a friendly rapport just as she died. Am I mistaken?

That's what she said in her book: that Diana and Charles started to get along much better, and Diana was thrilled and hoped things would continue to improve.

But she changed her mind when Charles gave that party for Camilla; she was upset by that and the relationship chilled again.

Now, I am not saying this is the absolute truth, just what Tina Brown said in her biog. of Diana. (But I do think the book was basically truthful, though perhaps a little harsh).

 

[Tyger]

Thank you for the clarification, Mirabel.

Its such a tragic story - really is. Its Greek in its epic tragedy. There are so many lessons to be learned from it. Its like that film from so many years ago - Betrayal I think was the title - that starts at the end of the story and goes backwards so that in that moment at the end of the film when the eventual lovers meet for the first time one wants to say 'no' to them through the screen. This it is with Diana (for me). She was her own worst enemy. I am so familiar with her kind of story - I see it repeated around me endlessly - young women going towards the same precipice. 'No-no' one wants to say - but they will not listen, of course, even if one could collar them.

I know so many believe that Diana today would simply be an older, snappy version of her younger self but there was every indication that in her mid-30's she was prematurely aging. The bulimia was taking its toll - she was having to layer on make-up. We will never know, of course, but I wonder how the olding years would have played out for her and how Charles would have dealt with the situation. Where would have the self-destructive behavior led? The loneliness was palpable.

Here's a picture wherein I see the skin damage becoming visible - even through the heavy make-up. http://tinyurl.com/87so9o8

 

[Mirabel]

I know so many believe that Diana today would simply be an older, snappy version of her younger self but there was every indication that in her mid-30's she was prematurely aging. The bulimia was taking its toll - she was having to layer on make-up. We will never know, of course, but I wonder how the olding years would have played out for her and how Charles would have dealt with the situation. Where would have the self-destructive behavior led? The loneliness was palpable.

I know what you mean, and I too believe Diana was a very lonely woman. She was at odds with most of her family, had lost just about every friend, was not even seeing so much of her sons once they'd gone away to school.

I remember reading that she fell in with the Fayeds simply because she hadn't many other invitations; the social sphere she'd been born into virtually shut her out after the divorce, preferring to keep in with the RF, while some of the new intimates were around merely to use her and betray her to the press.

I really think that, if she'd lived, she'd have ended up almost as isolated as the Duchess of Windsor, or perhaps like her own mother, with little to sustain her outside of some charity work.

 

[Zonk]

Let's not speculate one what Diana's life would have become if she had lived but rather stay on topic...and discuss Diana's relatinoship with the Queen and members of the Royal Family.

 

[olebabs]

I think the animosity between thr BRF and Diana was mainly a story persued by the tabloids. It was allowed to go unreputed by the Royal family, because they never, quite rightly, comment ón their private life. This has made it much easier to print what ever they wanted. My personal opinon is, that the BRF and the Queen in particular had a good relationship with Diana. the Queen is not an idiot, she must have known before hand that C and D had very little in common, but perhaps hadn't expected that Diana was as fragile as she was.

 

[Al_bina]

If Her Majesty were aware, as you stated, of incompatibility bewteen Prince Charles and then Lady Diana Spencer, why did she allow the union to take place? Was there a hope that Princess of Wales would close her eyes and think about the Great Britain?

 

[olebabs]

Yes, that is what I think. Or perhaps that because of her youth, that C would be able to form the Young Girl into the kind of wife hé wanted. Diana had the right pedigree and she was a virgin, that was what counted. C should have stood up to his parents and said no.

 

[Al_bina]

I tend to think each party of this sad union underestimated the other. The BRF hoped that Lady Diana knew the unspoken rules and would not rock the boat. Princess of Wales squandered the star power she had on a petty war with the institution.
It would be fair to say that relationships within the British royal family were polite.