Social Norms: Diana and Staff

[Lady Nimue]

Possibly true but also I think she was a bit jealous of people in the staff who had been very close to Charles, such as his valet. And Barry was jealous of her coiming in and being invovled closely with his special royal...

She appeared to need the absolute attention of anyone she was involved with. They needed to live at her beck-and-call. Recall how she pestered the surgeon? There was a lot of need.

 

[Denville]

I think there is some truth in that Lady Nimue but not all of it. Any young woman marrying a man older than her and set in his ways, is likely to want to make changes in his household, wehn it is her household now. And Barry was also jealous of her now being close to his boss...
with her men friends later, I think that she did hope and ask for a lot of attention but that was after many years of being in a marriage where her husband was indifferent to her, and who now openly preferred another woman

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think there is some truth in that Lady Nimue but not all of it. Any young woman marrying a man older than her and set in his ways, is likely to want to make changes in his household, when it is her household now.

I disagree with you here, as someone who married someone older, though in no way is my situation the same as theirs. Not at all. We married for love and very much knew each other, but still, I entered his world, because after all, there was more substance to his world, he had more time to develop it, and it was in part his world that I loved about him. We lived together prior so that makes a big difference, too.

And Barry was also jealous of her now being close to his boss...

I did read Barry's book. I never got the sense he was jealous of her.

with her men friends later, I think that she did hope and ask for a lot of attention but that was after many years of being in a marriage where her husband was indifferent to her, and who now openly preferred another woman

You've conflated a lot of stuff here imo. Diana was incredibly demanding of Charles from the get-go. She admits as much in her tell-all book. The scale to which she wanted his attention on her I find unusual. You may disagree. We each see what we want to see, I guess.

At the end of the day, I have no direct knowledge of Charles as a person one-on-one, but from the outside Diana does not seem to have been a happy camper from the moment the engagement was made public. It seems that some ancient social protocol was set in motion once the engagement was made official, and there was no going back for Charles despite the reality of what was confronting him in a Diana changing before his eyes. He could not back out (apparently). Look at Charles at the altar as he comes together with Diana. It is a picture of a man in deep distress. Sad moment. Tragic moment.

 

[Denville]

I must say I can't agree that Charles looked "in deep distress" at his wedding. I think that perhaps Diana did want a lot of attention from him at first but I don't think it was all that unusual. Many young women are eager to spend a lot of time with their new husband/boyfriend in the early stages and I tink that men DO tend to want a bit more time to themselves.
I think the trouble was that Diana, having fooled herself intot thinking that she enjoyed many of Charles' interests, began to "hit reality" at Balmoral on the honeymoon and realised that she didn't actually share those interests.. and that Charles, while affectionate enough I think was busy with his hobbies, and enjoying himself at Balm while she wasn't.
She no longer wanted to watch him shooting or go out with him for long walks, and she didn't know what to do with herself if he wasn't there (Balmoral isn't much of a place if you are not a country person). And I think that without meaning to be unkind, he didn't realise how badly she wanted his company... and kept on with his usual holiday pursuits. Later on, yes I think she did become increasingly desperate for a man who would be !all in all to her and would spend most of his time with her...
and No of course neither of them could back out of the engagement once It was announced...

 

[Curryong]

I remember seeing it on TV at the time and Charles appeared serious, but I and members of my family that watched didn't see any distress or despair. It was a huge occasion and probably nerve-wracking for both bride and groom.

Charles was joking at the wedding breakfast apparently and there are informal shots taken then where he was smiling. He also seemed happy and relaxed when he and Diana set off for their honeymoon on the Britannia, as photos of the time showed.
Hindsight can be a marvellous thing.

 

[Jacknch]

We're wandering off-topic - lets get back to discussing the topic of this thread and talk about Charles and Diana's marriage in the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/charles-and-diana-2444.html thread.

 

[Denville]

Well diana and staff. She is accused of having gotten rid of a lot of Charles' staff but I dont think that was from bad motives. Perhaps she was jealous of soem of them who had had a very close relationship with him, like S Barry. And I think that he wasn't too keen on HIS close relationship with C being undermined by a young wife, who wanted to make Charles dress more fashionably etc. I think it is quite understandable for a new wife to want to make a few changes in her husband's staff, after all she has to get on with them too.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There were courtiers on Charles' staff who left very much of their own accord, as well. Others get routinely transferred around.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I really can't understand that episode with Victoria Mendham. I can forgiv other things she did, that were wrong, like slapping her father, because I can understand the emotions involved. but that asking the lady to go on holiday with her and then sticking her with the bill, TWICE, seems horribly unkind. I think that Victoria should perhaps not have accepted without making it clear that it was an invite where she was paid for, if she coud not afford the costs of such a holiday.. but surely the second time, she assumed that Di knew she could not afford to pay and was inviting her free...

This reminds me of some cruel royal in joke that only they understand. Reminiscent of Henry VIII pretending to be your friend before sending yountonthe tower.
It would be hard to trust someone who invited you on an expensive trip then told you to pay up.

 

[Curryong]

And what of Diana's husband, who reportedly at different times had staff come in on their days off to do research for one of his speeches, shouted, threw things sometimes, tore a hand basin from its moorings because he'd lost a cuff link down the plug hole, and apparently rarely gives staff credit for work they've done. Is Charles always kind, invariably considerate and forebearing? I'd say not from stories over the years, but it always seems to be Diana's faults which are picked up on, even when it was clear some of her staff liked her, got on with her and she was kind to them.

 

[Denville]

I dont say taht charles was a perfect boss, and I am sure that he was diffiucult to work for in many ways. but the thing with VIctoria was a sort of personal unkindness that is hard to understand. I dont say that it is like the popular picture of Henry VIII, i dont think it was a deliberate cruelty on Di's part..but it is so hard to understand that i feel the only way to excuse or understand it is to say that it was some kind of mental instability on Di's part...
This was IMO on a different level. She was treating the girl as a friend and then being deliberately nasty. I suppose you could say (it would be a better defence) that Vic should not have gone on holiday either time but I assume that after the first time, she thought that it had been made clear that she could not afford the cost and believed that Diana intended to pay, and Diana acted up BOTH times. And I understand that Chalres paid for her the first time and when Di heard of this she raised a big row about it... (so he does not come across as a terrible person, but rather IMO more kindly than Diana)..

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

And the ever constant defense of Diana is to point the finger at someone else.
Denville, maybe my Henry VIIi comment came out wrong, of course she's not comparable to the wife killer.

 

[Denville]

Im not pointing a finger at someone else...but i think it is not unreasonable to say "well how DO other royals treat their servants - was Diana following a lead form them."
And some commentators have said that with all Diana's faults she was one of the nicer bosses in the RF.
But anyway, I think that the Victoria thing was not a deliberate piece of nastiness on Diana's part, but part of her trust issues. She was lonely so she asked a staff member to go on holiday with her, perhaps without thinking that it was Crossing a line, and that it would be better for staff to remain staff and friends to be friends.
And perhaps also she didn't really think that Victoria would not be able to afford her kind of holiday, at first and when it struck her, she felt betrayed and felt that soemone whom she thought of as a friend was free loading off her.

But the second time, I think that Victoria should probably not have gone, or at least said firmly "I CANT afford this sort of holiday so unless its understood that i just pay my air fare or whatever, I am afraid I have to refuse.."
If she did and Diana still raised the cost issue, then I think that she was very selfish, and unkind... But maybe ti was not a deliberate thing wth her. I think there was just a kind of warning bell that went off in her head when she felt afraid that someone didn't love her, or was just pretending to, for favours recieved...

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Im not pointing a finger at someone else......

Oops my bad, I wasn't talking about what you had to say if I confused you. If this happened twice then yes I can't help but to blame Victoria; she saw how Diana acted in the situation befor . Did she expect Charles to pay again?
I also don't think Diana learned a lesson about making staff her friends because she did the same with Burrell.

 

[Denville]

I dont know if the second time Vic had made it clear that she could not afford such an expensive holiday, but well I think she must have. Diana presumably knew from the first time.. Im not quite sure which holiday Charles paid for but I believe that Diana got very annoyed about it. I suppose though that Vic should have known how volatile Diana was, and perhaps said "No, thanks, I cant afford your sort of holiday and I dont want to be under an obligation" and just politely and firmly refuse to go.

 

[Osipi]

All I can say is that first and foremost, if I was going on a trip, I would know exactly how much money it was going to cost me and figure in for "unexpected expenses" before I even packed a suitcase.

Perhaps in both of these situations, that was the big omission that could have been avoided just by asking questions and finding out exactly what expenses were going to occur. Its just logical and common sense to me.

 

[Denville]

In a normal life, yes.. but i think that for someone in Royal service, unless they come from a very well to do family, the odds are they can't afford the sort of luxury holiday that the royal can have..so if the Royal invites you, I presume that it is kind a given that it is their treat...
But I think that Diana DID want her staff to be friends and then felt angry/unhappy if she felt that they were "freeloading" on her. She complained about Paul Burrell running up telephone bills, although he worked very hard for her..She had an arguement with Simone Simmons when she sent her a bill for her work

 

[Denville]

There were courtiers on Charles' staff who left very much of their own accord, as well. Others get routinely transferred around.

I think that some left of their own accord but because Diana wanted rid of them.. But of course some of them did just leave, at that time or were transferred and Di was blamed for "clearing them all out." I don't really blame her up to a point..
I think that any woman coming into a new household wants some staff of her own choosing..

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Was it Princess Diana who prompted the departure of Edward Adeane?

 

[Curryong]

It depends on who you read. AFAICR Sir Edward was an older man, a bachelor and rather formal and rigid, one of the Old Guard surrounding Charles that Diana probably didn't feel very comfortable around. However, he supposedly had a difference of opinion with Charles, who was getting bolder about expressing controversial views on architecture, urban planning etc.. Adeane disagreed with this approach and so he resigned.

 

[Denville]

I don't think so... I think that most of us have read something written by Di's staff or about them, and formed an opinion..
I don't like these books written by staff, but i have read some bits of them, and other things... my general impression of Diana with staff was that in many ways she was a kindly boss, and in some ways more understanding than other royals. However she did have trust issues and at times she did seem to get too friendly with people who worked for her, but then seemed to feel that they were taking advantage of her. One or 2 staff have written books, and have been usually rather cirtical of her.. but in point of fact most staff HAVENT.

It depends on who you read. AFAICR Sir Edward was an older man, a bachelor and rather formal and rigid, one of the Old Guard surrounding Charles that Diana probably didn't feel very comfortable around. However, he supposedly had a difference of opinion with Charles, who was getting bolder about expressing controversial views on architecture, urban planning etc.. Adeane disagreed with this approach and so he resigned.

Probalby a bit of both. I think that he did find Diana a bit hard to get on with because she was not very educated, and he had to try and give her tutition.. but he and other staff disagreed with Charlres about HIS things at times...

 

[CyrilVladisla]

After the separation from Prince Charles, did Princess Diana still have ladies-in-waiting?

 

[Dman]

Yes, more info on Diana's ladies-in-waiting:
http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/dianas_ladies.htm#Ladies

 

[JessRulz]

Posts about Paul Burrell's upcoming marriage have been moved to his thread, http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/paul-burrell-dianas-former-butler-7649.html

 

[Yvette.C]

The Queen and Di

Hello everyone,

I'm currently reading The Queen and Di and I came across this sentence: "A maid was dismissed on the totally unfounded charge that she was a lesbian." (page 120, first U.S. edition). Considering Princess Diana was an LGBT icon and did so much for the community, I found this quite disturbing, and I've been trying to find an explanation for it.

Can anyone shed any light on this revelation? I can't imagine her firing anyone over their sexuality, or at least I hope she wouldn't have.

Thank you.

 

[Curryong]

I've never heard of this. I presume no source was given in the book? It would be surprising I think, as Royal households have always had quite a lot of staff who were homosexual males.

 

[Ish]

I’ve never heard that rumour, but if there’s any source for it it’s probably noted in the end notes/foot notes.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, that's what I meant. It was obviously not sourced, as with footnotes.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have no idea what the protection is in the UK for staff, but over here on the Continent, it is almost impossible to fire staff without permission from the social security agency or even a fiat from the Court of Justice. Usually a member of staff who is fired has to go to the unemployment agency and register him- or herself as a job seeker and ask for benefits. It is impossible that The Princess of Wales would just fire a member of staff on these grounds without proper procedure. Unless the UK has also an opt-out on the social paragraph of the EU Treaties and therefore Britons are not as protected as the rest of the EU. For this moment I think the story has been sucked out of a very thick thumb.

 

[Yvette.C]

I've never heard of this. I presume no source was given in the book? It would be surprising I think, as Royal households have always had quite a lot of staff who were homosexual males.

I had never heard of this before either, which is why I find it so shocking.

There is no source; the sentence is only mentioned in passing to give examples of people Diana fired during a certain period of time (I’ll quote the full paragraph below).

What adds to the confusion is that the book does mention homosexual men: “In what the Palace staff saw as a deliberate attempt to upset [the Prince of Whales], she flirted with the more handsome (and usually gay) footmen.” (Page 100). This gives me the impression that Diana was okay with gay men (and a great supporter of the community), so why would she have an issue with a gay woman?

I’m just trying to understand the circumstances surrounding the firing, and I don’t want to make any judgments without knowing the context.

The full paragraph: “She was not alone in her sentiment. When she had first moved into Buckingham Palace, Diana had been anxious to the point of embarrassment to make friends with the staff. Once installed as Princess of Wales she swung in the opposite direction, and by 1985 some forty royal servants had been ‘let go’ on the Princess’s instructions. This enforced exodus included footmen, police officers and chauffeurs. A maid was dismissed on the totally unfounded charge that she was a lesbian.” (Page 100: The Queen and Di: The Untold Story by Ingrid Seward).