The Late Princess of Wales' Likes and Dislikes


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
una said:
Do we know that Charles didn't come to love her, or was it just that he couldn't live with her? One of the most touching stories I've read about her likes was when Charles went to Paris to collect her body, and they were getting her ready to leave the hospital. He asked them to look for her earrings (one was lost) because, he said, she always liked to wear them when she was out in public.

I remember reading this story too and thought the same thing...it was very touching.
 
That story is very, very touching. He was quite disturbed about the fact one was missing and kept saying "Diana always wore earrings in public; we must find it." And, yes, it turned up later in the dashboard of the car.

I also found the french nurses and representatives from the funeral home very sympathetic and kind in their treatment of Diana before Paul Burrell then Prince Charles arrived. One found a recent photo of Diana and they used it as their guide as they carefully made her up and restyled her hair. Before the black dress from Margaret Jay, the British ambassador's wife, arrived, the nurses stood guard to make sure Diana's body was always discreetly covered so no one would see anything but her face. And all of this on their own accord as everyone in administration was busy dealing with the press and other matters.
 
According to Paul Burrell, Hermes 24 Faubourg was on her dressing table at the time of her death. Apparently, Diana admitted on Larry King that it was her favorite as well.
 
Did someone already mention Diana disliked emeralds? It is true.
 
I never heard of that story. It is very touching. One of those good and real moments that are overlooked.
 
dakodas said:
Did someone already mention Diana disliked emeralds? It is true.
Interesting. I think I vageuly remember hearing that when Diana and Charles got engaged, people came to the palace with lots of rings to choose from, and they had been instructed 'not to bring rubies or emeralds' I can't remember where I heard that though, I think it was true.
 
Diana and her brother did not have a good brother/sister relationship. After they had an argument concerning his rescinding an offer for Diana to have a private cottage on the grounds of Althorp, Charles Spencer demanded the tiara back out of spite. Diana had every right to mad at her brother for this
This is truly sad. If this is the case. Then I am happy that William & Harry really have nothing to do with him. Kick someone while they are down {ed}.
The whole tiara/cottage business was just spiteful on Earl Spencer's part IMO. So petty...
I have always heard somethings about this but, never realy knew the details . I have to stop reading now, {ed}. I am liking this man even less than I already . :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diana was never on Larry King.

dakodas said:
According to Paul Burrell, Hermes 24 Faubourg was on her dressing table at the time of her death. Apparently, Diana admitted on Larry King that it was her favorite as well.
 
maryshawn said:
The whole tiara/cottage business was just spiteful on Earl Spencer's part IMO. So petty.....

I respecfully disagree Maryshawn. Earl Spencer is not one of my favorite people but I can't understand why people would fault him for this.

The Spencer tiara has traditionally been reserved for daughters of the family at their weddings and for the Countess to wear at tiara functions. Like other family heirlooms, it was meant to stay in the familly. For the Earl to lend it out to Diana for other functions was already being generous, It didn't belong to Diana by right. Surely when he married he was well within his rights to expect the tiara back for his wife.

As far as his conduct after her death, it is just disgusting I agree. I don't know what his game is now, but when he didn't want Diana to come to Althorp he may have been influenced by his wife and children at the time. They could be justified in thinking that the presence of the press would disrupt their lives.

The Earl and Diana were very close as children. I think its sad that they drifted apart in adulthood because I believe her relationship with her brother was one of the few really close relationships she had from childhood.
 
What is your source for this info? Speaking about her on his show doesn't mean he ever was in touch with her.
 
I understand what you're saying, ysbel. The reason for my irritation/disgust....total bewilderment with his conduct re: the tiara is he seemed quite content for her to use it for awhile but then, when things between he and Diana became frosty, he demanded it back as kind of an "in your face" move. Kind of like the cottage on the estate which he offered then said "no" after she'd gotten excited about it, had the decorator in to begin working on it,.......If he had concerns about security, he should have thought that through beforehand or discussed with her instead of just writing a letter saying "I've rethought it and you can't use the cottage." Indeed, the tiara/cottage are his to loan out or not as he sees fit. Is it me or, does it just strike you this family has major issues with communication with one another????? What a shame! I share your feelings about the rift between the two as they were close as children--from what I gather, they had a deep, close, very personal bond. Then, it all went to pieces. I think they both could have well used one another's support and it's sad that couldn't/didn't happen.

PS I was digging through old issues of People and he gave an interview with a two page shot of the bedroom Diana used at Althorp. I was interested, of course, in seeing it--but it also seemed a bit tasteless.

ysbel said:
I respecfully disagree Maryshawn. Earl Spencer is not one of my favorite people but I can't understand why people would fault him for this.

The Spencer tiara has traditionally been reserved for daughters of the family at their weddings and for the Countess to wear at tiara functions. Like other family heirlooms, it was meant to stay in the familly. For the Earl to lend it out to Diana for other functions was already being generous, It didn't belong to Diana by right. Surely when he married he was well within his rights to expect the tiara back for his wife.

As far as his conduct after her death, it is just disgusting I agree. I don't know what his game is now, but when he didn't want Diana to come to Althorp he may have been influenced by his wife and children at the time. They could be justified in thinking that the presence of the press would disrupt their lives.

The Earl and Diana were very close as children. I think its sad that they drifted apart in adulthood because I believe her relationship with her brother was one of the few really close relationships she had from childhood.
 
maryshawn,

I totally agree with you. The reasons why Diana and her brother became estranged is a big mystery to me. If you compare Diana to the Queen Mother who was also very close to her youngest brother and the close relationship they had all through their lives, its especially sad.

I think Diana's family had real problems with communicating and personal relationships. Right after Diana's death, one British commentator mentioned that the Spencers could teach the royals a thing or two about being a dysfunctional family. No one in that family seems close.

One reason I don't blame Charles and Camilla for all of Diana's heartache is that I think Diana was still in her mind battling the fight of her parent's nasty divorce while she was in the midst of her own separation and divorce. People around her said she had an unquenchable fear of ending up like her mother. The more I read about her parent's divorce the more I'm disgusted with how totally horrible it must have been for everybody involved. Of course, Diana and her brother would have been the most affected by it but I imagine that her sisters recreated some of their childhood battles in their adult life too.

I lost my respect for Earl Spencer when he joined one of the American TV networks as commentator for Andrew and Sarah's wedding. He barely knew the bride and groom, the only reason he was asked was that he was Diana's brother. He didn't add any very insightful commentary; he was totally superfluous in my opinion. It was one of the stupidest moves I saw made by a TV network at the time.

I had thought that he asked for the tiara back when he got married but if he did it at another time other than for the fact that his wife needed to start wearing it, that's is unnecessary. I don't know how long Diana had it, but since these tiaras are part of the property that needs to be handed down with the earldom he may have had to get it back eventually. For whatever reason, he shouldn't have led her along like he did and once he realized he needed the tiara and couldn't afford to have her stay at Althorp he should have played it straight with her and told her upfront.

But as you say, this family has a lot of communication problems. In private, they are known to be impetuous and hot tempered with each other so that particular conversation if it had happened probably wouldn't have gone smoothly. He may have chosen the path of least resistance which is cowardly but it also may be a defense mechanism from growing up in that family.
 
Last edited:
He acted--emphasis on "acting"--as a commentator on Andrew and Sarah Ferguson's wedding!!!! I didn't know this before. (but, you know something; I only really started learning more about Diana's brother after her death). That is unbelievable he would position himself as some sort of authority--likely, I'm sure, playing off his ties to the royal family because of his sister. Ugh!

I'd read he'd acted as a special correspondent for NBC TV from time to time--again, I learned this after Diana's death. I found that odd, as well. In one article snippet (which I've lost since my computer crashed and I lost everything), I do recall something about him saying he'd been approached to provide insight on a number of issues; not just royalty. But I never saw him on NBC.

What I just don't understand is how the two could be so close (and Diana had a close relationship with Victoria Lockwood, as well), having endured so much together--and then this rift occured. I don't think I've ever heard him explain why he thought the rift occured or at whose behest. It seems like the offering the cottage then taking it back was the last straw for Diana--but that's my own speculation based on a few books I've read.

As others have observed, Earl Spencer made the most of his connections with his sister.....and continues to do so--albeit, I read he was considering or had decided to close her memorial at Althorp. Is this accurate?
 
Diana on Larry King?

I do recall a number of Larry King shows with people like Lucia Flecha de Lima and Earl Spencer talking about Diana but don't recall one where she was interviewed. I'll look on the CNN site to see if there is any information about this. Perhaps she was on to talk about landmines (kind of like Queen Noor). So it's possible. I'll do some digging around as it would be interesting to see/know more about.

Lady Jean said:
What is your source for this info? Speaking about her on his show doesn't mean he ever was in touch with her.
 
maryshawn said:
What I just don't understand is how the two could be so close (and Diana had a close relationship with Victoria Lockwood, as well), having endured so much together--and then this rift occured. I don't think I've ever heard him explain why he thought the rift occured or at whose behest. It seems like the offering the cottage then taking it back was the last straw for Diana--but that's my own speculation based on a few books I've read.

As others have observed, Earl Spencer made the most of his connections with his sister.....and continues to do so--albeit, I read he was considering or had decided to close her memorial at Althorp. Is this accurate?

Yes, maryshawn, I think the family as a whole made the most of their connections with Diana with the possible exception of her mother. The Earl, her father, made the most of the publicity that came his way during the engagement and the first part of the marriage. He gave interviews and invited People magazine to an event at his house. He threw in some words about Diana but he was basically showing off his house. Her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland, while not a blood relative, gave several interviews extolling the marriage as a classic British success story and promoting her books in the process.

Normally, I don't mind the family coming into some good luck when one of their own makes good but several people close to the Spencers said that her father distrusted the marriage and warned Diana against it. Its hard to reconcile that image with that of the Earl in early interviews who bragged of his daughter's suitability for the role because she 'had never had a lover' and mused about Charles asking his permission saying playfully, 'I wonder what he would have done if I had said no' It seemed he was pushing his daughter to the world as perfect princess material while at the same time privately having grave doubts of how the marriage would turn out. It did look that they were pushing Diana to the fore to make themselves look good and I think that was just irresponsible.

I'd be curious as to the reason Diana and her brother called it off too. She had an on-again off-again relationship with her mother but I don't think they were ever really close and that seems sad because her mother seemed to have the most sense of anyone in the family. She was the one who warned Diana about the hangers-on that took advantage of her. They didn't speak for the last 6 months of Diana's life. I don't know whether it was Frances who got disgusted with Diana over the people she had around her or Diana who got defensive with Frances and broke off contact but at any rate it must have been a cruel blow to Frances when Diana died.
 
I agree with everything you wrote, ysbel, about Diana's family cashing in on their connection to her--despite professed "behind the scenes" concerns about her suitability and the marriage, in general.

As for the reason Diana and her mother were not on speaking terms at the time of her death, I've read in several books that it was because Frances gave an interview stating she was "glad Diana no longer had the HRH title." This statement on it's own is out of context. Diana's mother hoped it would give her daughter more freedom to build a happy life free of royal confines. In one book--I think it was Simone Simmon's latest so you have to take it for what it's worth--Paul Burrell fanned the fires of animosity which blazed between Diana and others, including her mother by reading bits and pieces of statements her friends/relatives made or things they did--then commiserating with her and "agreeing" they should be scratched off her list. While, ultimately, no one will ever know the whole story, Mr. Burrell does have a history of trying to keep Diana "to himself" and seemed jealous of others in her life--so I don't entirely discount parts of this story.

"I'd be curious as to the reason Diana and her brother called it off too. She had an on-again off-again relationship with her mother but I don't think they were ever really close and that seems sad because her mother seemed to have the most sense of anyone in the family. She was the one who warned Diana about the hangers-on that took advantage of her. They didn't speak for the last 6 months of Diana's life. I don't know whether it was Frances who got disgusted with Diana over the people she had around her or Diana who got defensive with Frances and broke off contact but at any rate it must have been a cruel blow to Frances when Diana died.[/quote]
 
i remember reading that Diana also hated being call "Di". to this day it's like fingernails on a chalkboard when i hear people calling her that.
 
It's so sad seeing how Simmone Simmons is now claiming all kinds of things about Diana. Personally, and remembering what a sense of humour the Princess had (and the fact that she sometimes purposely said something outrageous to see if she could trust someone - i.e. if it appeared in the Press she knew that person couldn't be trusted) I wonder in some instances whether Diana didn't do this with this particular 'friend'....i.e. tell her an outrageous claim to see if it appeared in the papers. I know this is certainly something Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, did with members of his own staff - he once told someone something quite sensational and then sat back to see what happened. Said staff member did, indeed, sell the story to the Press and was ultimately sacked.

Regarding Simone Simmons' claims, I don't, personally, think Diana did have a relationship with JFK Jnr and I certainly don't think she would've have had any kind of 'tryst' with George W. Bush (I even wonder whether she ever even met the current President?). These claims are just becoming more and more outrageous. I wonder if others agree with me in thinking Miss Simmons is just thinking up the biggest names in America and linking them to Diana in whatever way she can so as to promote and sell her book to the American market and/or people?

Kindest regards,
Joanne
 
Squidgy said:
Yes, she did wear the Spencer tiara - you can read (& see) more about the wedding on this thread:)

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4098

I'm so happy I checked out this thread! I fell in love with Victoria's mantilla style veil. I used to have this Hola magazine with beautiful pictures of her wedding to the Earl but I lost it when I moved.

I've always thought the Spencer tiara was for Spencer ladies to wear at fancy events. I don't see why Diana would have had exclusive use of it. What about her sisters? If it is true about her brother demanding the tiara back-that seems petty and mean. Then again he allegedly made sport of his first wife's eating disorders. And she does indeed look shockingly thin in her wedding photos. I didn't notice it when I was younger.
 
I SO have to agree with you and also really liked your excellent point about how sometimes Diana and her brother--and others, no doubt--"floated" stories to see if they would be leaked. It was an effective way of weeding out the disloyal.

Well, one book by Ms. Simmons was quite enough. When the second came out, I was dumbfounded but read it and her claims are ridiculous. As you said, the name dropping was bizarre! JFK, Jr.? I don't think so...and the Bushes???? Beyond bizarre.

For someone who kept claiming in book one, she liked living simply and made a respectable living (as in making enough to live comfortably), I detest the way she is going after Diana now. I wish I'd seen the interview on the BBC where--and I cant recall his name but he has written books/articles on Diana himself--really went after her and her claims and she became quite flustered and teary-eyed! Good! I know there are many spiritualist types who do not prey on their friends/clients but Ms. Simmons seems to see one thing in her relationship with Diana: $$$$$. I found her book laughable and deplorable--and later wished I hadn't helped contribute to Ms. Simmon's coffers by buying it. She hadn't even been on speaking terms with Diana for many months prior to Diana's death so she couldn't know what was going on with Diana and Dodi yet claims to have an "inside track." By the way, isn't she breaking patient confidentiality with these "revelations?"

waywellian said:
It's so sad seeing how Simmone Simmons is now claiming all kinds of things about Diana. Personally, and remembering what a sense of humour the Princess had (and the fact that she sometimes purposely said something outrageous to see if she could trust someone - i.e. if it appeared in the Press she knew that person couldn't be trusted) I wonder in some instances whether Diana didn't do this with this particular 'friend'....i.e. tell her an outrageous claim to see if it appeared in the papers. I know this is certainly something Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, did with members of his own staff - he once told someone something quite sensational and then sat back to see what happened. Said staff member did, indeed, sell the story to the Press and was ultimately sacked.

Regarding Simone Simmons' claims, I don't, personally, think Diana did have a relationship with JFK Jnr and I certainly don't think she would've have had any kind of 'tryst' with George W. Bush (I even wonder whether she ever even met the current President?). These claims are just becoming more and more outrageous. I wonder if others agree with me in thinking Miss Simmons is just thinking up the biggest names in America and linking them to Diana in whatever way she can so as to promote and sell her book to the American market and/or people?

Kindest regards,
Joanne
 
I didn't notice how thin Victoria looked until recently either on the day of her wedding. She was interviewed in "Hello" a few months ago and was pregnant and looked wonderful. She is clean and sober--and I personally think being married to Lord Spencer would have been a challenge. He seems very self-involved--although I have read he is a good father--and made abusive comments during his marriage to Victoria, even speaking about her in a rather cruel fashion--given that she is mother to his children--in some articles. I guess he felt the need to "justify" his divorce but he needn't have gone into the detail he did about her alcoholism. But the past is past and Victoria looks beautiful and positively glowing! I hope she is very happy!!!! (BTW, I loved her gown and veil and the overall "style" of her wedding dress; it was so striking!)

The Spencer tiara indeed belongs to Earl Spencer now and it is his right to decide who can wear it. I don't know if his new wife uses it or Diana's sisters. There are two sides to every story but it seemed he went after it as a result of a frisson between he and his sister (he even returned a letter from her unopened). It was not hers but the way he went about it--particularly when he used his connections to secure a job at NBC and write articles, and later turn Althorp into a shrine for tourists--which bothered me--and apparently Diana, as well.

Queen Mary I said:
I'm so happy I checked out this thread! I fell in love with Victoria's mantilla style veil. I used to have this Hola magazine with beautiful pictures of her wedding to the Earl but I lost it when I moved.

I've always thought the Spencer tiara was for Spencer ladies to wear at fancy events. I don't see why Diana would have had exclusive use of it. What about her sisters? If it is true about her brother demanding the tiara back-that seems petty and mean. Then again he allegedly made sport of his first wife's eating disorders. And she does indeed look shockingly thin in her wedding photos. I didn't notice it when I was younger.
 
maryshawn said:
I didn't notice how thin Victoria looked until recently either on the day of her wedding. She was interviewed in "Hello" a few months ago and was pregnant and looked wonderful. She is clean and sober--and I personally think being married to Lord Spencer would have been a challenge. He seems very self-involved--although I have read he is a good father--and made abusive comments during his marriage to Victoria, even speaking about her in a rather cruel fashion--given that she is mother to his children--in some articles. I guess he felt the need to "justify" his divorce but he needn't have gone into the detail he did about her alcoholism. But the past is past and Victoria looks beautiful and positively glowing! I hope she is very happy!!!! (BTW, I loved her gown and veil and the overall "style" of her wedding dress; it was so striking!)

The Spencer tiara indeed belongs to Earl Spencer now and it is his right to decide who can wear it. I don't know if his new wife uses it or Diana's sisters. There are two sides to every story but it seemed he went after it as a result of a frisson between he and his sister (he even returned a letter from her unopened). It was not hers but the way he went about it--particularly when he used his connections to secure a job at NBC and write articles, and later turn Althorp into a shrine for tourists--which bothered me--and apparently Diana, as well.

I like that Diana is in relative peace at Althorp BUT I hate the way her brother seems to be making money off of his sister's grave. *shudder*. There is a part of me that wishes one day William (when he is King if God choose) and Harry will move their mother's remains. Perhaps to a Royal vault. I would if I were Queen Regent. I'd want my mother with all the Princesses of the Realm who are buried amongst the Kings and Queens of Britain. And it would serve Earl Spencer right. :mad:
 
Queen Mary I said:
I like that Diana is in relative peace at Althorp BUT I hate the way her brother seems to be making money off of his sister's grave. *shudder*. There is a part of me that wishes one day William (when he is King if God choose) and Harry will move their mother's remains. Perhaps to a Royal vault.
I remember this issue was discussed a while ago. Many would find it disturbing if, after wishing that Diana 'rest in peace', we then had the intention of digging her up as the Windsors and the Spencers faced off. What if Earl Spencer said "No."? Would we have an unseemly tug-of-war over the mortal remains? Very undignified and distasteful.
 
Warren said:
I remember this issue was discussed a while ago. Many would find it disturbing if, after wishing that Diana 'rest in peace', we then had the intention of digging her up as the Windsors and the Spencers faced off. What if Earl Spencer said "No."? Would we have an unseemly tug-of-war over the mortal remains? Very undignified and distasteful.

I don't think the Earl (if he is still alive when William is King) could object. Diana isn't his mother-she was William's and Harry's. I am sure if such a thing came to pass it would be discussed in a very private way. William doesn't strike me as the kind that would drag such a thing out into the public arena. They probably won't move Diana-but Will and Harry are certainly within their rights to do so. Royal remains have been moved before-Mary, Queen Of Scots by her son James when he became King of England for example. And as some of us know he commissioned perhaps the most magnificent tomb at Westminster Abbey to her memory. As a son or daughter should for a mother in my estimation-if they can.
 
It is within their rights but I bet the Spencers would turn it into a battle royale! I, too, hate the way Earl Spencer is making money off of his Diana shrine at Althorp. Of all people, Earl "yes, Diana, feel free to decorate a cottage here and use it" and then when she gets excited about it "gee, no, you can't have a cottage here, Diana, because of the media/public intrusion!" Then he does this!!!! I'd heard he was considering closing the shrine down--but was that hype or rumor? Anyone heard this or any further discussions?

Queen Mary I said:
I don't think the Earl (if he is still alive when William is King) could object. Diana isn't his mother-she was William's and Harry's. I am sure if such a thing came to pass it would be discussed in a very private way. William doesn't strike me as the kind that would drag such a thing out into the public arena. They probably won't move Diana-but Will and Harry are certainly within their rights to do so. Royal remains have been moved before-Mary, Queen Of Scots by her son James when he became King of England for example. And as some of us know he commissioned perhaps the most magnificent tomb at Westminster Abbey to her memory. As a son or daughter should for a mother in my estimation-if they can.
 
maryshawn said:
I'd heard he was considering closing the shrine down--but was that hype or rumor? Anyone heard this or any further discussions?
Yes, it was reported here that he had said the Diana memorial/museum/shrine was being closed because it was losing money.
However, a look at the Althorp website shows business as usual. Perhaps he was misquoted? :rolleyes:
 
Warren said:
Yes, it was reported here that he had said the Diana memorial/museum/shrine was being closed because it was losing money.
However, a look at the Althorp website shows business as usual. Perhaps he was misquoted? :rolleyes:

because now the diana a celebration is had been to different parts from the world.
 
Warren said:
Yes, it was reported here that he had said the Diana memorial/museum/shrine was being closed because it was losing money.
However, a look at the Althorp website shows business as usual. Perhaps he was misquoted? :rolleyes:

I don't know if the earl was misquoted or not but you do bring up a valid point concerning business as usual at Althrop. Maybe the shrine isn't losing money. How is the earl's furniture collection doing? These are issues that make you go "hmm?".
 
maryshawn said:
It is within their rights but I bet the Spencers would turn it into a battle royale!

Oh gosh, maryshawn, you're so right! Earl Spencer could and would turn it into a battle royal! :eek:

All the privately-owned manor houses in England have been losing money for quite some time but I can't imagine the shrine to be losing money except if the income can't pay for the renovation work I heard was required to repair some faulty planning. A big repair bill can turn a profitable venture into a money loser in a short amount of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom