Thanks for the response, Xenia.
I must confess that
I dont find such an example to be a
clear indication of trying to portray Charles as a bad father. She took opportunity to disclose the strong relationship
she had with her children and many millions of people either wanted or were happy to see that, obviously.
If anything it identified that although princes of the blood, her boys were enjoying an upbringing that could be fun and happy and in a sense, not unlike many other children the world over.
In later years, did Charles not give his approval to have journalists and photographers attend a photo shoot at Verbier to record the comradery and togetherness he shared/shares with his sons? There is an interest, he udnerstood that, and he was happy to oblige.
If people are eager to look into the reasons as to why Diana personally invited or allowed such coverage to take place, then shouldn't the same questions be asked of Charles? Or is it a case of no one being sceptical of a father's motivations? Even though this particular father is known to have been zealously interested in his own popularity and public image
(with or without cause).
Personally I see nothing wrong with either of the mentioned occasions.
Diana's association with the media, if we can look beyond the sometimes contrived nature of the said relationship for a moment, is now considered commonplace throughout many of the continents royal public relation ventures. Allowing access to a variety of public outings, not just official engagements, is all but an accepted part of their lives. In other words, Diana was doing nothing which is not now considered a
'normal' part of royal life
, be it with perhaps a more direct involvement on her behalf at that time.
If it is only examples such as this, then I affirm my belief until categorically
proven otherwise, that it all comes down to what people wish to believe was insighted on Diana's behalf. As it stands, it would appear to be conjecture, above all else.
She publicly tried to destroyhim.
It is here that I believe Diana was predominately manipulative. And although you think she wanted to destroy him, I think she wanted him to be answerable and applied the only sway she could to the situation in the hope of achieving this. Her public image.
In that there is a difference and although I do not agree with the employed tactics, this woman being in an emotionally vulnerable and desperate situation engaged an irrational way of dealing with both personal and joint issues. Unfortunate, unhelpful and a sad state of affairs but I would not go as far as to state that she wanted to destroy him. I think she wanted to portray herself as being in control which we all know was not the case and sure, to discredit him to some extent. I'd imagine it would have been rather embarrassing to have people know that your husband is having an extra marital affair
(before Diana herself sought company elsewhere), especially when you hold such a distinguished position with the added expectation of propriety. A wife only in name. Not an easy pill to swallow, no matter how much or how little she contributed to the initial breakdown of her marriage.
Unlike Charles, Diana's positive public image was one thing that found it's feet quite quickly. It flourished. Charles' image could be considered as having long been purculiar and I would suggest that she knowingly used that to her advantage in this instance. Again, an example of the aforementioned tendancy for strategising at a time of great personal despondency. A trait that can often be found with someone who lives with chronic mental health.
With a magnitude of insecurities no doubt weighing heavily, I'd endeavour to suggest that the one constant in her life apart from her children, was the wider affection of the community at large which was a source of great strength for her and provided the validation she clearly felt she needed.
What she might have said to them in private was massively undermined with what she told the world.
It does seem as being really quite inconsistent, and for the most part it was. But again, it was not Charles as a father which caused their marital unhappiness. Subjecting them to information about the breakdown of their marriage, be it on a global stage, does not suggest that she spoke with her boys about their father, in his capacity
as a father. That was my point.