Prince Charles was an insider

[LouisFerdinand]

Prince Charles was a member of the Royal Family. Did he have conception of what marrying into the Royal Family would have meant to Lady Diana?

[Trudie]

I doubt Charles cared what the conceptions of marrying in to the RF meant for Diana. Charles and the RF at that time felt it was a privilege that they would adapt to. The only purpose was to make sure there were legitimate heirs and sadly they had to give up their own families and in a sense their own identities.

[TLLK]

I agree with @Trudie regarding the position of the BRF when it came to those who married into the family. Prior to the 20th century, the majority who married into the family were also members of a European royal family. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Duke of York and later George VI) and Lady Alice Montague (Duke of Gloucester) were like Diana from the aristocracy, but were raised in an era when well-born young ladies really only had the option of marrying well. Living in a flat with roommates wasn't a real option for most well-born ladies of that generation unlike Diana's. Also the media attention being paid to Diana was completely out of the ordinary compared to others who had married into the family. I'm not sure if anyone could have adequately prepared her for that.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Good points all around, I think there was part a change in society that caused Diana to fall through the cracks, and part the RF being insensitive to ppl joining the firm from outside.

Yes, girls from prior generations usually were in royal families from other countries/empires,so other than the language barrier if any, there was little to teach someone from a similar background, staffers in the house, etc. But as empires collapsed, and countries shed their monarchies, the RF was left with fewer options like that, so had to draw from their own ranks of earls, lords, etc. for brides.

Then add to that the women lib movement and changing social norms, etc. and Diana seemed to slip through the cracks of the upbringing of old, with coming out balls,etc. Add to that the disruptions in her family life, and she was not given the education of what she was getting in for. Idk if they just figured shed marry well, but not that well, so they didnt bother to teach her what she needed to make the transition easier, or if there was something else going on there, imo the Spencers also share a healthy dose of blame for the troubles Diana would face in terms of not knowing what to expect/what was likely to happen with Charles.

Also the RF is not very good at getting either the in laws or their own ready for royal life, I remember prince Edward mentioning that, about how youre not really taught, more like youre thrown in and learn by doing, which sounds good, but theres little praise for doing well and lots of criticism for imperfection, so it doesnt set a new member up for success. Even now, there is talk about the RF not learning from their past with Harry's girlfriend.

Add to that a man who really didnt want to get married, wasnt big on changing his life to accommodate others, and it was not easy to see where the problems would happen. Diana had a modern and upper class but not royal version of marriage where "happy wife, happy life" would be in play, and Charles had his head in the nineteenth century regarding royal marriages.

[TLLK]

I tend to believe that the BRF was under the impression that because Mark Phillips, Lady Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson had some brief acquaintance with the Windsors through the equestrian world, a childhood at Sandringham or gatherings at polo that they would be more easily incorporated into the main branch. (Lady Fermoy likely encouraged that her granddaughter was a good candidate for Princess of Wales due to this acquaintance.) The expectation was that their private lives were to be dominated by the BRF calendar and traditions. No  wonder Mrs. Phillips was not happy that her son was always with his in-laws.

It appears that over time a change has occurred in how the newcomers are introduced to royal life.  Sophie Rhys-Jones, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Autumn Kelly, Catherine Middleton and Mike Tindall have all IMHO benefited from this change and have had IMO an easier transition into this new life. (Of course Autumn and Mike are not performing royal duties and are not titled, but they had to adapt to a very new way of life.)

[sandy]

Diana took to royal life as far as royal duties far more than Camilla Parker Bowles, IMO.  Kate is not the hardest working person on the planet and that transitioned over to her life as a royal. Mike, Mark,  and Autumn were never expected to do royal duties. Sophie also is married to a man way down in line of succession. Diana's adaptation included the dysfunction of knowing the husband was not dropping the mistress. Camilla was the long term mistress who had about 8 years to adapt pre marriage thanks to an expensive spin doctor  hired by Prince Charles.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Oh yeah @TLLK I forgot to mention the media part, that was what i saw i think it was koo stark, or one of andys girls mentioning that MM treatment hasnt changed enough from back in her days. Idk if thats accurate or not, didnt follow KS much.

I will be fair and say that yes, the RF wasnt prepared for the huge media attention Diana received, however it was obvious to anyone who saw her in those days against the backdrop of the times that she was going to be something really special, and even before the marriage, the ppl whose job it was to get ahead of things like this in terms of the RF staying front and center and not having Diana outshine them, failed totally. But most of the palace appointments were as much pedigree and connections as much as qualifications, in 1980 the RF should have got themselves some "mad men" type PR advice.

Also to be fair, Kate went through FAR less press hassles than Diana, there are very few pics of her running from the paps, and the few that are there, the numbers of them are a small fraction of the Colherne Court days.

[TLLK]

Oh yeah @TLLK I forgot to mention the media part, that was what i saw i think it was koo stark, or one of andys girls mentioning that MM treatment hasnt changed enough from back in her days. Idk if thats accurate or not, didnt follow KS much.

I will be fair and say that yes, the RF wasnt prepared for the huge media attention Diana received, however it was obvious to anyone who saw her in those days against the backdrop of the times that she was going to be something really special, and even before the marriage, the ppl whose job it was to get ahead of things like this in terms of the RF staying front and center and not having Diana outshine them, failed totally. But most of the palace appointments were as much pedigree and connections as much as qualifications, in 1980 the RF should have got themselves some "mad men" type PR advice.

Also to be fair, Kate went through FAR less press hassles than Diana, there are very few pics of her running from the paps, and the few that are there, the numbers of them are a small fraction of the Colherne Court days.

Sophie and Kate had the advantage of their having some years of their courtships happening with less press intrusion. Edward was not attracting as much press attention I believe because the media was focused upon the divorces happening to his elder siblings and by the mid-nineties the public wasn't very interested in him or a future spouse. IMO this was likely seen as a bonus by Edward and Sophie who were able to escape the glare of the cameras that had focused on Diana and Sarah in the 1980's. William was still shielded from press attention while at St. Andrews so it wasn't until he and Kate went skiing that the press got wind of Kate's existence. She was under more attention after graduation of course. It appears that lessons were learned in how to introduce the newcomers to a gradual introduction to royal life and that excluding an in-law from their families doesn't make any sense. It's too bad that it took such a long time for the BRF to figure that one out.

I'd forgotten about Koo Stark too. She seemed very nice and I think that she and Andrew would have been happy, but obviously it didn't work out.

[Izabella]

In other news, The Met has a portrait of Phillip IV of Spain looking swanky and shifty in his Flemish "ready for a zombie apocalypse" gear.  :lol:

[sandy]

Oh yeah @TLLK I forgot to mention the media part, that was what i saw i think it was koo stark, or one of andys girls mentioning that MM treatment hasnt changed enough from back in her days. Idk if thats accurate or not, didnt follow KS much.

I will be fair and say that yes, the RF wasnt prepared for the huge media attention Diana received, however it was obvious to anyone who saw her in those days against the backdrop of the times that she was going to be something really special, and even before the marriage, the ppl whose job it was to get ahead of things like this in terms of the RF staying front and center and not having Diana outshine them, failed totally. But most of the palace appointments were as much pedigree and connections as much as qualifications, in 1980 the RF should have got themselves some "mad men" type PR advice.

Also to be fair, Kate went through FAR less press hassles than Diana, there are very few pics of her running from the paps, and the few that are there, the numbers of them are a small fraction of the Colherne Court days.

Sophie and Kate had the advantage of their having some years of their courtships happening with less press intrusion. Edward was not attracting as much press attention I believe because the media was focused upon the divorces happening to his elder siblings and by the mid-nineties the public wasn't very interested in him or a future spouse. IMO this was likely seen as a bonus by Edward and Sophie who were able to escape the glare of the cameras that had focused on Diana and Sarah in the 1980's. William was still shielded from press attention while at St. Andrews so it wasn't until he and Kate went skiing that the press got wind of Kate's existence. She was under more attention after graduation of course. It appears that lessons were learned in how to introduce the newcomers to a gradual introduction to royal life and that excluding an in-law from their families doesn't make any sense. It's too bad that it took such a long time for the BRF to figure that one out.

I'd forgotten about Koo Stark too. She seemed very nice and I think that she and Andrew would have been happy, but obviously it didn't work out.

Edward and Sophie provided another televised royal wedding, low key, but watched nevertheless but not as remembered as the others were.

I think Kate's photo on the runway in see through dress got the most hype during her University years (by the media).

Diana's issues were more with Charles and Camilla. IMO.

[TLLK]

^^^Though in  those early years I think the press attention was really overwhelming for her and  IMO it would have been so for most people. Until Diana was actually engaged to Charles and moved into BP, steps would not be taken to give her some protection though perhaps BP believed from past experience that things would settle down after the wedding. It couldn't have be easy to have dozens of photographers following your every move. AFAIK that hadn't happened to the brides from the 20's, 30's, 60's and 70's as there was more restraint from the media. By the early 1980's it seems that the pack mentality had taken hold and she was under siege. Sarah Ferguson faced this to a lesser extent and has a more outgoing personality IMO. She seemed  to cope better with the attention than most people would.

[sandy]

I always thought it unfortunate that Diana had to move in to BP and stay there until the wedding. she was very isolated and the royals apparently did not spend all that much time with her. Charles left to go on a tour. I think it better that future royal wives get to stay in their own homes, with their families, pre marriage. Before the engagement was announced she had a respite and stayed with her mother and stepfather in Australia.

[TLLK]

I really agree @sandy that it would have been better to have them living with their own families like the brides of the past as both Diana and Sarah had their fiances traveling throughout those months prior to their weddings. However by the later part of the 20th century the RPOs may have had some serious concerns regarding safety from prying eyes and terrorist groups. They likely believed it was for their personal safety that they should be in a controlled site like BP.  Becoming engaged to one of the Queen's children or high profile grandchildren  would make you a target. In the 70's and 80's I believe that  the IRA would have had no qualms about assassinating Mark Phillips, Lady Diana or Sarah Ferguson especially after Lord Mountbatten's murder. By the 1990's and 2000's that would have likely shifted to other terror groups.

[Trudie]

The biggest problem back then was Diana and Sarah were isolated from all they had known. Their lives from the moment of the announcement was controlled from their movements to speaking in public or seeing friends and family I doubt the RF clued them in until it was too late to back out.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Good points, yes @TLLK in the days of the QM and HM, there was more press restraint, far few press outlets, and less options, no tv for QM and tv was just starting when HM married. However the RF had this attitude that whatever came ones way was "the thing to do" idk if its the human nature that thinks the next generation has it easier than their own, or if they thought, well "no one had to step in with special things when i was engaged" forgetting the above point of less media, etc.

I agree @Trudie  about the isolation of the royal brides to be, is a bad move, the conspiracy theorist in me thinks its to isolate and mold their personality to fit in with what the Rf wants, mental health and wellbeing of the person involved is secondary. Yes there were valid security concerns about the IRA, etc. Princess Anne had an attempted kidnapping in the mid 70s.

But I think a RPO or some other security arrangement would have been adequate, would have allowed them to adjust better, win win all around. Charles had proposed just before the OZ trip, hoping she would say no, despite what he said, he never rang her up down there.

Obviously he had other women on his mind, but if I had proposed to that heavenly creature, id want to know asap, not waiting around for 3 weeks. It would have driven a man in love CRAZY the waiting, something we forgot to ponder when he said "whatever love means" guess we all back then didnt want to see what was in front of us.  :brightside:

[TLLK]

The biggest problem back then was Diana and Sarah were isolated from all they had known. Their lives from the moment of the announcement was controlled from their movements to speaking in public or seeing friends and family I doubt the RF clued them in until it was too late to back out.

Yes I think that they could have found a way to balance security needs with access to friends, family and fiance. I know that Sarah attempted to keep going to work after the engagement announcement, but ultimately it was just too difficult.
Double post auto-merged: November 12, 2016, 10:22:24 PM

The biggest problem back then was Diana and Sarah were isolated from all they had known. Their lives from the moment of the announcement was controlled from their movements to speaking in public or seeing friends and family I doubt the RF clued them in until it was too late to back out.

And I can only imagine that  ending a very public engagement would be difficult for anyone. However in the end it does seem to turn out for the better.  I think Princess Madeline of Sweden was the most recent royal to end one after it was revealed that her boyfriend/fiance Jonas Bergstrom had been unfaithful. She left Sweden for New York to escape the press attention and to take some time for herself. Later she met her husband Chris O'Neil.

[Curryong]

Of course, we are speaking of a very different time, even if it was only the 1980's. When the Quern Mother became engaged in the early 1920's she stayed in the family home under her mother's supervision, simply because the aristocracy then still had large town houses in London. She still saw old friends and kept her social life up. That wasn't possible with Diana, as her parents were not only divorced but her mother and stepfather had decided to make a new start on a sheep station in Australia.

Sarah's mother had bolted long before and Sarah had enjoyed an independent life in Switzerland and London. But in the 1980's the old guard were still in place in BP, and so, for Diana at least, it was felt that Royal training should be uppermost and if she missed her cozy life in her flat with her girlfriends then she would just have to suck it up. Sarah's loneliness came after marriage with Andrew away at sea, and the Palace and its empty corridors just devoid of life. 

[TLLK]

^^^Thanks for the information @Curryong. I'd not realized that Frances was not living in the UK during that time. I was under the impression that her mother and step-father were just visiting the country and not residing there full time. Yes that would have left her without a supportive adult figure as Diana would probably not turned to John and Raine for advice/comfort and her sisters were busy with their own young families.

Likely the BP staff/courtiers thought that Diana would sooner or later come around to her new life and dismissed any tears as just pre-wedding nerves and jitters. I believe that it wasn't until the nineties that they had to admit that their approach with newcomers had to be revamped.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Frances and Peter Shand Kydd lived on the isle of Seil  in Scotland and had farming and business interests in Australia so she didnt spend all her time there back then. https://princessdianabookboutique.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/image13.jpeg

Raine and Diana had written back in sept 80 and i believe early 81, the letters were up for auction awhile back and they were much happier than the usual story of the rocky relationship, but I dont know many stories of any marriage advice they might have shared.

Most of the comfort she got from her family was too little too late, she talked to her dad the morning after a pre wedding party intent on backing out, but he talked her around, and of course her sisters gave the infamous "face on the tea towels" comfort.

So yes, it does seem Diana "fell through the cracks" in terms of female role models to tell her how a lot of upper class marriages really work. It would be interesting to speculate if her expectations for marriage would have been different, would the marriage have endured?

[TLLK]

Thank you @Duch_Luver_4ever for sharing those facts about Frances and Peter. And I agree that if Diana had more information regarding the reality of many upper class marriages she could have made a better informed decision regarding Charles' proposal. Her sisters' marriages appear to be based in middle class expectations rather than upper class ones and they themselves had not been married very long by the time Diana became engaged. I'm not sure if they could have been the best advisors on that subject.

[sandy]

Frances and Peter Shand Kydd lived on the isle of Seil  in Scotland and had farming and business interests in Australia so she didnt spend all her time there back then. https://princessdianabookboutique.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/image13.jpeg

Raine and Diana had written back in sept 80 and i believe early 81, the letters were up for auction awhile back and they were much happier than the usual story of the rocky relationship, but I dont know many stories of any marriage advice they might have shared.

Most of the comfort she got from her family was too little too late, she talked to her dad the morning after a pre wedding party intent on backing out, but he talked her around, and of course her sisters gave the infamous "face on the tea towels" comfort.

So yes, it does seem Diana "fell through the cracks" in terms of female role models to tell her how a lot of upper class marriages really work. It would be interesting to speculate if her expectations for marriage would have been different, would the marriage have endured?

I think no matter what Diana did or acted, Charles would have treated her badly. Because he preferred the other woman and the other woman had ambitions. IN this day and age, it is unheard of that a woman has to be a doormat and put up and shut up. Charles was the one who knew the score and should have put his cards on the table before he thought of proposing to Diana. Diana if she did not like sharing Charles with this mistress could have backed out. I don't think "upper class marriages" always include mistresses on the side. Happy and faithful partners are known to exist. Maybe CHarles should have learned the rules of how to treat a wife.
Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2016, 05:38:25 PM

^^^Thanks for the information @Curryong. I'd not realized that Frances was not living in the UK during that time. I was under the impression that her mother and step-father were just visiting the country and not residing there full time. Yes that would have left her without a supportive adult figure as Diana would probably not turned to John and Raine for advice/comfort and her sisters were busy with their own young families.

Likely the BP staff/courtiers thought that Diana would sooner or later come around to her new life and dismissed any tears as just pre-wedding nerves and jitters. I believe that it wasn't until the nineties that they had to admit that their approach with newcomers had to be revamped.

Diana's issues were not work but with Charles keeping Camilla around. ALthough she was edgy and nervous at her first royal duty, she did extremely well. Her problems were at home.   If WIlliam had a Camilla I doubt the "approach" would have been changed for Kate. She's have to put up and shut up and remember what happened to Diana for complaining. Sophie and Edward married in the nineties.  And Edward was not going to be monarch, so obviously the same pressure was not on Sophie, plus Edward had no mistress. Kate I think is being overcoddled and really should be doing more now.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Im not talking about being a doormat, or shutting up, what im talking about is finding a way through a situation she found herself in that would have been a much happier situation for her. Im talking pragmatism vs. Idealism.

Yes, it would have been ideal for Charles and the RF to put their cards on the table beforehand, but that was unlikely to happen. Very few adulterers will admit to it beforehand. Also they thought very little of Dianas ability to harm them, which they learned to regret.

We've all discussed the reasons the Rf needed Diana, and yes, its awful that it happened to her. Hindsight has shown it was probably best for both sides if all cards had been placed on the table, although over the long term and going out the next 10-20 years im sure some C&C fans might argue that except for the turbulent 90s, they ultimately profited by keeping things secret. (although im sure Diana fans like myself would view it an evil and ill gotten reward). With Diana being the first to escape an heir to the throne with her head intact for some time...but not for long.

My reasons for wishing for a more pragmatic solution to the whole thing are: She went through a lot of mental anguish over the collapse of the fairytail and low self esteem for her role and being in the family as a result of the whole situation.

She would have been able to keep her life and see her kids grow up & her grandkids born (yes, im a tinfoil hatter that thinks she was killed, in any event, she wouldnt have been divorced and over there without RPO's etc., if you think it was an accident.)

All the anguish around her death would have been avoided, yes she would have died sometime, but we all would have taken a peaceful death in her sleep in her 90s or something much much better.

I think her family did her a disservice by not opening her eyes more, especially Sarah, who had dated Charles, and had to have seen or her womens intuition picked up on skeletons in the closet, but she and Diana had a rivalry, and she was jealous at Diana getting what she said in st pauls "it thought all this would be mine". So maybe she figured it was too bad and Diana would have to learn all this for herself.....

Look at all the prominent men who have had other women, or left their wives for other women, etc. Its a sad fact of life that most ppl (men and women )are as faithful as their options, and a man who is heir to the throne is going to have many options. Is it right? no Is it moral? no Is it the way it is????yes!

Even Diana's behaviour changed as she got famous and had a constant queue of ppl lining up to be seen by her or offer her advice, etc.

I think it would have been best if all was laid out after the marriage, but by then it was too late, but failing that, I would have liked to see her with the knowledge to have handled that in a way where she could have had happiness outside the marriage on her own terms and not had it all wrapped up in Charles.

Its kinda like birth control, should both parties have an equal effort in it, yes, does that happen most times, no, because for men, the consequences historically have been low and women high, so women have always led the way in it, because they bore the brunt of not paying attention to it. Its the same way with infidelity, the consequences for Charles was low, and for Diana high, esp during the 80s and 90s, so while unfair, it ultimately would have served her better to have gone in with her eyes open and a plan to deal with it.

She did to her credit try and learn her way, but she was coming to it with a lot less experience than charles and from a situation where she was desperately unhappy, and the quality of her choices and relationships outside the marriage suffered for it.

[sandy]

Had Charles treated her in a civil way maybe she could have stood it. But his friends (with IMO Charles's blessing) started leaking stories about her to the press pre-Morton book. And Charles would put her down in public (there is one very documented case of his saying that he needed "two wives").  Charles was the one who should have been honest and told Diana what he expected. The Spencers could have done only so much. I think Diana's father did not want to hear any negatives about it, he was said to be "proud" of Diana at the time of the marriage.  I also think Camilla's ambitions for herself cannot be underestimated. I think she systematically undermined Diana and Charles was foolish enough to go for her to advice.  Charles was too weak and selfish to drop Camilla so Diana could never really win. With the other woman lurking around causing damage, Diana did not stand a chance. She'd have had to been a doormat to put up with his emotional abuse to survive in a no-win situation. Diana also wanted to real relationship and was no Queen Alexandra. At least Edward did not dump Alexandra, in an intimate way. The many children they had attests to this.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I dont disagree with most of that, my main issue is that Diana was not given the tools she needed to  make her way through that marriage by her friends and family as she grew up. As early as nine she talked with her nanny about her views on marriage, and they stayed pretty much the same as she grew up.

Now had she met a man that felt about her like I do, or many others, that wouldnt have been a problem, but with the stats on marriage breakups over the years as she grew up, and as her older sisters learned the true world of love and marriage, both high born and low born, someone should have as they say "gave her the memo" on it.

That way she could have gone in with her eyes open, and made a decision from a position of strength.

Am I excusing or saying its ok what C&C did, of course not, to use an analogy, its not ok for someone to break into my house, but shouldnt someone also teach me how to use the door locks?

IMO Diana was driven from her marriage, she had to leave to gain her piece of mind, freedom and some would argue, and peace of mind. I think she should have had the option to have been forewarned and have been able to not pin all her hopes for love, contentment and happiness on her "prince charming" who in her case turned out to be a dud.

She should have had the choice, if she wanted, to find a stable long term lover like he did, and make the RF foot the bill for he living expenses, have her children close by, and all the trapping of being royal that she gave up so much to acquire.

Given her ever accelerating fame, some have argued that she was unlikely to find another husband that would provide long lasting happiness. The pool of people that had the money, fame and resources to travel in her circle were few, and one could argue the emotional traits they had to have to acquire them on their own would not have made them, tender loving, nurturing mates. It most likely would have been a marriage where Diana would have been an object of status in exchange for resources or protection that she required.

She tried the "regular person" relationship with Hasnat Khan, now that failed more due to Khans shortcomings than the differences in fame, etc. but that route I think would also have been fraught with difficulties. Really, as much as Diana fans might not like to think of it, from a pragmatic perspective, it would have been the best situation for her to have Charles around to pay the bills and have someone else on the side. I think because she was so thrown for a loop over finding out the true nature of the marriage it affected her ability to pick a suitable long term lover.

Just my two cents looking at it from a realistic point of view, yes the ideal would have been a man that would have nurtured, cared and loved her deeply and worked tirelessly so she would never have a moment of concern, worry or sadness, goodness knows she deserved it.  Since that wasnt to be, this was the best way forward with what she had to work with.

[sandy]

Who can cope in such a situation? I don't think any advice could have made it "easier" for her to be in a marriage where the husband preferred another woman.

Diana was young and wanted a loving husband and perhaps more children. Charles made it clear they were over.

Anybody would be traumatized leaving such a marriage particularly when the husband was putting her down, even publicly. 

The thing is Charles is to blame for not telling Diana what he really expected from her in the marriage. Some women might have stayed in the marriage since they married only for the perks in the first place. Diana wanted a loving husband.

Diana had money of her own Charles just paying her bills and yet treating her with contempt was not worth it IMO.

And Charles was not just with mistresses, he had a mistress who had ambitions and wanted Diana out of the picture.