Power and timing of the heirs for Diana

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Heres something ive rattled around in my mind for awhile and thought id throw it out. We all know that a lot of the stress and problems Diana faced was the rapid pace of all the changes in the first year. We also know that at least some of the upper crust families at least, will stay faithful until the male heir is born, and then stray for each to pursue separate romantic lives.

While the pressure to produce an heir would have been high in any case after the marriage, I think Diana sacrificed a lot of her power by having a child so soon after marriage.

Had she waited a few years, it would have been one less big change, esp with the nutritional /hormonal demands of pregnancy with the bulimia, the post partum depression, but most importantly, it would have kept Charles closer to heel, if not necessarily faithful for a few years for them to try and settle in.

They could either make the most of their incompatible natures, or she might have gotten a more realistic picture about what the marriage could give her, and been more ready to do without Charles than the way it happened.

What say you all?

[Curryong]

I think it would have been a great deal better for Diana to have had a couple of years to settle into the position of Princess of Wales, being part of the BRF, dealing with crowds etc, before having a baby.

The country had fallen in love with her however, and I'm not sure whether the slow approach that was adopted for Kate and may be for Meghan, would have worked, the way the Royal Family and the baying Press were then. The tabloids certainly wanted their darling on the front pages every day and I think at the beginning the Palace and grey men were delighted at the positive response to Diana.

I'm not sure that hiding away at Highgrove without a pregnancy to justify it would have been acceptable then, to public, media or TPTB. And in fact, in spite of hormones raging which made Diana extra tearful she did get some respite in the latter part of her pregnancy.

Of course then came the depression, and she and Charles were already such very different people who should never have married so I'm not sure that taking it slowly would have altered much. After all, those long leisurely days on the Britannia and then at Balmoral didn't, did they? In fact, that first Welsh tour and the engagements undertaken together probably at least gave them something to talk about. I also think Diana was eager to serve and to help.

One of the worst external factors IMO (apart from basic incompatibility and all the other things talked about here) was the fact that the Wales's KP apartment took forever to be altered and refurbished, meaning they didn't have a home of their own but just a suite at BP for months. What with that and Balmoral and stays at Sandringham there seemed to be an awful lot of hanging about with the inlaws when they were off duty. Not sure that non pregnancy would have changed the atmosphere, lightened the mood a huge amount.

I read somewhere that Charles wasn't particularly yearning for a baby straight away and would quite have liked a year or so's grace. Can't remember where I read it. However, Diana loved babies and small children and didn't mind the thought at all. If Charles had firmer views on the subject I suppose they would have used contraception. However, William's birth in the first year also coincided with the lime line of most Royal births up to that time. I believe when Kate didn't produce a baby or become pregnant within a year of marriage the media pointed out that it was an exception.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

 :goodpost: @Curryong I agree, the press and family pressure would have been immense to put off having a baby, and she wanted to fit in and help the family so much, and she loved children so much it would have been hard for her to put it off. Also I think she probably thought it might help the marriage both with a little one to love and giving Charles something Camilla couldnt an heir.

But she at that time, needed a bit of Camilla's craftiness to perhaps use contraception on the sly to delay having that first child, and using that power to slow down the pace of everything and try and get her feet under her better. But I agree she wanted the child sooner than Charles and I dont think she was the type to be that crafty to delay, that had to be learned by hard experience.

With the Wales trip and the delays to the KP residence they had too much time under the inlaws shadow, and the jealousy was starting up (Charles was caught kicking a pebble saying "they dont want to see me anymore") so it was likely too late to save the marriage, but she might not have gone through so much of the dark ages if the kids came say 3-5 years later and had better internal resources to deal with it.

[TLLK]

Heres something ive rattled around in my mind for awhile and thought id throw it out. We all know that a lot of the stress and problems Diana faced was the rapid pace of all the changes in the first year. We also know that at least some of the upper crust families at least, will stay faithful until the male heir is born, and then stray for each to pursue separate romantic lives.

While the pressure to produce an heir would have been high in any case after the marriage, I think Diana sacrificed a lot of her power by having a child so soon after marriage.

Had she waited a few years, it would have been one less big change, esp with the nutritional /hormonal demands of pregnancy with the bulimia, the post partum depression, but most importantly, it would have kept Charles closer to heel, if not necessarily faithful for a few years for them to try and settle in.

They could either make the most of their incompatible natures, or she might have gotten a more realistic picture about what the marriage could give her, and been more ready to do without Charles than the way it happened.

What say you all?

Absolutely agree that it would have been better for all involved if the couple could have had a year or so to themselves before William was born. Diana's life changed so drastically in that year and it had a tremendous impact upon her mental, physical and emotional state. I've read that  the BRF had hoped that the Wales would delay pregnancy for awhile to give Diana the opportunity to adjust to her new life. Of course the media intrusion only exacerbated the stress that Diana and Charles were already feeling with their new relationship. The  extreme press interest seemed to have caught everyone off guard.

Coincidentally another couple married in 1981 also had their first child within the first year of marriage. The then HGD Henri of Luxembourg and his wife Maria Teresa greeted their eldest Guillaume nine months after their Valentine's Day wedding. However on the plus side, Henri and M-T having met while at university together had a much longer courtship and were far better acquainted with each other. The fact that  the Luxembourg GD family is relatively unknown kept the press interest lower and more local. Perhaps a little interest from German tabloids, but not much more than that. Not to say that the couple hasn't had some struggles over the years, but all in all the couple's relationship does appear to be relatively solid.

[royalanthropologist]

It is interesting to note the parallels between Diana and Anne Boleyn. Heirs were at the heart of their ascent and destruction. The moment Diana had Harry, she cemented her position as the future King's mother barring some terrible occurrence. However, the birth of those children also heralded the decline of her hold on Charles. The heirs could never be unborn and Charles was not inclined to put up with the marriage any more.

If I was to put that in a Machiavellian construct, it was a case of Mission Accomplished.

"There are your heirs and now I can lead my life as I want it".

And of course in Constitutional terms, the primary and only role of the Princess of Wales is to produce a legitimate heir. The other stuff is just an add on of recent times.

[sandy]

Charles considered himself "old" when he married. It takes two to decide to conceive or conceive a child. I don't think he wanted to wait a while. He could have suggested they wait. There is no record that he did.

Charles behavior is not praiseworthy. The wife as a baby machine then he could toss her out like yesterday's garbage.

Anne Boleyn did not have the son Henry wanted. She did not give him the heir he wanted. She had Elizabeth then miscarriages. Not the same in the least. I think Anne would not have been executed had she given him the needed son and heir.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 11:24:05 AM

:goodpost: @Curryong I agree, the press and family pressure would have been immense to put off having a baby, and she wanted to fit in and help the family so much, and she loved children so much it would have been hard for her to put it off. Also I think she probably thought it might help the marriage both with a little one to love and giving Charles something Camilla couldnt an heir.

But she at that time, needed a bit of Camilla's craftiness to perhaps use contraception on the sly to delay having that first child, and using that power to slow down the pace of everything and try and get her feet under her better. But I agree she wanted the child sooner than Charles and I dont think she was the type to be that crafty to delay, that had to be learned by hard experience.

With the Wales trip and the delays to the KP residence they had too much time under the inlaws shadow, and the jealousy was starting up (Charles was caught kicking a pebble saying "they dont want to see me anymore") so it was likely too late to save the marriage, but she might not have gone through so much of the dark ages if the kids came say 3-5 years later and had better internal resources to deal with it.

Charles' jealousy issues were of his own making. He felt himself so superior to others he felt he did not need counseling about it.  He could have kept Diana home but that would have provoked criticism (that DIana was a misanthrope for example). He needed help.

[royalanthropologist]

You believe he needed help. He doesn't think he needed help. Apparently the people that matter did not think he needed help. Diana was very poor at long term strategy and thinking things through. Her forte was the instant press scoop or big display of emotions.

Once she had those heirs, she was quite vulnerable at the very time her position as a mother of future kings was secure. Charles could now walk away from the relationship and be with the woman that he had wanted all along. That is what he eventually did and indeed it is allegedly what his father had advised him to do at the beginning of the marriage. 

[sandy]

You don't believe he needed help that he is some superhuman? ANybody who gets pettily jealous of his own wife, yes royal, does need help IMO.

So where did Charles wedding vows say he could walk out on his wife after she produced those heirs?

His father did not tell him to walk out on the marriage, he advised him to drop her if he did not love her or really want to marry her. Charles to me is very wishy washy and unrealistic.

[royalanthropologist]

People break wedding vows. They just do it. Swearing to be together in sickness and health, joy or sadness etc. is an ambition. Some get there others do not. Charles was not a prisoner of his toxic first marriage. If it did not work out, he was quite entitled to leave. Nobody should ever be forced to remain in a marriage where they are unhappy.

[sandy]

Charles of course was not a prisoner of the "toxic" marriage, He brought in the toxicity to it.

Yeah, Charles as head of the Church of England can take vows yet dump the wife like yesterday's garbage.

Diana was unhappy too yet that does not matter to you. Just that the big baby should be happy all the time.

[TLLK]

People break wedding vows. They just do it. Swearing to be together in sickness and health, joy or sadness etc. is an ambition. Some get there others do not. Charles was not a prisoner of his toxic first marriage. If it did not work out, he was quite entitled to leave. Nobody should ever be forced to remain in a marriage where they are unhappy.

I have to agree @royalanthropologist. At times you can given your best effort and the marriage will still not work out. It's very sad but it is a reality considering the divorce rate in the Western World. Also I'd say the same for Diana too. If she wanted to leave her toxic and unhappy marriage to Charles, then IMHO she had the right to say "enough."

[royalanthropologist]

So true. I wish C&D had been allowed to divorce in 1983 before it became too messy. Those are some silly rules.  And if they had dared to restrict access to her children at the time, I would be one of the people raising a stink about it. After what had happened, I saw no reason why she should ever be denied access to the children. It would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for something that Charles was equally guilty of.

[sandy]

I think Charles wanted the heir AND spare I doubt he'd have wanted  a divorce before the spare happened.

[amabel]

I have to agree @royalanthropologist. At times you can given your best effort and the marriage will still not work out. It's very sad but it is a reality considering the divorce rate in the Western World. Also I'd say the same for Diana too. If she wanted to leave her toxic and unhappy marriage to Charles, then IMHO she had the right to say "enough."

True, but she entered the marriage knowing that it was felt that this marriage was meant to be for life.  That short of one of them turning out tot be an alcoholic or drug abuser or criminal, it was meant to last.  and if she wanted ot leave the marriage, some fo the consequences were that the RF and many upper class people wold be cooler to her.. that she'd never be queen..
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 10:01:37 AM

So true. I wish C&D had been allowed to divorce in 1983 before it became too messy. Those are some silly rules.  And if they had dared to restrict access to her children at the time, I would be one of the people raising a stink about it. After what had happened, I saw no reason why she should ever be denied access to the children. It would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for something that Charles was equally guilty of.

Oh for Gods sake no one was goig to deny her access to the children...

[sandy]

If she bolted  early on she would have had limited access. 1983 is a moot point since the spare was not born yet.

[amabel]

well was she really likely to leave her marriage after 2 years???

[sandy]

I am referring to the thread where the year "1983" was selected as the year she should have left Charles. It is in another thread too.

[LouisFerdinand]

Suppose William had not been born until 1983 or 1984. What would Princess Diana have done? Lots of charity events? Several royal tours with or without Charles? Could she have spent more time with her sisters?

[TLLK]

^^^I do believe that they would have had the time to get to know each other better and allow Diana the opportunity to grow into her role without the strain of a pregnancy and new motherhood.

[amabel]

she would not have been doing tours alone or spending " more time with her sisters".  why would she?
I don't think she was esp close to her sisters..and she would have been busy learning royal life and settling in to marriage. 
and of course they would not be sending someone completlely inexperienced in Royal life on tours alone.
Its possible that She and C would have done a tour together, before they started a family rather than the one they did in Australia with Will as a baby...
Frankly TLLK, I wonder if they would have gotten on better or if they would have just reached disillusionment quicker?   Assuming she still had the bulimia, I think she would still have found it all hard to adjust, and the marriage would have been under strain.  I don't know if having a baby added to the strain or if perhaps it gave them something in common that made them a bit happier for a time

[Curryong]

I think Diana would have taken up charity events (as she did anyway) and gone on a couple of Royal tours with Charles. In those days though there weren't so many of the mini two, three day Royal visits to European countries that there are now. In the 1980s and prior, tours tended to be Commonwealth ones and quite a long slog, sometimes with the Britannia involved.

There wouldn't have been more than one of those a year, if that. Wales was a natural as a destination as Charles had been an active POW for so long. There may have been a mini tour of Scotland tacked on to 1982 if the couple had remained childless. I don't think Diana would have been sent on long overseas tours by herself. Neither Camilla or Kate do that, and Philip has always accompanied the Queen.

If all three Spencer sisters had been young, single and carefree in the early 1980s they might have hung around together a bit, in spite of very different characters and groups of friends. However, they weren't. Jane and Sarah were wives and mothers by the time Diana married and Sarah was tucked away into the lifestyle of the wife of a country gentleman-farmer. Diana wasn't that keen on country life. Jane was a bit nearer physically, but she had growing children and was probably absorbed in them.

[amabel]

of course not, she would not have been doing tours by herself.
I think that the austrialia tour that they did, was meant to have happened a bit earlier but Diana got pregnant in the first year of marriage and so it had to be put off. but there's no way a totally inexperienced young new bride would be doing tours alone.
She would have been doing some charity stuff, getting involved with "children and old people" sort of organsiations and maybe  some arty stuff, as she did.. and mostly with Charles  to guide her.
I think that she was friendly with Jane, she visited her at times before her marriage, to see her baby etc, but I think her relationship with Sarah, like those iwht her mother and father was a bit on and off.
if they had been say 2 years before she got pregnant, she wold have had less stress and maybe she might have found royal life a bit easier to adjust to, rather than doing so many things all at once... getting married, moving inot Royal life having a baby all at the same time.
However, I don't know how well it would have worked in terms of maybe the marriage working out better.  If she had the bulimia, it was affecting her relationship with Charles.  And she would have had the crazy press adoration, which stressed her out..
and I feel that the problem was, when she and Charles DID have time together, and were able to "get to know each other", they didn't really enjoy each other.  It was when they were together that they realised how little they had in common.

[sandy]

Well there was Camilla maintaining her contact with Charles and vice versa. That was a huge factor.  The fights were about Camilla as DIana said. They did not have her in common. DIana seemed to be happier when she and Charles took that trip to the Caribbean together. I think maybe the could have had a honeymoon where they were not on a yacht surrounded by servants and crew and where she moved in with his family at Balmoral. Maybe the adjustment could have been made there. If she had waited, maybe Charles would have had to wait for the heirs. And there could have been more years before or if he fully resumed his relationship with Camilla (though the two were in touch with each other). ANd it might also have been better for them to have a place further away from the PB residence. Charles already knew the score when he proposed to and married Diana--he admitted later he preferred the other woman. Maybe the timing of babies was not enough. It was a lot more not having Camilla in common. Some basic things Charles could have done was not to wear Camilla's cufflinks on the honeymoon, kept her photos home or better yet gotten rid of them, and kept the philosophy books home. He could have Van Der Post over for tea and he could take up the philosophical talks with him.
Double post auto-merged: November 09, 2017, 10:26:36 AM

Suppose William had not been born until 1983 or 1984. What would Princess Diana have done? Lots of charity events? Several royal tours with or without Charles? Could she have spent more time with her sisters?

IF she waited, there would have been no William. She would have had a different set of children. Even two girls instead of two boys!

[royalanthropologist]

Diana (and it seems some of her fans as well) have latched onto this idea that without CPB everything would be ok. It would not. Camilla facilitated a break up that was already on the books. She made it quicker and final but her presence was by no means the sole or main reason for the Waleses incompatibility.

There were many fundamental issues that ensured that marriage would ever work. The demands that Diana wished for were exactly the ones that would rile up Charles. He was never going to accept her terms of (no contact with Camilla, no books on honeymoon, spend more time with me etc.). These were his friends and his books. She was trying to change him and he was having none of it. Try changing a man and he will leave you sooner or later.

Moreover, Charles found Diana's company boring just as much as she found his boring. They had no friends in common. Diana was not a mature independent woman capable of cultivating her interests to keep her busy. She wanted Charles to walk her through it. At the time she was also suffering from a serious mental health problem which meant that her behavior was not exactly the kind to attract Charles to her.

I personally think it was a blessing to her and him that they had the children quickly and one another. A few more years of living together might have brought on a much quicker divorce with Diana having very few bargaining chips. A childless Princess of Wales is a very vulnerable Princess of Wales. Kings have been known to get rid of spouses who had no children in order to make way for someone else.

In the very beginning Charles was willing to tolerate Diana as she was but as the years got on, he just could not stomach it. She too was getting more desperate, erratic and unpleasant as he got out of her grasp. To wait in those circumstances would have been suicide for Diana.

He would have nothing tying to her and would also be eager to find a new bride to have children because that was his principal reason for marrying Diana. It was never a love match by any stretch of the imagination although the public lied to itself about the fairy tale (aided by a gushing media and a cynical silent establishment).

[sandy]

Camilla's presence did not help matters any. Charles admitted he preferred her to Diana when he married Diana. Not a good sign.

Well Diana thought they had friends in common (at first!). They were his friends not hers when it came right down to it. Though they were nice to her face.

What demands? And "rile up" the great man? What did he expect. I think he was and is so self centered he did not consider the feelings of his first wife. I think the "change" Diana wanted was for him to stop seeing the mistress. So he should have just done as he pleased and she had to toe the line?! Really? I thought marriage was for two people.

Diana did not suffer from a "serious" mental health problem. For goodness sakes you make her sound like Zelda Fitzgerald who indeed had a  "serious" condition where she had to be institutionalized for periods of time. Diana was NEVER institutionalized. She had bulimia nervosa which she got under control and was a fully functioning person. You sound like Penny Junor here.

"Tolerate" Diana! He was her husband it was supposed to be a relationship (equal) between two people. It should have been love and respect not "tolerance." Charles got his heirs.

If DIana was found to be barren (though she did have an examination and no troubles were found), he would have ended the relationship and yes, he would have moved on. Also some women don't marry men who have fertility issues or have had vasectomies because they want children.

Yes, he would have found a new bride and certainly not Camilla!

No it was not a love match because the man admitted he did not love her (to his biographer). He had no business marrying her especially since she was so besotted with him. He never really thought of her feelings in that regard.

Yes, he would have found another on the "list" but that list of prospects would be getting younger and younger.

There are certain rules that a man should never do re: marriage: don't marry anybody you don't love (even if you have a pipe dream of "learning to love her); stop seeing your exes even as "friends." don't have the family home near the ex; don't carry photos of the ex on the honeymoon; don't wear gifts from the mistress in front of the new bride; don't have philosophy books with you on the honeymoon;  have an in law free honeymoon with your bride; and maybe have a more intimate honeymoon without a crew full of people waiting on you.