Author Topic: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?  (Read 634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,524
  • Activity:
    28%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2017, 05:09:39 PM »
That is why you get ladies in waiting and have your own family to help you. Carole Middleton is not what you would call upper class but she was very active in supporting her daughter and blending in.  Frances was just not quite the same.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 


Online Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,316
  • Activity:
    18%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2017, 05:24:04 PM »
Yes, every single thread chosen by you is meant to concentrate on Diana exclusively and Charles not at all. Diana's wilfulness, Diana's lack of education, Diana's mood swings, Diana's mental abilities or lack thereof, Diana's 'craziness', Diana's neediness, all to be dissected by you to artfully show what a dreadful, unreasonable and totally disgraceful human being this woman was and to lead to the conclusion that no-one could deal with her, and Charles was a saint to put up with it all.

What's more, the conclusion you would like us all to come to by discussing Diana inch by inch in this way, is how right Charles was to turn to his own true love and leave the Mad Woman in the Attic to her own devices. With the emphasis of course on what a living hell Diana had made for herself and how totally and utterly miserable she was in the last five years of her life while the Golden Couple sail off into the glorious sunset together, untouched and lily white.

 Well, sorry, for me and for others, that is very much not a true picture. Charles was as much to blame for the disintegration of the Wales marriage as his wife, that is at least 50%, and Camilla's part in the whole saga is right at its centre, eating away like a worm in an red apple. And I shall continue to keep pointing that out in every thread when I see the necessity for it.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 05:29:02 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,524
  • Activity:
    28%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2017, 06:02:04 PM »
What has that all got to do with Alexander as an instructor?

I can assure (with some confidence) you have no clue about what I want @Curryong. Sorry but that is just how it is.

My point and view is this: Diana was not teachable or coachable because she was willful and impenetrable to anything but false flattery and faux sympathy. Neither Alexandra nor any other royal coach was ever going to get much out of her unless of course they were telling how great she was and how much she had been victimized.

Of course unless you are a bit crazy or a nasty two-faced person; you are not going to say that to someone that needs help so Alexandra would be out of the question as a coach. Maybe someone like Paul Burrell might have fitted the bill better.

As for marriage blaming etc, it is not really for this thread but I am of the view that both were to blame. Divorce was the cure and should have happened as early as 1983.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 


Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,598
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2017, 06:46:39 PM »
That is why you get ladies in waiting and have your own family to help you. Carole Middleton is not what you would call upper class but she was very active in supporting her daughter and blending in.  Frances was just not quite the same.
I don't quite see what Carole Middleton has to do with anythtng.  the issue is whether Pss Alexandra would have been a posislbe tutor for Diana.  She wouldn't.  She was a Princess, she's not supposed to "teach people".  She had her own job as Princess to do, and at the time also had 2 teenage children of her own.  no way was the queen going ot ask her to do tutoring For Diana.  there were ladies in waiting and other staff...who were doing that.  I don't see what Charles or the marriage has to do with this issue....
 

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,524
  • Activity:
    28%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2017, 07:00:41 PM »
I am comparing Carole with Francis in terms of the role of the mother. If there was learning to be done, a mother would be a great starting point because the princess would actually have confidence in their advice and would know them very well. Just like Carole is for Kate, a true rock in every sense of the world. The Spencers were rather different. Francis has never been as close to Diana as Carole is to Kate.

I definitely do agree that it is preposterous to suggest that Princess Alexandra or even Margaret would ever coach Diana. For a start, it was not their job. Secondly, they would never be able to achieve anything with their "learner".
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Online Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,316
  • Activity:
    18%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2017, 07:06:13 PM »
That is why you get ladies in waiting and have your own family to help you. Carole Middleton is not what you would call upper class but she was very active in supporting her daughter and blending in.  Frances was just not quite the same.

Oh, come on! No, Frances wasn't particularly helpful to Diana, it's true. However, what Carole Middleton knows about Royal life, (even the much more informal life that royalty lives now compared with when Diana was a bride,) could be written on the back of a postage stamp. So how can that be 'blending in'? Frances at least came from an aristo background and therefore had knowledge of balls, house parties, grand dinner parties, even if she didn't choose to impart much of it.

Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 07:07:44 PM[




Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 07:14:54 PM

Then in that case, if everyone is agreed that the Queen would never use Princess Alexandra as a tutor for Diana then what is the point of this thread, except as yet another of the innumerable  Diana-bashing exercises? I pointed out earlier that every one of these threads in which you join in enthusiastically, Royal, turns into precisely that.

« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 07:14:54 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,524
  • Activity:
    28%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2017, 07:33:23 PM »
Hmm. I never started this thread. Neither was I aware that there was an "approved list" of topics or points of view.   I am in no position to speculate about why a thread has been opened and I would not be so presumptuous as to ask its purpose. Of course you can always ignore the thread if you think it is inappropriate.

BTW I actually thought I was entitled to pick threads of my interest. Is there a requirement to "spread out" or is that just for those that are not sufficiently pro-Diana in your view @Curryong? I really do think you have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your view of Diana. It is nothing personal and it is not worth it to get upset because someone does not agree with you.

As for Carole and Francis; I actually think Carole is a very supportive mum and has trained her daughter very well. Although Kate is not an aristocrat, she has done much much better than the suitable aristos of the past in terms of fitting into the family. Sometimes it is just a question of preparing your children better for life regardless of whether they marry up or down.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 


Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,598
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2017, 07:43:32 PM »
True that what Carole M knows about Royal life could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.. but Frances either knew very little or didnt' care enough about Diana to impart any knowledge.  And in any case it is like learning to drive.. a "job" like marrying into the RF is  best taugt by people who don't have the sort of emotional "ties" to the person as a family member would.
 

Online Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,316
  • Activity:
    18%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2017, 08:00:21 PM »
There is a great difference between being 'not sufficiently pro-Diana' (whether in my view or anyone else's) and constantly and consistently attacking and criticising every single facet of Diana's persona, character, mental health, education, etc etc., as you do.

Nothing Diana did is ever any good in your eyes, she's dismissed as an airhead who refused to learn anything important, and is characterised in every phase of her life as some sort of loose cannon, a crazy person.

Diana did a great deal of good in her lifetime, she was greatly loved and she was very very far from being some sort of brainless idiot. She made a superb Princess of Wales.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline TLLK

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,911
  • Activity:
    98%
  • Gal power!!!!!!
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2017, 09:18:39 PM »
Quote
When was lady Hussey provided? Was it in the 1980s or the 1990s?
@royalanthropologist-She was assigned to Lady Diana soon after the engagement.

Quote
The Queen also assigned 42-year-old Lady Susan Hussey, her youngest lady-in-waiting, to guide Diana in royal ways. Hussey was somewhat formidable, and she was conscientious in carrying out the Queen’s instructions. Known for her sharp sense of humour and for having “the briskest, deepest, most correct curtsy,” she had helped Charles and Anne learn the ropes during their adolescence. But as a stickler for protocol, she may have been too exacting for Diana’s haphazard temperament and insufficiently sympathetic to Diana’s obvious frailties. Although Diana wrote letters of gratitude at the time, telling her she was like a wonderful older sister, the princess later said she mistrusted the lady-in-waiting’s longtime friendship with Charles. One woman close to the royal family thought the Queen should have delegated her American Lady of the Bedchamber, Virginia Airlie, instead. Although six years older, she could have established better rapport. “She is pretty, soft, and amusing,” said the friend. “She would have given Diana honest advice and jollied her along. “Perhaps inevitably, Diana had a major falling out with Susan Hussey, telling friends she felt “betrayed” by her unquestioning loyalty to Charles.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-bedell-smith/queen-elizabeth-biography_b_1204712.html

Since Lady Susan had also assisted Charles and Anne with learning protocol and the necessary behavior for their royal duties, it appears that QEII thought that her youngest lady-in-waiting would be an appropriate instructor for Lady Diana.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 09:23:47 PM by TLLK »
 

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,524
  • Activity:
    28%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2017, 10:09:11 PM »
There is a great difference between being 'not sufficiently pro-Diana' (whether in my view or anyone else's) and constantly and consistently attacking and criticising every single facet of Diana's persona, character, mental health, education, etc etc., as you do.

Nothing Diana did is ever any good in your eyes, she's dismissed as an airhead who refused to learn anything important, and is characterised in every phase of her life as some sort of loose cannon, a crazy person.

Diana did a great deal of good in her lifetime, she was greatly loved and she was very very far from being some sort of brainless idiot. She made a superb Princess of Wales.

I think there is some irony somewhere in this statement above. The clue is "POW", I think.

Criticizing Diana is absolutely and entirely justified. She was a public figure that chose to make her private life public. After Morton and Panorama, we were all entitled to take a view about her and her life. In any case I doubt any criticism hurts her where she is.

If C&C fans were this sensitive, we would need serious care. I mean: it is one (or two and three objective ones) here against dozens but still there is a problem? Like I said this is nothing personal. I am critiquing someone who for far too long has been presented as a blameless victim who could do no wrong or whose good deeds in parts of her life meant that nobody was allowed to critique her failings in her personal life. 

I am certainly far, far more balanced than many self-appointed Diana fans who will go as far as denying things that Diana herself said on camera just because they do not present her in a halo.

I maintain Diana was not open to instruction by Alexandra or anyone if it was not sugarcoated with faux empathy and false praise. She would go to great lengths to avoid being told what was wrong with her behavior.  I think that meant that it was better to just leave her be so that she could find her own way in the way she wanted. Of course that too was not enough...she complained that nobody helped her.

Thanks for the contribution @TLLK. One thing stands out of that statement as follows:

"Although Diana wrote letters of gratitude at the time, telling her she was like a wonderful older sister, the princess later said she mistrusted the lady-in-waiting’s longtime friendship with Charles".

That there is Diana to a "T". Nobody was ever going to get her to follow protocols. Maybe someone like Burrell might have flattered her for long enough to get it done but nobody else "normal" could do that job. Certainly not princesses of the royal blood who must have been bewildered by the drama taking place in the Wales household.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Trudie

  • Diana-ites
  • Forum Nobility
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,863
  • Activity:
    4%
    • Favorite royal: Diana
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2017, 10:13:52 PM »
Title of the thread "Princess Alexandra: An Instructor" I was commenting about Diana's ability or inability to take advice and instruction. That is nothing to do with how bad Prince Charles is. We always end here. Any critique of Diana must be appended by saying how bad C&C is in order to be valid? Diana could never ever progress emotionally because she always went back to C&C as the principle determinant of whether or not she was happy.

The greatest achievement thing was private sex talk between a couple which was illegally obtained and unethically shared by the media. If we were to listen to everyone's sex talk, I am sure it would change our perspectives of them.  Referencing Camillagate is equivalent to saying "Oh I saw that person on the bog in a clandestine tape taken and it was not a good look for them".  I do think that sharing the tape is even worse than participating in the tape but that is just me.

I'm sorry but you seem to have plenty excuses at the ready for Charles.  All his life Charles has shown the same behavior that you point out as Diana's and you so readily dismiss it all either by trying to change the subject or again showing ignorance to the topic at hand by not knowing that all the help supposedly available to Diana happened in the 80's .

You attack Diana for the very behavior she learned during her marriage however, Diana never would have displayed such an egoistical remark to someone as "your greatest achievement is to love me" no matter how much you want to dismiss it as illegal and sex talk and try to justify it Charles in private is not a very nice person especially if the world does not revolve around him.


 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Curryong

Online Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,316
  • Activity:
    18%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2017, 10:25:47 PM »
What 'protocols' did Diana not follow in her Royal engagements?  Was she immensely rude to people? (Margaret). Not turn up to State Dinners because of personal beliefs (Charles and the Chinese) make racial remarks as 'jokes' (Prince Philip) cause British businessmen to complain that he was harming their cause overseas (Andrew) have her dress blow up showing her bare behind (Kate at an airport in Canada.) Was she criticised in the Press for being rude and ungracious (Princess Anne on a tour of the US) Yes, Diana would certainly have to go a long way to live up to the way these royals conduct their public lives, lol.

She could curtsey beautifully and gracefully, (something few can manage) was always gracious to people she met on tours in Britain and abroad, dressed beautifully thus giving the British fashion industry an enormous boost, wore jewels well, instead of the jewels wearing her as happens with Kate and could deliver a speech. Diana had a natural dignity, and never embarrassed the Crown when carrying out her obligations as Princess of Wales.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 10:28:30 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Trudie, Duch_Luver_4ever


Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,385
  • Activity:
    36%
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2017, 10:51:16 PM »
When was lady Hussey provided? Was it in the 1980s or the 1990s?

As Diana was going through her early traumas, the queen and even Charles were concerned about her. They kept asking "what is the matter". They got silence or tantrums. The queen tried to keep the press away but soon the person she was protecting was actually courting the press.

Hussey was the closest thing to guidance in the absence of Diana's own mother. They tried to teach her the history of princesses of wales. She could not or would not focus. Instead she wanted the public adoration and hoped it would make everything ok. What could they do? If they pushed, she would retreat into her victim mode. If they ignored, she would also complain.

I will admit that there were serious differences between the early and later Diana. Actually I much preferred the earlier Diana. However, the theme of not listening to or following advice was always there throughout her life. Diana could not abide negative feedback of any description. All she wanted was people to tell her how great she was, how lovely, how nice and how much of a victim she had been.

As for Princess Michael having a loving husband; we are back to the same point "But Charles was bad...focus on him". That may well be true but it did not advance Diana's cause one bit, save for entrenching her as the victim of the century.

Diana was friendly with Ann Beckwith Smith and in a recent interview Beckwith Smith had good things to say about Diana. Maybe Diana liked Ann better than Susan, maybe they were more compatible. So much for your talking about Diana being "difficult" with people who were her ladies in waiting.

Why is Diana being trashed on an Alexandra thread?

Beckwith Smith was a great help to Diana when she was learning the ropes. Maybe she had a better "way with her" than Susan.

Diana had morning sickness and bulimia. But Charles sent ineffective Van Der Post the "omnipotent" to help. That went over like a lead balloon. He should have referred her to Sarah's doctor.

Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 10:53:20 PM

Hmm. I never started this thread. Neither was I aware that there was an "approved list" of topics or points of view.   I am in no position to speculate about why a thread has been opened and I would not be so presumptuous as to ask its purpose. Of course you can always ignore the thread if you think it is inappropriate.

BTW I actually thought I was entitled to pick threads of my interest. Is there a requirement to "spread out" or is that just for those that are not sufficiently pro-Diana in your view @Curryong? I really do think you have to accept the fact that not everyone shares your view of Diana. It is nothing personal and it is not worth it to get upset because someone does not agree with you.

As for Carole and Francis; I actually think Carole is a very supportive mum and has trained her daughter very well. Although Kate is not an aristocrat, she has done much much better than the suitable aristos of the past in terms of fitting into the family. Sometimes it is just a question of preparing your children better for life regardless of whether they marry up or down.

Kate has a husband who loves and respects her. Thankfully he is not like his father. Big difference between marriages.

Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 10:54:52 PM

What has that all got to do with Alexander as an instructor?

I can assure (with some confidence) you have no clue about what I want @Curryong. Sorry but that is just how it is.

My point and view is this: Diana was not teachable or coachable because she was willful and impenetrable to anything but false flattery and faux sympathy. Neither Alexandra nor any other royal coach was ever going to get much out of her unless of course they were telling how great she was and how much she had been victimized.

Of course unless you are a bit crazy or a nasty two-faced person; you are not going to say that to someone that needs help so Alexandra would be out of the question as a coach. Maybe someone like Paul Burrell might have fitted the bill better.

As for marriage blaming etc, it is not really for this thread but I am of the view that both were to blame. Divorce was the cure and should have happened as early as 1983.

Oh yes Diana was. Ann Beckwith Smith helped Diana a great deal. Both Ann and Diana spoke highly of each other.

1983? Really? Diana and Charles did not even have Harry yet. Bradford said there was a chance for them before Charles started writing whining letters to his friends about Diana being popular.

Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 10:56:10 PM

I think there is some irony somewhere in this statement above. The clue is "POW", I think.

Criticizing Diana is absolutely and entirely justified. She was a public figure that chose to make her private life public. After Morton and Panorama, we were all entitled to take a view about her and her life. In any case I doubt any criticism hurts her where she is.

If C&C fans were this sensitive, we would need serious care. I mean: it is one (or two and three objective ones) here against dozens but still there is a problem? Like I said this is nothing personal. I am critiquing someone who for far too long has been presented as a blameless victim who could do no wrong or whose good deeds in parts of her life meant that nobody was allowed to critique her failings in her personal life. 

I am certainly far, far more balanced than many self-appointed Diana fans who will go as far as denying things that Diana herself said on camera just because they do not present her in a halo.

I maintain Diana was not open to instruction by Alexandra or anyone if it was not sugarcoated with faux empathy and false praise. She would go to great lengths to avoid being told what was wrong with her behavior.  I think that meant that it was better to just leave her be so that she could find her own way in the way she wanted. Of course that too was not enough...she complained that nobody helped her.

Thanks for the contribution @TLLK. One thing stands out of that statement as follows:

"Although Diana wrote letters of gratitude at the time, telling her she was like a wonderful older sister, the princess later said she mistrusted the lady-in-waiting’s longtime friendship with Charles".

That there is Diana to a "T". Nobody was ever going to get her to follow protocols. Maybe someone like Burrell might have flattered her for long enough to get it done but nobody else "normal" could do that job. Certainly not princesses of the royal blood who must have been bewildered by the drama taking place in the Wales household.

You have the same attitude re: Charles and Camilla. Just blaming Diana for everything and giving C and C free passes.

And you keep ignoring the Dimbleby interview.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 10:56:10 PM by sandy »
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Trudie, Curryong

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,598
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2017, 11:19:30 PM »
What 'protocols' did Diana not follow in her Royal engagements?  Was she immensely rude to people? (Margaret). Not turn up to State Dinners because of personal beliefs (Charles and the Chinese) make racial She could curtsey beautifully and gracefully, (something few can manage) was always gracious to people she met on tours in Britain and abroad, dressed beautifully thus giving the British fashion industry an enormous boost, wore jewels well, instead of the jewels wearing her as happens with Kate and could deliver a speech. Diana had a natural dignity, and never embarrassed the Crown when carrying out her obligations as Princess of Wales.

but if she was so good at the job, and until she decided to go public she was good at it.. what is the beef?  Why was she complaining that she didn't get instruction?
yes she was good at the public side of her job, until she chose to start talking incessantly to the press, allowing herself to be taped discussing her sex life etc. so whatever method the RF used, msut have worked fairly well.  So why is there all this complaint that she wasn't properly trained?
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,385
  • Activity:
    36%
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2017, 11:39:49 PM »
Because she was a newlywed and expected to go out (sink or swim) at a Wales tour. She was scared but when she got out of the car, she did an excellent job. Diana did not intend for those tapes to be public, she did not expect to die at 36. If she had an incurable disease  and knew she had a certain amount of time left she would have attended to getting those tapes destroyed IMO.

Charles did more than his share of complaining about his "lot." He did interviews too or had his friends out there making comments.
 
 

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,598
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2017, 11:49:46 PM »
and that was her job.  People have been complaining ofr years about Will and Kate and how they are not doing enough.. because the RF now allow young new members to get acclimaitsed slowly. Diana was given adequate instruction, it was of course nerve wracking but at the time that is what her job was...
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,385
  • Activity:
    36%
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2017, 11:54:33 PM »
William and Kate are not doing enough. Kate was dating William for ten years. She went to University. Diana was barely out of her teens yet managed to do well. Her courtship by Charles was not nearly as long as the Cambridge's dating time. less than a year versus ten years. Kate was not a baby when she married, she did not show any proactive behavior regarding work during the dating years.

Kate's "orientation" period was dragged out even after the wedding. And Kate and Will did not have the marital issues plus Kate had her first baby two years after the wedding.



Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2017, 02:53:55 AM

For goodness sake she did have lessons in protocol, in what to do.   courtiers were surprised indeed that she was not very well up on Royla history and she was taught.  I don't quite see what she was "not taught".  Its true that some of the problem was that she was amazingly popular and that meant the press were on her tail all the time.. and there was problaby not much that could be done about that.  It did skew things if the queen herself was being in effect pushed aside by press chasing after the new young Princess. But I agree that in the 1980s there wasn't much that could be done to stop that happening.  THe queen herslef spoke to reporters and asked them  put less pressure on Diana, and she could not persuade  tehm to do so.
But that has nothing to do with her "education as a Princess".
And from what I've read, Charles was concerned about press attention in terms of what it was doing to Diana, how much it terrified her, how he was worried that it would stress her out and that inevitably there would come a time when the press were less adoring. 
But it is ridiculous to suggest that Princess Alexandra, who had her own work, was supposed to tutor Diana.


Charles did get jealous of her popularity. In 1983 he made the infamous "two wives" comment and Diana looked uncomfortable. As early as the engagement period he said "I guess I'll have to just see photographers backs when she's around."

Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2017, 02:56:23 AM

First rule of Princesses. Stay clear of controversial topics and definitely don't air dirty laundry. For a lady of her class, Diana really was not well prepared for royal life.  Johnny just let them grow and hoped for the best.

Double post auto-merged: November 12, 2017, 07:05:59 PM

One thing I did notice about Diana is that unless you are telling her how great she was, how right she was and how much she had suffered at the hands of just about everybody she has ever met; she did not want to hear.

Princess Michael (once a friend) remarked that the problem with Diana is that she never learnt how to deal with eulogy. According to Princess Michael, you need a strict mother to have worked on you right from the beginning in order to deal with eulogy effectively. For Diana it was a drug. She became addicted to him and could not live without it.

( Que the usual comments about how bad Princess Michael is and had no right to say anything other than praise about Diana)

The idea that "melting hearts" should be followed by denigration of your husband or your formidable mother-in-law is typically of the fawning eulogy that went to Diana's head. There have been very many popular women and princesses. Few have made a hash of it like Diana. 

A well grounded person would always have remembered why she was there...because she married Charles. Nothing more. Without Charles, it was all over and that should have been her priority. No amount of popularity was ever going to keep her there without the support of Charles and the queen. Keeping your mouth shut does help  a bit. At least not every Tom, Dick, Harry and their auntie is sitting in judgement about your failing marriage in that way.

Of course you can't stop lovesick people fawning over you but you have to know the limits in terms of affecting your personal relationships. Don't think that they will always be there for you or that every nice thing they say about you is true. Diana really did believe her popularity could see her through her crises. It did not. A much more discreet approach would have been safer for her in the long run.

So she was to support Charles and he was not supposed to support her? That is not exactly a marriage to say the least.

No it was not "all over" without Charles.

I would say that Charles likes flattery to put it mildly. Yet he is never criticized for that.

Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2017, 02:58:26 AM

Yes Charles can be arrogatn, its hardly surprising, brought up as the POW.. it would be odd if he DIDNT have a weakness for wanting to hear that he was always right..
But Charles knew when to stop.  He engaged in some stupid tit for tat with Diana, but he stopped ... and Diana went on sawing away at te branch she was sitting on.  for a time, she was immensely sympathised with, her faults were overlooked, and Charles was blamed for the failure of the marriage.  he didn't help himself by the Dimbelby Interview.. but after that, he stopped.  Diana didn't.  She went from the Morton book, to the panorama interview, to engaging in affairs wth lovers that hit the headlines.  She managed to cover her tracks with her affair with Hoare, the press didn't know about it.. until Diana made it public by hr chasing him with phone calls. Diana went on talking too much, not just in public but also indiscreetly to someone like Seettlene who publicised her tapes a few years after she died.
If Charles is SO arrogant, and so foolish.. well, he had the sense to rein in, to only moan and groan to friends who don't generally go public.. and to keep on plugging away at his job, until the scandals and his follies were larlgley forgotten about over time.

No Charles did not "stop." After Diana died, his friends started bashing Diana and his relatives too. He cooperated with Junor on her latest Diana bashing enterprise. Junor admitted consulting C and C and their friends for her "research."
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 02:58:26 AM by sandy »
 
 

Online LouisFerdinand

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,043
  • Activity:
    56%
    • Favorite royal: King William IV of Great Britain
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 04:53:09 AM »
I started this thread: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?   
I want to point out the fact that when Charles, Prince of Wales proposed, she was Lady Diana Spencer. She was not Princess Diana of Spencer.   
She was to be Princess of Wales, the highest Princess in the realm. Should she not have impeccable instruction? Why not from Princesses Alexandra and Margaret? Diana would be scrutinized by everything she said and did. What if she held the royal teacup improperly?

 
The following users thanked this post: Duch_Luver_4ever

Online Duch_Luver_4ever

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Activity:
    10%
    • Favorite royal: Diana, Princess of Wales
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2017, 05:15:17 AM »
 :goodpost: @LouisFerdinand  very good point, it could be tinged with hindsight, but the slipshod manner in which the RF handled that whole thing just boggles my mind. I know some dont like it, but the marriage was like building a bridge or some other long lived asset, this was at the time, likely forseen barring accidents that they would live for at least another 50 years together, and likely more as the QM showed her longevity and now HM.

Not only that, it was the marriage of the next heir, and thus vital in setting the house of windsor straight and putting away the whole abdication matter into distant history, and getting back to good old fashioned heredity for succession as the norm.

So for those reasons, the whole resources and effort of the palace should have been undertaken to ensure a success (of course if we want to take that even further back, they would have got Charles married off a good 5 years earlier to have avoided the whole pressure cooker he was in after his claim of 30 being a good age to get married). But then Diana wouldnt have been in the equation.

But yes, heaven and earth should have been moved to ensure a success, but the RF figured once she said "yes" it was too late to get away, and they misread her desire to leave when it got too much. But one could guess if one took a long enough timeview, its sort of gotten back to normal, so there could be some in the palace that might have thought why bother putting that effort in, as in the end, "the firm" always gets what it wants. Maybe thats too mercenary a view of it, but it does seem like thats how its played out.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.
 

Offline SophieChloe

  • Head Moderator
  • Forum Royalty
  • *
  • Posts: 13,160
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Princess Alexandra: An instructor?
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2017, 05:25:07 AM »
Head Moderator Comment So, safe to say Princess Alexandra was not instructed to *instruct* Diana. Thanks, Folks.This thread is now locked.However, I have created this thread for the same old C/C/D Discussions : Moving forwards towards Charles' Reign : Who was to blame?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 05:28:10 AM by SophieChloe »
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
 

 

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites