Princess Alexandra: An instructor?

Started by LouisFerdinand, June 19, 2016, 01:10:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LouisFerdinand

Would Princess Alexandra of Kent have been a good instructor to help Diana in the role of learning the duties of a Princess?


Duch_Luver_4ever

I'm assuming this is what you mean @LouisFerdinand , interesting picture meme I found on them:  :thumbsup:

Moon for Love ? royal-confessions: (Post by Varya) ?Alexandra,...
"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.

LouisFerdinand

Prince Charles went on a tour to Australia when he was engaged to Lady Diana. During one of her conversations with Charles in Australia, Diana said she felt overwhelmed by having to learn so much in such a short time. Why did people not realize this? What would have been wrong with a Princess instructing Diana Frances on princess lessons?


amabel

"princesses" have their own work.  Diana had ladies in waiting and other courtiers to instruct her onwhat she didn't know.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Thats a very good question, @LouisFerdinand they were too careless in teaching her, also by having the 2 commonwealth tours basically in the spring of 83 ( I know the last big engagement was on her birthday July 1st, was barely into summer). It put a big strain on her, both with learning, and with having to miss Williams first birthday while in Canada.

While it would have delayed my seeing her, I think they should have had the Canada tour in 1984 to ease her into the foreign tours.

She mentioned to the premier of Newfoundland that she was finding it overwhelming what was expected as PoW (the press wasnt supposed to report that, as it was at an off the record dinner, they also reported some conversation in Halifax that was also supposed to be off the record as well, not the finest hour for the press on the tour).

I think, although im sure shed have hated it, that HM should have put Princess Margaret to work teaching Diana, esp where they would both be at KP and in the early years they got on well.
"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.

Curryong

There could of course have been more done by members of the BRF to ease Diana into things protocol-wise at least, though hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? However, a lot of Diana's stress came in those early years from Di-mania by press and public, plus the knowledge that Charles wasn't impressed by her star power.

Nor, apparently was the Queen, who on one particular occasion remarked to a photographer who was dodging about trying to get a good shot of Diana among a clutch of other royals 'Well, I'd better move out of the way then'.

How can anyone give tutorials on how to lessen the huge amount of attention she was getting as a 'star'? What could they tell her? 'Please can you turn down the charisma factor because it's making the Queen, a very shy person, look cold and unfeeling'? 'Please can you not smile at people because you're melting their hearts and the Prince of Wales can't cope with it'?

What was Diana to do, walk about with a bag over her head, not respond to people's delight in her, constantly point to her husband and say 'Love him instead!'

The truth is that what happened around Diana in those early years was a phenomena never seen before in the BRF, except for the very early Commonwealth tours undertaken by the Queen and the handsome Prince Philip, a golden couple indeed. And even then it was different to Di-mania because there was more reverence in it for a lovely new, young monarch in a deferential age.

Diana was just being Diana. It was effortless. The stress might have been lessened by her not having babies for a couple of years, might have been lightened by being told about ritual and protocol on State and public occasions, but the truth is a main cause of angst among the other royals was how the public and media were reacting to this very young woman, and 'Princess' lessons wouldn't have helped that, whoever tutored her.

amabel

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.

Trudie

@amabel to be honest it would have been better if Diana had the benefit of Princess Alexandra and Princess Margaret insight as Princesses born to the role to help her. As the granddaughters of Queen Mary they were taught the proper way to conduct themselves as Princess in deportment, carriage etc. The courtiers have their own ideas and agenda and IMO and their knowledge is based more on biographies than obtaining history or knowledge in a personal way. It would have been better if Diana had been personally given informal knowledge from conversation with those who knew personally the role from Queen than from books which was not what about to study just having left school a few years earlier



royalanthropologist

#8
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, 01:05:59 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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Quote from: Trudie on November 12, 2017, 11:31:10 AM
@amabel to be honest it would have been better if Diana had the benefit of Princess Alexandra and Princess Margaret insight as Princesses born to the role to help her. As the granddaughters of Queen Mary they were taught the proper way to conduct themselves as Princess in deportment, carriage etc. The courtiers have their own ideas and agenda and IMO and their knowledge is based more on biographies than obtaining history or knowledge in a personal way. It would have been better if Diana had been personally given informal knowledge from conversation with those who knew personally the role from Queen than from books which was not what about to study just having left school a few years earlier
I think that couriters who have been in their jobs, who are usually very well up on the RF, are just as good if not better instructors than P Margaret who was always erratic and volatile. And P Alexandra had her own job as Princess and her family and I'm sure would not have felt that she had the time to take on Diana, who was being adequately trained by the staff who were hired to be her support staff.

Curryong

'Unless Diana was being told how right she was, how great she was, she didn't want to know'.

Well Royal, she wasn't and isn't the only one, is she? When the Duchess of Westminster told Charles politely that she thought his interview with Dimbleby was a mistake he didn't speak to her for the rest of the weekend.

Charles's biographies are replete with incidents otherwise sympathetic biographers recount of his arrogance and refusal to listen when people disagree with him. As you know very well.

Some of them have been repeated here. All three of his recent biographers have stated that he listens to what he wants to listen to and disregards anybody who disagrees. One came into the room and tried to reason with Charles in his stance on something and just put his own point of view. Charles just said 'I'm sorry, I must go and wash the dogs.' and walked off.

You don't think that pigheadedly cutting yourself off to others points of view isn't arrogant? You think surrounding yourself with aides who are Yes men and women and constantly blow smoke up your arse isn't vain and arrogant?

And listen to Camilla schmoozing on the Camilla tapes and telling Charles what a good brain he has and hear Charles purring 'Your greatest achievement is loving me!' You don't think that's the height of vanity?

Good grief! If Diana was guilty of believing the flattery of those around her and disregarding the rest, then Charles most certainly was and is! But no, you prefer to believe that only Diana had that particular weakness.

amabel

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.

Curryong

But Charles hasn't stopped being vain, arrogant and pigheadedly convinced he's always in the right, amabel. The incidents described in his biographies have continued since Diana's day. He employed Mark Bolland to plant stories in the press praising him and undercutting other royals until the Queen moved and made him sack Bolland.

That happened after Diana's day.

His biographers have written of incidents that show his self-centredness and vanity in very recent years, not decades ago.

And not all royals at the top of the power structure behave as Charles does. I've read several bios of the Queen and she takes advice from all sources and listens to it carefully then makes up her mind. I've never read of one incident where she has walked off refusing to listen to another's point of view.

And she grew up from the age of ten as heir to the throne. Even Philip, though he may vehemently disagree, still listens.

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 12, 2017, 12:45:50 PM
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, 01:05:59 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.

Your entire post applies to Charles as well Unless Charles is told what he wants to hear regarding how great he is, he isn't interested either that is why Camilla lasted because she feed in to this aspect of him at this point she is not only his Nanny she is also channeling the Queen Mother. Charles is not all that discreet himself regarding airing dirty laundry or controversial subjects. Princess Michael is the last person in the world who should speak about others she has no class as her behavior through the years has shown. If I were you royal before posting something like this regarding Diana I think you should also take a good hard look at your idol and see that in some ways he was able to mold some parts of Diana just not the way he would have preferred.



LouisFerdinand

Could not Princess Alexandra and Princess Margaret have taken turns on taking Diana with them on smaller royal activities such as ribbon cutting ceremonies and tree plantings?


Duch_Luver_4ever

Given the DM article about PM lazy schedule, she certainly had ample time to teach Diana, although im sure she didnt want to , it would have been up to HM to make her do it. Although, when one thinks of the limited types of engagements, it wouldnt have taken long, basically you have plaque opening, tree planting,walkabout, tea/lunch, etc, and formal dinner/state occasion as the bulk of the types of events shed encounter.

From there it would be just managing the number and frequency to not overwhelm her, and this also would have doubly served the RF, in their desire to quench the wildfire of her popularity. Win win all round, but the RF in that day were stuck in the old idea of TFB, figure it out as you go. But back in that day there wasnt non stop press coverage and scrutiny as well, the press was small and more deferential back in "the day".
"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.

TLLK

#16
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on November 12, 2017, 10:44:27 PM
Could not Princess Alexandra and Princess Margaret have taken turns on taking Diana with them on smaller royal activities such as ribbon cutting ceremonies and tree plantings?
Remember that Alexandra and Margaret were also had their own engagements and  their own families with  teenagers in 1981 when Diana married into the royal family. The BRF believed that they'd offered Diana assistance by assigning Lady Susan Hussey to guide her into royal life. However it seems that Diana and Sarah both felt that they could have benefited from having additional help.

royalanthropologist

@Trudie. My prediction about the responses to Princess Michael was exactly as it was. Because everyone in the world has failings, the upshot was that Diana never got any real advice. She could not get any real advice because of the same reactions e.g.:  "You are bad and therefore cannot give Diana advice".

Even worse: "But Charles is the bad one. Criticize him instead. He is the cause of all Diana's problems. It is Diana's right to complain, be difficult and make bad decisions because she was the wronged woman".

Meanwhile Diana continued making bad decision after bad decision. The princess with no class is still very much in the BRF and married to her husband: something that Diana failed at. The petulant POW is still a member of the BRF, married to the woman he wanted all along and with no serious impediment to his ascension to the British throne. Focusing on the weaknesses and failings of others was Diana's rallying cry but never did her any good.

Charles did have many failings that were similar to Diana's in some ways but there is a crucial difference...he was the queen's son. She was not the queen's child. There are limits as to what the BRF will put up with when you are an outsider marrying inside the firm. That is why when it all went downhill, Charles remained and Diana was out. It is no good saying "Charles is as bad" because that in no way changes Diana's fate. Charles is protected by his parents and the institution to which he was born.

Like I said, Diana's popularity went to her head and she began to imagine she was bigger than the monarchy. She tried fighting the men in grey suits (actually headed by her brother-in-law) and they systematically took her out using procedures and rules. These were men who definitely knew the deal and could have given her useful tips on how to behave. She turned them into a focus of her anger and they retaliated. As she was stripped of her title and pushed out, it is those grey men that prepared the figurative warrant.

They had come to dislike then hate her for refusing to work with them. She had failed to connect with them or make use of them. Lady Hussey who was given as a trainer also gave up. Diana's "woman's instinct" replaced real strategy and analysis. She was thinking and acting with her heart; but that heart was all over the place.

I would not advise or wish any of those royal ladies the onerous task of trying to educate and teach Diana. She was quite convinced that being a "hero to the British people" was the sole purpose of her role. She cultivated that and forgot who really held the power in that set up.

Prince Phillip tried advising her and she instead chose to share his letters and calls with servants. Even Monckton reported being given a bit of a freeze because she told her that Korea was not the way to behave. By the time of her death, Diana had fallen out with 2 out of the 4 remaining immediate Spencer family. Countless friends were cut off because they were not sufficiently "loyal" to her. Instead of getting measured advice from genuine friends, her siblings and mother;  she was relying on partisan supporters,  sycophants and fortune tellers.

I think the queen would be asking too much of Princesses Margaret and Alexandra to try guide a person with such a personality. All they could do is watch her self-destruct and try to reduce the resultant trauma for the institution and BRF. That is what they did...and then everybody castigated them for "not caring enough". Diana was very easy to love and car for from afar at public events. Being in close quarters with her on a daily basis was an entirely different matter.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

Princess Michael was loved by her husband, who was in love with her when they married. Diana's husband wasn't.

What is more,  you are imputing the feelings and motivations of the Diana of the early 1990s to the young bride that Diana was in 1981-2 and making a witches brew of it. Surely the Diana of 1993 and 94 wouldn't have needed Princess lessons? Diana had been in the BRF for twelve years or more at that stage.

It was the young woman in her early 20s who confessed to feeling 'overwhelmed' She certainly wasn't planning to become 'a hero to the British people' at twenty or twenty two. Diana was frankly terrified of the fervour of some of the crowds in Wales.

What's more, there is absolutely no evidence that the Queen ever considered deputing Prss Margaret and or Prss Alexandra to tutor Diana. They both, as TLLK pointed out, had other commitments, other responsibilities at the time, (the early 1980s.)

And just because Diana and Lady Susan Hussey didn't become bosom buddies doesn't mean that Diana hated her or didn't take any of her advice. I noticed btw that Kate didn't have a Princess Tutor foisted on her at her engagement. The BRF have learned by their mistakes with Diana. Kate was gradually eased into Royal life.

You are just as one-eyed as any Diana supporter, Royal, when it comes to refusing to admit that your idol, Charles, ever had any feet of clay or ever damaged his marriage by his neediness and sense of entitlement. Instead we get the older Diana the embittered Diana according to you, who made the marriage a living hell and never did anything nice for Charles. But then it suits your narrative doesn't it  to concentrate on the older Diana whose marriage had broken down rather than the unsure and rather nervous young girl who desperately wanted a happy marriage and babies. 

royalanthropologist

#19
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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

#20
The love of a spouse for their partner doesn't operate in a vacuum. A lack of enthusiasm, a turning away, an insincere statement, can have a dire and a lasting effect. Diana's intuitions that Charles did not love her were true were they not? Therefore, his actions and reactions did have its effect on her. No man, or woman, is an island.

Diana did not 'want the adoration of millions' in her early twenties. And by the time we was getting some compensation by being adored by the masses Lady Susan was long gone. The young Diana being mixed with the older one again.

And, in an article posted on here a while ago, a longtime courtier visiting BP and walking through the gardens came across Diana sitting under a tree, reading the biography of Queen Adelaide, the wife of Wiliam IV. So she had been given a book and she read it.

royalanthropologist

I wonder whether that book did her any good.

One of the many mistakes Diana made was to assume that complaining for the sake of complaining solves anything. Saying "my husband looked at me bad, ignored me or said something hurtful" might well be true and justified. However,  it will not make your marriage better or your life more comfortable.

All you are doing is moaning. Eventually the people that might be able to help you drift away because nobody likes to hear the same complaints repeated again and again.

Also saying "Thank God, I was right about Camilla" does not aid her cause. Diana had her suspicions and started her investigations as well as haranguing Charles about them. Eventually what were the embers of a past relationship because the crisis point of her marriage. She allowed it to become that.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

#22
And what are the mistakes Charles made in his marriage? You are always full of Diana's errors and stumblings in her marriage and in her life. What about her spouse? Does he bear no responsibility for the disintegration of his marriage, or for his wife's unhappiness or is it all 110% Diana?

As for moaning and complaining about things, the Eeyoreish Charles can moan and whinge for Britain, and it's acknowledged in his biographies, but of course that's all forgotten in pursuing Diana faults and flaws and saying how she made the  lives of those around her a misery. As for wanting the adoration of all, at least she never paid anyone the compliment  :hehe: of saying that their great achievement was in loving her! Vanity and enormous ego there!

royalanthropologist

#23
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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Quote from: TLLK on November 13, 2017, 01:56:39 AM
Remember that Alexandra and Margaret were also had their own engagements and  their own families with  teenagers in 1981 when Diana married into the royal family. The BRF believed that they'd offered Diana assistance by assigning Lady Susan Hussey to guide her into royal life. However it seems that Diana and Sarah both felt that they could have benefited from having additional help.
Yes of course TLLK.  Anyway it wasn't up to princesses to do this "job".  They were Royals who had their onw job to do, not "tutors".  The queen was not going ot ask them to give instruction to a newcomer
Diana and Sarah both had instruction, but the problem was that Sarah was too wilful to listen and Diana didn't know a lot of stuff that I think you'd expect her to know, so she found it stressful.
It is said that courtiers were asked "why don't you tell Sarah not to do x or Y so that she doesn't embarrass herself" and the reply was "we do tell her but she wont listen".  I think Diana wasn't as bad as that, but she didn't know various things that you'd expect a girl from an upper class family to know.  and so later on, she did complain that she hadn't had enough help.  But I think she had.