Diana strict with her children

[sandy]

Prince Charles originally wanted his Nanny Mabel for William but she was quite elderly at the time.

[TLLK]

Olga, unlike some of the other nannies employed by the Wales's, managed to walk the tightrope of being kind and concerned about her charges but not getting TOO close to them and displeasing Diana, a difficult task I would think.

@Curryong I agree that must have taken a great deal of skill to establish a close and loving relationship with the boys and still managing not to raise jealous feelings from Diana. :no:

[sandy]

I don't think Diana was "jealous." I think that this is unfortunate since the "jealous Diana" stories were leaked by CHarles friends. I think DIana was a hands on mother and of course she'd want to make sure her boys were taken care of well in her absence.

[oak_and_cedar]

Yes @oak_and_cedar the Wales family also employed: Olga Powell, Jessie Webb, Ruth Wallace and Aracelli Piccio Like Barbara Barnes, Jessie Webb eventually fell out with Diana due to her close relationship with her charges and left. (Can't recall if she was fired.)
All who were still living were invited to their former charges' weddings and the Cambridges even hired Jessie Webb on a temporary basis until Maria Borallo took over the position full time.  :happy:

Olga Powell passed away in 2012 and William attended her funeral. Harry was in Afghanistan at the time and couldn't attend.
Prince William attends funeral of former nanny Olga Powell | HELLO!

Jessie Webb also worked for the Linleys (Princess Margaret's son and his family.) Duke of Cambridge hires former nanny for Prince George - Telegraph

Aracelli Piccio - Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Filipino connection - The Filipino Times

Ruth Wallace - Died in 2003 WILLS AND HARRY'S HEARTACHE AT DEATH OF NANNY; Ruth was link to mum Di. - Free Online Library She'd originally worked for Princess Michael of Kent and was hired to replace Barbara Barnes.

That was nice of PW and PH.

[sandy]

In many ways, Diana being hands on and not thrusting the children on nannies to raise was a good thing.

[amabel]

In many ways, Diana being hands on and not thrusting the children on nannies to raise was a good thing.

She had several nannies and had to be away from the children quite often due to her work as Princess of Wales. which is where the problems started. S he felt unhappy at not being able to be there for them more..and she didn't want the Nanny to be the one that they turned to.  And she also did not want Nanny to be the one who disciplined them.. but if you have a carer for a child who is there much fo the time..she has to have the power to control and discipline the children.. It can't wait till their mother is there

[sandy]

Yes, but that nanny disciplined the future George VI and Edward VIII  with the mother not around and the punishments scarred them for life. The mother was oblivious to it all and the mother should have something to say about how the children are treated by the nanny. Queen Mary found out after the damage was done.

[amabel]

Yes, but that nanny disciplined the future George VI and Edward VIII  with the mother not around and the punishments scarred them for life. The mother was oblivious to it all and the mother should have something to say about how the children are treated by the nanny. Queen Mary found out after the damage was done.

What nanny?  QUeen' Mary's nannies have nothing to do with Diana's

[TLLK]

Yes I'm not sure what Queen Mary's nannies have to do with "Diana strict with her children?"

[oak_and_cedar]

Prince Charles originally wanted his Nanny Mabel for William but she was quite elderly at the time.

She looks a little bit like Camilla, although Mabel was probably nicer.
prince charles mabel anderson - Google Search

[sandy]

Yes I'm not sure what Queen Mary's nannies have to do with "Diana strict with her children?"

I am making a point that mothers who just allow the nannies to "deal" with the children can have an unpleasant surprise. I was using Queen Mary as an example of what can happen when mothers give nannies too much leeway.

It has plenty to do with it.

[TLLK]

^^^But Diana didn't just allow her nannies to "deal" with the children. The Wales' sons saw their mother and father as much as possible if they were in the same residence. This was the 1980's not the 1880's where even wealthy parents were playing more of a hands on role.

Now because the Wales were more involved with their children it was vital that the parents and childcare staff were on the same page when it came to discipline. If a young child needs correction, it needs to happen immediately and not hours later. It appears that at the end of Barbara Barnes tenure, the nanny and Diana were facing an issue of the parent challenging the nanny's authority to discipline in the moment. That's never a good scenario as the kids will learn to manipulate the situation and from what I can tell the Wales brothers (in particular William) learned that his mother might overrule Barbara so he could avoid a consequence or get something that had been denied to him by his nanny.

[sandy]

That 's my point. I said that Diana did not just allow nannies to take over the parenting. Diana did give her sons allowance money for doing chores like washing cars. She was not "lenient" with them all the time.

[TLLK]

Yes that's nice that she assigned them chores, but again why would a 1980's parent like Diana who looked after her own children as much as possible be compared to a woman from the 19th and early 20th century who only saw her children for about one hour a day and had several staff members assigned to care for them.  :shrug:

[amabel]

Yes that's nice that she assigned them chores, but again why would a 1980's parent like Diana who looked after her own children as much as possible be compared to a woman from the 19th and early 20th century who only saw her children for about one hour a day and had several staff members assigned to care for them.  :shrug:

yes indeed.  Times were very different by the 1980s and Diana was like most upper class and royal mothers, going to be much more involved in child care though she had to have nannies.  If Nanny is the main carer and is there most of the time, whereas Mother only sees the kids once a day then the Nanny is going to be in charge of discipline.  With the modern situations where there are nannies but moters and fathers are also seeing as much of the Kid as they can.. there is indeed  a greater need to be sure that all of them are in agreement about disciplining the children.. It wasn't realistic to expect Will and H's nannies not to correct them.. and Diana had to accept that.. I think as they got older there was more anxiety about their behaviour in public and I'd say that Charls and Diana both realised that the children had to be trained to behave well in public and not merit scoldings by either Nanny or Mother when there were likely to be pressmen around if they were out in public.  So perhaps Di got more anxious abuot ensuring that the boys were behaving themselves esp when out and about, and if any of the carers were a bit "softer" it was going to lead to problems

[oak_and_cedar]

It's interesting to see the difference in attitude in child rearing. I think Diana contributed to a more "modern" approach. IMO.

[sandy]

Yes that's nice that she assigned them chores, but again why would a 1980's parent like Diana who looked after her own children as much as possible be compared to a woman from the 19th and early 20th century who only saw her children for about one hour a day and had several staff members assigned to care for them.  :shrug:

Because I am talking about extremes in parenting. It is immaterial what century it is. That is my point and I stand by it.

[amabel]

Because I am talking about extremes in parenting. It is immaterial what century it is. That is my point and I stand by it.

Its not "immaterial "what century it is.  In the 19th C and earlier upper class mothers usualy left the children to Nurses and governesses for most of the time and saw them for an hour a day.  The boys were away at school for long periods.  Mothers did not see their role as taking care of their children.  Oftne parents who were stationed in the military or diplomatic service were abroad for years on end and their children did not see them for literally several years at a time.  So of course they did not have the same attitudes towards the children or to their nannies than a modern mother would have...
So of course a mother in Diana's time would have a different view of childrearing and a different relationship with the nanny than a mother of Q Mary's time.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2019, 01:19:34 PM

It's interesting to see the difference in attitude in child rearing. I think Diana contributed to a more "modern" approach. IMO.

Hardly.. She was not the first royal mother to "co work" with Nannies to rear her children...

[TLLK]

Because I am talking about extremes in parenting. It is immaterial what century it is.

@sandy-Actually it does influence the parenting styles of two different eras. Queen Mary would be "surprised" at the amount of time that Diana spent in the nursery performing hands on tasks with her sons as royal and aristocratic women generally left those tasks to staff. Queen Mary like so many of her age really on had any one to one contact with their children for at most an hour a day. Diana spent as much time as possible with her sons.

It is relevant when you are comparing to different eras when discussing child rearing.  :nod:

I think Diana contributed to a more "modern" approach. IMO.

Well to be honest that had already been changing in post WWII European royal households for reigning monarchies especially with those born during WWII and shortly afterwards. The royal families that fled into exile, couldn't maintain their previous standard of living  so their mothers had to pitch in to help ie: Dutch, Norwegian, Spanish etc..
By the 1960's when many of today's younger monarchs or others were born, their mothers were far more hands on with child rearing especially those in Japan, Spain, Norway, the NL, with Denmark and the UK still following the older traditions.  :nod:

[amabel]

@sandy-Actually it does influence the parenting styles of two different eras. Queen Mary would be "surprised" at the amount of time that Diana spent in the nursery performing hands on tasks with her sons as royal and aristocratic women generally left those tasks to staff. Queen Mary like so many of her age really on had any one to one contact with their children for at most an hour a day. Diana spent as much time as possible with her sons.

It is relevant when you are comparing to different eras when discussing child rearing.  :nod:
W

True and the queen wasn't that different to Q Mary. I think she did do baths and stuff and spent more time with the younger 2.. but much of the childrearing was left to Nanny.  It has been said that one day Diana was looking after the boys because it was the Nanny's day off...atnd the queen was surprised that she had not deputed the task to a housemaid. Possibly Q Mary would have been surprised by ELiz II's style of parenting as it was probably a bit different to her own.. and really astonished at Diana's...or Anne's

[TLLK]

I also believe that Princess Margaret followed the same child rearing practices that her mother, grandmothers and other aristocratic families did from years gone by. Post WWII though did affect many of the aristocratic households and saw a reduction in staff, but the Spencers seem to follow the pattern of hiring staff to do much of the mundane childcare tasks.

By the later 1960's and through to the 1980's there was a pattern of "commoners" marrying into European royal families so there was a shift in some of the practices. Commoner born queens like Norway's Sonja and Sweden's Silvia spent far more time as hands on parents than their predecessors though there were nannies in place when these ladies had their royal duties.

[sandy]

Its not "immaterial "what century it is.  In the 19th C and earlier upper class mothers usualy left the children to Nurses and governesses for most of the time and saw them for an hour a day.  The boys were away at school for long periods.  Mothers did not see their role as taking care of their children.  Oftne parents who were stationed in the military or diplomatic service were abroad for years on end and their children did not see them for literally several years at a time.  So of course they did not have the same attitudes towards the children or to their nannies than a modern mother would have...
So of course a mother in Diana's time would have a different view of childrearing and a different relationship with the nanny than a mother of Q Mary's time.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2019, 01:19:34 PM
Hardly.. She was not the first royal mother to "co work" with Nannies to rear her children...

SOmetimes the time period does not matter. Queen Victoria's daughters Alice and Vicki were very hands on mothers. ALice decided to breast feed and not hand the children over to a wet nurse. SO I would not categorize 19th century royal parents as not being hands on. Victoria was horrified over her daughters and there are letters published with her reactions to this. Alice and Victoria did not have the same attitude towards children as their mother.

[Princess Cassandra]

I think that it hurt Diana that she coudlnt' be with William all the time..and that she had to leave him to Nanny - so she got jealous. And I think she didn't want him to be scolded.. but then of course if he misbehaved, esp in public, the adults had to tell him off/control his behaviour...
I seem to remember that she didn't want the nannies (As I recall there were more than 1) to punish the children.. she would prefer to do it herself but of course she wasnt' always there and it didn't work out well, to put off telling them off when they were very young. By the time that Diana might be able to deal with a problem piece of behaviour, the child had forgotten what had occasioned the telling off

Or even worse, she would not want them to dread having her return. That was not her style at all. I'm sure she wished she could do all the child rearing herself. 

[amabel]

Or even worse, she would not want them to dread having her return. That was not her style at all. I'm sure she wished she could do all the child rearing herself. 

I think she did, but Im sure she still expected to have a nanny.  She must have realised she could not be there 24/7 even with limited royal duties.
Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2019, 05:28:03 AM

I also believe that Princess Margaret followed the same child rearing practices that her mother, grandmothers and other aristocratic families did from years gone by. Post WWII though did affect many of the aristocratic households and saw a reduction in staff, but the Spencers seem to follow the pattern of hiring staff to do much of the mundane childcare tasks.

By the later 1960's and through to the 1980's there was a pattern of "commoners" marrying into European royal families so there was a shift in some of the practices. Commoner born queens like Norway's Sonja and Sweden's Silvia spent far more time as hands on parents than their predecessors though there were nannies in place when these ladies had their royal duties.

I think with upper class families it depended on money.  THe ones like the Spencers who had managed to remain well to do, would still have a fairly large staff and a couple of nannies. I don't know much about the other royal families - in Europe.  But I think Margo wasn't the fussing around mother type so she left the children to nannies and the queen was not always maternal either so she did the saeme.  Di had always loved children and had been a nanny herself.. so it was always on the cards that she'd be a very hands on mohter
Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2019, 07:18:15 AM

SOmetimes the time period does not matter. Queen Victoria's daughters Alice and Vicki were very hands on mothers. ALice decided to breast feed and not hand the children over to a wet nurse. SO I would not categorize 19th century royal parents as not being hands on. Victoria was horrified over her daughters and there are letters published with her reactions to this. Alice and Victoria did not have the same attitude towards children as their mother.

A wet nurse is not the same as a nanny.  Alice was not at all well off, in spite of her rank.. and she had to be more hands on than Victoria or other royal mothers.  but she still would have had nurses for the children.  I don't know much about Vicky's child rearing but I would be surprised if she didn't have a full complement of nurses and governesses for her children.
Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2019, 10:58:01 AM

Actualy I think what bothered Victoria was the breast feeding.  She was of a different generation where wet nurses were commonplace and she also was not fond of babies.  So I think it rahter repelled her to think of her daughters breast feeding like peasant women and called them "cows" for doing so.

[sandy]

I think it does make a difference amabel, because royal mothers traditionally had wet nurses. Alice probably had a nanny for her children but she still spent time in the nursery with them (something royal mothers did not do much and which also bothered Victoria).

Victoria wrote about the "terrible things" that happened in the nursery and could not believe her daughters would spend time there with the children.