Keeping a separate court

amabel · February 06, 2019, 07:59:11 PM

But you said that it mighg well happen, that Khan would live with her, if not marry her. So I amnt sure why you're also saying that Diana only wanted "marriage and more children"

sandy · February 06, 2019, 08:09:21 PM

Time to move on, enough already.I'm not answering any more questions about this.

I think Diana would have had influence when Will became King.

royalanthropologist · February 06, 2019, 08:22:44 PM

Well, there was going to be a long time before William became King. At the time of her divorce, there was no expectation she would or could have a separate court. Panorama had shown that even an amicable separation was no longer enough. A clean and final divorce had to be concluded.

LouisFerdinand · February 06, 2019, 10:00:42 PM

Even if Princess Diana could have had a separate court, would she not have had to pay for some expenses from her own finances?

Curryong · February 06, 2019, 10:15:58 PM

Can you name any divorced woman in modern times who has been divorced from an heir to the throne and kept a separate court? Because I can't. Divorce from a Prince means precisely that. The person is not a member of that royal house any more.

sandy · February 06, 2019, 10:35:01 PM

Diana would have always been connected since she shared custody of the children with CHarles.

TLLK · February 07, 2019, 03:07:37 AM

Quote from: amabel on February 06, 2019, 06:40:12 PM
I think that she rally really didn't know what she wanted. She wantd to be free to have open relationships with men, but she was scared of being outside the protected life of a royal.. She thougtt it would be nice to be free and not have to sneak around with her lovers, but I think she was afraid when she realised that being outside the RF might mean that she wasn't wanted for charity work, so much, that the Presss might move on to other people... and I think she did have ideas that if Charles were to give up his place in the succession, she would have an influeintail role as Willl's mother...?.

I agree that she would have liked to have had an open relationship with a man that she didn't have to hide from the world. (Which would mean that she could be out in public with him, not an "open marriage.') :thumbsup:

Double post auto-merged: February 07, 2019, 04:10:12 AM

Quote from: Curryong on February 06, 2019, 10:15:58 PM
Can you name any divorced woman in modern times who has been divorced from an heir to the throne and kept a separate court? Because I can't. Divorce from a Prince means precisely that. The person is not a member of that royal house any more.

If you and I cannot think of any couple in that situation @Curryong, then they don't exists. @LouisFerdinand -Diana would not have been allowed to have a "separate court" as she would not longer be considered a member of the "working" pool of the BRF. Yes she'd be considered part of the family to some extent much like Mark Phillips, Sarah Ferguson, Tony Snowdon but she wasn't undertaking events on behalf of the monarch/government after the divorce.

Much like other royal mothers who were helping to raise the future monarch ie: Princess Muna of Jordan (ex-wife of the late King Hussein and mother to the current monarch Abdullah II) she'd still play a role in preparing the heir.

royalanthropologist · February 07, 2019, 06:34:35 AM

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on February 06, 2019, 10:00:42 PM
Even if Princess Diana could have had a separate court, would she not have had to pay for some expenses from her own finances?

BTW you raised an interesting thread and interesting follow-up questions @LouisFerdinand. :thumbsup:

In the separation agreement and even after the divorce, Charles would pay for Diana's office and some official expenses. I think this was meant to ensure that all her work was under the control of the monarchy lest she damages it any further with revelations and upstaging.

The court in the classic sense is really an exclusive privilege of senior members of the royal family such as the King, Queen, consorts and the direct heir. As an estranged wife, there was no expectation from BRF that Diana could be or should be entitled to a court. For a start, they would not want a situation where her staff were working against POW or the queen. All they were looking for is to push her out of their intimate circle so that she no longer had a say in the running of BRF but not so far away so that she could be contained in case she started fighting them again.

A great example of this was when Tony Blair seriously considered Diana's wish to be a roving ambassador for the UK and the palace vetoed it. That would be difficult if Diana had a separate court. Ditto for the attendance at state events. The last thing they would want is for Diana to turn up unexpectedly and upstage everyone so they insisted that she had to first wait for an invitation.

sandy · February 07, 2019, 06:12:42 PM

Upstaging? Charles was and is a crackpot, he was jealous of his own wife even when she was a teenager.

Diana and Charles shared custody of the children. There was an appearance of the family together after the divorce at William's Confirmation.

I don't see it an unreasonable request for Diana to carve out a new role. She died so it is not known what she would have done. Doors would have been kicked open for her. There are trillions more people on the planet than the royals.

The upstaging business IS nonsense. Maybe Diana could have put a bag over her head since childish Charles did not want people to look at her. He is the one who should be trashed not Diana.

amabel · February 07, 2019, 06:23:32 PM

Since her post divorce charity work was erratic and her charites were disappointed with her, its hard to say how she would have worked out.. Once she was divorced, she had to make her own way, career wise.. and she didn't stick to things, so its possible that the charities she had retained, would not wish her to continue as Parton....

sandy · February 07, 2019, 06:38:49 PM

She died in 1997, she was regrouping. IT was only a year after the divorce that she died so I don't see how you can talk about post divorce charity work when it was a transitional year for her and she died at the end of August.

She did stick to things, she only was regrouping because she got a divorce and she was looking into what charities/patronages she would go with as someone who was a divorcee.

I honestly don't know how you can draw any conclusions, you just show negativity towards Diana. It was not as if she had beyond a year after the divorce.

amabel · February 07, 2019, 06:41:52 PM

and that's very sad, but she had given up most of her charities, when she divorced, in order to concentrate on a few.. and then she chose not to do very much for them. as you know. One of her AIDS charities was very disappointed at how she would not commit to doing things for them and they "began to leave her out of things" because they could not be sure if she'd come ot an event. She also brought Aillen Getty to an event, when she had been asked not to.

Double post auto-merged: February 07, 2019, 06:49:19 PM

Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 06, 2019, 08:22:44 PM
Well, there was going to be a long time before William became King. At the time of her divorce, there was no expectation she would or could have a separate court. Panorama had shown that even an amicable separation was no longer enough. A clean and final divorce had to be concluded.

True, William is now in his 30s - and I don't think he'll be king for many years yet. I don't really think that she would have had a "court@" if she were the mother of the King.. she'd be a good deal older, who knows what would have happened.

sandy · February 07, 2019, 06:57:34 PM

She stopped being a royal wife in 1996. She was regrouping. It was her life and it ended at age 36. So you make it seem she lived until 100 and vilify her and assume she was a failure when she died at 36. Overall Diana was praised for her charity work you are picking out a few things like one charity said this or that. So she brought Getty to an event? That did not mean Diana would NOT have bee n a success. You keep nitpicking about Diana and it seems you condemn her to fail even though she died at 36.

It is not known when william will be King. QE II became Queen in her early twenties. People don't get expiration dates where they know the exact time.

amabel · February 07, 2019, 07:06:44 PM

I think the queen will make her century, and possibly Charles will as well...
but you know quite well that diana's reason fro giving up all her charities was so that she could concentrate on a few and give them more attention. So it doesn't look good then that she didn't do this and that her charities were somewhat disappointed with her level fo commitment. If she went on like that, they might have chosen another patron and if Diana had no charities to work for, what was she going to do, but retire into private life. They didnd't ask her to work for them 9-5 Monday to Friday but they asked her to let them know if she could come to events...and as they put it, "she didn't say yes or a definite no, so we began to leav her out of things." The AIDS charity asked her not to bring Alieen Getty to some event..adn she brought her.. that sort of behaviour was bound to make charities think tiwce about having Diana as a Patron...

sandy · February 07, 2019, 08:18:38 PM

Why doesn't it look good? The woman died on August 31, 1997 so you are condemning her for what she did in the brief time she had on the planet after the divorce.

"some" charities were disappointed but not everybody is always approving something. And at her funeral her charities were represented and there were many paying tribute. Which speaks volumes.

The woman died on August 31 1997 I doubt the people complaining about Aileen Getty would slam Diana today. It was a tragedy and I don't know how you can assume she would have been a "flop" because someone complained about Aileen Getty.

LouisFerdinand · February 07, 2019, 08:24:27 PM

Quote from: sandy on February 07, 2019, 06:57:34 PM
She stopped being a royal wife in 1996. She was regrouping. It was her life and it ended at age 36. So you make it seem she lived until 100 and vilify her and assume she was a failure when she died at 36. Overall Diana was praised for her charity work you are picking out a few things like one charity said this or that. So she brought Getty to an event? That did not mean Diana would NOT have bee n a success. You keep nitpicking about Diana and it seems you condemn her to fail even though she died at 36.

It is not known when william will be King. QE II became Queen in her early twenties. People don't get expiration dates where they know the exact time.

@sandy, I like how you expressed: She stopped being a royal wife in 1996. The only way Diana could have been a royal wife again was if she married a prince or king.

amabel · February 07, 2019, 08:30:48 PM

Quote from: sandy on February 07, 2019, 08:18:38 PM
Why doesn't it look good? The woman died on August 31, 1997 so you are condemning her for what she did in the brief time she had on the planet after the divorce.

"some" charities were disappointed but not everybody is always approving something. And at her funeral her charities were represented and there were many paying tribute. Which speaks volumes.

The woman died on August 31 1997 I doubt the people complaining about Aileen Getty would slam Diana today. It was a tragedy and I don't know how you can assume she would have been a "flop" because someone complained about Aileen Getty.

yes of course her death was a tragedy...but had she lived, she would have had to either pull up her socks and be more active in her charity work,.. or reitre inot a more private life. If she was wanting to be a charity activisit, she had to work with the charities that she had committed to. Don't you think that it wasn't a good sign that her AIDS charity began to leave her out of their events? If that had gone on, she would not have been as popular with the public, because they would not see her doig engagements, possibly being replaced by another patron..and what else could she have done. She wasn't royal any more.. so the patronages would not come in just because she was an HRH.. she would have to show she was an active worker In the charity field... not someone who did a very occasional engagement...

royalanthropologist · February 07, 2019, 08:43:03 PM

I think it was around 1992 when she made that huge announcement of a cutback of her charities. Some were disappointed because it seemed that they were now becoming victims of the war of the waleses. Then she came back with some of them and those who saw her at close quarters said she was genuinely interested in them.

The problem was that after some time, it seems that Diana had become a mistress of gesture so there was always a suspicion that some of her events were chosen to upstage members of the BRF. Indeed, some press coup members stated that they would get calls from a posh lady telling them that the "Princess of Wales is going to be in such and such a place at such and such a time", all designed to coincide with a visit by a member of the BRF. It is exactly such behavior that meant that they could never allow her to have a separate court.

Make no mistake, Diana was no friend of the Windsors and would have delighted in their downfall. They responded in kind by neutralizing her.

sandy · February 07, 2019, 08:46:23 PM

No royal it was not 1992. It was later, about two years later, she took some time off but did not disappear and came back working. It was the famous Time and Space speech.

For heavens sakes royal so Diana could not breathe lest her immature estranged husband feel "upstaged." Diana was doing royal appearances before the divorce.

Diana was on the calendar and did royal appearances since she was still a royal with the HRH until the date of the divorce.

Her sons are Windsors so are you saying she was not a friend of theirs. Diana was not "neutralized". You hope that she was. She is light years ahead of Camilla who leaves tours early and has low numbers.

Quote from: amabel on February 07, 2019, 08:30:48 PM
yes of course her death was a tragedy...but had she lived, she would have had to either pull up her socks and be more active in her charity work,.. or reitre inot a more private life. If she was wanting to be a charity activisit, she had to work with the charities that she had committed to. Don't you think that it wasn't a good sign that her AIDS charity began to leave her out of their events? If that had gone on, she would not have been as popular with the public, because they would not see her doig engagements, possibly being replaced by another patron..and what else could she have done. She wasn't royal any more.. so the patronages would not come in just because she was an HRH.. she would have to show she was an active worker In the charity field... not someone who did a very occasional engagement...

But she did not live.

Not being a royal does not hinder people succeeding in life. She also was a part of the royal family in that she was sharing custody of two Royal Children.

You seem to wish she would not have been popular.

amabel · February 08, 2019, 06:03:15 PM

On the contrary I wished for her to be popular. I hoped that when she lost her royal positon, she would become well known for her charity wrok, and prove that she could do it by herself, without her having the HRH and being royal. But the evidence seems to suggest that she wasn't fully committed and her charities weren't too pleased. So she was losing a chance IMO to show that she could make a career for herself that wasn't just PR and where she did some positive good. Im sorry and disappointed that she wasn't perhaps able to take advantage of her positon as a former princess...
Being William adn Harys mother did not make her royal and it wasn't a public role

sandy · February 08, 2019, 06:15:40 PM

She lost her royal position in 1996, she died a year later. So how can you make any pronouncements or judgments about what she would have done? She did a whole lot in 1996-97, she sold her iconic gowns/outfits for charities, she called attention to anti Landmine Campaign and she was honored for her humanitarian research. So what did you expect she was only alive one year after. I am curious about how you can draw any conclusions about her if she had no time left after one year of being a divorcee.

She was William and Harry's mother and she married their father. So she had every right to share custody. I think Will would have restored her HRH

royalanthropologist · February 08, 2019, 06:17:26 PM

Quote from: sandy on February 07, 2019, 08:46:23 PM
Her sons are Windsors so are you saying she was not a friend of theirs. Diana was not "neutralized". You hope that she was. She is light years ahead of Camilla who leaves tours early and has low numbers.

Diana sometimes did things that damaged the institution which her sons would one day head . Panorama was a prime example. Anyone that genuinely had her interests at heart would have told her that was not the way to go but she of course kept those out of the loop. She knew what she was doing was going to upset the BRF and that is why she was clandestine about it until the last minute. Then they responded, quietly but firmly and she was the one that ended up having to accept a comedown position. Charles got everything he wanted from that marriage and she got pittances by comparison.

I think they neutralized her. If you think, how many aces she had up her sleeve after Camillagate and how it all ended for her...they neutralized her. Her arch enemy is now the queen consort in waiting with all that that entails. In fact, all the things that Diana tried to do to damage the Windsors ended up hurting her more. Yes, they had low approval ratings but they are still going strong and pretty much operate as they were. Hers were Pyrrhic temporary victories but the battle was always going to be in the favor of the Windsors.

amabel · February 08, 2019, 06:19:53 PM

Quote from: sandy on February 08, 2019, 06:15:40 PM
She lost her royal position in 1996, she died a year later. So how can you make any pronouncements or judgments about what she would have done? She did a whole lot in 1996-97, she sold her iconic gowns/outfits for charities, she called attention to anti Landmine Campaign and she was honored for her humanitarian research. So what did you expect she was only alive one year after. I am curious about how you can draw any conclusions about her if she had no time left after one year of being a divorcee.

She was William and Harry's mother and she married their father. So she had every right to share custody. I think Will would have restored her HRH

and she was also criticised by th charities she had selected to give special attention to

sandy · February 08, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

You keep bringing up the Aileen Getty episode this is rarely mentioned unless someone is looking to nitpick about Diana's "flaws." Diana died in 1997 amabel I am wondering how you doom someone to failure if she had only ONE year of life after the divorce.

Royal,Charles did things to damage the institution with his behavior. He did the Dimbleby interview over a YEAR before Panorama and forced the divorce of his mistress and her husband by blabbing about his affair with camilla. This is always overlooked by you Royal. Charles caused embarrassment taking Camilla parker Bowles as his official escort to Zimbabwe in 1980, some courtier found him making out with Parker Bowles and embarrassing them all.

Neutralized her? The woman is dead and in her grave. Camilla being Queen Consort is subject to debate. Lying Charles indicated she would be Princess Consort.

Charles shot himself in the foot and lost popularity with his behavior towards his first wife. Of course you think royal he was entitled to cheat on her and of course Camilla should be part of the marriage. Charles walks on water as far as you are concerned.

Diana was the same person and popular despite your darling royals treating her badly And they did, especially Charles and his greedy mistress.

Camilla will never appear in genealogical charts and Will told the public he is talking to his children about their grandmother Diana. Charles and Camilla are seething no doubt.

royalanthropologist · February 08, 2019, 06:26:26 PM

Yes that is true Amabel. Some charities were a bit miffed that they could be dropped just like that because their hitherto involved patron was having a domestic dispute. I think Diana realized later on that she needed to come back to full public life. Of course by then she also had to deal with the fallout from Panorama including her divorce.

After the divorce, she was no longer at the heart of the British monarchy. In fact, the press took their cues and were a lot more aggressive with her since they knew that she was never going to be queen after all. They saw her as a way to sell papers and she had to perform for them...sometimes they allegedly said nasty things to her in order to get her to cry for a good photo. That was the sad reality of someone that was once destined to be the first among all women in the Commonwealth.