Would Princess Alexandra of Kent have been a good instructor to help Diana in the role of learning the duties of a Princess?
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,... (http://moonforlove.tumblr.com/post/49443255525/royal-confessions-post-by-varya-alexandra)
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?
"princesses" have their own work. Diana had ladies in waiting and other courtiers to instruct her onwhat she didn't know.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 11:09:39 AM
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....
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".
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 11:09:39 AM
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, 01:07:44 PM[
Double post auto-merged: November 13, 2017, 01:14:54 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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteWhen was lady Hussey provided? Was it in the 1980s or the 1990s?
@royalanthropologist-She was assigned to Lady Diana soon after the engagement.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2017, 02:00:21 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.
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.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 08:21:12 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 07:32:10 AM
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, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 01:33:23 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.
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, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 12:02:04 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.
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, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 13, 2017, 04:09:11 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.
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2017, 04:25:47 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 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?
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.
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...
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 13, 2017, 08:53:55 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 12, 2017, 10:43:09 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 13, 2017, 08:56:23 PM
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.
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 13, 2017, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 12, 2017, 03:49:19 PM
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."
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?
: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.
[gmod]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? (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=88025.msg1416197#msg1416197)[/gmod]