Books on the honeymoon

[TLLK]

That is the crux of the problem. She should never have been put in a position where she could not divorce her husband amicably when it became clear that the marriage had broken down "irretrievably". The rules on not divorcing and custody after divorce are archaic and need some serious updates otherwise people stay in unhappy relationships to avoid losing their children.

I have to disagree in part regarding William and Harry. It was the 1990's and thousands of couples in the UK had gone through a similar situation. Yes it is true that by law the Queen would actually have custody of ALL royal children until their reached adulthood, but she was not going to remove them from their parents' residences. Andrew and Sarah had divorced with both of them caring for their daughters who were close in the line of succession. The children would have to be raised in the UK, but unless the parents were endangering their children the Windsors knew that the public would expect that the parents would rear them in their homes.

By the time Diana and Charles had divorced, their sons were in boarding school and spending the majority of their free time with their mother until her death in 1997. Had she lived, I do believe that they'd have stayed with her until they left Eton and reached their adulthood.

[Curryong]

I do agree with you, TLLK, that the DM played one of their favourite games in picking some pieces out of Sally Bedell Smith's forthcoming biography of Charles in the hope of creating some controversy and gaining clicks.

They do this constantly with royals and celebrities. Knowing that Charles is none too popular with some members of the public and Diana is held in fond remembrance by others, while still more differ, they would be hoping for thousands of clicks.

We see the same thing in the DM with  Middletons articles digging at Charles over the attention and time his grandmother gives to Prince George, on occasion as well. This rag would certainly have played that game hard in the Diana/Sarah years if online comments had been around!

I'm waiting for the biography to appear on my Kindle. I believe the due date is April 7th. Then I'll begin to read and see what it really contains!

[royalanthropologist]

DM is like an addiction to me. I know they are terrible but they have such wonderful pictures. I just keep clicking  :hehe: I am a clickbait victim and need an intervention :no:

[amabel]

That is the crux of the problem. She should never have been put in a position where she could not divorce her husband amicably when it became clear that the marriage had broken down "irretrievably". The rules on not divorcing and custody after divorce are archaic and need some serious updates otherwise people stay in unhappy relationships to avoid losing their children.

I have to disagree in part regarding William and Harry. It was the 1990's and thousands of couples in the UK had gone through a similar situation. Yes it is true that by law the Queen would actually have custody of ALL royal children until their reached adulthood, but she was not going to remove them from their parents' residences. Andrew and Sarah had divorced with both of them caring for their daughters who were close in the line of succession. The children would have to be raised in the UK, but unless the parents were endangering their children the Windsors knew that the public would expect that the parents would rear them in their homes.

By

yes exactly.  the queen was never going to take the boys unless Diana's behiaviour became impossible.. and she knew that as senior royal children they had to be reared largely in England.
and  Diana KNEW tat her marriage was supposed to remain intact, and IMO it was foolish of her to push things ot the point of a divorce.  I think she'd have been better to remain formally married to Charles and not engage in her wars against him
Double post auto-merged: April 02, 2017, 08:47:54 AM

If Charles had not married Lady Diana, there would have been a different lady who would have become Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles.

Obviously... unless he didn't marry

[sandy]

I know what Bedell Smith's book contains. I read the book about Diana she wrote...more of the same.

[royalanthropologist]

@amabel. In my view, Diana never actually imagined that a divorce would happen. She had been accustomed to a queen who was passive and a prince who largely avoided her so she imagined that they would not react to panorama with anything but contemptuous regal silence. As a married woman, the queen may have understood Diana's argument that she should not be pushed out of her marriage but when Diana  questioned the succession the queen had to act. Not to do so would have been akin to allowing treason to happen in her own household. No self-respecting monarch can allow that.

I do not even think that Diana was seriously questioning the succession. All she wanted was to get back at her husband for not loving her and effectively abandoning her for good. Bashir saw an emotional, paranoid, hurt, vengeful, confused and not particularly reflective woman; perfect fodder for a media scoop. Later on as Diana realized the implications of the interview, she started to panic. When ordered to divorce she procrastinated and was dismayed that her husband was very quick to accept the queen's order. It was confirmation (if any was needed) that Charles was thoroughly fed up with the marriage and wanted out at any cost.

That interview was a very big tactical error and Diana had been warned by all the people who had any real concern for her but she ignored them. It could satisfy her devotees and justify their ire but in the long run it meant that Diana was pushed out of the firm and soon began to flounder under the gaze of an emboldened press. Dodi was her final, tragic decision. 

[amabel]

Its very hard to know what Diana was thinking.  I assumed she was looking for a divorce at the time.. that she wanted out of her marriage, that she had new admirers and possible husbands In mind and wanted to get free of her marriage.
I find it hard to beleive that she was QUITE so stupid as to think that the queen would not react badly to Panorama and the remarks about Charles and the "top job".. that was a step too far..
but then I think that she DID take fright when the queen said that she was now putting her foot down and her ordering a divorce, so perhaps she was that silly that she did not realise that her interview would lead to the RF finally losing patience and cutting her loose.

[TLLK]

"I knew from her general demeanour, her fidgeting, that she was not at all confident about what she had done and that the full implications were dawning on her. So you had this mixture of anxiety and defiance. I think by the time of the broadcast, she deeply regretted it, not least because it did nothing to advance her cause."

Her former aide  Patrick Jehpson's take on the interview.

Princess Diana 'deeply regretted' infamous Martin Bashir interview, former aide reveals

[amabel]

I think he's just writing a new take on the story, to make money.  At first he insinuated  that Diana had been proud of what she'd done and didn't think it was going to have negative implications but it horrified HIM, because he was hoping to keep her inside the RF and working with them.  So who can saya which is the truth? 
I think that she was happy with what she had done till after it aired and the queen stepped In, and she was then scared, and realised that she had indeed pushed the Q too far.. and that now she was about to be pushed out of the RF.  And I think that she got frightened, and didn't really want to leave now that they were saying "Go".  I think she began to realise that even if a lot of the public had liked her interview, the Upper classes and RF were mostly now appalled and hostile to her and that she was going to be left out in the cold, that she would no longer be treated as part fo the family or as a royal.. except when they were absolutely forced to acknowledge her.. and tat if she was divorced, Charles would be free to make Camilla his wife, if he could get the RF and queen and public to agree ot it.. as he evnetally did.

[sandy]

I don't think it was looked upon as "easy" for Charles to marry Camilla with both at the time having two living ex spouses. His grandmother loathed Camilla and did not tolerate her after Charles named her and Andrew Parker Bowles divorced her.

[royalanthropologist]

Once the Divorce had gone through, it was only a matter of time before Camilla would be acknowledged as Charles' consort. If Diana had remained married and "civilized" about the whole thing, Camilla would have remained a mistress and nothing more. As Diana pushed and pushed, she was actually opening doors for Camilla. A relationship that had been hidden to most but the upper classes was now widely acknowledged with many agreeing that the Prince of Wales deserved personal happiness with the woman he loved. The opinion polls of the time show that the only sticky issue was about queenship. That was resolved by that little con about "Princess Consort".

Diana (like some Spencers) was quite impulsive and emotional. She never did play the long game. To her a few good headlines and the moment of getting one over her husband was the height of her planning. She never thought 5,10,20 years down the line. Camilla just had to sit tight and watch the Princess of Wales self-destruct. Even today, Camilla still plays the long game. If she had been impulsive and emotional; she would have released her own biography and account but she knew very well that that would end her chances of every marrying Charles.

So Camilla just kept quiet, letting her detractors run themselves wild  with fury but without the ability to seriously impede her progress to the crown. I don't think Camilla actually reads the negative comments written about her. It is like children having a tantrum when the adult is doing the laundry. The facts are that she is set for life now and she got the man. For example; it was reported that members of the Diana circle wrote her  very angry letters immediately after the marriage. One of Camilla's lady's-in-waiting always sent back a polite but noncommittal response; thanking the writer for contacting the Duchess and saying nothing more. That strategy has taken Camilla from a minor member of the country set to being the second most senior woman of the United Kingdom.

Some might argue that Diana was more honest but ultimately it is a very cold, cold place outside the royal family. No amount of celebrity can ever compensate a person for the loss of royal status. HRH has a magic of its own. It closes and opens doors, no matter how famous you are. Diana realized this when the responses to Panorama started trickling in. Nicholas Soames was probably authorized to call her mad, outright; a very clear sign that Diana was to be cast adrift. Even one of Diana's sisters started distancing herself (married to the queen's private secretary). Panorama was a spectacularly bad error of judgment, only matched by the breathless naivety of Morton. It is incredible that a woman who was noted for her street-smart did not realize just how angry the queen would be at panorama.

[amabel]

well perhaps all this "Diana was street  smart" and "had emotional intelligence" is nonsense. If she was so quick at working out peopl'es emotions, how come she didn't realise that her royal boyfriend was just out of an affair with another woman?  how come she didn't realise that fliritng with a married celeb like Will carling was going to annoy his wife and that being a celebritity Julia Carlign would make a public fuss?

[royalanthropologist]

Impulsiveness, impulsiveness. That is why a calm mum was essential to Diana. At least she could get considered advice that she had to listen to, even if not taking it on board. Instead Diana got gurus and mind readers who fed every conspiracy theory they could find to her. They increased her paranoia with fantastic predictions, some involving the Prince of Wales dead. You do not do that when you want to see off a mistress. You make calm, considered strategic decisions. Diana was either too proud, too spirited, or too naive to be able to do that. Whilst married, she was protected by the ring. Once divorced, Charles had no real obligation to her and the press felt they could now tear into her without any fear of royal retaliation.

[sandy]

No way was Camilla going to go away even if Diana had the skills of Sherlock Holmes. Charles had and has his share of gurus. Diana was dispensable in that marriage.

[Mike]

By the time Diana and Charles had divorced, their sons were in boarding school and spending the majority of their free time with their mother until her death in 1997. Had she lived, I do believe that they'd have stayed with her until they left Eton and reached their adulthood.

Wasn't Diana, at one time, considering moving to Pakistan with Dr. Khan?  Her sons would not be permitted to go with her.  Also, I once read she was thinking of moving away from England on her own to avoid the rabid paparazzi.  Again, her boys would have to stay behind.  Are these two stories true?

[royalanthropologist]

@Mike. Diana kept toying with these rather silly ideas of living abroad but I never thought she actually meant to follow through on them. It was just a ploy to keep her press court interested and busy. She complained about the press but could not live without them. If Diana truly wanted to be a recluse, she had sufficient money to do so. Many celebrities have retired from public life and never been heard of again. However it was Diana herself who paradoxically insisted that she "would not go quietly". She wanted the limelight and the press duly obliged. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, not Diana as the victim.

Also I find it amusing that someone that was so devastated by her husband having a mistress would want to marry into a culture where polygamy is the done thing. I wonder what her devotees would say when Khan or even Dodi found a second, third and fourth wife. Diana was not thinking clearly or rationally at that time of her life so everything she did must be viewed within that prism. Her thought process was full of inconsistencies, false accommodations and double standards. Some of her most ardent fans continue that tradition to this very day.

As for the marriage not surviving because of Camilla, there are many many women who have seen off mistresses that are way more powerful and way more influential than Camilla was. Even the royal ladies themselves have managed to see off mistresses or alternatively keep them in their place (Queen Alexandra comes to mind in recent times). It is just that Diana wanted to force her husband to give up his mistress, love her unconditionally and took her battle to the press when he did not. He refused to be bulldozed in this way and became even more stubborn about making Camilla non-negotiable. 

Later on Diana  hinted that she wanted out (in reality Charles had left her around 1985 so it was all just a bit of drama over a lost cause). Like most things about Diana, she was inconsistent in her desire to leave the marriage as well. When the actual divorce was presented; she started to hesitate and even regret. Panorama itself is an exercise in self contradiction. She says she does not want a divorce but wants clarity from her husband. She says she is not bitter but then goes on to behave like an embittered ex wife. She says she is concerned about her husband's welfare then goes on to betray him in the worst way possible. That was classic Diana, inconsistent and complex to the very end.

Charles was glad to get out of that marriage, Diana was not. She was the one who was dumped, not the other way round. Some of her fans claim she was too good for him in order to get over that little inconvenient truth. I theorize that if the queen and Charles had ignored Panorama; Diana would have been quite happy continuing her role as the vengeful wronged wife. Divorce surprised her and took away that role. She would now be judged for her own new relationships/decisions and that did not exactly pan out well. That is why she and her fans kept going back to Charles as the root cause of why she was making so many mistakes even after the divorce.

[sandy]

Khan did not practice polygamy.

Mistresses knew their places in the days of Alexandra. They would not have dared to try to usurp the royal wife or trash her. Edward obviously did not leave ALexandra's bed after the heir and spare were born.

Diana was not dumped. She was no doormat.

[royalanthropologist]

Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.

It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.

Charles dumped Diana, that has been the rallying cry of Diana supporters for over 20 years. Unless of course we are now arguing that Diana is the one that dumped Charles (that would entail losing her victim status). Diana was no doormat but being dumped does not mean you are a doormat. It just means your love interest has moved on without your consent.

Now as to humble mistresses... Mistresses who know their place like the ones that come to the death bed of their lover (Alice Keppel)? Or mistresses who leave hundreds crank calls for their married lovers? Camilla is nothing when compared to what mistresses have done for time immemorial. Diana herself is a descendant of a royal mistress. She herself became a mistress (albeit not a royal one). 

[amabel]

Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.

It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.


Now

sorry but absolute nonsense.  Do you really think that Hasnat Khan was a nasty bully or that he was likely to practice polygamy?  Yes it is permitted in Pakistan but only if the man has obtained the consent of his wife and is able to taek care of any other wives.  Khan has lived much of his life In the west and is harly likely to be a traditional or very conservative Muslim

[royalanthropologist]

Not quite so nonsensical as it might seem at first. Diana went to see Khan's family, without his consent I gather. The visit did not go well. They were deeply religious and conservative. In any case I did not state that Khan was a bully, just that his religion allowed him to marry many wives. Indeed Charles "two wives" comments in Wales pale into insignificance when compared to the liberties allowed a Muslim man.  I am yet to meet a Muslim woman who has successfully prevented her husband from marrying a second wife when he wanted to do so.

Is Khan divorced btw? I read something about that somewhere but not sure whether it is true. If that is true then he was not quite the "Mr. Wonderful" that has been sold to us in the fairy tale. Not a bully but also not the Barbara Cartland hero.

[amabel]

well seems to me you see him as unpleasant, in that you seem to be saying "Oh If Diana played her "spirited" tricks on him, he would soon slap her down"...
I simply can't see Khan as the sort of Muslim who would go in for polgyany which is probably dying out, and certnaly not practiced by westernised Muslims like hm.  yes he's divorced.  he married a woman who was considered suitable by his family,  a Muslim, well bred and Pakinstani, I suppose as his family wnted him to, and it didn't work out.  But if he was like you seem to imply, if he was unhapply married he would just tell his wife what was what and take a new one as well.

I can't see why his being divorced means that he's "not Mr Wonderful" or that he is some kind of bad person...

[royalanthropologist]

Divorce does not equate to being a bully of course. It just shows that his relationship with Diana could have broken (indeed it eventually did). I do not see Khan as being a bad person at all, far from it. My beef with him was when he gave an interview implying that the only problem in that marriage was Charles. Of course we know that it wasn't, if it was then Khan himself would never have broken up with Diana. They were not the perfect couple  and he was a tad presumptuous to claim to know the real truth of a marriage based on a clearly biased account by his then girlfriend. 

[sandy]

Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.

It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.

Charles dumped Diana, that has been the rallying cry of Diana supporters for over 20 years. Unless of course we are now arguing that Diana is the one that dumped Charles (that would entail losing her victim status). Diana was no doormat but being dumped does not mean you are a doormat. It just means your love interest has moved on without your consent.

Now as to humble mistresses... Mistresses who know their place like the ones that come to the death bed of their lover (Alice Keppel)? Or mistresses who leave hundreds crank calls for their married lovers? Camilla is nothing when compared to what mistresses have done for time immemorial. Diana herself is a descendant of a royal mistress. She herself became a mistress (albeit not a royal one). 

Not all muslims practice polygamy. That is a falsehood.

Camilla broke precedent as a royal mistress, she got most of what the displaced wife had.

Diana could have had the option to put up and shut up. She didn't. In that sense she dumped Charles because she would not put up with his mistress(es)

[amabel]

Divorce does not equate to being a bully of course. It just shows that his relationship with Diana could have broken (indeed it eventually did). I do not see Khan as being a bad person at all, far from it. My beef with him was when he gave an interview implying that the only problem in that marriage was Charles. Of course we know that it wasn't, if it was then Khan himself would never have broken up with Diana. They were not the perfect couple  and he was a tad presumptuous to claim to know the real truth of a marriage based on a clearly biased account by his then girlfriend. 

I don't recall his giving an interview, but IMO he has talked vry little about Diana, unlike some of her lovers. and he didn't break up with her. TO the best of my knowledge she broke up with him, probably because she was seeing Dodi

[sandy]

Hewitt was the biggest blabbermouth.