Diana Spencer

[Ally]

Ah I see Bob, your logic is, as ever, completely fascinating. So you believe that because Charles was born Royal, any criticism of his actions in his marriage automatically means one is a rabid anti-royalist. No one can criticize him, for what he did in his own marriage because that makes them "rabid anti-royalists". The womb that he fell out of was a royal one, and therefore, he is immune from condemnation. But his wife, she is perfectly okay to call such things as vicious manipulator, pit viper in heat, promiscuous, etc, and that's perfectly okay.

I made not a single comment about the monarchy, the system of royalism or anything related to "royals". I made comments on the man, not his title.

I think it's time you ran along and took your old folks pills, because your faculties are clearly on the slippy side.

Charles cheated in his marriage, just like Diana. He made a complete hash of it, just like Diana. he married her, while he was in love with someone else, and made no attempt to make it a "real" marriage.

Pointing out that he shares an equal percentage of the blame for what went wrong in their marriage doesn't make one a rabid anti-loyalist, it makes one objective.

I would say you are such a blind royal ass-kisser that you are incapable of being reasoned on this subject therefore you should probably be the one who toddles off before you look like any more of a frothing maniac than you do.

[Phil H]

Ally,

I think Charles - ever the "traditionalist" - thought that in the style of some of his forebears (not least Edward VII) he would be able to sustain a marriage (at least as a facade) and a mistress. In his case, of course, the latter was his real true love.

So far as his marriage is concerned, he does not seem to have been a bad father, and his relationship with William and Harry appears affectionate on both sides. Indeed, I think the lads have paid tribute to what an excellent father he has been.

To me the trouble was that the self-effacing, unsure Diana of the engagement, woke up one day to realise that she was more popular than her husband and began to use that knowledge to advance her position.

Given that she had proved inadequate at the skills that the exisiting royals saw as being their "profession", she started to ignore those and to be almost deliberately challenging in her new touchy-feely approach. It's success, further alienated the royals from her - initially suspicious they were now fearful - and also led to the in-fight with her husband that became ever more "dirty".

No one in this saga emeges with great credit, and it's timing I associate in part with one of the pitfalls of a long reign - the mid-way doldrums.

It is easy to forget that in her early years on the throne, Elizabeth II was something of an icon herself, though not in Diana's league or even that of her sister Margaret. But the Queen has character, something I'm not sure Diana ever achieved.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

Phil H

Yes good summary. Some people don't seem to understand that I have no objection to anyone criticising members of the Royal family - I just object when they seem unable to do so without using the language of the gutter (see above in red), which is certainly not necessary to make a point!

[Ally]

Ah yes, because "pit viper in heat" is the language of elevated drawing room conversation. *cough* hypocrite *cough*.

Phil,

I agree with most of your summary, but I hardly think that casts Diana as an evil manipulator. She was also a good parent, as good as Charles no doubt, and took a hands on approach to her children.

If she woke up one day to realize she'd been used, and was a trophy wife, good on her for using that to her advantage and making sure that she owned the part ( the way she wished to) that she had been cast in. When you get tossed to the lions, you can become their meal or acquire some lion taming skills. I just find it hilarious that the old guard men seem to castigate her for doing what they would have called shrewd decision making in a man.

[Phil H]

just find it hilarious that the old guard men seem to castigate her for doing what they would have called shrewd decision making in a man.

If by the "old guard men" you mean members of the royal household, then maybe there is another reason for their criticism.

Absolute loyalty and devotion is the creed of most of those who serve the current monarch, and later in her career I think Diana came very closely to breaching that code. She never criticised the Quen herself , but since Elizabeth II is "head of the firm" implied criticism of her children or the stuffines of the "palace" could have been read as aimed indirectly at her.

The embarrassments of the week after Diana's death have also, I think, coloured the way the Princess is perceived. The Queen did exactly as she always had, with dignity and protectively towards her grandsons. But she was judged by Diana's standards in that she was deemed not to SHOW her emotion, or grieve PUBLICLY. This led to public/media anger over the lack of a standard on Buckingham Palace (even though that had long been a proud tradition) and the almost enforced return of the Queen to London on the Friday. Some resentment might result from those events.

I think any of us, if we had devoted a lifetime to excellency in a particular field, might find it hard to deal with someone who came along for a few years, didn't obey the establishment rules and yet got the applause.

If your "old guard" relates generally to the older generation, I think many of us were perturbed and disturbed by the very un-British out-pouring of grief in that week in 1997. Not least because it came from only part of society - I think the other part showed its feelings a few years later with applause for the Queen as she drove away from her mother's lying-in-state; and later at the Golden Jubilee. I think many in society, who were suspicious of Diana for various reasons, were unhappy and uncomfortable with the mass grief and mourning - they came to see Diana, even in death, as in some measure, subversive.

I could go on, but enough for now.

phil

[Bob Hinton]

Ah yes, because "pit viper in heat" is the language of elevated drawing room conversation. *cough* hypocrite *cough*.

.

No that happens to be a direct quote from someone who knew Diana, very, very well.

[Bob Hinton]

[B]

The embarrassments of the week after Diana's death have also, I think, coloured the way the Princess is perceived. The Queen did exactly as she always had, with dignity and protectively towards her grandsons. But she was judged by Diana's standards in that she was deemed not to SHOW her emotion, or grieve PUBLICLY. This led to public/media anger over the lack of a standard on Buckingham Palace (even though that had long been a proud tradition) and the almost enforced return of the Queen to London on the Friday. Some resentment might result from those events.



If your "old guard" relates generally to the older generation, I think many of us were perturbed and disturbed by the very un-British out-pouring of grief in that week in 1997.

phil

I totally agree with you. I think Grinner Blair should hang his head in shame for not supporting the Queen instead of trying to force her to take part in a popularity contest. He obviously didn’t understand the protocol for such things and if he did he held them in contempt. Wasn’t it Mrs Blair who refused to courtesy to the Queen?

What you say about the totally hyped up nonsense about Diana’s funeral reminded me of an interview with a lady before the actual event. Apparently the route of the procession had been changed and it would now pass right underneath this lady’s (!) balcony. I will never forget the light shining from her eyes and the great big grin as she told the reporter that this news was ‘absolutely wonderful’.

I couldn’t really describe the death of a young woman as being attached to anything that was wonderful.

[Phil H]

No, I think Blair acted quite rightly and rode the storm (for that's what it was) very well, Robert.

I recall clearly the feeling that some groundswell was rising that week that could well have carried away the monarchy had it not been diverted and satisfied. Indeed, I wrote to the Queen's Private Secretary to urge the palace to put a flag on the pole if that was what it took to calm the mob. (It was all being stoked by The Sun and Murdoch outlets such as Sky, of course).

I think that Blair - Mrs Blair's attitudes are, I think, irrelevant - and Campbell called it exactly right. had he not captured the popular mood - the phrase, "The People's Princess" and the tone of the speech that included those words, was a masterstroke; and I think he gave timely and important advice to the Palace on modifying protocol re the reception of the body and the funeral. Without that, and Blair's confidence in having won a landslide majority only recently, I think we might have been on the cusp of revolution. (Don't forget this was the "Cool Britannia" period, and if Blair had said "monarchy outdated" at that point, it could well have been swept away. That's my reading anyhow.)

On the other hand, the Queen's broadcast was the crowning moment - a masterly performance, demonstrating HM's pragmatism - although one understands that Campbell may have tweaked the wording to effect.

The fact remains that the Royal Family did nothing particularly "wrong" and in it's light acted as it always had. The problem was they they were now shown to be considerably out of step with the nation and public attitudes and behaviour. To the family's credit is that it learned lessons quickly. (I lay much of the blame for that week on the household who gave poor advice and were, I think, out of touch. Maybe, like the rest of us the Princess' death and subsequent events came as a shock from which they did not recover fast enough.)

On the positive side, the Queen's broadcast and indeed the reaction to her return to London (which at once quieted all criticism) indicated that the majority of the public still perceive the monarchy as at the centre of society and a focus for national emotion (grief, triumph, celebration whatever). The Golden Jubilee bore that out.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

I have never been interested in Diana before -I moved to France in 1985 and missed all the TV coverage (Panorama interview etc) and the fuss over Andrew Morton's book. I was aware of things happening, but I didn't bother to find out about them, or read any articles in the British papers.

By chance, I was travelling from the UK to Paris early on the morning that news of Diana's death broke -so that was very memorable for me (the Alma tunnel blocked off for one).

Looking at this thread piqued my curiosity enough to go and watch the Panorama interview on Youtube -and I confess that I found it utterly fascinating !

She was alot like her brother, Earl Spencer (whom I'm more familiar with) , infact.

The theatrical makeup and soft voice, and the obviously chosen and rehearsed passages were quite chilling. Suppressed anger and revenge, is what I see.

There was a very narrow tightrope between her aknowledged 'strength' but
empathy with 'victims'. I'm sure that one part of her was sincere -but she was also a habile user of emotional blackmail.. Victimhood was her career choice.

She only really became naturally animated when talking about 'her boys' (one of whom is a future King -and she was suggesting that Charles should be passed over )and the Press (particularly their growing 'indifference'). It was quite 'medieval' to watch.

At the end of the day -I think that I'd rather have been 'mates' with Camilla.
So I do have sympathy for Charles.

[Robert]

I think it was Arthur Bryant who pointed out that, despite all the talk about the masses wanting the upper classes to be more like them, the reality is that the masses desire to be more like the upper classes. After all, council houses are built on estates ; criminals talk about their manors ; and an Englishman's home is his castle.

[Zodiac]

I think it was Arthur Bryant who pointed out that, despite all the talk about the masses wanting the upper classes to be more like them, the reality is that the masses desire to be more like the upper classes. After all, council houses are built on estates ; criminals talk about their manors ; and an Englishman's home is his castle.

Hi Robert,

Indeed!!! He also detested Capitalism and dismissed democracy/the right to vote as "Government with the consent of fools and knaves".

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Ally]

No that happens to be a direct quote from someone who knew Diana, very, very well.

And? What's your point? Don't castigate others for language that is insulting to Charles when you have no problem using such language yourself to describe Diana, regardless of who said it first. You don't get to claim the high road while wallowing in the gutter.

Absolute loyalty and devotion is the creed of most of those who serve the current monarch, and later in her career I think Diana came very closely to breaching that code.

She also wasn't a "servant" of the monarch, she was the former daughter-in-law.

The embarrassments of the week after Diana's death have also, I think, coloured the way the Princess is perceived. ....Some resentment might result from those events.
.....
I think any of us, if we had devoted a lifetime to excellency in a particular field, might find it hard to deal with someone who came along for a few years, didn't obey the establishment rules and yet got the applause....

If your "old guard" relates generally to the older generation, I think many of us were perturbed and disturbed by the very un-British out-pouring of grief in that week in 1997.

Just out of curiosity, how precisely is it Diana's fault how people reacted to her death? If the "British people" reacted in an "un-British" manner, over her death, why precisely would stigma attach to her memory? She was dead after all and could hardly be accused of manipulating the media to her advantage posthumously (although given the almost supernatural evil some people credit this woman with, maybe she did some zombie mojo from beyond the tomb).

P.S. I ask this seriously. I was never a Diana and Charles person, I have never followed the tabloids and didn't pay much attention to her death beyond noting it had occurred.

[Steven Russell]

Ally et al,
Despite what the media would have you believe, the British public did not collectively break down and weep at Diana's death. Most of us viewed it as an interesting, if sad, news story.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil H]

[Diana] also wasn't a "servant" of the monarch, she was the former daughter-in-law.

I think you'll find that ALL the members of the Royal Family regard themselves as supporting the Sovereign and as "servants" of the monarchy. That is their sole purpose and role after all.

Indeed, Diana was the daughter of the Queen by marriage, and moreover a potential future Queen consort. That might be taken to put even more responsibility on her to be supportive as eventually she would require that support. But there we go...

You clearly have your views and I have no interest in persuading you otherwise.

Phil

[caz]

[Diana] also wasn't a "servant" of the monarch, she was the former daughter-in-law.

I think you'll find that ALL the members of the Royal Family regard themselves as supporting the Sovereign and as "servants" of the monarchy. That is their sole purpose and role after all.

To be fair to the woman, she performed her main duty, to produce an heir and a spare, quite beautifully. And both boys seem to have grown up reasonably normal and well-adjusted, despite their mega famous mum dying so publicly and so young.

Her one big mistake in this regard was to disregard basic seat belt advice. But even here, she may have saved the 'family' from any further hard knocks on account of her behaviour.

I wonder - has Charles always served his mother as she would have liked?

Love,

Caz
X