Charles and Diana

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

As former staffers, experts and other members here have said several times: The Queen always tried to help Diana and she took her side over Charles until the famous the 1995 interview.

And when it comes to the divorce in 1996: I saw a pretty reliable documentary for approximately 10 years ago wher a former staffer said that the Queen was persuaded by a bishop who was close to Charles (I don't remember whom) to agree on a divorce.

The Queen then said that she did not understand how Charles could just give it up, but she agreed with the bishop when he told her that Charles and Diana were very different and that the dispute between them damaged the monarchy and the kids. She then sent them the letters.

The same was also said by a former private/press secretary on the BBC during the Diamond Jubilee in 2012.

I don't understand what I'm doing on this thread, and I hope this is my last visit to the Diana section of the forum.

Theres other palace officials that said the problem was that the queen and family always sided with Charles. then there was the dinner during the honeymoon in Balmoral when the Queen asked a staffer why Diana was glowering and only perked up when Charles talked to her, the staffer said that perhaps if there were some of her friends or people of her own age.

The Queen said i dont care she'll just have to buck up. Then when Diana begged the Queen for help with Charles straying with Camilla, she said "I dont know what you should do, Charles is hopeless".

So I have serious doubts about the Queen being such a dedicated Diana supporter. From the description of the engagement, honeymoon and early years one can deduce from this and Dianas actions that she didnt feel supported.

If the queen had used her legendary power and authority back in the first few years of the marriage, things might be a lot different. She was basically asleep at the wheel for her childrens upbringing re :Marriage and reaped the whirlwind of broken marriages.

My opinion was that they thought divorce was not an option so there was no incentive to keep the marriage in good order before it got to the panorama phase and there was no choice. They probably thought she was stuck with him, so she'll just have to buck up, so to speak.

 

[MARG]

HM did the best she could and nobody can say she doesn't love her children, but the notion she should have total control over every aspect of the private lives of her adult children is a total nonsense. More, it's creepy!

Asleep at what wheel? And please, references for each of the conversations you quoted:

The Queen at Balmoral during their honeymoon.
Diana begging the Queen for help with Charles straying.

As to the rest, it is purely your unsupported supposition, and as such, should be prefixed by IMHO.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Theres other palace officials that said the problem was that the queen and family always sided with Charles

That's the anti Charles people who see Diana as goddess without mistakes. These people have said some things which are completely crazy, and they are not reliable at all.

then there was the dinner during the honeymoon in Balmoral when the Queen asked a staffer why Diana was glowering and only perked up when Charles talked to her, the staffer said that perhaps if there were some of her friends or people of her own age.

The Queen said i dont care she'll just have to buck up.

That doesn't sound like the Queen at all. This is a lady who is known for her kindness and she's being described by many to be caring, forgiving and non judgmental. And it actually make me quite angry that people throw this crap at her.

If the queen had used her legendary power and authority back in the first few years of the marriage, things might be a lot different. She was basically asleep at the wheel for her childrens upbringing re :Marriage and reaped the whirlwind of broken marriages.

Her legendary power and authority? She's not a freaking dictator, and you can't blame the Queen for the divorce. You shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about.

And nothing of what you say will change my views on Diana's relationship with the Queen.

I've always heard that the Queen was very fond of Diana and they had a very good relationship, and she always treated her daughter in law well. Even that Paul Burrell guy has said that. And that says a lot about the Queen as a person, because Diana was very unkind to her.

Diana had a pretty good relationship with Philip too, but not in the time before she she died.

You should read some of the posts in the Diana's Royal Orders and Diana's Legacy and other threads here and se for you self how unkind she was to staffers, how she treated and spoke of the Queen to others, calling her German etc.

Robert Lacey is pretty reliable, but this article must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially the last part when he writes about Diana's death:
Diana and The Queen: Her Majesty was the Princess's greatest supporter, sending her to a psychiatrist and hosting a family therapy session | Daily Mail Online

Diary reveals how princess's mother raged at the royals - Telegraph

Frances Shand Kydd in her diary denied that The Queen and Diana did not get on, claiming they had a "lot of mutual respect and admiration".

She wouldn't lie about that.

In April 2002, talking about the Queen Mother's funeral, she said: "They [Princess Diana and the Queen Mother] did not get on. Everybody saw the smile, but she could be quite a bitch."

The Queen Mother and Diana were (as I've said before) actual quite similar in two different ways.

They both had the ability to form an emotional connection with people, and getting people to like them. They were both manipulative and didn't stop until they got what they wanted.

But there is a big difference between them too, because the Queen Mother used her skills for the monarchy and not aganst it as Dians did.

And I will never agree with what you say about Her Majesty, the monarchy or anything else of the crazy stuff you write about.

I respect that you like and admire Diana and you should respect everyone who don't. And I will not discuss this with you anymore. If you come up with a reply, my answer is: I disagree.

 

[Osipi]

The cold, stark reality is that the marriage had problems. Only the two people in the marriage can patch it up or tear it down. No one else. Playing the blame game and pointing to other people that could have, should have, might have and maybe had thought about doing something to "fix" this or "cause" it or "throw rocks at" or make the couple do this or that or put 'em in a boxing ring to duke it out is just plain ridiculous as by the time anyone else caught on that the marriage was in deep trouble, unless both parties were willing to work together lovingly, willingly and with compassion for each other, the marriage was beyond repair.

 

[Jacknch]

Members are reminded that this thread is to discuss the marriage of Charles and Diana. Please be respectful towards one another, particularly when opposing views are at play and avoid speculation or making opinions as if they are facts - sources for information are always appreciated!

 

[Denville]

HM did the best she could and nobody can say she doesn't love her children, but the notion she should have total control over every aspect of the private lives of her adult children is a total nonsense. More, it's creepy!

Asleep at what wheel? And please, references for each of the conversations you quoted:

The Queen at Balmoral during their honeymoon.
Diana begging the Queen for help with Charles straying.

As to the rest, it is purely your unsupported supposition, and as such, should be prefixed by IMHO.

I have certainly read the bit about the queen saying "Diana will have to buck up", but I cant' remember offhand where it was. But it was in a book not a TV programme or internet article.
as for Diana asking the queen for help about Charles -I think that that may emanate from Diana talking to friends and it made its way into the public domain. But I think it is possible that Diana DID ask HM for advice or maybe even for him to ask Charles to stop seeing Camilla and I'd say that the queen either refused or temporised.
She can't control her adult children ALL the way, certainly not over their marriages or private lives.
I don't think she was VERY supportive of Diana, taking the view that Diana had to learn to fit in with the family's ways and not ask for special treatment...
I think she did a reasonable amount, she did ask news editors to back off and leave Diana alone and not be chasing her all the time but it didn't do much good. And I think that in general, while she did not offer NO help, she was busy with her onw life, and felt that Diana had to learn to fit in and get on with things. Which probably made Diana feel unsupported

 

[Denville]

anbrida, Diana and Charles had good relationship in the last year of her life. I don't remember hearing anything about Charles friends threatening her in 1997. They may not wanted to divorce in '96', but they found clarity in their relationship and moved on.

THEy DID want to divorce in 96. Diana at least was in 2 minds over it, she wanted out of the Family to find a new man, but she also wanted to stay in the family to be a queen mother figure if Charles was pushed out of the succession. And Charles wanted a divorce because he was thoroughly sick of Diana by then, and hoped to get her off his back and out of his life and to get on with his work and his relationship with Camilla. He hoped that if they were divorced, he and Camilla could eventually marry.
I don't know if their relationship was particularly good.. by 97. I think that Charles gradually calmed down and was pleasant to DIana if they met, but I don't think he had completely lost his feelings that she was trouble.. And Diana was ambivalent. I think she still cared for Charles and was still jealous of Camilla but she was also half trying to move on and find a new husband/lover.

 

[MARG]

. . . . Diana at least was in 2 minds over it, she wanted out of the Family to find a new man, but she also wanted to stay in the family to be a queen mother figure if Charles was pushed out of the succession . . . .

Regardless of who did or didn't want a divorce and their reasons for this, the reason you cite is utter rubbish.

The only way Charles will not succeed his mother is if he predeceases her. This was the case then, it is the case now, and will continue to be so until such time as either HM or the POW die.

 

[Curryong]

I think Denville knows the laws of succession (she lives in Britain.) IMO she was just alluding to the fantastical notion that Diana may have believed, ie that Charles could have found the role of kingship too confining and so would step aside for his son. Some believe that Diana obliquely referred to that possibility in the Panorama interview. However, I don't think Denville herself believes this for a moment!

 

[Queen Claude]

I agree. Whether or not it would have happened is anyone's guess, but one of Diana's fancies was for Charles and his lady to go away, which I assume meant step aside or be forced out, and in turn William would have succeeded the Queen with Diana being his chief advisor. But then she would express other thoughts like wanting the "Charles and Diana Show" to continue on.

I think that the state of Charles and Diana's relationship at her death is an intriguing one - perhaps for another thread topic. Two events in that timeframe intrigue me, Charles throwing a big birthday party for Camilla, which some have speculated bothered Diana and led to her wanting the paparazzi to get photos of her canoodling with Dodi.

The second event was Charles, upon hearing about the car crash in Paris, was immediately making arrangements to go to Paris even though Diana, at that point, had not succumbed to her injuries.

 

[Queen Claude]

I don't think that the British Royal Family was callously unsupportive of Diana, especially not in the beginning, but two things pop in my mind:

One, Diana married into the family, and dare I say that she and her family were very gung ho about her joining "The Firm." Diana was allowed to call certain shots like taking William to Australia or becoming more deeply involved with AIDS charities, so she was accommodated in certain areas. However whether you look at Diana's circumstances from a family or a business perspective, it was unrealistic to expect that the British Royal Family would significantly change their way of doing things to appease Diana. Could Charles, upon marrying Diana, start telling the Spencers how to run their businesses and households?

Two, when I look at things from my late 20th century/early 21st century frame of reference, I get Diana's needs for validation and support, and I think that the British Royal Family may have learned from their experiences with Diana and Sarah Ferguson, but I stop short of demonizing the British Royal Family. The Queen and Queen Mother came of age during World Wars, so you can't say that those two women, despite their status and wealth, had things easy when they were Diana's age - the Queen Mother was nursing injured soldiers during World War I and in World War II she was visiting areas that had been bombed, and her own home was bombed, and the Queen herself did service during the war. (ETA: And Prince Philip's circumstances were even more difficult.) So yeah I can see them having the attitude that the young woman who did a hard sell to become part of The Firm should just buck up.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I recall watching some program I believe about QM and somebody commented that she doesn't understand the younger generation, Charles Anne etc. and their divorces because she believes if your marriage isn't great you find a way to live with it and not jump ship. I kind of think that is also how QE felt as well as Prince Phillip. They probably didn't, and still don't, understand a generation that is all about feelings, and non stop pursuit of personal happiness and fulfillment, and psychotherapy to analyze why we do the things we do.
Am I making any sense at all?
To the QM, QE, Phillip not growing up during World Wars would seem like a peice of cake; so it was a new situation to deal with Charles and his intellectual introspective brain, or Diana with her neediness and constant need to tell the world how she feels, and both Diana and Sarah's inability to cope to royal life.

 

[Denville]

well yes Xenia of course there is a huge generational gap and the queen could not understand a young woman like Diana or Sarah Fergusion.. Her attitude was that if you joined the RF, you learned the ropes and got on with your duties.. If your marriage wasn't very happy, you made the best of it and tried to keep up a civilised front. She thinks affairs are wrong, but if you do have one, keep it discreet and away frorm your home and children and you don't leave your spouse for a lover and another marriage.
She could not understand why Diana, a courtier's daughter could not settle in to the royal routine.. or why she wanted different things to the rest of the family. She is said to have said a couple fo things, that ring true to me, which emphasies the gap between her and Diana.
One was that she didn't know why Diana made a fuss about her marriage "Ken. Palace wasn't exactly bijou" so, why couldn't Diana and Charles just lead separate lives quietly...
Another was when the nanny was off and Diana was looking after the boys.. she is said to have said that she didn't know why Diana did this, there were plenty of housemaids to care for the boys.
She didn't understand Diana or Fergie. I think that their claims that they got no help/advice about royal work etc are wrong. THey did get advice
but both of thtem were resistant to being told what to do..
But yet Dianas' feeling that the queen Did not really support or care for her, has some truth in it..I think she was willing to ensure that Diana got advice and instruction on the royal duties, but then it was up to her to get on with things.
she could not fathom why her daughter in law wasn't able to settle down. I think she had some sympathy, she realised that Charles wasn't deeply in love with his young wife, and that as time went on, he didn't handle her very well, but in the end, I think she felt that Diana just didn't seem to fit in, that she coudlnt' seem to control her emotions and make the best of what she had, and while I wouldn't say she wrote her off, I feel she reached a point where it was
"I've done all I can.. I'm just pulling back and letting her leave if she wants to.."

 

[Dman]

Lots of time has passed, but I'll never forget what a beautiful couple they made and the two adorable kids they created.

 

[Pranter]

I think Diana thought, like most everyone else probably did back then, Charles would not be able to marry Camilla and if he did he would almost be forced (Like his great uncle) to abdicate.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

People were certainly discussing this as a possible solution. I think that nobody really knew what to do. If the Waleses divorced, or lived apart, it was clear that they were very much at odds and could not maintain any kind of a front.. and the C of E did have members who weren't happy at the thought of Charles, having confessed to an affair, and living with Camilla, as King. If he and Diana had had a discreet no-fault divorce and ending of the marriage, I think there wold have been no question but that Charles would become King in due course, but it wasn't like that. So some journalists and probably consittutional experts were suggesting the possibility that Charles should get a divorce, marry Camilla and give up his place in the succession. Diana I think hoped this would happen and that Charles would live mostly abroad, and leave William as the next heir.. and as his Mother she would have a role.

 

[MARG]

I would have to agree. Like most people I wonder what happened to their love as evidenced by their amazingly goofy behaviour when they first married. I remember how very in love they seemed, him with his puppy-dog eyes watching her from across the room and her blushing, smiling and batting her eyelashes back at him. It was all so very ordinary.

It annoys me intensely when someone comes along with the virtue of over 30 years of hindsight and argument and make amazing pronouncements about dynastic marriages, coldly indifferent husbands, cruel and calculating in-laws, callous step-mothers, etc. It all seems like an amalgamation of several fairytales that have created a truly awful Soap Opera.

 

[Dman]

I would have to agree. Like most people I wonder what happened to their love as evidenced by their amazingly goofy behaviour when they first married. I remember how very in love they seemed, him with his puppy-dog eyes watching her from across the room and her blushing, smiling and batting her eyelashes back at him. It was all so very ordinary. It would be nice if it could be remembered that way.

There was something very loving and special there. I try not to lose sight of that. I know lots of folks like to focus on the drama. Lord knows so many have made tons of money off of it, but I like to go back to what was real and important.

 

[Denville]

Im sure they were attracted at first and had a brief honeymoon period, early in their marriage. I think that Charles if he didn't LOVE Her, was fond of her, and willing to fall in love. And she was hero worshipping of him, at fist. People have noted how he often touched her, in public and clearly found her very attractive, and he siad when they were on a tour, to an aide or pressman "isn't she beautiful, Im so proud of her."
but from BOTH of them, we have accounts that together with the good times, form very early on, they had a lot of problems.
Diana from her honeymoon time was bulimic and sick and had mood swings. She hated Balmoral. He coudln't understand why she was so weepy and why she could not either go out with him when he went shooting or stay and amuse herself, but he had to get someone to stay with her and keep her company.
The "making goo goo eyes" stage was intercut with rows and scenes, even then. I think he remained fond of her, concerned for her, and hoped that she would get better, perhaps when she had had her baby, and at times they go on well together, but it was very fitful.
I think the marriage only "worked" when they could be alone together, which rarely really happens for royals, and fi they could get away from the cold and rain and the stiff atmosphere of royal residences.

 

[Pranter]

It's evident Diana adored Charles early on. He found her charming etc but really she wasn't up to his weight and even he stated publically 'whatever love is'...I'd bash my fiance if he's said that to anyone let alone millions on the day of my engagement!

I think if they had taken 6 months more, before engagement, to be around each other it would of fizzled out. They would of seen they didn't suit (or at least he would of).


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

I think if they had taken 6 months more, before engagement, to be around each other it would of fizzled out. They would of seen they didn't suit (or at least he would of).

I think Charles already had an inkling that Diana wasn't exactly his cup of tea but as she was perfectly suited to be a royal bride and he was being pressured quite a bit to marry and the one person that he turned to and trusted in these kind of things had been recently assassinated, he kind of figured "how bad could it be?". I think things would have been much different if Lord Mountbatten had lived. Diana had stars in her eyes and was going to be Princess of Wales and had Charles so high up on a pedestal that I think she really had a problem seeing Charles the man. She expected the happily ever after without realizing really what the ever after entailed.

 

[Pranter]

Oh I agree..she was somewhat naive ...prince charming and all that. The one man who could never divorce her (or so she thought at that time). He represented a lot of positive things to her. She never got to know the man prior to the wedding.

Oh yes how bad could it be...well he found out didn't he.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

Both Charles and Diana had doubts about marrying each other. They are really didn't know each other that well, but they gave marriage the old college try. They were happy and in love for a time. The love between them helped produce to beautiful kids.

 

[HistoryGirl]

True. Things go south very quickly. Theirs is a marriage that scares the bejeezus out of me.

 

[Dman]

True. Things go south very quickly. Theirs is a marriage that scares the bejeezus out of me.

Well, yeah, things went bad for them. What scares me is the hundreds of false rumors that was applied to their story. A great deal of people made up all kinds of stuff about the Waleses and turned their story into a soap opera for profit.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Quite right. People tend to take advantage to make a quick buck. But it must also be stated that the people involved didn't help their cause by talking about their problems on national television.

 

[Dman]

Quite right. People tend to take advantage to make a quick buck. But it must also be stated that the people involved didn't help their cause by talking about their problems on national television.

True, they made some bad moves, but a lot of that came out of hurt, frustration and pain. It all let you know that the royals are just like everybody else, because a lot of couples do crazy things when they're separating and divorcing.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Yes, the dangers of making rash, emotional decisions.

 

[Mermaid1962]

It's certainly a cautionary tale. My impression is that they didn't know each other well enough to have a true "meeting of the minds." I've felt for a long time that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, who had meetings with them and detected an incompatibility, had a responsibility to go to HM and say, "Excuse me, Ma'am, but I don't think that this marriage is advisable." As the Queen's pastor, in effect, he had a right and an obligation to do that. Had the marriage been called off, people would have been disappointed, but life would have gone on. Britain had certainly survived worse.

True. Things go south very quickly. Theirs is a marriage that scares the bejeezus out of me.

 

[Dman]

It's certainly a cautionary tale. My impression is that they didn't know each other well enough to have a true "meeting of the minds." I've felt for a long time that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, who had meetings with them and detected an incompatibility, had a responsibility to go to HM and say, "Excuse me, Ma'am, but I don't think that this marriage is advisable." As the Queen's pastor, in effect, he had a right and an obligation to do that. Had the marriage been called off, people would have been disappointed, but life would have gone on. Britain had certainly survived worse.

A lot of people (family and others) knew things weren't on a solid foundation for Charles and Diana to build a successful marriage and partnership to lead the Monarchy, but they all failed to properly advise, council, support and comfort Charles and Diana. No matter the circumstances, the Waleses didn't have a proper support team around them and to fall back on. Those two were left to sink or swim all on their own.