Charles and Diana

[NGalitzine]

Theirs was the same story played out in many families around the world. Two people who should not have married did so anyway and payed the price for a bad decision on both parts.
It was a classic case of engagement ring + wedding ring = suffering.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

If all those children, who had been conceived in the hope of saving failing marriages, suddenly weren't there, it would demonstrate just how frequently and universally the method is used.

Um...yeah I have no idea what you just said.
I don't think Diana wanting a third child was manipulative, more like naive to think that would at all have helped the situation. It was bad enough WnH had to go through the crap from their parents marriage.

 

[Daria_S]

Diana was a manipulator to get things to be the way she wanted them to be. Its not a totally bad way to be but sometimes she used it negatively to enforce her will on others. She was the center of her world.

And this is the sad truth. She had so much potential, but unfortunately, a lot of it was used for her own gain.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Diana could be manipulative, but I don't think that her offer to have another child with Charles was particularly manipulative, just extremely unrealistic. If having William and Harry hadn't solved their problems, there was no reason to think that another child would be the magic bullet.

She had the tendency to try and find easy solutions for her problems, i.e., she didn't want a divorce, so she aspired to marry into the royal family rather than try and find someone with whom she was compatible and then work at their relationship. This tendency is also evident in her dealings with people outside of the royal family. When Dr. Khan couldn't commit to marriage, instead of trying to work out a compromise, she tried making him jealous. Diana didn't seem to understand that life is full of compromises and hard work, even if you are wealthy and powerful.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana hated men (per Jephson’s and I might agree)

They made the rules and Charles benefitted from them so she took out all of her anger and frustration on Charles.

IMO, Diana felt she was responsible for her parent's divorce. Had she been a girl maybe her mother would not had had an affair and her parents’ would not have gotten a divorce.

She felt she was not good enough.
This was reinforced by her parents when she was the only one of her siblings without a royal godparent.

She fought the system, the establishment, the men in grey suits.
Charles benefitted from the system, the establishment and primogeniture. Primogeniture was one of the reason’s for Diana’s parents’ divorce. The need for a son to inherit the title and the land caused stress in their marriage. (Diana’s immediate family did not come into the title until 1910.).

Jephson talks about her rage at Charles when her father died.
IMO, she was anger not at Charles but at her father as he didn’t live long enough to see that she was good enough.

She was angry at the RF for not telling her she was doing a good job. IMO, she wanted praise to convince herself she was good enough. She needed to hear this constantly and the RF saw her doing her duties as just that nothing more. They were not aware that she needed constant praise. It was a failure to communicate.

Maybe her parents/family might not have been totally aware of her needs/issues. Her parents had spent limited time with her. She was raised by nannies and sent to boarding school at 9 and then move in with her sister at 16, then on her own at 18.

I don’t think Charles was to blame. She wanted the marriage and presented the side of her she knew he wanted to see.

IMO, the marriage could not be saved because Diana treated Charles like a toy. When she had a better toy (Hewitt, etc.) she discarded Charles but when she saw another kid (Camilla) playing with the toy she demanded the toy back. (Annabel birthday party.)

I just finished reading Patrick Jephson's book Shadow of a Princess and it was very insightful.

Interesting he states that the Dimbleby book & TV were already in the works before the Morton book was released.

According to him, Charles & Diana were on friendly terms since August 1992 and then Diana experienced some very bad press because of the Carling affair and she decided to do the Panorama interview.

It was the Panorama interview not Diana's abortion remarks to Tiggy that caused the Queen to asked for divorce. Jephson said he tried to make amends with the Queen but the Queen rejected it.

Had she not gotten involved with Carling maybe the marriage might have worked.

Intersting Diana only called Camilla a Rottweiler during the Morton book released. He said the 1st time he heard it was in May 1992 when
Charles & his friends were going on vacation to Turkey and shared a plane with Diana who was going to Egypt. By August there were fewer times that Diana referred to Camilla as a Rottweiler and by December 1992, she had stopped altogether calling Camilla a Rottweiler.

 

[scooter]

Diana hated men? You've made too many sweeping statements in this post for me to reply to right now, but...Seriously? You think she hated men?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

She didn't hate men....far from it...this according to one of her most critical biographers Lady Colin Campbell.

I've heard every kind of epithet used to describe the late Princess, but never that.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I don't think Diana hated men. I'm also wary of using Patrick Jephson's observations to explain why the marriage broke down in the first place. He only started working for Diana in 1988, after the marriage broke down. I think he was in the navy before that. Obviously, he can explain how Diana and Charles interacted from 1988 to 1996, but that really doesn't reveal why the marriage broke down.

For example, Jephson is critical of Charles and the royal family for failing to praise Diana enough. Jephson has no way of knowing whether Charles was more supportive in the early years of marriage. He may have tried to be supportive but gave up when he decided that no amount of praise would be enough. On the other hand, it is possible that Charles was even less supportive in the early years. He can't really address whether Charles and Diana ever really loved each other, or which one cheated first.

I found his views of Diana fascinating though. I don't think it is a complete portrait because she could be different things to different people. She was a very complex woman.

 

[Dman]

Diana's true love, by her closest friend:
Diana's true love, by her closest friend | Mail Online

I have no doubt that the late Princess of Wales's true love was her husband, The Prince of Wales. I think despite all that drama, heartache and pain, if Charles & Diana would've have the time and energy to work things out, they would've been together today.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree. I think that they were both people who were used to having things their own way. Every marriage is give-and-take and there are always compromises to be made, but it's worth it in the long run.

 

[Dman]

Both Diana and Charles loved classical music and opera. When they had the spare time, they would go and listen to Pavarotti singing in Hyde Park, even standing in the rain if they had to. They both loved to dance and hit the dance floor whenever they could. Also Diana and Charles shared the same interest in raising their children. They both wanted to give William & Harry a life they didn't have as children and I think they did a pretty good job, despite everything.

I really do think they both loved each other very much. They both cried together after the overwhelming experience of their wedding and they both cried together after they separated. Diana even said that when she talked to William about the separation, she put to him "gently" without any
resentment or anger. I think it's one of the reasons why the boys have accepted the reality of their family life.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem was that Diana lied to Charles about her interest during the lead up to the wedding so when he thought they could share something on their honeymoon she threw it back in his face - marriage over.

She expected him to meet all her needs but really made no attempt to meet him halfway and having lied about her interests to win him then complained when he continued to enjoy country pursuits and intellectual books etc that she had indicated she enjoyed but didn't.

 

[blauerengel]

The problem was that Diana lied to Charles about her interest during the lead up to the wedding...

Most people are lying a lot when they are dating, tell me one person who does not do it;-)
It is absolutely normal that you try to present yourself in the best light and try to "win" the person of your interests! If the courtship of C&D had lasted longer I am sure that they would have found out if they are compatible or not, but the whole marriage was arranged in a haste. Diana did not tell Charles about her true interests while Charles was not honest about Camilla, IMO they were both dishonest to each other about their true intentions. Not a good way to start a marriage! When a relationship or marriage fails, there is always more than just one reason for it, it is wrong to put the blame on just one person alone. BTW: Discussing this matter would be more appropriate for the Charles & Diana thread...

 

[Dman]

Diana was put through a lot but I think there was love there on both parts.

 

[Mirabel]

Most people are lying a lot when they are dating, tell me one person who does not do it;-)

Yes, and then after the divorce you have a bewildered ex complaining that s/he changed so much after they were married.

The person didn't change, s/he just dropped the pretense.

 

[Binny2]

At that time in his life, Charles seemed naive and sincere and a little silly. It sounds like a comedy of errors. Charles thinks having Diana read his books would bring them closer. Diana thinks it's a judgement on her intelligence and an expression of his lack of love. And they both don't understand the other person's point of view and generally find the other person puzzling.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think this is the most appropriate thread to discuss the intent of Charles' wedding gift of books to Diana. According to several TV interviews by Andrew Morton, Charles gave Diana a stack of books hoping they could read and discuss them together.

I understand why some people believe that it was arrogant and he was being disrespectful and paternalistic, but I don't see any proof of that. First of all, I am very skeptical of descriptions of the honeymoon by Diana during the period she was trying to destroy Charles. It is not unusual for anyone to exaggerate the other partner's faults during a divorce. It's not necessarily lying (although sometimes it is), it is simply viewing past events through anger and hurt, which distorts everything.

I think that during the courtship, Diana wanted to marry the Prince of Wales so badly that she convinced herself that she would be happy married to Charles--even though there was a major differences in age, temperament, and interests.

Charles knew that Diana hadn't been the best of students and didn't go to university. Charles wasn't a top student either, so he knows that education alone doesn't make someone intelligent or a good conversationalist. I don't think he ever considered Diana stupid but he hoped that she would share his passion for intellectual discussions.

Charles should have realized that she wasn't a big reader during their courtship. We can't know whether Diana indicated that she would like to read more. We also don't know whether Charles tried to give her a book or two while they were dating and how Diana responded. Did she read the book and they had a great discussion, which would have given Charles the impression she was interested in these subjects, or did she give him excuses why she didn't read it?

My guess is that he really didn't attempt to engage her in thoughtful discussions before the marriage. It's most likely he talked about his interests and she listened raptly and asked questions and made appropriate comments. If I'm right, then Charles can't really complain about her lack of intellectual curiosity.

I still think that giving her books to discuss was a sweet gesture because it was an attempt to build on what he thought were shared interests. Andrew Morton also said he brought fishing equipment, which I also thought was sweet. They went fishing on one of their first dates. Charles honestly thought she enjoyed it.

 

[Tudur rose]

The problem was that Diana lied to Charles about her interest during the lead up to the wedding...

Ow do you know she lied to him about her interests ?

 

[Grandma828]

This was a sad case of a very mismatched couple, Diana knew it because she told her sister it wasn't going to work, before the marriage.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

If a man gave me a stack of books as a president i would love him for life....or at least a month. But I'm nerdy like that.

 

[Dman]

Diana didn't hate the country life, she didn't like the shooting parties. Her favorite estate was Sandringham. I think it was because she was born at Park House and she loved taking long walks there and liked visiting the disabled people at the Park House Hotel.

I'm not sure Diana & Charles's relationship and marriage fell apart just because of her lack of education. Charles is way more educated than his second wife as well. I think the lack of marriage counseling, understanding and the media interference helped their marriage fail.

 

[Roslyn]

If a man gave me a stack of books as a president i would love him for life....or at least a month. But I'm nerdy like that.

Me, too.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I love books and think the present was a very thoughtful gesture, but I can understand why she was also hoping for a nice piece of jewelry

 

[blauerengel]

If a man gave me a stack of books as a president i would love him for life....or at least a month. But I'm nerdy like that.

If he choses the right type of books, I may agree to the deal too ;-)
Me and my friends often judge people by the books they read and when a relationship breaks up we are like "I always knew he was not the right guy, because he read this and that book"

I do believe that Charles wanted to support Diana in her royal duties, but maybe she misinterpreted the gift of books. Maybe it would have been better if they had taken some time to browse through a library together and talk about the books instead of putting a huge stack of books on her desk.
(Again, we do not know in which way the books were presented to Diana, so we can only speculate!)
When I try to learn something completely new, I prefer to talk to someone who takes the time to explain things in detail and answers my questions, later when I have also found enthusiasm for the topic I start to look out for books myself...
Some people are more into books and need them as much as they need water and food, but for other people reading is something they only do when they have to do so (e.g for school or work). Iit is difficult to convert non-readers to bookworms, unless they find an author or genre that really fascinates them, they leave most books untouched

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If he choses the right type of books, I may agree to the deal too ;-)
Me and my friends often judge people by the books they read and when a relationship breaks up we are like "I always knew he was not the right guy, because he read this and that book"

I do believe that Charles wanted to support Diana in her royal duties, but maybe she misinterpreted the gift of books. Maybe it would have been better if they had taken some time to browse through a library together and talk about the books instead of putting a huge stack of books on her desk.
(Again, we do not know in which way the books were presented to Diana, so we can only speculate!)
When I try to learn something completely new, I prefer to talk to someone who takes the time to explain things in detail and answers my questions, later when I have also found enthusiasm for the topic I start to look out for books myself...
Some people are more into books and need them as much as they need water and food, but for other people reading is something they only do when they have to do so (e.g for school or work). Iit is difficult to convert non-readers to bookworms, unless they find an author or genre that really fascinates them, they leave most books untouched

That is a very insightful comment and I agree with it--particularly that you can't convert non-readers to bookworms. But I think the issue is more than how the gift was presented, but how Diana interpreted the gift.

According to Morton, Charles intended both of them to read the books together, so they were books that Charles wanted to read too. It may have been more sensitive for Charles to choose books with Diana, but that is not how most of us select gifts. I don't think that buying books without her input is a sign of insensitivity. Part of the fun of giving presents in choosing the gift we think will make the other person happy.

Some people like gifts to be surprises and other prefer to get exactly what they want. I tend to fall into the latter category but I am rarely offended by a gift until I know that the "gift" was meant to give offense or was completely insensitive.

If Diana was truly offended at the time of the honeymoon (and her version given 10 years later is not necessarily accurate), that may say more about her than Charles. I think you have to go out of your way to be offended when your spouse invites you to share an activity he really enjoys.

 

[blauerengel]

That´s certainly true,it is exactly the same impression I got! Charles was trying to share some of his passions with Diana and she somehow did not understand the good intention behind this action. I also agree that it is a nice thing when two people can share some of the hobbies & interests they are passionate about or read the same books. If C&D had read the same books I am sure that they would have had some interesting talks about them which would have added something positive to their relationship.

 

[nascarlucy]

Prince Charles and Princess Diana interests were very different. I don't know what reading material she was given to read but it seems like the books weren't of interest to her. If she had made an effort to maybe read one of the books as I've said earlier, maybe she would have been interested in the topic or found a new interest. Sometimes by reading books you can discover a new interest or passion. I don't think book reading seemed to be one of the Diana's passions.

I had an ex-boyfriend who shared similiar interests in book reading. It was great to read a book and then discuss it. I enjoyed this as most of the books he read or suggested to me were things I was interested in. Of course if he was interested in topics that I wasn't interested in, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Valerie Rose]

Of course, reading is not everyone's preferred or optimal "learning style" - some people learn best by watching, or by hearing, or hands-on experience.
I expect those who teach can add some other methods.
One's learning-style and ways of expressing one's talents have nothing to do with "intelligence" or reasoning ability.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

This thread is seriously off topic, but the complaint that Diana wasn't helped (or guided) after she and Charles were engaged is absurd. Diana made this allegation, along with other false claims, after the breakup of the marriage.

The fact is that Charles and Diana made several joint appearances in which Charles showed her the "ropes" before Diana's first solo appearance. It's harder than it looks, but making public appearances isn't brain surgery where you need years of training.

Diana went to finishing school, where they teach you things like how to make small talk. She was famously tutored by the Queen Mum when she moved into Buckingham Palace after the engagement. The staff was there to answer questions and help her in other ways.

Diana absorbed these lessons, because she was not stupid, and she added her own personality, which couldn't be learned. She did fine in public appearances as Princess of Wales, but there is more to the role than that.

 

[Osipi]

You seem very sure. Binny2 has provided her source. What is your source that Diana did not either stipulate the date it would run or deliberately time the interview knowing that it would probably run on the Queen's anniversary? By the way, you may want to respond to my request for the source of your claim that Stephen Barry's books included specific statements.

One thing that I can affirm is that in Barry's "Royal Service, My 12 Years as Valet to Prince Charles", nothing at all is written that would reflect negatively on either the Prince or Princess of Wales. He does give some good insight into Charles and from what I read, was very happy with his time with the Prince.