Charles and Diana


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Mermaid1962 said:
The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.
Click to expand...

Very well said!
 
Mermaid1962 said:
The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.
Click to expand...

:previous:Excellent. Everyt ime I find myself annoyed with the Cambridges for seeming self-indulgent and precious I remember the disaster that the Wales media blitz provoked. Every intimate detail of their lives was known to the public-even though admittedly the nasty wire-tapping of their phones was outside their control.

But the tit-for-tat biographies and interviews were, as QEII would say, "unhelpful" and that's actually an understatement.
 
It was not tit for tat biographies.

The Dimbleby book and television program were started before the creation of the Morton book.

The Dimbleby book and television program was to correspond to the twenty fifth anniversary of Prince Charles becoming Prince of Wales.

Diana became jealous because she wanted the Dimbleby book to be about her. Dimbleby refused to change the concept of the book and television program and Diana became upset.

She went looking for someone to write her story. She settled on the Morton book which came out two years before the Dimbleby book.

I cannot be certain but the tone of the Dimbleby book and interview probably changed to reflect the Morton book.

IIRC, the Dimbleby book spends very little time on the private aspect of his life and the marriage in comparison to the Morton book. It is mostly about what the book's focus was intended to be his life as Prince of Wales.

Andrew Morton book 167 pages vs.
Jonathan Dimbleby book 620 pages
 
Last edited:
:previous: I think this really puts it all in perspective. Its all to easy to think that the books from this time period were written solely to use as ammunition against each other in the War of the Wales.
 
The bottom line is that neither book did either of them any favors.

From a PR standpoint they were both stinking disasters.:ohmy:

Diana's "True Story" garnered an initial huge groundswell of support and sympathy for her, but that book and the circumstances under which it was revealed to have been written was the beginning of the end for her...literally.

And sorry but Dimbleby's Charles comes off like a weak, prevaricating whinger.
 
I agree...they both ended up looking like rather sad figures....Charles as the 'woe is me' was a bit much as well.


LaRae
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
The bottom line is that neither book did either of them any favors.

From a PR standpoint they were both stinking disasters.:ohmy:

Diana's "True Story" garnered an initial huge groundswell of support and sympathy for her, but that book and the circumstances under which it was revealed to have been written was the beginning of the end for her...literally.

And sorry but Dimbleby's Charles comes off like a weak, prevaricating whinger.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. In the end their tell all interviews hurt their children, extended family, staff and themselves. :sad:
 
:previous: This is one of those stories that show how members of the BRF are unlike other celebrities. Thanks for sharing, Dman.:flowers:
 
:previous: No chance the story is genuine. :flowers: Have no fear.

Petrie dish babies ('test tube babies') were the stuff of science fiction in 1980. (I realize that 1978 was the first such but it was too new a process to be done the way described. IMO)
 
Last edited:
I thinks it's absolute fantasy/folly/garbage. There is no daughter, secret or otherwise.

The fact that this fable first found it's legs on the pages of Murdoch's tabloid rag The Globe should tell us all we need to know!:whistling:
 
:previous: When you think about it, you're not the only one because there is not, but what can you do when you run out of women willing to wail for yet another "I gave birth to an alien" story. The original story was a fiction novel but, I guess someone thought, 'oh wouldn't it be loverley'.

They missed out on Queen Wallis so I guess they think a second shot at an American Queen looks good. I have to admit to laughing at the "little succession problem", but never mind, you have to admire the author of the subject novel insisting "it could happen" . . . she's laughing all the way to the bank! :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
I think I saw a supposed photograph of this 'daughter' once, on the front of one of these supermarket rags. They photoshopped an enormous brown wig onto a photo of a young Diana!
 
Up next in The Globe is the amazing story of how Diana and Charles' secret daughter went on to keep her secret hidden yet showed her parent's traits to draw crowds each week as she starred as the lovable, furry alien named Gordon Shemway in the hit series ALF.

Believe me, anything is possible with The "all powerful and all knowing" Globe.
 
AfricanAUSSIE said:
Hah! and over at Henry's relationship rumours they have me delusional for sugesting a possible reunion with Chelsy!! At least I am not fabricating random babies.

The cheek!!:boxing:
Click to expand...

Yet...but given your talent for fantasy ....:whistling:


LaRae
 
:previous: Sorry, regardless of her incredible and riveting imagination, The Globe will always win by dint of the sheer number of delusional nutters on staff.

But, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
 
:previous: This was probably an unpopular article at the time it was written. As 'doomed' as the marriage was, I have to say that Diana did manage to carve out a role for herself that no-one saw coming; and I'm not referring to her faults. I think that she was probably seen to be more mature than she was because of the way she handled the press while they were chasing her around London. She was able to control her behaviour while in public, and so people had no idea of how erratic she was in her private life. Any evidence that she could be emotionally unstable was dismissed as 'pre-wedding nerves'. Lady Diana needed a few more years as a single woman and, ultimately, a partner who'd be able to spend more time really getting to know her before they married. Charles couldn't give her what she needed and she couldn't give him what he needed. That's the tragedy of the whole thing. Was there ever a real meeting of the minds before they wed? Who knows? :sad:
 
Last edited:
:previous: Well, 35 years later Diana's immaturity in the videos is glaring. :sad: Sorry to say but her behavior makes me wince. One hardly knows what to say. :blink:

In a way, both participants were caught in the public's aristocratic fantasy (and perhaps their own) of arranged royal marriages long over (though they knew it not). Charles (a young man who would prove prescient and forward thinking in so many other ways) proved hostage to his own upbringing, understandably succumbing to familial pressure (which in his case was a weight of centuries of historical expectations), trusting (one assumes) to Diana's aristocratic background and knowledge of the family to make things work. One could see him thinking that surely Diana understood the historical dynastic union upon which they were entering. That Diana and he were so out of sync is the tragedy for more than just them. :sad:
 
Well, I have to admit that any article where even the author is not named, let alone the "sources" has got to be suspect in any normal person's opinion. This goes doubly or even triply for any article about such a contentious issue.

The glaring lack of corroboration leads me to believe this is yet another paper picking over the bones for cash. It seems that invention really is the mother of money! :sad:
 
What we know..Charles and Diana were no longer enemies before her passing. Their relationship improved beautifully, their sake and for the kids. Diana did go on to accept the reality of Charles's relationship with Camilla.
 
Sorry, that was my fault for not noting the sources.

It is from 'Diana, the last days' by author Jean Rafferty and was serialised in the 'Scottish Daily Record and Sunday' from August 1998.
 
Had they made sure Charles would have stayed married and given Diana the support she deserved, if not for herself as a person, at least, pragmatically as the wife of the future king, mother of the next generation of heirs, they'd have benefited from her many gifts for decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Member introduction
Replies
11
Views
2K
Blog Real
Blog Real
cdm
Exhibitions
Replies
0
Views
205
cdm
cdm
Blog Real
King Charles IV/I of France and Navarre and Wifes (Blance, Marie and Joan of Évreux)
Replies
2
Views
548
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
S
Separation of Prince Nikolaos and Princess Tatiana: April 2024
2 3
Replies
60
Views
15K
Sarahbellar
Sarahbellar
Blog Real
Princess Eugénie of Greece and Denmark (1910-1989)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom