Different Facets of Diana

[US Royal Watcher]

Regarding the Headlines in The Sun, the People magazine article also mentions the Daily Mirror, which proves other tabloids were on the story, so Camilla may have just been responding and saying that Charles was concerned—hardly damaging to Diana. I’m not going to defend or condemn her because I can’t read the articles and Stuart Higgins was not the only royal reporter for The Sun.

If Diana had the right to discuss her own marriage—so did Charles. Do you really think that Diana’s friends weren’t on the phone with other reporters between 1982 and 1992?

The difference here is a matter of provocation and degree. If someone is spreading lies about you and you respond by spreading lies about them, that is ‘getting your hands dirty.’ However, I think it is okay to defend yourself by providing your side of the story. How many posters would just let someone run around saying terrible things about them without responding? How many stay silent while someone is trashing another person you care about. I think almost all of us would respond in some way. Diana always went on the attack when faced with any negative report, even when it was accurate.

Moreover, Camilla stopped in 1992, most likely at Charles’s request. We know Diana didn’t stop in 1992. She continued publicly attacking her husband and his family, regardless of the consequences to her children. Of course, some Diana fan will try and create a false equivalency between Charles and Diana’s television interview. They both admitted to infidelity, but Diana’s interview went so much further—and included an attack on a child who had done nothing to her. Can you imagine how that child’s family felt when the newspapers came sniffing around for information? The family must have been terribly stressed and upset. I think Diana deliberately causing pain to that child and family showed that she was capable of doing things even worse than destroying someone else’s marriage—and we know Diana also destroyed at least one other person’s marriage.

I was actually very sympathetic to Diana until another poster actually pointed this incident out to me on this board. Diana was in her 30s, she was a mother herself, and she actually made the calls in question. There is no excuse for her trying to divert attention towards a child.

I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize. You say that destroying someone else’s marriage is the lowest you can go. I think physically assaulting other people is actually lower. To be clear, I am not certain that it was true. Diana was perfectly capable of exaggerating and apparently never meant the Settelin tapes to be an accurate recounting of events. But if it were true, pushing her step-mother off a step or steps was a(nother) horrible thing to do. Everyone—including me—would be screeching if Raine had said she pushed Diana off a step(s).

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wouldn't say that I'm "shocked" by it. I've been in these circles long enough to know that people will defend just about anything done by their favourite Royal. However, I do find it bewildering. It's intriguing how someone not personally known to us can capture so much of our hearts and minds. I suppose that's always been the case with famous people; but with our media today--and how it's used by those who want coverage as well as by those who consume it-- we know more about these people than we'd have ever known about them in the past. Perhaps the attachment is even stronger for that reason.

Diana couldn't control her impulses in private, although she usually could in public.

I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize...But if it were true, pushing her step-mother off a step or steps was a(nother) horrible thing to do. Everyone—including me—would be screeching if Raine had said she pushed Diana off a step(s).

 

[Miss Hathaway]

This November 1982 'People' article says that a 1982 Sun headine was:
"Charles' Diet Fear for Di" and that "The Sun speculated that her 'craze for slimming' had sparked a fight with Charles."
While Baby William Grows, Diana Shrinks?but She'll Never Be a Shrinking Violet : People.com

Who "broke" the story isn't the issue. The issue is that Camilla Parker Bowles was interfering in Diana's marriage. Diana had the right to talk to whoever she wanted about her own marriage. Camilla was interfering in another couple's marriage. She was contributing --via The Sun -- to the perception that Diana was unstable. Reading this kind of stuff by the young Diana trying to sort things out could not be helpful and contributed to how Diana behaved -- or her many 'facets', if you will.

There's nothing more low than people who try to destroy another's marriage/family, in my opinion.

US Royal Watcher;]Regarding the Headlines in The Sun, the People magazine article also mentions the Daily Mirror, which proves other tabloids were on the story, so Camilla may have just been responding and saying that Charles was concerned—hardly damaging to Diana. I’m not going to defend or condemn her because I can’t read the articles and Stuart Higgins was not the only royal reporter for The Sun.

Every paper in the world was talking about Diana. She was the world's number one cover girl in 1982 and beyond. That isn't the point, which is that Camilla Parker Bowles was talking to The Sun about Diana and her marriage.

Stuart Higgins is on camera speaking into the camera in the A & E Biography of Camilla -- I have it on tape somewhere -- saying that Camilla talked to him once a week for ten years. This is repeated in Sally Bedell Smith's book. And Stuart Higgins wrote a forward in Caroline Graham's book: Camilla, Her True Story, and AGAIN repeated Camilla's role in his tabloid stories. Here's a quote:

"Through this telephone relationship -- probably best called Higgygate -- given the later Squidgygate and Camillagate scandals, she guided me as to what may be right or wrong with a clear bias in favor of the man she loved, Prince Charles . . . "

He goes on to say that he was certain St. James Palace was aware of his dealings with Camilla. If Higgins was lying, he would have been soundly sued by now the way Charles went after the Highgrove housekeeper.

If Diana had the right to discuss her own marriage—so did Charles. Do you really think that Diana’s friends weren’t on the phone with other reporters between 1982 and 1992?

Well, let's stay in 1982. Was Diana talking to tabs in 1982? I think in 1982 she was still cloistered away dealing with morning sickness, pregnancy, and post-partum depression. Her realization that she could use the press came later. I wonder why Prince Charles felt the need to have his mistress talk to a tabloid that early in the marriage?

Moreover, Camilla stopped in 1992, most likely at Charles’s request.

In 1992, Charles and Diana separated. Mission accomplished for Camilla, eh? The marriage was over.

I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize. You say that destroying someone else’s marriage is the lowest you can go. I think physically assaulting other people is actually lower. To be clear, I am not certain that it was true. Diana was perfectly capable of exaggerating and apparently never meant the Settelin tapes to be an accurate recounting of events.

Exactly. We don't know if this was true. However, we DO know that Camilla Parker Bowles interefered in another couple's marriage from the beginning because Stuart Higgins is on camera saying it, is interviewed by an author saying it, and wrote a forward in another book saying it. And he was not sued.

I think most of us would be labled "difficult" if we found out in our first year of marriage that our new husband's mistress was talking about us to a tabloid. So, in my opinion, in order to understand all the facets of Diana's personality, we must start with Camilla's role in Diana's life from the beginning.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Stuart Higgins in July 1998 London Times stated, "she has hardly ever told me anything."
"My contact with Camilla broke off just over a year ago."

Miss Hathaway,
I cannot see how you or anyone can link Camilla to anything written about Diana. Putting and twisting words and dates doesn't help your point of view.

Your own informaton states 10 years. 1997-10=1987.

If you have a link to video please post. What year did it air?

Stuart may have asked Camilla's about her brother's love life. He was dating several famous women until he married.

 

[Mermaid1962]

For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.

Sorry to go off topic. I found out for the first time last year that Charles dated Diana Sister which I never knew before and found it quite interesting that Diana would go put with her Sister Ex Boyfriend. But I am not going to judge. I had a relative who married his Ex Wife Sister.

But I wonder if Sarah and Charles would have made a successful Marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Miss Hathaway]

Stuart Higgins in July 1998 London Times stated, "she has hardly ever told me anything."
"My contact with Camilla broke off just over a year ago."

Miss Hathaway,
I cannot see how you or anyone can link Camilla to anything written about Diana. Putting and twisting words and dates doesn't help your point of view.

Your own informaton states 10 years. 1997-10=1987.

If you have a link to video please post. What year did it air?

Yes, I remember The Times article. However, you can find the Stuart Higgins quote from Sally Bedell Smith's book published in 1999 where he states that the ten years is between 1982 and 1992. You can check the book out from the library or download it to your Kindle. I did not twist anything -- it's there in the book, a direct quote.

The A & E Biography of Camilla was on television.

 

[teeyah]

Well Miss Hathway stating Camilla talked to the press isn't going to change my opinion of her, just like any different information which doesn't make Diana saintly doesn't change the opinions her fans have of her. Higgins claimed they spoke once in a while and she either said yes or no to something, he didn't go on and write an article to demonize Diana every week, so she wasn't exactly saying negative things to him (like Diana's reporters did and still do), also since charles knew about it and the whole of his set did the same, i don't see how she was interfering in a marriage as you say, (we all know they were wholly incompatible). No one comes out looking good in the whole saga, I always say it started with the ill-fated marriage which shouldn't have happened. As one poster said, Diana's contact with reporters was the most damaging, her words which were very negative and twisted caused great harm and still do, if Camilla collaborated with Higgins and wrote her true story to make her look like a saint, then there's a serious problem with that. At the end of the day Charles made his choice, he chose Camilla till the end...which he wanted to from the beginning.

 

[scooter]

For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.

Oh no, CPB was talking to the editor with HRH's full backing. Otherwise there would have been an adverse response from HRH's staff. Just as Fatty Soames was on the news networks announcing that Diana was "The advanced stages of paranoia to think Charles was conducting an affair'. NO one briefs the press on HRH's behalf without HRH's knowledge. Charles, by definition, approved Camilla, then his adulterous partner, talking smack about his wife to the press for a decade. I always love to read about 'Camilla his discreet, never spoke to the media partner'...not so much...

 

[COUNTESS]

It is all poppycock, you are right. Charles made his choice and that was that. What he had to do for public appearance and the throne he would do, the rest is all history. Had Diana been the usual compliant Princess of Wales, she would, probably, still be alive now and still princess of Wales and Camilla would still be Charles' mistress, as her grandmother was his great grandfather's mistress. But Diana couldn't buy the part, foolish or not on her part, so Camilla won, Diana is dead and Charles is happy.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I can't really respond to all of Miss Hathaway’s (or Scooter's) points because this thread is not about whether Camilla briefed Stuart Higgins. But it is relevant to discuss Diana’s lack of honesty, especially when she was trying to avoid responsibility for her own actions and/or protecting her public image.

One problem with Miss Hathaway’s analysis is that she assumes Charles and Camilla carried on their affair throughout the marriage. How does she “know” that? Diana said so. But how does Diana know? The two people involved deny it, so the question is whom to believe.

The Panorama interview gives us a very relevant example of Diana shamelessly evading responsibility for her own actions by falsely blaming another person—in that case a child who had done absolutely nothing to hurt her. But Diana outing the child in the Panorama interview was not only outrageous, it was unnecessary. She had already admitted to Richard Kay that she had hung up on Hoare’s wife a few times. She could have just repeated that and acknowledged she shouldn’t have done it. Most people would have forgotten about it among all the other revelations in the interview.

I keep that lie in mind as I evaluate her claims about her marriage. The only way that Diana could have maintained her public image was by completely avoiding taking any responsibility for the breakup of her marriage was to convince the general public that Charles had never been committed to the marriage in the first place. That gave her the incentive to lie. Yes, Charles also has an incentive to lie, and did, but it doesn’t seem to be as integral to his character. There are other examples of Diana’s dishonesty. Even Diana’s brother acknowledged that she had difficulties with the truth.

Obviously people are going to believe what they want to believe. But just because Diana was photogenic and posed with sick children doesn't mean that she was telling the truth. I don't understand why some people are so sure that, in this case, Diana is telling the truth.

That said, I acknowledge that Charles and Camilla may be lying. I just don't think so. The difference between me and some Diana fans is that I would be outraged if I found out that Charles claimed to have pushed someone down the stairs.

 

[Queen Camilla]

None of Camilla relatives were mistresses of Charles' grandfather, greatgrandfather or greatgreatgrandfather. (All lies.)

Diana would still be alive if she put on her seat belt.

Diana, rather than put on her seat belt, was looking at the photographers.

The woman died because she was obsesses with the photographers.
(Daily Mail printed the photo about a month ago.)

 

[Mermaid1962]

Camilla's grandmother, Alice Keppell, was Edward VII's mistress. That is a fact of history.

 

[COUNTESS]

Her grandmother Alice Keppel was King Edward VII's mistress. Well documented. Try reading history books.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Alice Keppel was not Edward VII's mistress. She was a friend.

I read the books. I read what matter most, the books & articles written by people who actually knew both Edward & Alice. All state Alice was Edward's friend, companion and confidant.

Alice Keppel is Camilla's great grandmother.

Clearly your information is incorrect as you think Alice was Camilla's grandmother.

Infact, I just re-read all the books & articles about Alice from people who knew her.

The 1952 & 1958 books written by her daughters are a must read.

 

[Osipi]

Reading over recent conversations about Diana, I think whether it be hanging up on phone calls or putting forth a slanted view of her marriage in interviews and even the supposed threats made against Camilla all boils down to one thing. Diana, herself, was a very insecure person. She really wasn't strong enough to comfortably engage in a mature, healthy relationship and whatever went wrong, real or imagined, was a threat against her. Her perception of what a loving relationship is was far from a mature one. It was one where she expected to be on a pedestal and had to be all encompassing. It was her fear of the close friendship that existed between Charles and the Parker-Bowles and other friends of his that threatened to deprive Diana of the "one above all others" kind of worship she felt she was due by being Charles' wife. This manifested itself in Charles cutting off relationship with some very dear friends he'd had for years. I do believe that no matter who it was, if they were 100% adoring and for a lack of words, moonstruck by her grace and presence, they were against her and she quickly cut them off. Call it a persecution complex but it is easy to see in various aspects of Diana's life. Perhaps that is why she excelled so much at her charity work and with the general public. People admired her to the moon and were grateful for the attention Diana gave and I do think on Diana's part it was heartfelt. It was in the give and take areas of her personal life where the problems arose.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. I stand corrected.

Alice Keppel is Camilla's great grandmother.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I think you're right. No one will ever convince me that Diana's public work was "all for the cameras." We probably all know people who can't stand criticism, no matter how slight.

Call it a persecution complex but it is easy to see in various aspects of Diana's life. Perhaps that is why she excelled so much at her charity work and with the general public. People admired her to the moon and were grateful for the attention Diana gave and I do think on Diana's part it was heartfelt. It was in the give and take areas of her personal life where the problems arose.

 

[MARG]

Marg, did Diana talk about that "on the record"? On the Settelen tapes, she talks about pushing her down the stairs but not about throwing out her things. I think it was in Tina Brown's book that the garbage bags full of Raine's things were mentioned.

It was as "on the record" as all the rest of the Settelen tapes.

Much of the latest footage released by Diana's former voice coach Peter Settelen concentrates on her troubled childhood. The tapes were made by Mr Settelen between 1992 and 1993, among the most turbulent times of Diana's marriage to Prince Charles. Mr Settelen has sold the tapes to the American network NBC. These are the latest highlights ?

When Earl Spencer died in 1992, Diana says she and [her brother] Charles were instrumental in ejecting Raine, throwing her clothes in a binliner and taking them out the back of the house.

Read more: Diana tapes: My troubled childhood | Mail Online

 

[teeyah]

It is all poppycock, you are right. Charles made his choice and that was that. What he had to do for public appearance and the throne he would do, the rest is all history. Had Diana been the usual compliant Princess of Wales, she would, probably, still be alive now and still princess of Wales and Camilla would still be Charles' mistress, as her grandmother was his great grandfather's mistress. But Diana couldn't buy the part, foolish or not on her part, so Camilla won, Diana is dead and Charles is happy.

Naa Countess, Diana wasn't the only who wanted out of the marriage, Charles wanted out too, (i'm sure privately he asked his mom for a divorce in the 80s.) he could have kept it together when everything finally came out, which it would have eventually, many kings did...I remember someone saying years back...Charles didn't want to save the marriage, he later wanted out so he could marry Camilla as he wanted to...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There was no reason for a divorce. If there were ever two people able to live completely separate but remain together for their children and for a common cause they are attached to (the monarchy and the nation) then it were the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Every possible solution could have been worked out. The Princess of Wales with her own staff residing at Birkhall? At Clarence House? At Highgrove? Say it Ma'am and we will arrange it for you. The Princess of Wales only appearing together with the Prince of Wales when it is absolutely necessary, the State Opening of Parliament, the Trooping the Colour, State Banquets? Say it Ma'am and we will arrange it for you.

The weddings of Juliana of the Netherlands and Berhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, Albert of the Belgians and Paola Ruffo di Calabria, Juan Carlos of Spain and Sofía of Greece and Denmark, etc. all show that marriages can rock to the deepest but that royal couples can remain together and even re-find the love for each other that once went lost.

It is very well possible that Diana, now 53 years old and a grandmother, has changed, has come in more calm waters, has learned to appreciate the beauty and the tranquil of the countryside, has developed into a doting grandmother and has finally found her place next to the future King. That divorce was so sad and I think both Charles and Diana could have made more efforts and sacrifices to make this union to a success, anyhow and at any cost. It is impossible that Diana would ever have refound a secure base and a tranquil life. No matter with whom she would have re-married, she would always and ever remain one of the most hunted ladies in the world, but now without royal protection and distance. I really think the only workable future for Diana was to remain married and find the best possible arrangement to have an own role within the monarchy.

 

[Miss Hathaway]

I can't really respond to all of Miss Hathaway’s (or Scooter's) points because this thread is not about whether Camilla briefed Stuart Higgins.

This thread is about the different facets of Diana's personality. In order to understand why people behave as they do, you have to understand circumstances that affected/shaped their lives. I.e., Charles moans that his mummy wasn't there for him, etc., etc.

It is very revealing to see evidence that from the first year of marriage until the marital separation, Camilla Parker Bowles was helping a tabloid with its stories about Diana and her marriage. And, apparently, since St. James Palace took no legal action and Charles didn't banish Camilla from his life, apparently it was with Charles' knowledge and approval.

This kind of behavior would have a detrimental affect on any young woman, and so it is through that lens that we need to judge Diana's actions at that time of her life.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I accept that Camilla was talking to the media. Upthread I was accused of "changing my tune," which is a negative way to say that I am keeping an open mind.

Both Diana's friends and Charles's friends have talked to the media. You have concluded that Charles approved Camilla talking to the media because he would have banished her if he didn't. I think Charles is unlikely to every separate from Camilla no matter what she does or did. He's deeply in love with her. I think it is most likely he would forgive her if she was talking to the media without his consent.

Second, you are drawing a lot of conclusions based on a few headlines. We don't know how many of those headlines were from stories that Stuart Higgins wrote. he wasn't the only royal correspondent for the SUN. We all know that the headlines from the tabloids are usually very sensational but the actual articles can be very tame.

The reality is that the quotes you have provided indicate that he called her after he had a story and asked her to confirm or deny, so the stories were already out there. For an example of how that works, you might want to watch the old movie, All the President's Men in which one of the news sources provides the same information.

You are assuming that Camilla and Charles were having an affair and she was trying to undermine Diana. As I have pointed out, there is no evidence that they had resumed their affair. My husband was my only real boyfriend but I do know ex-girlfriends who became friends with both their ex-boyfriend and his new friends. It is a little unusual but it happens.

I don't think Charles was a perfect husband. He failed to support her in the way she needed (which was different than the way she wanted) and he had an affair (after the marriage broke down).

But Diana wasn't a perfect wife. She failed to provide him the support he needed and she had affairs (again, after the marriage broke down.)

You cannot blame Charles for all of Diana's problems. Her mother was an alcoholic. Her father was accused of wife beating. One of her sister's suffered from an eating disorder and her brother married a woman who had similar problems. I think it is likely that Diana would have had difficulties no matter who she married.

 

[Mirabel]

I really think the only workable future for Diana was to remain married and find the best possible arrangement to have an own role within the monarchy.

I have to agree with this.
Somehow I don't think Diana foresaw the full consequences of a divorce; she was so focused on getting rid of Camilla and then striking back at both Camilla and Charles that she lost sight of what a divorce might mean for her.

If she'd stayed married, she might have been able to reach some accommodation with Charles, and maintained her social position.
(Instead, she was reduced to a relationship with Dodi Fayed).

 

[teeyah]

...You cannot blame Charles for all of Diana's problems. Her mother was an alcoholic. Her father was accused of wife beating. One of her sister's suffered from an eating disorder and her brother married a woman who had similar problems. I think it is likely that Diana would have had difficulties no matter who she married.

Very good and insightful post US Royal Watcher, its now one of the best comment written on the royal forum for me.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I just remembered that I missed one section of the NBC program because it wasn't on YouTube for some reason. That must have been when she said it.

It was as "on the record" as all the rest of the Settelen tapes.


Read more: Diana tapes: My troubled childhood | Mail Online

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. Mirabel, I agree with this 100%. The whole thing is just so tragic. Everything has consequences of one kind or another. Diana didn't foresee consequences. I don't think that Charles did either. Every step they made in the marriage toward self-indulgence contributed to its end.

I have to agree with this.
Somehow I don't think Diana foresaw the full consequences of a divorce; she was so focused on getting rid of Camilla and then striking back at both Camilla and Charles that she lost sight of what a divorce might mean for her.

If she'd stayed married, she might have been able to reach some accommodation with Charles, and maintained her social position.
(Instead, she was reduced to a relationship with Dodi Fayed).

 

[Dman]

Both Diana and Charles messed up in many ways and that's one of the reasons why I always state that, if we're going to talk about the breakdown of the Waleses marriage, it's has to be fair and balanced.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, this is true, Dman. There's something about this couple, though, that tends to make people biased one one way or another and very strongly.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Both Diana and Charles messed up in many ways and that's one of the reasons why I always state that, if we're going to talk about the breakdown of the Waleses marriage, it's has to be fair and balanced.

Where we disagree Dman, is you seem to think every post has to indicate that they were both equally to blame for everything.

First, this is a thread about the Facets of Diana. It is not about Diana and Charles, so it is not appropriate to drag Charles and Camilla into each discussion of her character.

Second, Camilla and some of Charles friends most likely did speak to the media. But Stuart Higgins only states that Camilla just confirmed or denied stories. He never says she planted them. He also said she stopped in 1992. We also know that Charles asked his friends not to criticize Diana. A few didn't listen to him and criticized her anyway but there was nothing he could do about that.

On the other hand, we know that Diana didn't ask her friends not to criticize Charles, and no one in Diana's camp stopped in 1992. Therefore, it is not fair to simply say they both criticized each other equally.

You often argue that they both gave TV interviews, so they were both equally to blame. However, again, I think you are being very unfair. Charles did not attack Diana in his interview.

One of the biggest differences between them is that Diana could not let ANYTHING negative go unanswered, even when it was true. She actually led an attack on a child who had done nothing to her in order to avoid taking responsibility for her own actions. Please provide an example of when Charles did something like that. While you are at it, please provide examples of Charles admitting that he pushed an older person down some stairs or slapping one of his parents.