‘Whatever love means’ - Princess Diana’s face 😔

[justanotherneighinparadise]

Gosh this article really got me last night. That poor woman.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9352699/amp/Dianas-reaction-Charles-infamous-love-means-comment-seen-unearthed-footage.html

[BananasAboutBananas]

Heartbreaking isn't it. So sad.

[MrsSwears2Much]

This is heartbreaking. She wanted the fairytale and got handed the nightmare.

[LApprentiSorcier]

It isn't 'heartbreaking'. Diana grew up in privilege unimaginable to most of us, and married into yet more privilege. No one twisted her arm and forced her to marry Charles. Plenty of women had turned Charles down before and her own sister, Sarah, when she was romantically involved with Charles had gone on record to say she wouldn't marry him.

As for Charles's comment which you have misquoted - he was asked were they 'in love' and he said 'whatever 'in love' means' - not 'whatever love means'. That's an important distinction. Charles was commenting on 'in love' being a rather meaningless phrase bandied about in romantic novels and the like.

I don't often defend Charles or any of the ludicrously privileged Royals, but he's been misunderstood here.

[ssd]

You just want to tell her to run, dont you

[starrynight21]

@LApprentiSorcier

It isn't 'heartbreaking'. Diana grew up in privilege unimaginable to most of us, and married into yet more privilege. No one twisted her arm and forced her to marry Charles. Plenty of women had turned Charles down before and her own sister, Sarah, when she was romantically involved with Charles had gone on record to say she wouldn't marry him.

As for Charles's comment which you have misquoted - he was asked were they 'in love' and he said 'whatever 'in love' means' - not 'whatever love means'. That's an important distinction. Charles was commenting on 'in love' being a rather meaningless phrase bandied about in romantic novels and the like.

I don't often defend Charles or any of the ludicrously privileged Royals, but he's been misunderstood here.

I agree. It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say how heartbreaking it was, but she did actually chose to marry him. She wasn't a child, she did know what she was doing.

And yes he was misunderstood . He said "whatever 'in love' means" and that's a lot different from what many people think.

[ThePricklySheep]

@LApprentiSorcier

It isn't 'heartbreaking'. Diana grew up in privilege unimaginable to most of us, and married into yet more privilege. No one twisted her arm and forced her to marry Charles. Plenty of women had turned Charles down before and her own sister, Sarah, when she was romantically involved with Charles had gone on record to say she wouldn't marry him.

As for Charles's comment which you have misquoted - he was asked were they 'in love' and he said 'whatever 'in love' means' - not 'whatever love means'. That's an important distinction. Charles was commenting on 'in love' being a rather meaningless phrase bandied about in romantic novels and the like.

I don't often defend Charles or any of the ludicrously privileged Royals, but he's been misunderstood here.

I don’t think being rich makes up for your husband not loving you.

She’s only 19 here I think. That seems very young to me.

[PegasusReturns]

She was 19. It so young to get married to a 32 year old but within the context of the royal family and everything she would be expected to give up in terms of freedom I agree heartbreaking.

[bellsbuss]

@starrynight21 I would say she was still a child though at 19. I feel sad whenever I think about her.

[MiddlesexGirl]

I remember watching that interview live .... I was around the same age as Diana at the time.... I noticed Charles's phrase and knew immediately that this was definitely a man making a marriage for convenience, not for love.

[OverweightPidgeon]

19 was so very young, the brain doesn’t reach full maturity until 24ish,
She obviously chose to marry him but can you honestly say that at 19 you had the life experience and maturity that you have now? She hoped that he would change and stop seeing Camilla, many older women have made the same mistake, believing that a marriage would miraculously make a man change his behaviour.

[MrsFin]

She was under a lot of pressure from the Spencer family to up the family profile by marrying into the royal family. How many parents would encourage their 19 yo daughter to marry a 30+ year old man she'd only dated a handful of times? And how many would do b their best to talk her out of the idea, or persuade her to n wait a bit?

[OutwiththeOutCrowd]

Quite interesting to hear Diana herself talking about what she was thinking when Charles made that comment. ( 6:05 ish onwards)

[Twizbe]

19 (20 when they married) is very young to get married. I met my husband at 19.

That said, in 1981 the average age for a first marriage was 24 whereas now it's 32.

[LApprentiSorcier]

@OverweightPidgeon

19 was so very young, the brain doesn’t reach full maturity until 24ish,
She obviously chose to marry him but can you honestly say that at 19 you had the life experience and maturity that you have now? She hoped that he would change and stop seeing Camilla, many older women have made the same mistake, believing that a marriage would miraculously make a man change his behaviour.

Of course, the older you get the more life experience you acquire, but that's something that could be said about marriage at any age.

This was 1981 when the average age for women to get married was much younger than it was now. Marriages go wrong all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Diana's went wrong very publicly, that's all. And I will save 'heartbreaking' for cases of divorce where the woman is left high and dry with no money and few options - not cases where she gets a £30 million divorce settlement.

Are you suggesting that 19 is too young to get married and the age of consent for marriage should be raised?

[NailsNeedDoing]

@MrsSwears2Much

This is heartbreaking. She wanted the fairytale and got handed the nightmare.

Exactly this. She wanted the fairytale and we’re all supposed to feel sorry for her because she didn’t get it. That clip shows a tiny snippet of what was caught on camera, there is no doubt she would have had more warning than just that tiny comment that Charles wasn’t madly in love with her off camera, yet she chose to go ahead with the marriage anyway. That’s fair enough, plenty of people make mistakes when it comes to relationships and ignore red flags out of hope, but we still have to own our own mistakes and not expect the entire blame to be shifted to someone else who was also in a similar difficult position. She will have had more warning than most of the potential difficulties considering her sister had already had a relationship with Charles and she had full knowledge of the Royal family and it’s expectations.

I have sympathy for her, but no more than I have for Charles in that situation too.

[the80sweregreat]

I liked Diana, but she was so naive back then.
There was pressure on Charles to Marry and settle down. He couldn't be with Camilla because of Royal protocol so they chose him a beautiful young virgin with the right upbringing then left her to it.
The Royals are very dysfunctional people.

[LApprentiSorcier]

He couldn't be with Camilla because of Royal protocol

No. He couldn't be with Camilla because she didn't want him at the time. She wanted Andrew Parker-Bowles. She married Andrew Parker-Bowles.

Camilla was about the same age as Diana when they were first in a relationship. She turned Charles down - as Diana could have done.

I wonder if some people are basing their 'knowledge' of recent Royal history on 'The Crown'. 'The Crown' is a drama not a documentary.

[justanotherneighinparadise]

[quote OutwiththeOutCrowd]Quite interesting to hear Diana herself talking about what she was thinking when Charles made that comment. ( 6:05 ish onwards)

[/quote]
Gosh I’ve never seen that before. It was fascinating!

[justanotherneighinparadise]

@the80sweregreat

I liked Diana, but she was so naive back then.
There was pressure on Charles to Marry and settle down. He couldn't be with Camilla because of Royal protocol so they chose him a beautiful young virgin with the right upbringing then left her to it.
The Royals are very dysfunctional people.

Interestingly i thought exactly the same. Huge dysfunction then and huge dysfunction now.

[LApprentiSorcier]

I'm not denying they are a dysfunctional family but not in the romanticised way you seem to think. Diana was not an ill-used heroine. She was a vain, ambitious woman who married for position, not love, and it came back to bite her.

[SoupDragon]

this was definitely a man making a marriage for convenience, not for love.

I don't think either of them married for love.

[MrsBungle]

I do feel sorry for her. She was 19 and caught up in it all. I believe she hadn’t even had a boyfriend before - Charles was her first love. When someone asks your fiancé and you if you’re in love anything other than “of course” or even a simple yes has got to hurt! So, I feel sorry for her for that whether she’s loaded and privileged or not.

[JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows]

@LApprentiSorcier

It isn't 'heartbreaking'. Diana grew up in privilege unimaginable to most of us, and married into yet more privilege. No one twisted her arm and forced her to marry Charles. Plenty of women had turned Charles down before and her own sister, Sarah, when she was romantically involved with Charles had gone on record to say she wouldn't marry him.

As for Charles's comment which you have misquoted - he was asked were they 'in love' and he said 'whatever 'in love' means' - not 'whatever love means'. That's an important distinction. Charles was commenting on 'in love' being a rather meaningless phrase bandied about in romantic novels and the like.

I don't often defend Charles or any of the ludicrously privileged Royals, but he's been misunderstood here.

@LApprentiSorcier well ruddy said!

I really hate how Diana is painted as his puppy dog victim being kicked by Charles again and again (The Crown on Netflix hasn't helped). I've seen so many documentaries, interviews, recorded tapes etc and she sounded like and incredibly difficult person to live with. Everything was awful apparently - she hated every day, her wedding day was the worst day of her life, her pregnancies were horrendous, she hated all the tours and visits, everyone was mean, everyone was awful, everything was the worst thing in the world. And she admittedly used to have violent tantrums about Camilla - but Diana strayed too with more people than Charles did. And people forget that, for all the protestation about press intrusion, she very much courted them when it suited her.

I think Charles was also pushed into an unhappy situation, and coped much better than Diana did. Both his boys have in the past admitted he's a wonderful father, he's very astute and forward thinking (in the 80's when he was talking about environmental issues and how people have to change their attitudes to making the planet more sustainable, he was laughed at and called a tree hugger) and has been very vocal about slimming down the monarchy when he ascends the throne. I'm not buying that he's the villain Diana painted him to be. And, this is a little controversial, because she is dead she has the benefit of being somethjng martyr and her word being gospel. Can't argue with a dead person!

[JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows]

@LApprentiSorcier

I'm not denying they are a dysfunctional family but not in the romanticised way you seem to think. Diana was not an ill-used heroine. She was a vain, ambitious woman who married for position, not love, and it came back to bite her.

Yes, this!!!

People forget that WRT the RF, it's not a Disney movie. Until basically the latest generation, marriage was a business transaction. Diana grew up with the RF bad very privileged circles, she wasn't like me and you, she knew the score.

[TheVanguardSix]

That marriage was all sorts of wrong for both of them.