Charles Spencer to publish memoir of Diana

[OccasionalHope]

Could be interesting.

I’ve never really understood the Diana adoration and interest to be honest.

She was a very privileged, but troubled young woman who courted the limelight and didn’t appear to be very bright. She made very questionable choices, particularly as a mother, and then had an unfortunate early death.

Yet she has been remembered as some sort of saint. Very odd indeed.

Was she encouraged a lot by her family to date Charles?

I don't know and obviously irrelevant now but if Charles's gossip book blames the RF (which I bet it will) he should also accept blame on behalf of the Spencers for them enabling the whole thing.

We all know our siblings. I'm sure if I had a younger, naive, rather emotionally damaged 19yr old young sister I'd have found some senior courtier or whatever they're called and said 'God no it'll be an unmitigated disaster'.

I bet this is why Spencer and Harry are bffs. Both varying their recollections and intent on raking over the past. Poor William, I can imagine this will be absolutely awful for him.

I believe Spencer sued the Times and Mail for libel and defamation for repeating that he turned Diana away .

She wasn’t bright but learned a lot about landlines, homeless and AIDS victims as she did charity work. And she must have been bright and caring enough to care for young children in her first job. She actually read a lot (psychology, where she travelled, researched that), poetry and her aunty Barbara Cartland’s books (boak!). She was so young when she got married.

Yeah he was married to her. There is probably a hell of a lot he has never said.

I don't blame him to be honest.The press vilified him and continue to attack his wife thirty years after diana dies.

Diana was also a serial cheater often choosing married men and and then wanted sympathy for infidelity from her husband. Diana was a apparently the one who had a physical, extra marital affair with her body guard first. She cheated before he did.

I'm sick of the outpouring about diana.She's been dead for thirty years.She was a pain in the arse and a lying cheat, and he's entitled to have his say as she did multiple times. Giving a t v interview saying he shouldn't be allowed to become king.

I know Diana was a troubled person and that her marriage was a disaster for both parties. No argument there from me.

But she shouldn't have done that interview for the sake of her children. As parents there are lots of things you might feel you want to do and need to do but you have to consider the effect on your children.

And she wasn't just any mother. Her sons were the object of public and press scrutiny even then. Imagine the effect on an adolescent boy of hearing his mother talk about her marriage problems on national (and international) TV.

William was 3 years older than Harry and I think he suffered more during her last years, when she confided in him in a way that she really shouldn't have. At Eton he had on the dartboard in his study a picture of the wife of Diana's then lover (maybe Hasmet Khan's wife - I don't know which lover it was). If you think about the implications of that - and how she must have involved him in her sad affairs at the age of 14, that's not healthy.

I suspect William and Harry had different experiences of their mother as they became teenagers. There are 3 years between them, and that's a big difference at that age. I have a similar issue with my sister who remembers things my mum did very differently from me.

Sure, she did charity work. But what else was she going to do? Charity work is kind of a Royal’s only job.

@CoffeeCantata
And should Charles have done his interview?
Charles did the splash interview first .

Sarah Spencer was just one of a string of attractive young women on Charles's arm. If I remember correctly she gave a rather "frank" interview to the press so she had to go.
Along came Diana, she was perfect. Good looking, aristocratic, healthy and a virgin.
It had disaster written all over it from the get-go. He should have married Camilla in the first place. They were obviously made for each other

I'm the last person to be a Diana worshipper - I'm too cynical and eye rolly!

I don't like the sanctification of her either.

But I do think, having read and listened to a lot over the years, that she had something - a genuine interest in other people. I'm not a people person myself but I do admire the way she communicated warmth and love to many people who must have felt abandoned and marginalised at that (long ago) time.

I think I would have given her a swerve if I'd met her 'type' in my day-to-day life. She did sort of glory in being 'dim', which is not a good example to set to your children, and clearly she didn't share Charles's intellectual interests.

I'm sorry to bring Meghan into this - I'm doing it to illustrate a particular point - but to me, Diana's work with people, especially children and the sick, rings true whereas Meghan appears to me to be going through the motions as long as the cameras are rolling.

But I'm not blind to Diana's shortcomings - she had terrible taste in men, with very few exceptions, and she did neglect her sons on many occasions to holiday with her lovers.

It's not so much Diana I object to as the embarrassing outpouring of emotion which her death provoked - an amazing 'about turn' after the public disapproval of the previous months.

She researched where she went and cultures, historical places and medical conditions connected to that. She didn’t have to do that, she could have just smiled and looked attractive and shook hands.

I don't think so, no.

I don't think tell-alls are ever a good idea.

I think the problem is the reverse. Before she died, people were becoming fairly disillusioned with her. They weren't impressed with all the carefully staged interview and publicity photographs of her looking pensive or caring - I remember particularly the mockery drawn by a photograph of her apparently at a heart operation, unmasked and heavily made-up flicking mascara into the operation wound if it had existed. They were also disenchanted with the parade of men, the number of holidays she took at their expense, etc etc. On the day she died the papers had to do some very quick work withdrawing articles published in the early editions criticising her. I don't think all the criticism was merited, but she was an ordinary, fallible, human being living a very comfortable life.

Yet overnight she somehow became a living saint, and no-one dared to say anything critical about her. For a time, you risked getting lynched if you tried. And there are still people, notably Harry, pushing that picture of her because it suits their own agenda.

It would be nice to think this book will be realistic, but given that it is obviously aimed at making money for Spencer, I would be amazed if that proves to be the case.

Two years, June 1982, September 1984.

She also danced (ballet), played the piano, swam and played tennis. And was a patron of the arts.

What a grifter.

Lady Fermoy has a lot of answer for. I am reading Lady Ann Glenconner’s book. She was on the verge of an engagement with Johnny Spencer until Lady F met him and lured him away for her own daughter. And Lady F was instrumental in the matchmaking between Diana and Charles. How very Tudoresque.

Did she though? Or did she have people research for her and present her with a pack or simply just talk her through it on the jet over there?

I think you give her too much credit. Like with any of the Royals, or any other powerful person, there are huge teams of people around them facilitating everything.

This is Charles Spencer, Diana's brother, publishing a book, not King Charles.

There have been books published from King Charles's point of view although not written by King Charles himself - such as 'Charles, Victim or Villain' by Penny Junor, a journalist.

I highly doubt King Charles would publish a self-penned memoir specifically about Diana, it would probably break the internet 😆

I'm really sorry I am dyslexic, and I do often read things completely wrong.

Sometimes words distort or shimmer on the screen or the page.Depending what i'm reading and I don't necessarily see it correctly.

Saw Charles and diana and overlooked spencer

Its why post I make look a bit weird Because I have to use speech recognition.

Spencer has recently flogged a load of land for development to shore up his depleted family finances. His estate is not well run. I assume he thinks this is a cash cow.

But those are just normal activities for any girl to do.

Gosh, no need to apologise! I sometimes read things wrong like that and I'm not dyslexic.

Plus, there was a pattern. She herself married a much older man. Her daughter, Frances, married Johnny Spencer when she was 18 and he was 30. The Spencer daughter Jane married Robert Fellowes when she was 21 and he was 37.
The Spencer family were closely entwined with the royals and lived on the Sandringham estate.