Charles Spencer to publish memoir of Diana

[OccasionalHope]

Could be interesting.

Interesting!

Yes, I'm of a vintage to remember the days when Caroline of Monaco was THE eligible royal woman and I think there was even a suggestion that she might hitch up with Charles - oh dear, that wouldn't have gone well.

I take your point about the gynae exam, but I think the whole virginity thing was an archaic concern that the heir might not be the child of the Prince/King who was marrying the woman. If she was a virgin to start with that might be more likely!

I remember that C and D married in...1981? And by the time Sarah Ferguson (I will never call her Fergie - it's too affectionate) married AMW that wasn't an issue. I guess partly because he wasn't heir to the throne. It was well-known that Sarah had definitely had what they called a 'past'.

Of course it's absolutely fair to say that Diana was a product of her generation and aristo background. It would've hard, if not impossible, for her to be otherwise even if she wanted to. The choice around schooling was made because Charles had gone to Gordonstoun and been unbearably miserable there. He hated it with a passion and hasn't held back over the years on how it damaged him. Eton was Diana's idea because it's in Windsor and gave her easy access to the boys. They were able to come home for afternoon tea, whereas Gordonstoun was miles away in Scotland. The choice had Charles' wholehearted approval but the RF were very against it and pressured for Gordonstoun as was the traditional choice. There were massive arguments about it but on this occasion Charles backed Diana. As for the boys being sent to boarding school, that was non-negotiable for royal children. In fact it still is. Prince George will be boarding at Eton from this September and doubtless Louis will follow. As for Eton being "upper class". Did you expect her to send them to comprehensive school, and what class exactly do you think Gordonstoun represents? As for Royal nannies, she didn't want them at all and loathed the idea but in keeping with royal tradition she was forced to have them. It caused her great distress and many, many arguments ensued as she persisted in taking the boys to school, bathing them when little, eating with them, going to school plays and trying to plan her royal duties around them. She marked her calendar in green ink for everything that involved her sons. She spent a lot of time with her boys and took them for takeaways and on public transport and yes, theme parks. You say she liked being "papped" but she was papped wherever she went. She was at the time the most famous woman in the world. She railed against royal tradition to give her sons some kind of "normal" life and she absolutely adored spending time with them. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that, including her sons! Would you have preferred the crusty old Victorian royal ways of them being shoved in a nursery and never seeing their parents except on the royal balcony?

I once met someone who said that she wouldn't even contemplate having children if she couldn't have a nanny. She came from a wealthy, aristocratic family. Her lifestyle was so far removed from most, but within her circles there was an expectation of following a certain route.

I could imagine the expectation for Diana to conform and marry well was overbearing. Diana later on tried to rebel in her own way.

Charles Spencer says that he was close to Diana but he was packed off to boarding school when he was 8. He couldn't have spent that much time with her at all. His idea of a close family relationship must be very different to a lot of others.

I cannot be bothered to quote posts but every time pps feel compelled to point out the number of married men with whom Diana allegedly philandered, I feel compelled to point out that King Charles, before his marriage, visited a small coterie of discreet married women in addition to Camilla, making full use of his droit de seigneur, and he is never branded as sexually promiscuous.

I have been trying to think of the male equivalent of the term ‘slut’ while writing this post because ‘rake’ and ‘lothario’ sound too dashing, such is the double standard.

Will Carling, although in a long term marriage now, at the time of his alleged relationship with Diana, had broken up with one gf in favour of another, had a child, while planning his wedding to another, or something like that, but again Diana is somehow wholly responsible for his marital woes!

It’s pretty obvious that the way past events are spun is not only highly misogynistic but calculated to damage.

It’s also really unfair given that Diana never lived long enough to be able to establish a long term “respectable” relationship of her own, dying as she did aged 36.

It’s obvious that monarchists, for very obvious reasons, are biased against the book before even reading it.
@Filoparcels017

I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm a constitutional monarchist (not a memorabila-collecting super-fan) and I realise that the monarchy is going through a period of instability for various reasons.

I honestly would be surprised if CS comes out with much in the way of condemnation of KC for his affair with Camilla because, firstly, CS himself is a notorious womaniser on his 4th marriage, some of whose children have cut off contact with him, so any judgement on that score or getting on a high horse would be very unwise. And it's well-known that Diana too had many affairs, including some well-documented ones with married men in which her behaviour amounted to harrassment.

Therefore I'd be hugely surprised if CS chose to pass judgement or dig up more dirt on this matter.

My worry is that the book might hurt William who's had enough to deal with in recent years. Harry, I'm sure, is closer to CS and he has far less to lose than Willliam by any scandals CS might decide to air. I don't think 'monarchists' (whatever that means...) are shaking in their shoes here but if I were William, I might be.

Also, I'm no worshipper of Diana but I recognise the difficult situation she was in and also the good she tried to do. So much has been said and written about that - is there really anything to add?

I think he should keep to childhood memories and an appreciation of Diana. But will he? That isn't going to sell books, is it? I'm sure he will want to include salacious stuff a) to settle old scores and b) because of pressure from publishers.

Oh definitely, one rule for men and another for women.

I feel compelled to point out that King Charles, before his marriage, visited a small coterie of discreet married women in addition to Camilla, making full use of his droit de seigneur, and he is never branded as sexually promiscuous.

I remember the many reports of his relationships with very attractive women. I'm not defending 'womanising' in any situation but you have to factor in that women pursued Charles at that time, actively looking for an affair.

I know that when we look today at his ruddy face, thinning grey locks and stubby fingers (bless him - no insult intended) it's hard to imagine this, but once he had a polo-ready body and, while not classically handsome, he was dashing and attractive.

I'm not defending any man exploiting women for sex but few men in Charles's position when young would have been able to resist all the attention he got from international beauties!

Plus he was actively encouraged by Mountbatten, who told him to sow his wild oats.

@ginasevern
Yes - Eton represents normality for royal children.

It might be elite but it's a step towards real life as opposed to having tutors and being educated alone and away from your peers in a palace.

He is a respected historian. Not an academic one but generally well regarded.

Yes, I can recommend the Civil War books.

I’m not judging him either CoffeeCantata
believe it or not! I can very much sympathise with someone who has very little control over their future life.

I am judging negatively the different ways in which the sexual relationships of Diana are described ok these threads, as opposed to Charles’s, which are either overlooked or somehow seen as “dashing”.

And now KC3 is seen as a bastion of respectability while Diana is forever characterised as a weak minded marriage wrecker, which is ironic given the circumstances.

I cannot stand the double standard or the misogyny.

I think it's a good point, and there's most definitely double standards (as I've said), however, KC has had the benefit now of a long marriage to Camilla. Perhaps if Diana had lived she would have found happiness in remarriage, and would have been allowed to move on in public perception.
I do think sometimes these reminders about Diana's behaviour are often also used to counter the still prevalent view that she was some sort of Saint.

For heavens sake...can't that poor woman be left to rest in peace. She has been gone 30 years and she is still being exploited by her own family for money. Charles Spencer is shameless and money grabbing. I suppose he is short of cash after his most recent divorce and is wanting to cash in on his deceased sister and the anniversary of her death..

William has had to watch a succession of friends / staff / biographers / his own brother write countless tasteless tell alls about his Mum and now his own Uncle becomes the latest in a long line...is there no part of this woman or her life that is seen as off limits for exploitation and financial gain. I would really hope that by now there is nothing left to say and she should finally be allowed to rest in peace.
As for Harry...he flogged pictures to the US gutter press of himself taking the kids to visit her grave..he is utterly revolting and guilty of exploiting his own Mum.

I find it strange that people look back on it as embarrassing or when the UK lots its collective mind.

Diana was the most famous woman in the world before the internet and 24 hour news became fully functional. She had arrived in the RF as a gauche nineteen year old and everyone had followed her progress and her blossoming in a way, in to someone who went from completely powerless to someone who grew in to their own skin.

The other attraction was that she was very very flawed, and admitted to it.

And of course she had a natural gift for charity work, some of which, like AIDs, homelessness and land mines, were quite controversial at the time.

And being as young and tall as she was, she was a great clothes horse.

And she was engaged in this David v Goliath struggle with her in-laws.

All of this meant that she had great universal appeal.

Also, the UK is pretty buttoned up about death and dying. We don’t talk about it. We are expected to be strong in the face of loss and carry on as usual. Hence the common occurrence of British men breaking down at the death of their dogs when they barely cried at their mother’s funeral.

Diana’s death was a similar scenario I think, because she was so famous, her death gave people “permission” to express grief collectively, that had previously gone unacknowledged.

And whether you loved or loathed her, most people could see that what had been done to Diana was fundamentally unfair, that her life had been pretty tumultuous, and they simply acknowledged the sadness of an energetic, attractive, mother of two in her mid-thirties losing their life in such an abrupt way far too young.

Will Carling, although in a long term marriage now, at the time of his alleged relationship with Diana, had broken up with one gf in favour of another, had a child, while planning his wedding to another, or something like that, but again Diana is somehow wholly responsible for his marital woes!

If the aim is to stick to facts, Will Carling was married to Julia Carling in 1994. They divorced in 1996.

The alleged relationship between Will Carling and Diana was in 1995.

Only 2 royals have attended Eton - William and Harry.

It's also hard to argue that Gordonstoun was the traditional choice: at the time, 2 people had been there, Philip and Charles.

Philip went there when from the original school in Germany after the founder fled the Nazi regime in the 1930s.

Prior to that, royal children were educated with tutors.

It's awful isn't it. Her own brother using and exploiting her for money under the old chestnut of 'putting the record straight'. As bad as grabby Harry. They all want privacy from horrid scrutiny but are happy to share very private details and recollections of someone who was killed tragically decades ago and has no say in it.

Dignity and class missing from Charles Spencer.

Well said @Filoparcels017

I think originally, Philip's brother in law wanted to send him to Eton? Gordonstoun was probably a better fit for him. For Charles, less so.

Will Carling was fairly recently married.

He married TV presenter Julia Smith in the summer of 1994 but rumours of an affair with Diana, he gave her personal training sessions, were circulating in spring/summer 1995 and intensified when he was photographed visiting Kensington Palace in August 1995. The Carlings separated in early 1996 after less that 2 years of marriage.

Exactly - and that represents a big leap forward from royal tradition of home tuition, elite though it may seem to us!

Really? I always thought she was an emotionally unbalanced narcissist.

I see Diana as an insecure and damaged person- not a malevolent one. But with a few exceptions I think she had rotten taste in men: James “Cad” Hewitt and that creep, Dodi Fayed to name but 2.

While it would be nice to think she would have settled down happily, had she lived, on that basis I’m not so sure! She seemed to like bad boys, which never ends well for a woman.

But it’s all hypothetical, so we’ll never know!