Diana’s ring for Kate Middleton
Prince William and Kate Middleton booked into the exclusive Deroches resort in the Indian Ocean under the names, Martin and Rosemary Middleton.
At least they are an improvement on Fred and Gladys — names Charles and Camilla use for each other. Interesting too that they chose a “married” combination of names. More gallows humour perhaps.
Other reports are saying that William intends to give Kate one of Princess Diana’s favourite rings on the occasion of their engagement. According to Entertainment Wise UK the Prince has approached his uncle Earl Spencer about using the ring for a proposal, which some Royal sources are said to expect in the next six months.
Common sense dictates though, that if they have got this far, any proposal will come during the holiday. If that is the plan, speculation will be intense in coming weeks. Extra security around Kate will demonstrate her new status, so it’s idle to think an announcement can be postponed beyond their return to Britain.
Let’s hope we are not to be subjected to another round of confusion and uncertainty. The public may well tire of an endless charade and become indifferent to the outcome. In the public mind, they could actually turn into plain old Martin and Rosemary Middleton.
They wouldn’t become engaged on or near the anniversary of his mother’s death?
I was reading the blog yesterday with all the back and forth about Diana. I began thinking about Prince William and his early years. Despite all his privilege and his destiny, he had to deal with the reality of his parents’ divorce just as a million other kids do every day, and it’s just awful. He must have listened to some legendary arguments. I have read that his mother leaned on him for emotional support in a way that was too much for a young boy. I am hoping (and we’ll never know for sure) that he has not turned into a “fix the wounded bird” kind of guy. I realize Ms. Middleton is not a wounded bird but you get the idea.
My alternative theory is that because he is rather strong willed, he may just marry this woman b/c he is hell bent not to allow the same people who pushed his mother around to push him around.
thoughts? It’s early here and mine are not as organized as I would like.
By Mary on August 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
John, does anyone have a good idea what ring this might be? Is it a ring that William would have access to, or one that Earl Spencer has?
I kind of hope it isn’t Diana’s sapphire and diamond engagement ring. Beautiful though it is, it carries so much history, so many memories of a relationship gone wrong.
By Evelyn on August 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Would she receive this ring as a gift and then be allowed to select a ring for herself as did Diana? John, I think that the corner has turned. I have no doubt that there will be an announcement shortly. If William turned back now, it would be a PR disaster. These stories would never be leaked if it wasn’t true.
By Cate on August 21st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Evelyn, I imagine it’s become part of the Diana Exhibition at Althorp, which is why he had to ask Charles Spencer.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Cate, it’s probably a gift to mark the proposal. She will then choose an engagement ring, as you say.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Mary, it could be leaked a week before the service, as Harry’s was. I suspect the actual date may be linked to the Queen’s 60th wedding anniversary in November. Wills and Harry have organized a party for them at Highgrove. But only time will tell.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I dont’t know. I am so confused about all this. In one week Kate goes from being hated by the media to being in an island with William. I am reading too many stories that contradict themselves. And no official word from anyone, no pictures. Maybe an engagement is indeed in the works for these two, altough I hpo not. William in my opinion needs to date other girls, and this one, Kate, doesn’t seem too serious to me. I just wished she will get a real job and show everyone she is smart and productive. her job at jigsaw is a joke, she works when she wants and goes on vacation every month. How many of us can pull something like that? Gimme a break.
By Marilyn on August 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Does anyone have a photo of the rings at the exhibit at Althorp? Might be fun to see and guess! John, you could run a voting site!
By Cate on August 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Yes only time will tell but I think people are setting themselves up for a disappointment because I don’t think there will be an engagement announced when they get back, maybe during the celebrations for Her Majesty & Prince Philip’s wedding anniversary but not this soon. But only time will tell what will happen.
By Claudius on August 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I agree with your sentiments Marilyn.
Kate’s lack of work ethic is apparent for all to see. I am convinced the Jigsaw ‘job’ was simply PR - a way of appeasing the questions surrounding her lack of employment. Kate has achieved little on her own since graduating and does not appear to contribute to anything worthwhile. I’m not implying that she should undertaking charitable work or the like simply because of her public profile, rather that she seems to lack any motivation or outlook beyond William and her social life. I doubt she possesses the practical or natural qualities needed to withstand the demands of being a Consort.
By Bella on August 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hello and good morning to all from sunny, Miami! I just wanted to let you know how enertaining as well as informative this forum is. Your debates are civil, and I am dying to join you all for tea!
By Madelaine on August 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Do you really think an engagement announcement for William and Kate would be made before the wedding of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly? If so, that would surely overshadow Peter and Autumn’s special day and be extremely cruel. If Her Majesty loves her grandchildren as much as we are told she does, QE II will not allow a William/Kate engagement announcement until after the Phillips/Kelly wedding. Let Peter and Autumn have their day in the sun as all brides and grooms should!
By Arthur on August 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Harry has leaked his proposal and stated it won’t become official until after Chelsy has finished her postgrad at Leeds (two years) and he his stint in the Army.
William could easily follow the same path. I doubt they will actually marry until early 2009 when he finishes his three years in the Forces. But at least being betrothed to the next-but-one in line to the Throne will allow Kate to be properly protected.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
We could actually have four grandchildren of the Queen betrothed at the same time. If Beatrice joined in, that would be five. It’s probably a little early for Eugenie and Louise, though
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Where is Mandy and her special insights when we need her?
By Marie on August 21st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Regarding Prince William giving Kate a ring that was a favorite of Princess Diana’s, and the merits of that ring being the splendid sapphire and diamond engagement ring that was Princess Diana’s, I do not think that would be a bad choice at all. My family has, for more than a hundred years, passed down wedding and engagement rings for use by successive generations. If those who originally wore the rings were not happy or did not prosper, the second wearers of those rings were said to “put the luck back into the rings” rather than call bad fortune down upon themselves by wearing them. Since my wedding and engagement rings belonged to ancestors whose marriage was fatally flawed and ended in divorse, and since I have been very happily married to the love of my life for 37 years, I believe in this custom! Let Prince William in all confidence give Kate his beloved Mother’s engagement ring, without anxiety, if he wishes.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Marie, I’m a little puzzled that the Mail hasn’t picked this ring story up yet. Richard Kay would surely have phoned Charles Spencer to check it out. Maybe it will appear tomorrow. If not, it could be a false story as the Mail is usually first in with the big stuff.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Gigi, Diana’s will specifically stated that her jewellery should go to her son’s future wives, so William is quite in order to do this. I would like to see more confirmation of this story beyond Entertainment Wise UK, though.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
John,
I agree with you completely, but the royal family doesn’t like long engagements. However, I believe they should announce the engagement for the reasons you mentioned.
By Alicia on August 21st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
John, maybe Charles Spencer has no wish to speak with Richard Kay since Kay is so cozy with the Royal Family. Prince William may have asked his uncle to keep this matter in confidence. I realize that the press feels they have the right to know anything and everything, but that is simply not the case.
I hope rather than believe that the wishes stated in Diana’s will and other instruments written in good faith by her are being fulfilled. The revelations about Princess Diana’s bequests to her Godchildren being ignored by the executor are too infamous for words! Here in America there are serious legal consequences for executors who do not properly uphold and faithfully fulfill the obligations of their trust. I am shocked that these safeguards are evidently not in place in Britain.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Gigi, I think the bequests to the Godchildren were contained in a “letter of wishes” rather than in her will, so were not legally binding. I’m as astonished as you are, though, that the executors, including the Bishop of London, didn’t think it right to honour her wishes. Beyond belief.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Madelaine in Miami, you’re very welcome. Please feel free to join our large contingent of American contributors. They never lack an interesting point of view.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
John, William doesnt need to ask for permission to his uncle for that. He and Harry can pick in their mother’s jewels as they want. Indeed, the DailyMail is the first to sell this kind of stories. EntertainmentWise has just reported some rubbish published last sunday on the Sunday People. If this was true, even at 50%, then the Mail would have sold it with the words ” world exclusive top secret information”, as they like to make believe it is.
Besides, Ive read somewhere that Whitaker has said that he doesnt think Kate is the right girl for William too, and despite the fact that I hate him, Im very pleased to see that his words reflect exactly what I fell : “not convinced”. Remember that just one or 2 weeks before the split, he said exactly the same thing.
Well done Tomato! You well deserve your Turnbull&Asser shirts!
By Lilyfromfrance on August 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
He would out of courtesy if the ring were part of the Diana Exhibition, Lily. But I’m beginning to doubt the story too as it’s not being picked up by the heavyweights.
As for Tomato Face, he may be about to be squashed. The CH vibes are still strongly on the pos side, and that was in the Mail.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Madelaine, where abouts in Miami are you located? I’m in Coral Gables! Such a shame about the Orange Bowl too….I’m an alumni from UM.
By Chloe on August 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
good evening everydody!
John,
Can you tell me if you have some information about the wedding of miss middleton’s relatives that William and kate had to go this month?
Because we are the 21st of august and the press said that they would assist together to the wedding at that date, but they are on holidays so where is the true?
By serenity on August 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
My guess, Serenity, is that the couple being married decided they didn’t want to be swamped by the media, so asked them to stay away.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
So, it’s plausible that someday Rosemary will get Brenda’s rocks? Diana will be sure to be present in spirit for that!
Seriously, I hope this is the right thing for them. Being happily married as I am I can honestly say that this marriage thing was so much harder than I ever thought it could possibly be! And, we don’t have the eyes of the world on us waiting for us to make some sort of mistake. Good luck to them - and I hope that they don’t get so caught up in planning a wedding that they neglect to plan a marriage.
BTW: this site rocks.
By Dodi on August 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
john!
I am quite confused…Are you serious ?! who would refuse that the future king of england attend to his/her wedding? it would be the best publicity for their wedding! i take your answer as a joke, is it?
Lily happy to see that you are still there with us!!
By serenity on August 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Thank you, Dodi. I’m sure Rosie will be delighted with Brenda’s rocks, as well as Diana’s. I’m guessing she has a lot of rocking to do.
By John on August 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pm
There is always the possibility that the wedding was postponed for some reason or that Kate and Prince William simply decided, for reasons of their own, not to attend. Events have been moving quite rapidly in their relationship and they are still fending off the pit bull press, a task that would be quite difficult at a Middleton family wedding.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
It’s because Im drunk, Serenity.
Kate prefered going at Camilla’s birthday party instead of attending her cousin’s wedding. So she turned down the Christmas invitation from the Queen because she wanted to spend it with her family but she prefers going at Camilla’s party instead of going at her cousin’s special day. Lovely. I guess she would have prefered dying than going at the wedding without him. Wills made this announcement that he will go with her while knowing he could not. Lovely too.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 21st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I forgot to mention that if Prince William and Kate do become engaged, as a tribute to their romantic interlude in the Seychelles, our Royal Anecdotes Gala Engagement Tea will feature Floating Island, a rich custard dessert made with cognac and topped with meringue.
It is decadent, but we are throwing caution to the four winds, are we not? John, this dessert is light as a feather, so there will be no fears about the tea table collapsing.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
It’s very impressive, Gigi. How many desserts do you know? A massive table would be required
By Lilyfromfrance on August 21st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Don’t worry, dear Lily. John thinks that if I get totally out of hand, he might be able to secure permission to use the massive dining table in the Waterloo Chamber at Windsor Castle. Of course, some of these desserts, like Floating Island, Baked Alaska, and Napoleons are time sensitive because they must be served and consumed very soon after preparation. Some of these desserts are also seasonal. Frozen desserts, ice cream desserts and so on are best for summer or late Spring. Heavier desserts such as chocolate layer cake, pies and tarts are better for Fall and Winter. That does not explain why I serve chocolate layer cake with raspberries year ’round, nor why we are obscessed with Balmoral Dundee Cake 365 days a year, but if pressed, I shall try to invent a suitable obfuscation.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I just did a search on Google news and it looks as if the only site reporting about the ring is the Entertainmentwise site, so like you, John, I find it suspicious. Would it be possible that Earl Spencer or one of his friends called it in? They aren’t on the best of terms with the Royal Family from what I’ve heard.
I would hate to see William pressured into a marriage just as his father was - that was a horrible mistake that cost happiness for many people.
By NCKat on August 21st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I did see this story at people.co.uk and had to laugh at this line:
“The source said: “Kate will be deeply touched when she learns of William’s plans.” Seems to me the cat’s out of the bag if Will had any secret plans!
By NCKat on August 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Thanks for the answer lily! i like the points you had highlighted; I must say that those two are going straight to the wall; and as Dodi said I also hope that they don’t get so caught up in planning a wedding that they neglect to plan a marriage.
( when I make a mistake (grammar or vocabulary) please tell me and correct me because I am french and my english is very intuitive!, the last time I went to England, i was twelve and my first language at school was german!)
By serenity on August 21st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Excuse me all!
But don’t you find strange that William decided to be called Martin middleton ? why the future king of england should be named by his future wife’s name! i will be very embarrassed if it was me!
That shows something quite obvious : kate seems to lead the boat!
Bye
By serenity on August 21st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I’m sure that William (or his aides) made the reservation with the Middleton family name. It could bw William’s way of saying:
~ Your family is important, at least to me.
~ I’m not worried about marrying into your family.
~ It’s really us (hint hint).
I think it’s a very nice gesture on William’s part.
By Evelyn on August 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
French? Hello colleague! Thats why you’re weird then, Serenity!
As for the pet names, well I think it’s easier to be believed and to get peace when you use Martin and Rosemary Middleton rather than Martin and Rosemary Windsor
No need to invent stories about it, try to think you are them, then you’re are not going to spend hours at trying to put a sense to a simple thing like that.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
What other surname could they choose? Windsor? Saxe-Coburg- Gotha? Wetten? Mountbatten? Those names are hardly helpful if one is going incognito. Middleton is at least authentically Kate’s surname but it is also not so unusual that someone scanning the registry would immediately see red flags. I think it is a rather clever choice, actually.
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I thought it was very cute, too.
By kit on August 21st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
They could have chosen a surname that they had no connection to, which would have given them greater anonymity. I like the fact that they chose Kate’s family name.
By Evelyn on August 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Chloe,
Hi neighbor! I am right across from you; I live in Schenley Park, maybe we could do Tea at the Biltmore when Kate and Wills marry…
I am originally from New Jersey, so I didn’t go to UM, and my daughter is a’Nole…..enough said
- But I agree, it is too bad about the Orange Bowl.
By Madelaine on August 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Oh rats, another typo.
I meant to type “Wettin.”
By Gigi on August 21st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Madeline and Chloe, I’m also from Miami. Anyone out there also from Miami?
By Marilyn on August 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
I am from Miami, too!
By Alicia on August 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 am
Well, I think the Miami point of view is not going to be neglected here.
The false names were a joke, apparently. The staff knew who they were and went along with it. The President was involved in booking the whole resort for them, so everyone knew.
By John on August 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
I wonder who came up with the idea of using Camilla’s middle name for Kate!!! It appears that it darling new MUMMY is never far from his thoughts.
By Trudie on August 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Ohhhhh come on! Cant you see that it’s rubbish leaked by CH? Charles is just selling his son and his relationship with Kate, like the RF has sold Wills and harry to the public when they were attacked after Diana’s death. His staff is just leaking rubbish about Wills in order to make Charles “forgotten” during Diana’s anniversary thats all. The public is dupe enough to think that something is imminent so will have something better to think than blaming Charles. Look how the things are sudden and new. Was CH so allusive before? And what about the trip, which is supposed to be top secret? And Harry’s proposal to Chelsy? And the Diana’s Memorial Fund which is attacked since 4 days? Poor boys. There wont be any engagement, stop dreaming. It’s just Charles jokes who is wetting his underpants because of Diana’s death anniversary and wants to be forgotten. Well it’s was very entertaining and funny. Now let’s be serious!
By Lilyfromfrance on August 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
Well, considering there have been items in the major UK papers about William and Harry asking for prayers from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the occasion, I doubt that Charles can sweep it all under the rug, Lily. It seems that the boys are determined to make this happen, Charles or no Charles. And there’s been mention in the Mail about Camilla’s fear of the event itself - it’s a damed-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation for her. I blame Charles for that.
By NCKat on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
This has nothing to do with what Ive written NCKat. Ofcourse the newpapers reported it, you know why, because the Church of England’s website has published the prayers on its website and the newspapers reported it the next day. Simple as that. I should have out a link to the prayers when I saw them and you could have seen. The prayers are not an information from CH.
I meant that CH is just reporting too many stories in order to make people focus on William and especially, of course, on his relationship with Kate, and try to make believe that something is imminent while it’s not. Charles and his wife want to be forgotten by all the people who blame them because of Diana. It’s even hard to believe that the Memorial Service is for Diana. All the events of the year are a boring fiasco.
I think his wife doesnt want to go at the MS but during the last decade Charles has worked like a crazy dog to improve his image, so he is not going to lose his “investment” because of memories.
Charles is just selling his sons, like the whole family did when they were attacked when Diana died.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
put a link, not out a link, sorry
By Lilyfromfrance on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hi!
still thank you Lily for your lightings about the name’s choice !
Are you a journalist (I mean a clever one) ?, because your analyses are so judicious! I especially enjoy reading your post…
Don’t you think that it will be a better thing whether Camilla doesn’t assist the Memorial Service for Diana? I don’t understand why Charles persists trying to impose Camilla, she is His wife but not really appreciate by the public and he should respect that; he seems to be narow-minded and quite dictatorial…
By serenity on August 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Ah ah Serenity. No Im not a journalist. But if you would know who I am then you could not sleep tonight! No Im joking, thank you for the flattering comment anyway
Every people who want to blame someone should stop thinking Charles is the only one to blame. If you want to blame him, then you must blame Diana’s mother too. They have the same faults. They were both selfish and prefered their lovers rather than the happiness of their families. Diana reported her lacks of love and of attention from her mother on Charles, who had not the time nor the envy to satisfy them. If you want to blame the Windsors, then you must blame a part of the Spencers too, her brother and sisters, who werent there when she needed help. She even couldnt trust her own family. The guest list would be empty! :-)Ahhhh… Camilla… are you going to have a sudden angina or will you be there…?
As for Camilla, I don’t think there’re so much people who care about her presence or not. In my opinion she should not attend it but if so, then Charles should not attend too. But he has to be there, she was the mother of his sons afterall. But if she is there then she should hide and sit at the far end of the Chapel
By Lilyfromfrance on August 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Weird thing, a friend of mine asked me why I named the readers as “poor boys” in one of my comment. Not at all! I was referring to William and Harry, who, I think, are used by the Palace and CH when they think they need it. I would not call the dear Royal Anecdotes readers as poor boys. I’m sorry if some people may have felt offended.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Hi Lily, You know, I thought that Camilla could sit a pew or two back from Charles. This would provide focus on Charles and the princes. Then, when the princes announced the girlfriends wouldn’t attend the service with them I thought that was a perfect “out” for Camilla. It seems the princes figured out what the focus should be, but not Charles…..I doubt he has surprised anyone.
By Cate on August 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
He makes me ill. Have I said that before? Yes, I have. I do not care. He makes me very, very ill.
By Gigi on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
When members of the Royal Family didn’t turn up for some Diana events, like the opening of that awful fountain, they were criticized in the press for that. “Where was the Queen? Where was Prince Charles?” etcetera.
Now they’re all going, they’re being whacked for that too. They just can’t win.
By John on August 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 am
John these are feeble attempts to exploit Diana’s memory for PR. Diana was cruelly cast aside after providing William Harry. Did anyone in the family help her try to save her marriage? NO!! Did they all know about Camilla YES!!! Was Diana the mother of a future King stripped of her HRH and the RF wanting a private funereal YES!!! Were there no Prayers offered for Diana in church on the morning of her death 10 years ago.YES!!!. How convienient that the RF is turning out enmass for this memorial service while true friends are being omitted, with Charles and Camilla among the chief mourners. Enough said.
By Trudie on August 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Trudie, the Queen tried hard to save the marriage. Diana met with her right up to the end. It was only after the betrayal of the Morton book, which Diana foolishly denied, and the Panorama interview, that the Queen ordered a divorce. There was no way back after that.
I agree this memorial service is a mess. The Spencers themselves have hardly covered themselves in glory, and had a lot to do with the guest list. Sarah Spencer totally wrecked the Memorial Fund charity involving it in stupid political causes and law suits in America. No-one really comes well out of all this.
I don’t believe in pointing the finger at one person and claiming it’s all down to him. It isn’t.
By John on August 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 am
The oddest thing about the Prince William and Kate Middleton romance is that she seems to provide him with stability yet her own stability seems to become more undone with each passing season. The Queen is correct to be concerned.
By Mrs. Peperium on August 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Not going to a memorial service is not a sin. Not going to the opening of a fountain is not a sin. Not counseling someone in your family to attempt to salvage someone’s marriage is not a sin. Marrying someone just to beget heirs for the dynasty and blaspheming at the altar when you take your vows is a BIG SIN. Cheating on your spouse with another person during your marriage is a BIG SIN. Breaking up the marriage of a couple is a BIG SIN. Sorry, John but the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Camilla and Charles. I would not wish to be either of them on Judgement Day. They are, both of them, thorough scoundrels.
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Gigi, I can’t see you ever being invited to afternoon tea at Highgrove. No Duchy Originals for you.
By John on August 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I think the most fundamental of facts is that it is Kate who comes from a stable family and NOT William. Therefore, you cannot ignore the influence of history & genetics repeating itself in the future. More than likely, William may be having many problems with committing to a serious long term relationship with anyone let alone KM. He may also have some “mummy” issues to deal with. And imagine having that much wealth to his name! ANY man with that much power would be dangerous to be in a relationship with even if he does have a gentlemanly and charming side to him.
KM is probably being manipulative but perhaps she needs to be with a man who throws tantrums and does not need to answer to anyone! More than likely, she is having a tough time dealing with him and working out what they want. Wisdom would dictate, she should step back and walk away IF William cannot provide what she wants NOW he may not come through with the goods further down the track ie. she will always have to play games to keep him steady
By charlotte on August 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Thank Heaven for that, John. I assure you I am grateful that I will have no contact with either Camilla or Charles. They should be grateful, too. Should I be introduced to either of them, there is a very good chance that I would tell them exactly what I think of them!
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
John,
I am assuming that you have to defend or at least be evenhanded about the Diana and Charles marriage, given your Royalist stance and Royal Anecdotes web site.
However, it is futile to try to convince those who have studied said marriage that both parties were equally at fault. Much of the private aspects of this pairing are a matter of public record. And, there is no way to examine the details without concluding that Charles and Camilla were heartless, selfish people that used and abused the princess.
IMO, if Charles felt Camilla was the only one for him and he was not allowed to marry her, he could have remained a bachelor and passed the duty of providing an heir/spare to Andrew.
Look at Prince Albert, never married, never produced an heir and one of Caroline’s sons will be probably inherit. No problem there.
By Alicia on August 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Alicia, Tina Brown’s new book, The Diana Chronicles sheds a lot of light on the marriage and the problems of both parties in it. I recommend it as a balanced view of both Charles and Diana and the psychological problems both contended with all their lives. It was not a match made in Heaven, so was never going to last.
Here’s a thought : the real villain of the piece was Lady Fermoy, Diana’s maternal grandmother.
By John on August 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
John, anyone who knows anything about Tina Brown knows that she is not credible. In fact, she is absurd.
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Time for tea, Gigi.
By John on August 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
John:
Why does it say: “Your comment is awaiting moderation” before my submissions?
By Arthur, USA on August 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
John,
I read the book and, yes, Lady Fermoy was a major villain. And, granted both sides erred.
But, Charles was a 32-year old man when he made the decision to breed without love to Diana, who was a 19 years old. From that act all other events flowed.
That’s why Diana’s defenders are so adamant about her victimhood. Sure, Diana did X, Y and Z to Charles and more! But he set everything in motion?
Just my 2 cents worth.
By Alicia on August 23rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
An excellent 2 cents it is! Thank you, Alicia.
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
John, no matter how you try to spin it, there was only one “innocent†going into this marriage and that was Lady Diana Spencer. She was in love with Charles and entered the marriage with honorable intensions. Everyone else in “the establishment,†including Charles, Camilla, The Queen Mum, Lady Fermoy, Prince Philip, the Archbishop of Cantebury, et. all, knew this was an arranged marriage to produce an heir to the throne. The marriage never had a chance from the start and spiraled out of control because the Roylas are more concerned about public perception than truth. Yes, Diana did act irrationally, but who can blame her. Everywhere she turned, someone was deceiving her. When ones own Grandmother is willing to throw you to the wolves, you haven’t got a prayer.
By Arthur on August 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well said, Arthur. I totally agree.
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Gigi:
Thank you for agreeing with me. I get so upset when I hear “palace insiders” or former “aids” talking about how unstable Diana was and Charles was driven away by Diana’s bulimia and erratic behavior. When are these people going to realize that it was Charles’ shoddy treatment of Diana, which began on their honeymoon, that started Diana’s downward spiral? And no matter how much Calrence House tries to scrub the stain of trechery and deceit off Camilla, she will always be complicet in the downfall of Diana, Princess of Wales. We have a saying here in the States: “One can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” and Camilla is quite the sow!
By Arthur on August 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Well said Arthur!!! but John I must take issue regarding the Queens failure to help her only comment to Diana was “Charles is hopless” and Cams was “That horrible woman” right John she was a real help.
By Trudie on August 24th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Trudie you are quite correct about those quotes. For some reason, Queen Elizabeth II has always taken a hands-off approach to parenting her four children and does not appear to discipline them at all, no matter what they do and say. The legend is that she left the parental control to Prince Philip to make up to him for not being able to give him a Royal role, but I do not see any evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh guided his children appropriately. Charleshas no moral compass and is incapable of making anything close to a good decision and Prince Andrew isn’t much better. Aside from Princess Anne’s prickly temperment and her marital problems, she seems to have fared better than her brothers. Prince Edward did not complete his military training but appears to be a good fellow otherwise. Charles is indeed hopeless, but Queen Elizabeth II is not only his Mother but his Monarch. One would think she could have done something–anything– to make him walk the straight and narrow. They are all reaping the whirlwind now for their sins of omission and commission.
By Gigi on August 24th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Charles was raised with a strange duality - on the one hand, he was incredibly entitled, able to have anything he wanted — but, his lifestyle was severely constrained by the expectations incumbent on the heir to the throne.
A more mature, more complete man would have addressed this dichotomy. But he chose not to - relying on deceit and subterfuge to circumvent the demands placed upon him. He obviously felt that, as long as the public didn’t know what he was up to, he could do whatever he wanted.
Diana fought back, by unmasking his private behavior and showing how it conflicted not only with his public image but with the role he played in British society. It was a sharp attack that affected not only Charles but the entire Royal Family, showing them to be dreadful hypocrites, who merely SELL their subjects traditional values, religious faith and moral certitude.
This attack was political, going beyond the troubles in the marriage, and is the source of emnity of the Queen, Charles and the rest toward the princess. Had she merely reacted in private - say content with having affairs of her own - the Royals would not have cared.
By Alicia on August 24th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Some very keen observations these latter posts. But I disagree with only one thing: the Queen could not order a man to stop loving a woman as Charles loved Camilla. Charles was in a bit of a pickle I believe in that at that time it seemed there was no way to marry the one woman he truly loved. So yes I agree it was his fault for caving in to a bullying father and a meddling favored grandmother, but it was his family’s fault for forcing his hand to do so and for playing along with the farce. Very dysfunctional. It seems Diana was preyed upon and when she realized the game and her impossible situation, her demons came tumbling out of her baggage.
Here in the US they are beginning to show a kazillion documentaries on Diana. Tonight on CNN they aired one entitled “Growing up Diana.” Very sad and lonely childhood. And then to end up in another loveless situation was just too much for her. Cannot blame her.
By Positive on August 24th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Pos, the Tina Brown book blows away this “loveless childhood ” story for Diana. Yes, her mother’s departure and betrayal by her own mother (Lady Fermoy) who ensured she didn’t get custody of the children, was a major problem. But Diana and Charles Spencer were frequently invited to Sandringham by the Queen to play with Princes Andrew and Edward. Diana had a great time in school too and was far from neglected. She was also the apple of her father’s eye and followed him around like a puppy.
Many children had far worse childhoods and made a go of things in later life.
By John on August 24th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Well, you’ve all made up your minds in the same direction.
It seems to me that given the situation as it was, and the restrictions that a Royal life brings, Diana should have adapted more to it. There’s an old English saying, “You have to give something away if you want it back”.
If Diana had been less caught up in her dreams of being a fairy tale Princess married to a Barbara Cartland hero, I believe both of them could have worked something out. It may not have been perfect, but their children would have had a much happier childhood.
Nothing happened between Charles and Camilla in the first two years of the marriage. But then Charles found he couldn’t live up to the fantasy expectations of Diana and went back to old, down-to-earth, take-it-as-it-comes Camilla. It’s not an accident that she’s the complete opposite of Diana.
My 2 cents.
By John on August 24th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Arthur, the site operates a “first-comment moderation” policy, so anyone’s first comment goes into the mod panel. Thereafter, they should go through okay.
We’ve improved the system a lot in recent weeks, but it’s possible that a word, or part of a word, will spook the system. Also links in a comment will often zap it.
By John on August 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Somehow John I really can’t buy into the during the first two years of marriage nothing happened between C&C. It seems her presence was always there. Every one says that Diana was needy but the real truth is Charles is even needier and the young Diana had to cope with as she said becoming wife , mother and POW. But the real ? is if Camilla was unacceptable as a wife for Charlie in 1972-1973 how did she become acceptable in 2005? The whole court deceived Diana including her own Grandmother, that nasty piece of work was the snob of all snobs and sacrificed her own granddaughter to remain in Royal favor. Diana was a firm believer in the monarchy and as she said she had no desire to destroy her childrens destiny in her panarama interview. IF any thing C&C are the ones destroying the monarchy with their petty pr stunts.
By Trudie on August 24th, 2007 at 10:57 am
John:
Nothing “physically” may have happened between Charles and Camilla during the first two years of the marriage, but Charles committed “emotional adultry” by bringing Camilla’s picture along on the honeymoon, which Diana happened to see! Also, lets not forget the cufflinks with the intertwined letters C/C that Camilla gave Charles. Charles wore these in front of Diana on their honeymoon cruise. To me, this is no different than having cyber sex with someone who is not your wife. It’s still adultry.
By Arthur on August 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“You have to give something away if you want it backâ€.
Miss Middleton?
By Alicia on August 24th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Well said, Trudie and Arthur. We can equivocate until the cows come home, but the facts are these: Charles was older, more experienced, tremendously entitled and he proposed to Princess Diana. Therefore the burden of marital expectations rested upon him. If he had no intention of being a true husband to Princess Diana, and it is quite evident that he had no such intention from the very beginning, he was dreadfully in the wrong for proposing marriage. Furthermore, his behavior from first to last is that of a reprehensible cad, not a man, not a gentleman and most assuredly not a prince of Royal Blood. The collateral damage from Charles’ deceitful, selfish misconduct is a devaluing of the Monarchy, a total loss of credibility for Charles and his cohorts, incalculable emotional damage to Princess Diana while she lived and the death of the Princess, incalculable emotional damage to Prince William and Prince Harry. It would be sophomoric to suppose that the calumny ends there. Charles’ sins are the nebulous gift that keep on giving.
By Gigi on August 24th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Well Gigi while we are on the subject of Charles being such a cad here is something else to consider. While I am no fan of James Hewitt he became persona non grata not only for revealing his affair with Diana but was vilified for sleeping with the wife of a fellow officer isn’t it curious that Charles did the same and worse yet suffered no repercussions for doing the very same thing?. And yes Arthur is totally right they didn’t need cyber sex they had phone sex I like to call it 1-800-dial a loser.
By Trudie on August 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“Pos, the Tina Brown book blows away this “loveless childhood †story for Diana. Yes, her mother’s departure and betrayal by her own mother (Lady Fermoy) who ensured she didn’t get custody of the children, was a major problem. But Diana and Charles Spencer were frequently invited to Sandringham by the Queen to play with Princes Andrew and Edward. Diana had a great time in school too and was far from neglected. She was also the apple of her father’s eye and followed him around like a puppy.”
John, without wanting to appear contrary, I heard she had a *very* unhappy childhood. Tina Brown is just out to sell books. She was no friend of Diana’s.
By kit on August 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I agree with Kit. Regarding Diana’s childhood I SUPPOSE DIANA was LYING in Diana her true story. That book was the closet autobiography written by Andrew Morton through Diana.
By Trudie on August 24th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
People tend to forget the the RF only stays at Sandringham only part of the year - namely around the Christmas and New Years holidays. Meaning - it’d be kind of cold outside for Andrew and Edward to be swimming in the Park House pool. Diana and her brother used to go to Sandringham to watch a movie - Chitty Chitty Bang Bang if anyone remembers it and she pitched a royal fit one year as she just did NOT want to go!!!
Diana’s childhood wasn’t a pathetically horribly unhappy one - although there were times where she felt unloved and alone - she wasn’t. She had a great time at school once she got to know her classmates - and she loved Park House and all it came with - it was really a child’s paradise. However, when the kids wanted their parents love and attention - they got toys instead. Their parents just didn’t seem to know how to “be” with their kids. Her own brother said later that he didn’t know anyone who was like that with their own kids today. It seems people learned from their parent’s mistake and made an effort to be a part of their own children’s lives. If this is so - then that’s a good thing.
As far as Chucky and Camzilla not having a “physical” relationship the first few years of his and Diana’s marriage means nothing - the emotional relationship was very real - he saved all of his outpourings for Camzilla. It’s kind of hard to build a solid relationship with someone whose heart is elsewhere.
By On The Outside on August 24th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Out, her own father called her a “twit” and named her “Brian” after Brian the slow snail. Diana said she felt unhappy - we should believe her.
By kit on August 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
That was her brother Charles (and he admitted it). He was quite a smart kid and used to tease Diana as she did not have the “smarts” as he apparently did. Had her parents had the same expectations for the girls as they did Charles, she likely would have fared better.
She probably did feel unhappy at times - don’t we all? However, I for one will not believe her childhood was miserably unhappy - I’m afraid she totally dropped all perspective as far as that goes. Compare that childhood to the horrors experienced by millions of other children in this world - her life was literally a fairytale.
I don’t discount her distant parents, don’t get me wrong. But was she abused? No. Neglected? No. Deprived? No.
By On The Outside on August 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
No child survives their parents’ divorse without emotional damage–that is a psychological fact. When one of those two parents, and that one a role model, deserts the family, the psychological damage is magnified. At an early age, Princess Diana saw her parents’ marriage disintegrate, and, worse, her Mother deserted the family to run after her lover, Barrantes, whom she married. Earl Spencer said, in an interview prior to Princess Diana’s wedding, that his wife leaving the family was a “trauma” that had to be dealt with. He was the adult, but recognized that the divorse was a trauma. How much more, then, did the trauma damage Princess Diana and her brother, Charles, who, as the youngest children, were the most vulnerable!
By Gigi on August 26th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Oops! Sorry–Hector Barrantes was the man who married the Mother of the Duchess of York. I meant Peter Shand Kydd was the man Princess Diana’s Mother ran after and married.
By Gigi on August 26th, 2007 at 3:23 am
I think Prince William should be back in Kate’s arms they are ment to each other. I hope he will never leave Kate if they truely were a couple!
By Princess April Ann Calleja on August 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Outside, as far as i can tell, we neither of us have sufficient info to make a judgment as to whether she was deprived and/or neglected or not.
I’m not saying her childhood was totally miserable, but it was quite unhappy by her own account.
100th post! Yay me!
By kit on August 30th, 2007 at 1:55 am