Royal Rewind: The Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

Royal Rewind: The Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

I wrote this Royal Rewind almost a year ago and never found a good chance to post it, and seeing as Diana Mania has run amok this month, I thought now was as good a time as any. Here’s a look back at the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer at St. Paul’s Cathedral on Wednesday, July 29, 1981.

Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer Wedding

After dating for about six months, Prince Charles and Lady Diana got engaged in February 1981, and Diana chose an 18 carat ring, with a 12 carat oval blue Ceylon sapphire surrounded by 14 diamonds set in white gold, from the Garrard catalogue as her engagement ring.

The then-32-year-old Charles and then-20-year-old Diana married on July 29, 1981 at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in front of 3,500 guests (with an estimated 750 million people watching on television). The traditional Church of England wedding service was presided over by the Most Reverend Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Very Reverend Alan Webster, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Here is a video of the arrivals at the church and Diana walking down the aisle. Diana arrives at the church at 7:45.

I’m including this second video of arrivals because it shows off Diana’s tiara as she walks down the aisle. Diana starts walking down the aisle at 2:05.

Here is a video of the vow exchange where Diana messed up Charles’ name – saying “Philip Charles” instead of “Charles Philip”. Diana says Charles’ name incorrectly at 2:05.

The couple left the cathedral and took a carriage procession through the streets of London back to Buckingham Palace past two million spectators, 4,000 police, and 2,201 military officers.

The bride, groom, and families made an appearance on the balcony of Buckingham Palace where Charles leaned in and kissed Diana – which delighted the crowd and started a tradition of the bride and groom kissing on the balcony.

Diana chose a David and Elizabeth Emanuel-designed ivory silk taffeta and antique lace ballgown with a 25 foot train. The gown was decorated with hand embroidery, sequins, and 10,000 pearls, with a lace trim that was antique hand-made Carrickmacross lace which had belonged to Queen Mary.

The dress was so poofy that Diana and her father, John Spencer, cold barely both fit into the Glass Carriage Diana took from Clarence House to the cathedral, which resulted in the dress wrinkling badly in transport. Plus Diana spilled perfume down the front of the dress.

Diana wore the Spencer Tiara, borrowed from her father, for her wedding day. The tiara features stylized tulips, star-shaped flowers, and scrolling foliage and was created from various pieces commissioned from the late-19th century to the 1930s. The tiara sat on top of the blusher – which Diana kept covering her face during the ceremony and was cut off while she and Charles were signing the register – and sparkled like mad while she was walking down the aisle.

Charles wore his dress naval commander uniform with his Order of the Garter sash and star, Order of the Thistle star, Order of the Bath neck badge, and the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal and Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal.

Among the wedding guests were foreign royals including (but not limited to): King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola of Belgium; Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik of Denmark; King Constantine of Greece; Princess Gina and Prince Franz Josef of Liechtenstein; Grand Duke Jean and Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte of Luxembourg; Princess Grace and Prince Albert of Monaco; Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus of the Netherlands; King Olav, Crown Prince Harald, and Crown Princess Sonja of Norway; and King Carl XVI Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden.

British royal wedding guests included (among many others): Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne, and Princess Margaret.

The couple had a total of 27 wedding cakes at their wedding breakfast reception at Buckingham Palace. The official wedding cake was a five-tiered affair made by David Avery, head baker at the Royal Naval cooking school.

One last photo.

251 thoughts on “Royal Rewind: The Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

  1. I remember being 19, the same age as Lady Diana and I was fascinated by this wedding and her dress because of the endless train, although looking back now it was a terrible dress and did not suit her, it looked more like a shroud and not a dress fit for a beautiful young girl. The marriage itself was a sham and it’s a shame the RF put a young girl through this in their desperation to get a virginal wife for Charles.

    1. Diana was all for it, marrying a prince, wanting that life, etcetera. Charles thought she loved the same things he did; they were fundamentally mismatched and I don’t believe either knew it at the time. Don’t think it was just the evil mean RF forcing her or something. she was not some victim, not to the extent the media would have you believe.

      Thanks for this post, KMR, I like looking at the disaster of a dress! Diana hated it later on. I wonder what the mysterious second dress was like. I’ve read the kissing on the balcony thing started earlier, I forget with who, though!

      1. I agree with you, Ellie. I remember it well. Diana seemed so excited and happy. She beamed throughout and looked in absolute bliss. I don’t doubt things were dreadful later, but I think it was a happy day.

        1. I think they were both happy and quite frankly we know now neither wanted to do it but had to. “Your face is on the tea towels!” I think they did try their best but like many marriages, it failed, and they were seriously incompatible form day 1. It’s sad because they both needed love and taking care of so badly from their partner, but both needing that sort of spouse made it hell. And in the end neither were very kind to one another. I think also she was far more a modern girl than Charles who was always old fashioned, so they had no shared interests. They had none of that rapport or closeness. But there’s a playfulness, a warmth there in pictures (like the ones of him kissing her at he polo, or a picture I saw of him pinching her bum!). It’s all sad all around. And so tragic her dying so young. If she only wore a seatbelt. 🙁

  2. no other British royal wife will ever take her place, a beautiful young woman treated like trash by adulterous Charles with a married woman, it was too much for an innocent woman, she just hurt, depressed, but no one got her the help she needed and ended up looking for love with the wrong men, but she rose above all and her humanitarian/big heart was recognised by the whole world, shame on charles for using Diana!!

    1. Ummm she also cheated with married men. So how is she any better than Charles? Diana was no saint. I’m tired of people painting her as some innocent victim. Diana was human with many faults and good characteristics as well.

      1. This exactly.

        I remember watching wedding clips on television news since my country didn’t have live coverage of royal weddings until 1986. My mother exclaiming that Diana looked like a fairy. Our TV wasn’t HD so we didn’t notice the crumpled skirt until we saw pictures. Even The Economist had a front cover dedicated to bride and groom. At that time, we all had such high hopes.

        I was only disillusioned with Diana in the early 1990s when I realized that she was cheating with married men, wrecking other women’s marriages prevalent painting herself the wronged wife in that Panorama interview with Martin Bashir. (That wrecked the mystique of the monarchy as well as Diana’s own image since I already knew about her affairs and her manipulation of the press from various sources). And especially, when I realized that she was sharing all her sorrows with her children, putting such a burden on them. That wasn’t right.

        But I still grieved when she died. I watched the live coverage of the post accident events, including the annoucement of her death. I didn’t go to the British embassy, didn’t drop off flowers or cards. But I regretted that she died so young, that her young sons were forced to parade in front of the public. The funeral was beautiful, but I thought that Earl Spencer was a piece of ****.

        Now, almost thirty six years after the wedding, I can appreciate that all of us are flawed. I don’t think that Charles set out to cheat on his wife. There was a lot of miscommunication, and quite unrealistic expectations. Royal staff and courtiers did try to help Diana but she went her way. (Can’t blame her, she was only 19 and I’m pretty set in my ways too and refused to listen to good advice at her age too). II think she married very young, too young, and that she and Charles were too different from each other. And that they didn’t know each other. Plus, she wanted to be Princess of Wales at that time and many years later.

        Diana will be known in the long run for her phenomenalskills dealing with and teaching out to the public, and her charity work. She had a fantastic work ethic too.. Her reaching out to AIDS victims was a huge thing in the mid to late eighties. Her landmine campaign that she had just started was very important.

        When I see her pictures, it brings back so many memories of how much we the public adored her back then. Even when I was disillusioned with her private life especially her using the press to score points with her husband and the BRF, I still respected her for her charity work and humanitarian work. She was always gorgeous to look at, and her clothes choices and changing hairstyles made me buy newspapers, magazines and coffee table books.

        RIP Diana, Princess of Wales.

        PS. I was looking at pictures of Prince William from the 2004 Chester wedding of Lady Tamara Grosvenor and Edward van Cutsem. I realized how much happier he looked. Now, he almost always looks petulant, bored, even angry at public engagements. The wedding was a private one but well -covered by the press for many reasons.

        1. I completely agree. I knew she was flawed, I knew she hurt people but somehow I still loved her. I remember hearing of her death and my husband, half asleep, saying no you’re wrong it will be the Queen Mother.
          Whatever her faults she had charisma, she worked hard even when her personal life was in tatters and she made a genuine difference regarding AIDS and land mines. Yes others did too, but Diana got these topics on the front page of newspapers worldwide, headline news on the tv etc.
          People criticise her parenting, but her sons adored her, they are the ones to judge whether she was a good mother. Perfect? No , but then what mother ever is?

          1. I just think it is a damn pathetic shame W&K haven’t followed Diana’s footsteps with how popular they (STILL) are and all the media attention to do something worthwhile for others as Diana did. Harry has Invictus, and Sentebale, but still what Kate wears gets more attention than his good works.

        2. That is indeed sad that Prince William has not found genuine happiness. He probably had such high hopes of finding someone.

      2. Yes, but that was much later on…..this post is about her wedding day in 1981 as a young just turned 20 year old. Of course she was seeing this marriage through rose coloured glasses at that time….as a 32 year old man, Charles was much older, wiser and he used her first by keeping his mistresses. She cheated much later on after she discovered the marriage was a sham. I agree she was no innocent but let’s be real, having just 12 dates before getting engaged at 19 there is no way one can say she was so experienced and devious. If we are talking about her later life when things went south, I will agree.

        1. Diana admitted afaik in that interview SHE cheated first, in ’85, with the RPO. Charles did not. So that’s from her. But it’s easy to forget because the world paints her as the perfect saint, a victim, and Charles is Satan and should be passed over for hardworking, dutiful, wonderful William…

    2. Really bizarre how all the Diana maniacs come out of the woodwork with her version of events–all false, mostly–seared into their brains.

      1. Indeed Ellie, all the pr generated puke that ‘Diana was used, miserable, a victim, a wide eyed innocent, a young girl who was enchanted by a prince, who was the epitome of a ‘Disney’ princess.’ Forget that she wanted to call off the wedding, forget that she knew about Camilla and looked for her while walking down the aisle, forget the crumpled and wrinkled wedding dress (not her fault but the raves about it being ever so beautiful and an absolute work of art are a bit much, should we doubt our own eyes?).
        And of course she never messed up people’s lives by pursuing married men, she told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. About how she was such a poor little lamb led to the altar to be used, and how the meanie weenies in the ‘firm’ didn’t understand her. So what if she lost her moral compass, I mean like so what if she had dalliances with married men, and used men for her own purposes. So what if she lied to Charles about being pregnant with a girl, so what if she blubbered all over the telly with her tales of woe which now turn out to be not so true, Diana was vindictive and conniving. Victim? If she was a ‘victim’ then she for darn sure wasn’t the only one. Her son having to push tissues under the door, oh, but she wanted to protect her boys from the shattering of the marriage. Really? I am getting to the point of thinking that Diana’s death miraculously erased any selfish disregard of anyone but herself. Yeah yeah yeah she did good works. Yeah yeah yeah she was a young woman. Her boys were younger. She slammed their father, she cavorted about, she hounded those men she lusted after to the point of breaking the law. (Herazues enlightened me there). Diana had an agenda. Destroy Charles. And now I read where the mean old ‘firm’ didn’t strip her of her HRH, rather she sold it. How interesting that the pr line is that she was heartbroken over the loss since she could do so very much more for people with those 3 letters in front. Diana was a woman scorned and she was out for blood, and her status enabled her to spin the story to her advantage, and her death has all but elevated her to ‘martyr of the century’. Sick sick sick of it, and fed up to here with the ‘whining Windsor boys’. What is going on, are we expected to be stuck in some time warp, guzzling the kool aid after leaving our minds at the door.
        Sorry for the rambling on, and I really don’t expect anyone to read through this, but since KMR provides a forum to vent, vent I did. And with all the flying news debris picking up to form a faux hurricane, I probably will again:)

        1. Character traits are often inherited and William being petulant is not something that emulates Charles. He seems to have the worst traits of his parents.

          1. It’s been said for years that William has the Spencer temperement which Charles and The Queen don’t know how to handle.

            They couldn’t handle Diana and they can’t handle William.

            And before anyone celebrates said Spencer temprement, Charles Spencer and Johnnie Spencer, father and brother of Diana, also have the Spencer temprement as did Diana.

            Charles and Johnnie Spencer are incredibly disagreeable and famously ‘difficult’.

            I would love for a psychiatrist to diagnose exactly traits of this Spencer Temprement because they are inherited. Diana’s traits were more extreme, but she was thrust into a very extreme situation which might have made it worse.

            Most people, who aren’t paid sycophants, talk about William’s difficulty and unpleasantness behind the scenes.

            Would a diagnosis help him?

            Or does tiptoeing around him soothe it?

          2. Agreed, Nic919. It’s interesting as to what character traits we inherit from our loved ones. My dad always says that I’m like my maternal grandmother: shy (though not as much as her) and quiet, my first sister is like his mother (though he won’t tell me how), and my youngest sister is like his sister because Sam is argumentative haha! It’s curious as to whether or not these are inherited traits or just something we pick up based on observations.

        2. +1 times infinity to Ellie and royalsareajoke!

          I was just a baby when Charles & Diana married and while yes, she was young she wasn’t as naïve as the press wants us to believe. Diana had a phenomenal work ethic and was great at working with the press but she was also very shrewd, manipulative and was forever chasing unattainable men due to her intense craving for someone to love her (when, actually, she should’ve learned to love herself first but that’s another story for another day 😉 ).

          To try to take it back to the wedding: it is very bittersweet to watch the footage now, having the insight that is available. Also, I still think that dress is my least favorite royal wedding dress out of all of the ones that I’ve seen!

        3. William’s behavior reminds me so much of his uncle Spencer who is a grade-A a-hole piece of garbage who treated his sister so poorly and now tries to make bank off of her memory. He disgusts me.

        4. My mom pulled some of the crap Diana did with William and let me tell you it messes you up big time. It makes me sad for William his mum used him as this emotional crutch. He was a child!!

          1. Exactly Ellie! I do t think William got the help he needed and married the first person who provided him with an image of a happy family.

            My stepson is 43 & still suffering from similar treatment by his mother.

            Btw there is 15 yrs between my husband & I – we will be celebrating our 20th wedding anniversary next week. But we dated 5 yrs before marrying.

        1. So because she died young her image should be white washed so only the good image of Diana prevails??
          Evil can mean vicious which is how I mean it in this context. And I standby by that. I didn’t grow up in the age that seems so infatuated/enamored with her. Diana wasn’t all sunshine and roses. It doesn’t belittle the work/good she did but pretending there wasn’t a dark side to her is an injustice as well

          1. The problem I see with Diana is this.

            She was human. And people tend to focus on the ‘Diana the virgin blushing rose victim of the evil heartless RF and evil nasty Charles’.

            This is why I defend Charles so much, even though what he did is inexcusable as well. He was a terrible husband though from all I have read from various sources and books say that in the beginning they were really quite happy–and both C&D said so, too. I think they loved each other in their own infatuated sort of way, more than real, true love. They were both damaged people who could not help each other, and when you have a person like that, you need someone who is more solid and dependable to support you who you can rely on and lean on in bad times. Not someone who needs that just as much as you do and cannot provide that kind of partnership.

            She was human and to remember her for her good things is great. Just like I don’t like William and can say well sometimes I see the guy he used to be–like his more recent engagement with veterans he was warm, laughing, pleased to be there, cheerful, the ‘old William’ and I thought, Man, if he could be like this a lot, how wonderful he would be! I love seeing him act like a genuine happy person!

  3. Thank you KMR. I was born two years later, so this article fascinates me. I love the dress I admit it. It does sum up the fairy-tale princess vibe and along with the tiara. Just lovely. What hopes the nation must have had for the couple, and seeing the couple kiss on the balcony did bring some life into the family as well as Diana did. I agree what a sweet voice Diana had and clear.

    1. I was 5yrs old. We were dragged into assembly to watch it live on the biggest tv the school could find.

      By coincidence or design, we were reading Cinderella that week, so we were ALL in awe of her real life princesses, Queens, Princes, Kings, tin soldiers, horses, glass coaches and a wedding dress fit for a fairytale princess as drawn by a 5yr old.

      And she sparkled so much as she walked….

      Didn’t care about the crumpled dress. Just loved,loved, the big dress with a train so long that it was still unfurling from the coach when she was at the top of the stairs.

      If her intent was to appeal to little girls reading fairytales that week, bullseye!!!

      We thought it was perfect, and we all thought Charles was a fairytale prince after he was alleged to have told her that she looked beautiful when she reached the altar and she replied, ‘beautiful for you.’

      That is what a fairytale prince is supposed to say to a fairytale princess.

      I don’t think we considered the personalities or even looks of the individuals involved. We were princes dazzled.

      As an adult, i think it’s such an ugly dress, BUT if we are going to have such anachronistic thongs like royals and royal weddings, please bring your cheesy A game. This is no time to be restrained and mealy mouthed about it.

      1. The “sparkling” effect of all the sequins on her veil is what I remember most. The poorer quality cameras from those days really caught the light. She sparkled so much it was almost cartoonish. But still beautiful.

        The dress was representative of the aspirations of the era and the bride. While it looks rediculous today, it was great at the time. I still like it, but Princess Grace’s dress is my all-time favorite royal wedding gown.

        1. Off topic, but if your user name means that you live in Texas, please know that I’m praying for your state. I have family in Texas and don’t know if they’re in the danger zone, our state is on fire right now so I am aware of the devastating toll that natural disasters can take even if there is no physical injury or God Forbid death. I hope I said that right. God Bless.
          The dress thing? You and others are correct in that it was the 80s, I just take issue with declaring it an absolute work of art and utterly perfect. I’m far from a fashionista but I know wrinkled and crumpled when I see it.:) With the anniversary approaching that designer has been patting himself on the back and telling all about the secrecy and appears to be yet another ‘in the know self promoter’. Annoying.

          1. I live in the north, so I’m out of the path. Just some rain here, but we have family and friends in Houston. The south gets hit with so many tropical storms that a lot of people don’t take warnings too seriously, unless they are a few miles from the beach. Our family is hunkered down. So far so good.

          2. Well I spoke too soon. We called our family this morning. All of them are flooded in. They all have supplies, power and insurance, but they aren’t going anywhere for days. It is still raining so the flooding is getting worse. Their cars may be inoperable after this. One friend is on her roof waiting to get airlifted (according to FB). Haven’t heard from FIL yet. This is a bad one.

        2. Princess Grace’s gown was stunning. It was also very Princess-like. And, she looked gorgeous. When people compared Kate’s gown to Grace’s, I just didn’t see it!

      2. Diana could hardly wear a skimpy dress. My friend found a corset dress that she didn’t think she would be wearing, for her wedding. It is all about modesty.

      3. I love this analysis. Yes, the dress is horrid, but when I first started looking at it (at a young age) I was fascinated by how beautiful it was. It seemed fitting for a princess!

    2. If I were Harry’s hypothetical wife I’d go all out! I am a princess! I want to sparkle and glitter! When I meet kids I want to look like a princess so I can be their fairy tale and make them happy! Haha. The real royals, ohhh, such a let-down…

      1. Yes! And I would hold those fairytale party for little children aka Princess Madeline of Sweden. The easiest the cheapest but the most memorable events ever. For example. 🙂

  4. There is a very intelligent and illuminating article in today’s Guardian newspaper UK. It is about the myth of Diana, by Hilary Mantel, author of Wolf Hall.

    1. Thanks, Bea, for directing us to this thoughtful article. It helps explain why twenty years later people are buying the sugar-coated fairy tale of Diana. I guess we humans need our idols, but I, for one, am so sick of this morbid re-hashing fed by her deluded sons and a Rupert Murdoch avid for a second shot at the bringing down the monarchy, that I would be happy never to hear her name again.

      KMR, you are spot on about the dress. I liked it on the day, but now see it as so over the top. I always thought it would have been better without those gigantic poufy ham sleeves. The Emmanuels rarely did Diana favors with their designs.

      A friend who lived in China when Diana died, and thus didn’t know the circumstances then, recently said her end in a car wreck with her lover was pretty sleazy. I was so shocked when it happened that I didn’t see it, but I do now. What a fall for a woman who would have been a queen. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, who knew something about being pursued by the public said “fame kills”. Indeed.

      1. Why is this sleazy? She was a divorced woman who went to Paris with her lover, if in fact he was her lover. Her ex husband was have 50th birthday celebrations for his lover in the former marital home. Is that sleazy?

      1. Thank you for the link, this was an article I hadn’t read. I was intrigued by the section about Diana’s being the 3rd girl after the family’s having lost a son days after his birth, and essentially a superfluous child, kind of like an **extra**. So, had Diana been the boy the family needed as an heir, isn’t it possible that her ever so caring after her demise, absolutely altruistic and with utterly pure motives, little brother Charles would not exist? And of course, had that first boy lived she might not have been born either. I have to let it go at that because I’ve been led to believe that **my** first mistake in life was having the audacity to be a girl child.
        I love articles by Hilary Mantel, at least the ones on the ‘royals’, and maybe she only writes about them, she seems to be a no holds barred sort of writer.

        1. Thank you for the link; yes, very interesting article at the 10-year mark of Diana’s death. Some of the observations are still true 20 years on…

        2. bluhare, thanks for that link. Wow. Honestly, I think that the ‘Whinging Windsor boys’ should have flat out left well enough alone. The ‘firm’ has always imo counted on secrecy and mystery to keep them interesting, above others and at arm’s length from the people. There is no way on earth that if William and Harry are attempting to heal from the loss of their mother all these years later, that they won’t have to face head on the **reality**. And it’s not all that pretty, she betrayed her boys more than once. The one time that sticks out to me is her affair with the riding instructor, she led them to believe that this was simply a trainer. The truth can’t be manipulated by any amount of pr, it has a way of just plain sitting there immobile and not subject to human machinations, unimpressed by rank or status. I’m not sure that the ‘firm’ has grasped this, they’ve been protected and sheltered but this unfathomable move to bring Diana back to life, to make sure she is never forgotten is a very double edged sword. Those who ‘adored’ her are older now, and the new generation isn’t as inclined, imo, to simply guzzle the kool aid and buy whatever the boys are trying to sell. I think, in part, this is due to the behavior of William and Harry themselves, and seriously? The woman has been dead for 20 years, and her death was hardly the death of a martyr for any noble cause. Right now there is a disaster in Texas, slaughters of people minding their own business, Britain has homeless people, hungry people, and these people still don’t get it. As said before I am a simple person, and their greedy glutinous lifestyles which are financed by the very people they ‘look down on’ is just wrong. When big mama cried over the loss of her ‘royal’ yacht? Well, that says a whole lot to me. Realistically, it is what it is, it has been this way and change is highly unlikely but maybe best to not shove it in others’ faces. This isn’t exclusive to the ‘firm’ and I will leave it at that.

          1. I wonder if W+H simply choose to block out their mother’s indiscretions or justify her temperament somehow. They seem to want to present their version of the truth. Regardless, they have conditioned themselves to pull the Diana lever whenever they need to cushion themselves from critique. It’s a valve that allows them to avoid accountability. W+H don’t grasp that they can’t make younger generations worship Diana, and through that devotion, give her sons a pass. A flurry of activity here and there does not disguise their general laziness on a daily basis, year in, year out. I doubt younger generations will see the need or have the desire to pay for their lives. As Mantel said in her excellent article, the BRF has no utility.

        3. This makes for very interesting reading Bluhare.
          Considering it was written in 2007 the last two paragraphs could be almost be considered prophetic.

      2. The beginning of the article starkly points out the absolute rule of first son in the aristocracy. Curious that the current queen has fixed that for her grandchild’s children. There has been no suggestion made for similar changes in the rest of the aristocracy. Plenty of ‘useless’ girl children to go ’round for all the landed families until requisite male is produced and survives? Because only males have … ahhh never mind. It is an archaic and artificial construct. And there are people willing to play that lottery.

      3. Yes it was a good article about the emotions projected on public figures. One quibble though. I was in RN training in 1987 and remember the fear among health professionals about AIDS. The hospital I trained in was rather up to date in treatment of AIDS patients. The first hospital I worked in after graduation was not; and AIDS patients were treated with full protective gear that included disposable dishes and silverware for all meals. That was in 1990, so even health care professionals and institutions had not received the memo that shaking hands did not transmit the HIV virus.

  5. Thanks KMR for this refresh.

    The little tidbit you mentioned about the blusher being cut off during signing of the register – I had never noticed that before!

  6. Diana looked lovely and happy that day. I think they had some good Times too. It is heart breaking how wrong it all went.

  7. I wish they could have been happy together.Diana would have loved Charles dearly.I don’t know why Charles wasn’t capable to love her back the same way. It is true, it’s sad how everything went wrong 🙁

    1. She didn’t love him the way he needed to be loved and He didn’t love her the way she needed to be l9ved.

      2 emotionally needy people who never worked out how to love each other.

      The tragedy for Diana is that she never found anyone to love her the way she wanted / needed to be loved, whilst Charles eventually did.

      1. Diana had an almost arrested development when it came to her looking for love. She would get these teenage like infatuations with men that almost bordered on stalking. I think that type of behavior would get old after awhile.
        charles (and his boysto some extent) appear to want women who take care of them, which is easy enough to find but she came off as more desperate and needy

        1. It seems Diana’s idea of “love” borderlines on obsession. She wants men to court her, pay her lots of attention, and give up other aspects of their lives for her. Reminds me of the Twilight books. That relationship was awful, but silly girls and women thought it was romantic.

          1. I find books that romanticize stalking/obsessive behaviors a little alarming and not my idea of romance at all.
            I’m assuming you’re safely out if the path if the hurricane?!
            Stay safe

        2. I read Twilight (and watched the movies) and didn’t get the ‘omg! Edward is soooo romantic’ blah blah crap (that, and Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson bored me to tears with their ridiculously wooden acting but that’s another story 😉 ).

          What’s sad is that Diana seemed to need/want/craved love from others but was unable to love herself first and foremost.

          1. It is not exactly stalking. The idea is that Edward is always around Bella. Goodness knows why as she moans continuously. Diana was very impressionable with the Barbara Cartland novels and very shy according to a close male friend and easy to tease.

      2. That’s how I see it, Herazeus. Adding in they loved the idea of each other, the perfect royal bride and the prince who would never be allowed to divorce her.

    1. It wasn’t wrinkled until she got into the carriage. The designers and Diana failed to take that into account. Every royal bride since then has learned from that mistake.

  8. I didn’t realise they barely knew each other – only dated for 6 months before being engaged! I know the pressure was on Charles to marry. I think the dress was of it’s time and photographed beautifully. She looked so young and ‘all in’. Boy we loved that wedding as young girls. We replicated the dress and super glued on fake pearls to the train.

    1. Aparently they only had 13 meetings together before the wedding. So they barely knew each other. I think they both started the marriage with good intentions, but the “what came first the chicken or the egg?” debate will go on forever!
      I remember my 2 daughters and the girl next door playing wedding all day, taking turns using an old lace curtain for a veil!

    2. 6 months is at least better than 1 month, which was all it took for my stupid BIL to propose. I couldn’t roll my eyes enough when I heard that news.

      1. LOL! My parents met on April 1, 1978 and were married on June 25, 1978. By the time my aunt was graduating in college (sometime in May), Dad was introducing Mom as his fiancee! Sometimes, moments like that actually happen and it works! Go figure. 😉

        1. So, the fairy tale princess dream of “Love at first sight” and early marriage is possible 😀 If you want to get along with each other, it’s possible. There is a reason it says “through good and through bad times” (in my language).

          1. Lovely Blossom,

            My mom refers to it as “love at first sound” because it wasn’t my dad’s looks that caught my mom’s attention, it was his voice! 😀

            Edit: and they’ve definitely had their fair share of good times and bad times, believe me. 😉

          2. My mother always said if you were serious about someone, take a good listen to their voice. Their looks would change over time, but you would be hearing that voice every day across the table.

    3. Didn’t Fergie say something similar? She said they (she and Andrew) had a handful of dates, a weekend away, and then they were engaged. She and Andrew started dating in July 1985, engaged in February, married in July 1986.

  9. Thanks KMR for being brave enough to post this article in the midst of all this Diana mania!!! I imagine that we will see lots of passionate comments from both ends of the Diana spectrum.

    I was around 16 when they got married and yes I got up early to watch to whole thing, I just adore British pomp and circumstance!!! I recall loving the tiara and dress but thinking that the train was just too long. Looking back now, I can see that it was very much a dress for that time and for a 19 year old’s imagination run a bit amok.

  10. They really laid on the pomp and circumstance. More than 3,000 guests and St Paul was a magnificent venue with all the stairs just right for a grand bridal entrance and good for TV and photography.If you compare to Westminster Abbey, Kate’s entrance was not so good and lacked the impact that a setting like St Paul could have provided.

    So Camilla was there too and I heard Diana was dismayed to spot her in the congregation. Diana should have listened to her instincts and called the wedding off when she found out about Camilla.

    1. Lemongrass, I have thought that very same thing over the years, that Diana should have just called off the wedding. However, in thinking more deeply it wouldn’t be as simple as that for her, for us whose weddings aren’t blasted all over the news for months prior it would be less complicated. Also, many women marry men who treat them like dirt, for reasons that are looking from the outside stupid, but emotions are unique to each person. I think that Diana was trapped, young, all over the news, had no support from anyone in terms of get out while you can. Instead she was the **envy** of a whole lot of young girls, the focus of the press, (did anyone ever really pay much attention to Charles’ thoughts and feelings, I mean aside from that remark ‘whatever love is’? I watched that video again and there’s a real change in Diana’s expression). This wedding was akin, imo, to a train that had left the station and was going full bore with no chance to jump off. I’m speaking of Diana as a 19 year old, not the woman she became later. In a lot of ways this reminds me of Karen Carpenter’s wedding, she was older but desperately looking for someone to love her, she found out at the last minute that her soon to be husband had had a vasectomy and wanted to call it off. Her mother, a very domineering person told her that she was **going down that aisle, money had been spent, people had been invited, and Karen had made her bed and was by God going through with it**, and Karen was 30 years old. This did not end well. God knows what external forces were on Diana and I think that she did truly love Charles and maybe, as some women are prone to think, he’ll change once we’re married. Doesn’t happen but desperate people do desperate things. Personally, I’ve thought that Charles should have developed a backbone and married Camilla when he had the chance. However, that echelon of society plays by different and far more complex rules than I, as a fat simple little person, will ever fully understand.
      That wedding was a show, no one does pomp and circumstance like the British and even knowing the outcome I still watch bits and pieces of it every now and then. What a magnificent display.
      Those who say it will never be matched are absolutely right.

      1. I always wondered why Charles didn’t have courage enough to say to his mother, no insist,that he won’t marry Diana.As an intelligent person, he could have saw that it will end in a disaster.
        Today,it’s depressing to see Queen Silvia of Sweden, what her husband did to her and how she suffers silently.It’s in the same way not healthy, in my opinion to be totally quiet.

  11. Thank you, KMR. A truly magnificent Royal Wedding to view. How sad that the couple did not last for long as husband and wife and that Diana never found true love the way Charles did.

    Oh, that gown! That magnificent train! How difficult it must have been to walk in that dress! But, it just shouted Princess, if you ask me. Even though, when I look at it closely I also say, “What?” So much going on there!

    When you see the photos of her getting out of that carriage, the dress kept coming and coming!
    And, the tiara. You are right, KMR, it sparkled as she walked down the aisle. She was truly every little girl’s dream of what a Princess should be! My mom had a video cassette of it and my sister and I loved viewing it when we were little in the early 90s.

    The first photo you chose to run, KMR, — the black and white, showed how very young Diana and Charles were. It is amazing to think of the fairy tale magic of the day. The wedding video was run on American television the night before William and Kate’s wedding. I remember how excited I was to think of the idea of another Royal Wedding, but was so disappointed when I viewed W and K’s. It didn’t have the excitement of the wedding of his parents, but perhaps, he and Kate will be happier. Who knows?

    At any rate, with all the hoopla surrounding Diana of late, it’s sad to think that she died so young and so senselessly. I will always remember her as a Princess who cared. Who made a positive impact by the championing so many causes. Yes, she was flawed, but who among us, isn’t? She just struck a chord with so many around the world. I hope she will be remembered for the good things she accomplished. And, I hope her sons always will remember her with love. And, speak beautifully of her to their children.

    This post made my day. Thank you!


    Some beautiful photos of behind the scenes at Buckingham Palace on the Wedding Day.
    I love the photo taken from behind Charles and Diana looking out over the balcony onto the throngs who gathered to wish them well. DIana’s gown is reflected in one of the windows of an open door on the balcony. Also, the photo of her holding her little bridesmaid. And, I wonder why HM seemed to ignore Diana’s mother. Hey, Carloe Middleton wouldn’t be put in any corner, would she?

  13. The 80s had some of the best music but fashion wise it totally sucked!!
    This dress is the epitome of 80s fashion. Big and ugly not to mention wrinkly. AND THE BOWS!!! Bleh IT’s like a child’s idea of a princess dress not a grown womans.
    What I loved about Carolyn Bessette Kennedy’s fashion is how you can look at pictures today and not realize they’re from the 90s (except when she did the weird practically no brows thing) There’s something to be said about a nice classic approach to fashion.

      1. I agree many of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy’s clothes had a timeless feel. I’m not sure it was always **the styles** that were classic as much as it was her tendency to wear solid colors, very rarely prints/plaids, and to pare down color choices. It seems to me 95% of her clothes were black or shades of grey, white or shades of cream, camel or shades of tan. I did think Carolyn’s wedding dress suited her and suited the tiny primitive island chapel where she and John married. But I don’t think that sort of dress would have suited any bride in the 1980s who was marrying in a large sanctuary. It would have looked too much like she had forgotten to put on her dress and was wearing only a slip! (Plus lots of churches back then required covered arms. It was even considered “unusual” for Pippa to bare her arms in Kate’s wedding.)  As others have said the 80s were a time of over-the-top fashions (remember TV shows like Dynasty?) And bridal bouquets were larger in the 80s as well. I admit Diana’s dress was frou-frou but it did fit the times! I’m also not so sure she hated it as much as she later claimed anymore than I believe she felt on her wedding day that it was the worst day of her life. Diana did continue to wear some “poufy” clothes years after the wedding in the 80s as many of us did. And she looks pretty radiant in the wedding photos! I liked her but she did have a tendency to try to revise history to suit her purposes. 

        1. You need a certain body type to pull off a Carolyn Bessette looik. Funny, when I saw that photo of her on the wedding day for the first time, I remember thinking, “What a hideous dress.” It looked like a slip, or sexy nightie to me.

  14. I love Diana, yes she was young,but she isn’t completely innocent I question a person who dates a man who was dating or dated her sister first, besides the fact she cheated first she had to have known there was always going to be someone else. It’s no secret Charles couldn’t keep to one person.

    1. Would you say the same about Kate? That the hatred for Kate here astonishes you and that you hope she doesn’t read this blog? I’m honestly asking because I’ve gotten many comments like yours about the commentary on this blog about Kate over the years, and I’m curious what your take is.

      1. We don’t call Kate ‘evil’. And she is alive to defend herself…not literally by commenting but by taking note. There was a tv programme on last night about how the queen stays so popular. Of course there was a lot about Diana and how she got that wrong. But her Number 1 reason was by listening to the people. She knew she’d got that wrong in the eyes of her subjects, even if she still thought she’d done the right thing. So she changed her style. Not dramatically but subtly. Kate can do the same, Diana can’t.

        1. Some examples: we think Kate is lazy, there are many other blogs and commentators who think she is lazy. She could work harder.
          She doesn’t prepare properly…she could read her briefing notes.
          She spends so much money…she could get a proper stylist and learn to buy outfits she could mix and match, and accessorise differently to give fresh looks without new clothes.
          She doesn’t have a focus…6 years in she needs to think about this. What has happened to HT for example.

          These are just a few ways Kate could learn from criticism and improve. Most of them aren’t rocket science and are things she could do without too much effort.

          Diana doesn’t have the option to see her faults or change her ways. There are so many versions of the truth relating to her relationship with Charles, and her affairs and just how much she confided in William. It is easy to blame her because she is dead.

        1. Yeah, I don’t think she was some wonderful, perfect person but she did some great things, gave some causes such amazing, NECESSARY attention, it changed things for the better, which is one reason I get pissy with W&H bringing up their mum with refusing to follow in her footsteps with their massive fame. Imagine what they could do! Argh! I definitely don’t hate her. I don’t get the obsession and worship of her, but I was born after the wedding and was 10 when she died so I don’t get it. I think most of our generation doesn’t much care unless we’re royal watchers/fans/or like me a history geek who’s fascinated by royalty. AndkindawishesIlivedinSpainbecauseFelipeisawonderfulheadofstate. (Shhh. Americans can’t say we support some monarchies! 😉 Haha.)

        2. I don’t hate Diana. I think she was a deeply troubled and flawed individual yet despite that was able to do good and make people happy.
          I don’t buy the Diana the good narrative and nothing else. many people only want to believe the Diana the victim of the BRF narrative that she put out and that’s not how I see it. There were many sides to her and I don’t think you have to ignore the bad to see the good.

          1. I do think that she was treated terribly by the British Royal family, especially when she was a young bride. Today, the guilt many may feel for not understanding or trying to care more for Diana, seems to play big-time in giving a great deal of slack to Kate and William.

            I know Diana was not perfect, but as I wrote above, none of us are. I think Birdy is correct. She is no longer alive to defend herself, so often venom flies. She does not need to be remembered as perfect, but surely, I hope, many more people will remember and admire all the wonderful things she did.

            I will agree that often Kate is treated unfairly. I know I can be angry toward her at times. However, I am also appalled by how nasty some people are when talking about Diana today. I said “Some” I am not pointing anyone out.

    2. What hate? Because someone was truthful in saying that Diana was manipulative and conniving? She certainly wasn’t the saint many make her out to have been. She acted inappropriately as a mother and damaged her boys (using William as an emotional crutch was wrong on so many levels), which was further exacerbated by yhe Windsors after she died. Her death was tragic but it doesn’t absolve her of her bad traits. There’s no hatred here, simply stating the truth. Being too revisionist to the positive is just as bad as going in the other direction, especially when children are involved (and those boys seemed to stop growing emotionally a long time ago).

      1. Just how do you know The Truth? Were you there? There are so many different versions of events yet people on here are judging based on so called truths.
        Has William confirmed he was damaged by his Mother?
        I’m entitled to my opinion and I am disgusted by many of the comments on here, stated as fact.
        You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me.
        No one is trying to make her out to be a saint, even her most ardent fans know she was difficult. But that doesn’t absolve Charles and Camilla.

        1. Agree. I think the emotional connection was never broken; Camilla remained in his circle of friends and hunting mates. Who takes a picture of a former lover on a honeymoon? As for falling for her protective officer, Princess Anne did the same if the rumors are true about Zara.

        2. William will never confirm he was harmed by his mother. Her pedestal is too high for one, and he probably doesn’t think so, for two. And I don’t know if he was either.

          And there are plenty of comments regarding Kate stated as fact. Why do these bother you more than the ones about Kate?

        3. Diana told these stories herself. It’s not just speculation. There are enough corroborating stories between those close to her and Diana herself. She cheated first and admitted it. But rabid Diana fans think she could do no wrong and paint her as an innocent little girl who didn’t know better. She did a lot of good but she wasn’t naive or innocent. Neither was Kate. She was calculating and had an agenda. It’s well known that we as humans tend to look for partners that are like our mother or father, depending on the desired gender of our partner. It’s no wonder William ended up with Kate. She’s taken pages right out of Diana’s book.

          1. Meghan, I don’t think she cheated first, he always had Camilla on the side, and I mean always. I have to agree with Barbara Cartland it came down to BJ’s! Okay I know that is crass but Helen Gurly Brown once said if you don’t they will stray !

  15. Diana was 18 going on 19 when charles, started dating her that summer. He notice diana at 16 charles wanted to talk to diana nobody put a gun,rape,beat,forced a 31year old man too give a teen his attention. Lets be honest at 18 going on 19 you’re not and adult she was still a teen, everybody’s saying diana was no victim she knew what she getting into.

    Well i have a question what does a 31 year old man with life experience want’ s with a 19 year old inexperienced teen what could she have to offered a 31 year old man? How about her womb that’s never been touch so she can give him heirs. I know theirs to side to a story but diana seem to make more sense. charles abuse diana what make it worse she was just 16 a child when he saw diana as his prey.

    1. Females can consent to sexual activity at age 16 in the UK. That age of consent has existed since the late 1800s when the age of consent was raised from 13. A few years ago serious efforts were made to lower the age of consent to 15. But a female who is 13-16 yrs old may still receive services like abortion in the UK without parental consent as long as the physician feels she is competent to make the decision.  Individuals in the UK can join the military and go to war on behalf of the country at age 16 although they have to be 18 to become a police officer. The age to hold a license to pilot an airplane or a helicopter is 17 in the UK.

      I realize for many people Charles will always be “the bad guy” and Diana the total innocent in their failed marriage. But arguing Charles was a “child abuser” just isn’t credible. 

      1. So because girls can have and abortion at 13- 16 that make them grow?, girls that’s are sexual active at 16 are still kids beside diana, was a virgin when charles willingly decided too date her.

        “Abuse isn’t credible” Why did charles a 31 year old man want with a 18-19 year old virgin teen girl if he didn’t want too abuse her ??????? he emitted he didn’t love her so why would he even date her. charles is a child abuser he thought diana was his perfect prey boy was he wrong.

        1. You are crazy.

          When did he admit he didn’t love her? They both were recorded as saying they loved each other. It just went wrong, as many marriages do, for many reasons not to mention the adultery of both parties.

          Back then it was no big deal. Not even in ’81. Not with the aristocracy and their weirdness.

          1. Whilst not agreeing with Apple, Charles pretty much admitted he didn’t know what love meant. If he truly loved Diana he would have know what love meant. I think the greatest emotion he felt at her death was guilt. Have you read about how he behaved on the honeymoon?

          2. Ellie you said adultery on both sides but charles never gave up camilla and diana was a virgin. the day before he married diana he and camilla was seen on a train ride and the media thought it was diana. how humiliating do you think she must been the night before her wedding her finance with camilla she have no shame because she was married with two kids. So no charles never loved diana his action told a different story.

          3. Diana said Charles was honest–he didn’t start hooking up with Camilla again til 1986, and she had that thing with the RPO in 1985. He ‘gave up’ Camilla, but whatevs, he’s the devil and Diana’s the saint, they were not both human beings who made mistakes, did stupid stuff, and were pushed into marrying one another. I feel bad for both of them tbh.

            re: the love comment, I always took it as him being idiotic and philosophical, considering I’ve had discussions with people like that. He seems to think that way. Pseudo-intellectual. Having watched it, that seemed to be the tone of voice he was using.

            Why people seem to care so much about all of this is beyond me (as if Charles personally cheated on them!), but I forgot, Diana is a Saint and Charles is Satan. Which is why I defend Charles–I don’t buy the ‘Diana is a poor innocent virgin victim used by the evil BRF and Charles is the devil’ story. They both effed up and treated each other like dirt and others abominably in the case of both of ’em. The truth is inbetween their tellings, most likely, and her famous interview was when she was feeling most vulnerable, thought HM would take her kids away, and wanted to cement her side of the story so that would be the only thing anyone ever remembered or believed. It worked so well as one can see in the comments section here or especially whenever Diana comes up elsewhere.

            Or how only 36% of people think Charles is good for the monarchy whilst 78% think William is. Aahahahahahahahahahaa. William the savior of the monarchy! More like William the Petulant or William the Unwilling. Or William the One Who Takes His Dad’s Money And Doesn’t Work.

          4. Ellie right is right wrong is wrong charles have a right not too love diana it’s okay he loved camilla and many other women but why hurt and innocent young girl what have diana done too deserve too be treated like that after 6 months of dating . plus two kids william and harry are caught in this mess you feel sorry for charles, he caused all this on himself people care so much because charles duped the world he lied during his vows to diana he never had any intention honoring them no diana is not a saint she made mistakes but she went into her marriage willingly charles went for heirs think about diana being you’re mom,sister,aunt,daughter it’s okay not to like diana but charles the one ask her to married him . yes charles charity does good causes but charles is not a nice person he selfish his friend penny. Wrote a biography attacking diana so that let me know after 20 years charles has no remorse for what he did.

          5. In regard to that famous quote, the interview asks them both if they in love, and they BOTH say “of course”. Charles’ answer gets drowned out by Diana’s, who says it louder. Then he said “whatever in love means”. We could debate the meaning (if any) of that line, but it is worth noting they both said they were in love.

        2. Although some people will disagree with me vociferously, I am of the opinion that Diana knew what she was getting into. (a) She can’t *not* have heard the rumblings or read the papers at the time, (b) her family didn’t get where they are by being naive and gullible, (c) she herself counted their dates so it’s not like she knew him well either. Nor could she have really been in love after such a short intro period. Plus there are some who say she had it in her head she was going to marry him from a young age.

          She may have been a virgin, but I don’t think she was as innocent as people make her out. My dad, who was an incredible judge of people, thought she was sly and manipulative from the get-go. I did’n’t, but I think he was probably right now.

          1. Reminds me a bit of Kate who set her sights on William early.

            Diana was certainly manipulative, that much is clear, and people who knew her even as a girl say she was like this. Maybe for attention considering her messed up family and home situation.

          2. Bluhare my husband is on the same page as your father.
            Where people have said Diana was shy with her bent head and sideways glances, he interpreted her body language as “sneaky”.

        3. Having sex with a 19 year old (20 when she married him) is not abuse.

          Diana was not a child when he married her. She was 20 years old. She was a young adult, but she was not a child.

          Please don’t infantalize people to justify your point. Please also take into account the mores of the time which said Charles needed to marry a virgin. That was ridiculous, but it is what it was. They didn’t want ex-lovers selling their stories to the papers (which happened with at least one of Charles’ girlfriends prior to Diana).

    2. Just because he talked to diana at 16 doesn’t make him an abuser he was dating diana sister you tend to talk to there family members I pretty sure your comment is libellous I read some pretty heinous comments along the years but yours, biscuit ?

    1. But her dad loved her mom some say he was really hurt by the mom leaving him. charles didn’t try with diana he just wanted heirs charles deceptive diana camilla was always around so was kanga and many others women.

      1. I don’t think Charles was ever emotionally faithful. Quite when he actually climbed back into bed with the several other women we will never know.

      2. Her dad was definitely abusivebto her mother. And behaved appallingly to her when she kept birthing girls instead of the longed for son.

        To extent that she nearly had a nervous breakdown.

        THAT is not love at all and is the very definition of a man using a helpless woman for her womb.

        Eventually she left him and thank goodness for that.

        …but being the abusive bully, he sort sole custody of the children, and won thanks to his title chasing MIL who sided with him over her own daughter simply because of that title, then the children carted off to be raised by nannies and boarding school and often found excuses for restricting their school holiday visits to their mother.

        1. Really i didn’t know that so why her mom allowed charles to date her daughter? Was diana grandmother frances mom happy when diana married charles and birth a future king and i brought a magazine life and diana grandmother Cynthia was gorgeous.

          1. Marriage with Charles was arranged by Diana’s grandmother, Lady Ruth Fermoy who was the Queenmother’s lady in waiting.

            The same grandmother who had sided with the Earl Spencer over her own daughter in their divorce simply because the earl had a title.

            This grandmother loved titles above her own flesh and blood.

            Cynthia died when Diana was 12yrs old. She wasn’t around to arrange anything.

  16. The post js about her wedding day…
    Let’s leave her soul to have a rest. She went through a lot during her life so at least after dead she deserves the respect of be let alone.
    The dead cant defend themselves so I rather not talk about her wrongs.
    Charles and Camila in the other hand, are alive and married, a marriage built over people’s misery. Charles is a jerk and spoiled just like any other man of that family. The only reason why his mom is a Queen is because once a king had to give up on his tittle because get married with a divorced American woman was such a shame. But Charles and his mother got the nerve to change it all to make Charles wishes come true, marrying his divorced mistress. I feel disgusted by their marriage and to be honest I don’t have much respect for Queen Elizabeth. and I do believe that British people are with me when it comes to feel uncomfortable with Camila. I was in the UK two weeks ago and all the pools over the biggest magazines and newspapers shows that British people rather end up the monarchy to have Camila as a Queen.

    1. So we shouldn’t talkt talk about her wrongs, but it’s OK to drag him and his wife through the gutter because they’re alive to defend themselves and she isn’t? Diana said plenty during her life, and neither Charles nor Camilla have publicly said anything about her.

      1. They didn’t have to; they had and have a circle of friends starting with Nicholas Soames who were and are more than willing to leak, insinuate, and leak to many different sources.

        1. If you look at Arthur Edwards in The Sun today he said a close friend of Charles told him Charles had written letters to his friends after the divorce and said if they badmouthed Diana they would no longer be his friends. I think you need to rethink your point.

          1. Diana also received treatment for bulimia that was successful with occasional relapses under extreme stress. Her physician denied significant mental illness apart from a terrible marriage. C

          2. And yet his friends continued to leak “stories” about personality disorders. Did his letters apply to Camilla who talked to the editors o the The Sun weekly for 10 years.

          3. Look at what Soames said in the 1990s . Perhaps he is no longer Charles’ friend but he was absolutely briefing against the Princess.

          4. I’m a huge Diana fan believe it or not. I understand Nicholas Soames said quite a few things. Do you know if he said anything after Charles wrote the letters?

            Because here’s the thing. I can be a Diana fan and admire the hell out of her for what she was able to do with her work in her lifetime. I don’t admire what she did to her husband; it was none of our business. However, Soames was reacting to things brought into the public domain by Diana. Where is her culpability in this? She literally went on a character assassination warpath! I think she was trying to undermine Charles in favor of William and she chose a really slippery way to do it. Yet, we can’t comment on that because, well, because she’s dead?

  17. What this Anniversary has reinforced for me is that most people haven’t the first clue and accept the newspaper narrative as some kind of historical record. Diana shifted copy so the papers got behind her no matter what she did. We’ve seen it all over again during the last month. No matter what PoW does, and I happen to think his dignified silence is more respectful to her memory than anything else we’ve seen over the last month, because he’s not the beautiful Princess sparkled in fairy dust he doesn’t resonate and excite the public. He’s not a bad man. In many ways he’s an exceptional man who’s made some mistakes as we all do. Unfortunately for him, his mistakes played out in the world’s press. I know many of my mistakes in life wouldn’t survive worldwide scrutiny……would yours?

    I adored Diana from that very first striped jumper in Balmoral I felt a very close affinity with her all her life and never really knew why and then in my early 30’s I was diagnosed with ‘high functioning’ BPD and suddenly I knew what it was that made me feel I had a connection to her. Let me tell you she was as wicked as she was good. She was as much a sinner as sinned against. She was a minx in designer clothes and on some days she was as humble and as unaffected as she wished the world to see her. She was not perfect, innocent, saintly……hell she wasn’t even shy if you actually listened to her family talking about her teenage years. That BBQ where PoW made his first pass at her is revisionist in the extreme if you read accounts of those who were actually there. As so much of her telling of her accounts is.
    Much of what she was, was an image crafted by the media and how she herself wished to be seen. In truth she could be mad, bad and downright awful. Stalking men she was attracted to regardless of their marital status, cruel and fickle with her staff, spiteful with her friends. She caused consternation and hurt to many, many people but she had forgiveability on a huge scale. I’ve yet to hear any stories of PoW causing his inner circle half as much pain as she did to her friends and staff.

    Her ‘work ethic’ was nothing like Princess Anne or PoW. Her working week was Tuesday – Thursday but very cleverly during the Jephson years designed to make her look busy and of course as she was front page fodder she seeemed inordinately busy but check the facts and most years she averaged 250 engagements.

    And yet still I loved her and still I miss her. I’ve tried to limit what I’ve read and watched over the last few months because it still hurts. I watched one programme last week made for Sky and the tears started again. All that beauty, charisma, talent combined with that troubled soul who was never ‘fixed’. She was exceptional and gifted but she was also troubled and mercurial. I don’t know how the PoW coped for as long as he did. She may well have loved him but he was her first line of attack and defence. He simply wasn’t equipped to cope with her, not many people would have been if any at all. I don’t blame him one bit for taking comfort elsewhere by all accounts he was on the edge of a nervous breakdown himself coping with her behaviour and what she would do next or what she might do in public. I don’t doubt that for a minute.

    The whole truth isn’t out yet and maybe not in our lifetime but this good Princess / bad Prince narrative is the biggest pile of fiction since Hans Christian Anderson sat down with pen and paper and started to write some imaginative stories.

    BTW I adored the dress, I was taken to Madame Tussauds two days after the wedding to see it and it was magical. Every 11 year old girl’s dream of what a Princess would wear. Even 20 years later when I saw it again it was still magical, the way the light hit the sparkle and crystals in the veil. But with maturity one can see it’s faults. It was the result of what a 19 year old girl with no sense of fashion, left to her own devices, with two inexperienced designers would come up with but for it’s place in history it worked……creases and all. It symbolised the chrysalis becoming a butterfly.

      1. Thank you Jen, Blu and Fifi.

        Most of my heroes in life have feet of clay even at the end of a Jimmy Choo shod foot. But I think that’s what makes them iconic……that they are a bit more attainable for all their faults? Marylin, Jackie & John, Coco Chanel, Mandela, even Anne Boleyn. I don’t aspire to perfection so I don’t expect my heroes to achieve it either.

        1. Such perfect eloquence, MrsBBV. Kudos.

          BTW, I loved the dress too, in all its poof, fluff and frou frou meringuiness and the Spencer tiara is one of my top five faves. I especially love the fabric- such opulence, yards and yards of glorious silk, almost edible. I bet if felt lighter than air- I would feel as if I could fly in all that silk; there was enough there to make a balloon.

          I’m pretty neutral about Di, she was charm itself in the day, but do get upset about the lousy rep Charles has been stuck with. And their sons ought to be ashamed of themselves, the little weasels.

          1. Maven, I think it’s no coincidence that my first grown up ball gown was a riot of taffeta with an enormous meringue skirt with about 50 layers of tulle underneath. Of course I thought I was the second coming of Princess Diana when in fact at 5ft 3 I was more the Sugar Plum Fairy.

            Given her age and lack of guidance from anyone over what such an iconic dress should be she hit an absolute bullseye IMO. The train cascading down the steps of St Paul’s as she was about to walk up the aisle was my unforgettable moment of the wedding. She literally had stepped out of a Disney fairytale.

          2. That’s so cute, Mrs BBV!

            My mom at 5ft had a Diana-esque gown in ’85 when she married my dad. It looked even more ridiculous on her due to being small and dumpy!

    1. +a billion

      I feel really bad for Diana in the sense of she grew up in such a messed up home and that family is so vile and awful, worse than the Windsors IMO, that I think nobody has any hope coming out of the Spencer line without issues.

      I find it quite amazing Charles keeps his mouth shut and always has. I would so want to defend myself. But it is the classy thing to do, taking the high road, even when you realize the entire world hates you.

      1. I don’t think Charles would be served well by saying anything; classier to let private matters remain so. He didn’t come out of it well after his own interview, the one in response to Diana’s tell all. The BRF likes to communicate with each other through the ever-so-happy-to-accommodate media but all the airing of personal, dirty linen in public smacks of dysfunction writ large.

        I agree that the Spencer home must have been a hell-hole. I suspect it would have taken Diana most of her life to deal with it and in general, mature. I honestly don’t think this concoction called ‘royal’ does any of these people any good. They run amok with their privilege, with others cleaning up their mess through PR, believe they are ‘better’ with no supporting evidence, and worst of all, never develop.

        1. The fact that Charles is not willing to defend himself or badmouth Diana now, or their children, tells me everything. A parent endures so much. It’s clear that he loves them and honours Diana with his silence. While they continue to be ungrateful, vindictive wretches. At their advanced age. Ye gods.

  18. In its Sunday Review section, the New York Times has an opinion piece entitled “Diana Saved the Queen,” by Jenni Russell, who is identified as a columnist for the Times of London. The author sees Diana’s legacy as having restored the British monarchy to “perhaps the most popular institution in British public life,” in part through the popularity of William and Harry. After having read this blog for some time, I raised an eyebrow at the following: “But Diana’s most remarkable influence has only lately become apparent. For many years, her sons have been engaged in the usual princely activities: charities, parties, polo, serving in the armed services. They looked to be pleasant enough young men, but it was easy to assume that as rich royals, deferred and pandered to, they would be entitled and dull. Instead, the young princes have blazed into public consciousness as the shining inheritors of their mother’s grace, empathy and humanity” (going on to describe their work in mental health). I was quite surprised to read this very positive assessment. Link here:

    1. Because most people think W&H are wonderful, amazing, and do tons and tons of work. William served in all branches of the Forces! He had a ‘real job’ with EAA! He is perfect and fabulous! He is such an amazing family man! Their PR is amazing for how sycophantic and insane they are, and incompetent…

    2. Wow, that is one heck of a series of confabulations. Typical NYT these days, and American (i.e., many times removed) to boot. I wonder if Jason fed this to them. It’s ridiculous and melodramatic. It’s like reading “People” magazine.

      1. Isn’t the writer from the The Times (UK), an Establishment vessel invested in keeping the status quo? William has ‘gravitas’? Please.

  19. I just want to say – I can think of no other situation in which a divorced couple’s wedding would be constantly dredged up. Take the separation of Brad Bitt and Angelina Jolie — when that happened I don’t recall the media pulling up their wedding pictures with the articles to discuss it. It must be difficult for the folks remaining to have it rehashed. Think about it – if you were divorced and someone kept showing you your wedding photos – it might be very painful. I’ve always said – it’s not wrong to get a divorce because you are not happy with your marriage partner. The culture of Charles as a bad fella really bothers me sometimes.

    1. How wonderful is that! And I thought Chris and Maddie would have a brake, after having two children so close together. Well, good for them!
      It seems Swedish royal babies keep on coming!
      Thank you for the lovely news, Queen Lauri.

    2. Yayyyyy! I love watching their family. They seem so down to earth and more “normal” than any other royal family. Of course, Chris actually works and Madeleine only gets paid by the state if she’s doing official work. Those kids are just darling. Leonore is my spirit animal.

  20. Perhaps this is a stupid question, if so I’m sorry, but did they literally cut off the blusher? I always wondered why she put it on top, it looked weird imho, but then, I’m not nor have ever been a fan of this dress and since I was born long after, it doesn’t represent some childhood memory of mine, not the way Kate’s dress does. Kate’s may be small and boring compared to this, but gosh, at least she didn’t look like a blown up 19th century doll. Those ribbons! hate it.

    1. Yes, it was cut off. I believe the tiara was sewn in to her hair through the veil and they just chopped it off while she and Charles were signing the register.

      1. It looks like that part of the veil was flipped over the tiara. Have a look at the photos and you can see the tiara is covered after they signed the register.

    2. I read somewhere that the dress was inspired by a painting of one of Diana’s ancestors, that could be why it makes you think of a 19 century painting?

    3. Kate’s dress, Small and boring? How about those pointy boobs She looked like Xena Wararior Princess in that gown. At least, the bodice. That dress would never even make the Top 1000 Bridal Dresses in my book. Just awful. Diana’s dress was made for little girl’s princess fantasies, as others said above. And, she had no Mum bringing her to the designers to look things over. From all I have read, she always arrived at the dressmaker’s alone.

  21. In Australia and saw some of the Diana tapes and her conversations with her speech coach. Why would she speak of such private things to a hired coach? Totally on purpose. So unprofessional and I wince to think of how both she and Charles shared personal information about their affairs in television interciews. In the footage I saw last night I thought Diana came across as a flighty young thing, manipulative, gossipy and playful. She had a screwed up family life which shaped all her future actions and expectations, she married into a screwed up family and then made some bad decisions following her divorce. I am so tired of all the re-emerging Diana stuff around this anniversary and LONG for it to stop.
    Enough now.

    1. Charles never shared his personal life or even said anything private.

      He had a longform documentary made about his life where he discusses all sort of things.

      Eventually, in a sit down interview therein, that is perhaps 10mins or shorter, he is asked about Camilla and the persistent tale of his being never faithful during the marriage. He starts by saying there has been so much speculation feeding onto more speculation that he doesn’t know where to start, BUT he says there is no truth in the speculation. He says that Camilla is a great friend that he is lucky to have in amongst other friends he has. He waffles on about friendship in general and says friends, including Camilla, are great to have especially in difficult times such as when marriages breakdown.

      Interviewer then asks him if he was faithful, meant his vows etc, he says,” yes! Until it became irretrievably broken down. Us both having tried”

      He then discusses his regret at the outcome of his marriage which he would never have predicted.

      That was it.

      …but the media headline next day was “Charles admits affair with Camilla’ juxtaposed with Diana’s FU appearance at the Serpentine gallery in a black sexy dress.

      It seems most people never actually watched the documentary, including Diana, but they went with the tabloid headline anyway.

      Here is the relevant slice of that documentary, start at 4:10

      And Diana in her panorama interview the following year said that he spoke the truth.

      …but he never ever says he is in love with Camilla, she is his mistress, doesn’t even hint at a romantic relationship. He calls her a great friend and speajs of her in glowing terms, and that is the closest he comes to saying that she is special.

      By contrast, Diana describes all her various affairs in different interviews, says how much she is in love with X,Y, Z until thry lrt her down or she went off them or in Charles’s case, they victimised her. She describes her lovelife in lurid details including how ofren she and Charles had sex and whether or not she liked kissing him.

      This tiny 4mins is all he said in his interview, yet the media blew it up to match her lurid tales. And everyone remembers the headlines rather than the reality.

      1. I think you’re being slightly naieve. I’ve watched it all, all the documentaries. He is confirming he was not faithful while married. Buried in amongst other things but there in black and white. It doesn’t take long to say you’ve been unfaithful.
        I wonder if he is in love with camilla, given he doesn’t know what love means….hopefully something more meaningful than being her tampon.

          1. As I’ve said the Charles sugars are welcome to think he is perfect. An adulterer as future head of the church. I’m just glad it’s not my church.

          2. The Church of England was started by an adulterer who wanted to get rid of his wife and marry his mistress.

            40 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce. BTW divorced people have been welcome to remarry in the Church since 2002, as long as the local minister agrees to perform the ceremony.

          3. Trying to reply to notasugar. Let’s not judge a 21st century monarch on Henry!
            And there’s a real difference between divorce and adultery. If a marriage cannot work the couple can divorce and remarry in a church perhaps. The Church is not however encouraging or condoning adultery, that is quite different.

          4. I am quoting what he actually *said*, Birdy. If you want to negate that and minimize what I said by calling me names, that’s on you.

          5. IMO Charles and Diana’s marriage was a marriage between two people who never should have married, were never suited to each other, and were better off divorced. It is a marriage that did not work, so they ended it. They divorced, and if Diana had lived, she would eventually have remarried too.

            Let’s not judge a 21st century monarch on morals of 50 years ago. Over 40 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce. It isn’t dirty, it isn’t shameful, it isn’t amoral, and who knows how many of those are the results of adultery?

            Charles will be a monarch of a country where many of the citizens are divorced and remarried. It is not some grandiose moral problem – it is modern reality. And the Church of England welcomes divorced persons and allows them to remarry.

          6. And the Church of England is fine with divorce.

            Adultery, no.

            But as a Christian raised Anglican myself, well, forgiveness is pretty important, is it not? We make mistakes. We atone for them. God forgives us. I am sure He forgives Charles, and Camilla, and Diana for all their transgressions as He forgives us for whatever sinful stuff we do. Nobody’s perfect. Only God. I’ve had to learn this to forgive my parents and their crap, and my dad’s own adultery, so I come at it from that angle. Also as someone who was too young to care much about Diana when she died, so it was no emotional thing for me. I like Charles ,but is he perfect, hell no. I just defend him ’cause it seems like he is crapped on at every opportunity for one thing he did in his life.

            Personally, I see no problem with it. Especially considering Britain is pretty much an atheistic country these days, merely culturally Christian, isn’t it?

        1. In his authorized biography he stated he had not loved his bride at the time of the wedding. In his interview he further states Camilla was a great friend and would remain a great friend. I wonder how much of the rupture between William and Charles is related to the use of the boys to aid in the PR campaign for Camilla’s acceptance

      2. No, i’m not naive.

        I simply refuse to put words into the mouth of a person to justify an argument for or against them.

        The media claimed that HE SAID that he was unfaithful with Camilla and she was his mistress.

        Not only did he not say that, i have supplied the relevant piece of film which was used to make that claim.

        He calls her a great friend who will remain a friend.

        Secondly, as Bluhare pointed out, he never said he wanted to be a tampon, here is the full transcript of that phone call

        And this is the pertinent bit:

        Camilla: Mmmm, so do I. I need you all the week. All the time.

        Charles: Oh. God. I’ll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!

        Camilla: (laughing) “what are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?

        Both laugh

        Camilla: Oh, You’re your’e going to come back as a pair of knickers.

        Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)

        Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.

        Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.

        If correcting lies makes me a sugar, so be it.

          1. I’ve decided to be proud of my sugariness, Herazeus. I can’t please anyone so I might as well please myself. I think someone wrote a song about that!

            Lavender it is. 😉

        1. I’m fully aware of the transcript thank you Herazeus, as I am aware of other transcripts of phone calls. I too have access to Google.

  22. Diana 7 days was interesting the public critizing the royals when all they where trying to do was look after her children people have been critizing royals for getting them to walk behind the coffin but that’s what the public expected they where baying for blood I remember when after she died they where attacking the press without seeing the irony of themselves buying newspapers and magazine is what fuels the hounding of public figures in the first place when a member of the public said look after the boys and philip said thats what we have been doing kinda sums up the whole mess the public managed to make it all about themselves without thinking their where two boys grieving her sister said she wanted a private funeral with a memorial if the public hadn’t reacted the way they did harry and William could’ve grieved in private

  23. Why is it that if one defends Diana one is called maniac who pukes up lies and distortions that has been seared into one’s brain? I think the same could be said about the supporters of Charles.

    1. Jhg I agree. Those of us who support Diana never for a moment suggest she was perfect.
      Danielle’s comment above yours forgets one vital reality. HM is HoS and as such is expected to lead the nation in mourning, she who is all duty forgot her duty that week. The boys could and probably should have stayed in Scotland with their Father, aunts and others. The HoS should have returned to London. The PM advised her of that, she ignored him.
      But hey jhg you and me can be maniacs together.

      1. She may be head of state birds but her grandchildren had just lost their mother they where children the public where adults diana was also no longer a hrh seeing the interviews with Harry and William talking about being grabbed onto and people wailing must of been horribly distressing the public managed to make the whole thing a spectacle her sister wanted a private funeral then memorial put the public would lost their minds .the continuing fixation on diana and charles marriage and pitting them against each other must be tiring for her children to read imagine 20 years of people on both sides ripping your parents apart

    2. The problem with stories of Charles and diana have become so distorted that all reason goes out the window people no longer apply logic people always thinks that one of them has to be a saint the other the devil rather than seeing as to complex humans who had strengths and weaknesses we don’t know both sides of the story behind closed doors so people creat their own narrative sadley the panorama just added fuel to the fire

      1. As I have been saying repeatedly none of us know the reality, who cheated when , what is cheating anyway ( does it have to be sex to be cheating), who said what to the boys, who got whose friends to say things to the press? Charles, Camilla, Diana and many others have their part to play int this whole sordid history. I just don’t like the whitewashing of those alive whilst destroying the reputation of Diana who died so young. I think the worst part, for me, or this whole horrid 20 years rehash is Camilla’s biography. It hasn’t helped heal any of the wounds, quite the opposite.

        1. When you say whitewashing of those alive I take it you mean Charles and Camilla who are regularly ripped to shreds charles continues to be the press punching bag there never a story on Camilla where the comment sections are filled with bile calling her a who’re maybe that’s why she did the biography diana was quite happy to write about camilla and charles in her book just because someone is dead doesn’t mean the living should have to shut up and take abuse diana put her side forward why shouldn’t others

    3. I don’t see the issue here because Diana was not a member of the RF. I also doubt HM expected the outright HYSTERIA because of it. Their priority was protecting W&H, as that should have been, that was their only concern is taking care of them.

    4. Because mostly all the people who defend Diana see her as the Second Coming of Christ who did no wrong and Charles is worse than Satan himself who led a poor, innocent lamb to the slaughter. Diana’s narrative still rings in the ears and is considered the Gospel Truth. Not you, for example, Birdy; but the general public seems like this. I get adoring her, I mean, I was too young, and I greatly respect her glamour, her pizzazz, her warmth, her charity work.

      I mean, 20 years later Charles is treated like sh*t because he cheated on his wife–as if he cheated on people personally, that’s the amount of anger, hatred and so on I see towards the guy which is totally crazy. Most people think William is basically a saint and the second coming of Diana, and Charles who has done so much for people is treated like garbage and people despise him. That’s why I defend him, and we all know he done effed up big time because cheating is an awful thing to do. Why the world hasn’t moved on is beyond me… but I was too young to ever care much about Diana or be enamored of her.

      Then you have her sons, “the boys” infantalized despite being grown men, using her as a PR ploy to make themselves look better which is really gross. All this re-hashing is making me even less charitable towards her! As I’ve said it is a darn shame W&H refuse to do as their mother did, despite whining how they want to make her proud, instead doing nothing to improve other people’s lives.

      1. Saying that many people who loved Diana saw her as the Second Coming of Christ is a bit over the top to me. So, is the idea that people saw Charles as Satan.

        Buildl her up and then tear her down. That is what the American media is famous for doing. Looks like many Brits are into that tactic, too. Those who were not enthralled with Diana have a right to their feelings. But, those who loved her, do too. And, many who did, also mention that they saw her flaws.

    1. And in serious risk of drowning. I stand by my opinion that this big anniversary tribute or whatever it is supposed to be was a dangerous and ill thought out move.
      Jen, there was no reply button on your comment about the boys’ having to block out the truth, but it appears that that is precisely what they are doing **or** trying to get us to. No way. You put it out there you don’t have control, and I think William probably thought he did.
      I have wondered throughout the years, at least when I think about these people and their shenanigans, if Charles regretted not having married Camilla, if what I read is true he wavered and putzed around and she, like other women, wanted to marry and have children. So she did. To me, that vacillating (if true) cost him his chance at true happiness, and does anyone know why? Was big mama opposed? He finally developed a backbone when he stated that as far as his future was concerned that Camilla wasn’t negotiable, no? Personally, I am not interested in Camilla’s biography. At all. However, she is no more to blame than is Charles.
      Herazeus, once again you have enlightened me, that crap about Charles’ wanting to be a ladies feminine product was twisted and the transcript debunked what I’ve thought for years. As to whether or not Charles was truthful when he said that he remained faithful to Diana until the marriage was irretrievably broken? I think he was **physically** faithful, but for sure was wanting to be with Camilla. I think.
      As far as Charles’ being a child abuser because Diana was so young? Rubbish. She wasn’t a child, young for sure, but hardly a child. I do question something here. Why was it that Charles was allowed to sow his wild oats, but a requirement for his wife was that she be a virgin? That makes me angry. I also have a little thought that wanders about my mind once in a while, isn’t it possible that Charles in his ‘get it out of your system, go for it my boy, days’ fathered other children. I know things have changed, or maybe big mama just gave up fighting, but double standard much? Infuriating.

      1. True royalsareajoke but that double standard is hardly unique to Charles’s situation.  Those ideas have been around practically forever and not just for royals. Within western culture even today a father may be proud of his teenage son’s sexual prowess with mutiple partners but have a very different reaction if his teenage child is female. In some middle eastern cultures the male/female role differences re: sex are even stronger. Evolutionary biology theorists have suggested some of it is hardwired. Men increase the chances their genes survive by spreading their “oats” all around. For women, monogamy may be more beneficial to their gene-spreading since women get pregnant. In terms of evolution, females, at least female mammals, may benefit from a “protective” relationshop with a single male as that may ensure offspring survive (and thereby distribute the woman’s genes into the pool.) 

        1. I remember a documentary about monogamy/fidelity a few years ago, from a biological perspective. It showed tendencies of some female animals getting pregnant by the strongest males, but living with a provider male who would stick around and raise the young (that weren’t biologically theirs). Interesting twist on the “protector” relationship.

          1. I always enjoy the role reversal in penguins and Seahorses whenever i catch a documentary.

            Ie Female penguin produces the egg, then leaves it to the male penguin to nest, protect, hatch whilst female penguin is off to pastures or partners new.

            Meanwhile female seahorses deposit their eggs in the males who have to gestate said eggs until maturity before giving birth to baby seahorses.

        2. I guess to put it in less than classy terms, boys can hit and run. and for sure that’s the way it has been forever. My anger was directed at the ‘firm’, their gall in demanding a virgin and offloading a man who had, to say the least, been around. Hope that makes sense.

  24. Witnessing such fighting and dysfunction between their parents, I’m surprised how William was able to get married without him being an emotionally scarred human being. And how he is able to stay married, unless Kate is fiiling in the gap coming from a Stable home and providing the backbone in their home.
    I do hope William and Harry have been in the right therapy to help them heal somewhat.

    1. Kate wanted that ring, that money, so badly, she put up with William publicly cheating on her, multiple break ups, etc. I do not believe in that whole ‘stable wonderful Middleton family’ myth they peddled to William and the world. They give him everything they want, paid for his holidays, set up meetings between him and Kate when they were broken up because of his cheating, etc. They stay married–and are married–because she would put up with anything to have this life she has. Nobody else wanted William because he’s a boor, as Isabella Branson put it.

      1. Do you really believe someone would give up their entire life and put up with an unstable, emotionally damaged person just for fame and comfort and entitlement?! Kate spent enough time before her marriage getting to know William. I would assume she knew what she was getting and hopefully it’s working..
        It would take lots of work on williams part to get out of the rut and lead a functional
        Life and be a decent husband and person.

        1. Oh, yes, I think so and I think Kate did it. She put everything in that basket of snagging William and marrying him, it’s pretty obvious to me, and her family was involved in it too, encouraging it; her mother having them sleep in their master bedroom in their house when they had a party, so they’d kiss and make up as Kate had dumped him, etcetera.

          It’s a messed up situation all around, isn’t it, but reading a lot of the stuff before Kate being massively white-washed as if she and William were pure as the driven snow you see a lot of the dysfunction in her family as well.

        2. What life did Kate have before marrying? She just waited, shopped, waited some more… She had no ambition to pursue a career, travel, help others. Just waited and shopped. She still shops. And shops.

          I find it peculiar that this allegedly self-made family of Middleton’s did not impart any work ethic or independence of spirit whatsoever to both female children. Instead they were trained (and happily agreed) to sniff out only wealthy, titled men, with their expensive educations simply a mechanism to travel in the ‘right’ circles rather than the silver bullet to help them achieve in their own right. The ‘stable, normal family’ narrative seems very forced to me; usually when people claim such things – happy marriages, great families, wealth etc – the reality is quite different.

          1. “allegedly self-made family of Middleton’s did not impart any work ethic or independence of spirit”

            Emphasis on “allegedly”. It’s clear that gazillionaire Uncle Gary supported their life style and probably supported their business. Michael’s inheritance helped as well. So, I doubt that they are particularly ‘self-made’ although they would like us to think so. Plus they have a business shadily successful beyond the norm.

            The only work ethic that Carole has and bestowed upon the kids was to hustle for an obscenely rich and preferably titled spouse. It’s all about status and money and they’ve all really worked hard at that, all their energy has been directed at that and not much else, IMO. Actual work/a job has no real value, unlike leisure..

            As for independence of spirit, it’s more as if they all possess a hive mind with Carole as Borg Queen. This rather addresses Herazeus’ comment below: “And yet he (W) can’t tear himself away completely”; resistance is futile.

          2. Quite honestly, I don’t think that Michael Middleton has much drive, ambition or independent spirit at all. Of all his siblings, he is the only one who did not go to university–I’m not saying that that is the right path for everyone, but when your family has a trust fund to provide for your education, why not try it? Instead, he became a flight attendant. Nothing wrong with being a flight attendant either–it’s hard work–but there’s no evidence of him having any other ambition until after Carole came on the scene, some six years later. It wasn’t until after marriage and children that he moved up to a management position. And then soon after, he left to support Carole’s growing Party Pieces company.

            So, Michael seems to be the sort that has to be pushed and coaxed into achievement, and is perfectly content to drift along, following someone else’s lead, doing just whatever is necessary, but not much more. And he’s probably been perfectly happy to support his children living totally dependent lives that have sought pleasure and wealth through others, not through their own efforts.

        3. Long before we had a proper look at Kate, James Whitaker described her as someone who was willing to put up with anything from William because she really wanted the royal life.

          He also said that whilst William loved Kate, he was not ‘in love’ with her.

          As for why Kate would behave this way, maternal family history is a factor.

          Uncle Gary, Carole’s brother, once said that Carole wanted a particular type of life that was very different from how they were brought up. Such a life certainly needed money, but it was the status accroutrements of such a life that were important to her.

          So whilst he is 100x richer than Carole, he remains himself, proud of his class, no airs or graces.

          Meanwhile Carole set out to get Michael and that home counties, sloaney lifestyle for herself and her kids. To be clear, i’m not suggesting Carole doesn’t or didn’t love Michael, just pointing out the targeting of a life different from one of inner city council estates vs Berkshire.

          I generally think that was the height of her ambition and she wanted to push her kids into the aristos class which is why she made sure they befriended only titled kids at the ultra exclusive schools she sent them.

          When Kate got a chance at William, that was the ultimate, but unexpected, prize and Kate having learnt the lessons of her mother’s life and ambitions, wasn’t going to let that slip away.

          It’s hard for people to understand that a person can be that calculating at the expense of personal happiness especially when you look at the lesson of Diana’s life where she wanted personal happiness over material wealth.

          I generally don’t think William truly understands what normal family life is. The Middleton family encircled him and provide him with a 1950s tableau of a familylife to the exclusion of all else.

          Polar opposite of the detached royal family life that requires effort to maintain links between family units.

          He rebels from time to time. By that i mean that he often broke away from the Middletons (Kate) with the reason being that he found the relationship claustraphobic. And yet he can’t tear himself away completely.

          1. Adding this in because the quote tends to be hard to find online.

            “Now my problem with William on this is I think he likes Kate very much, I think he loves her, but I think even now he’s not in love with her. But he wants her there because the most important thing is he can trust her.” “I think the prize for Kate of being the Princess of Wales and then Queen, I think she will put up with anything that’s thrown at her.” from James Whitaker

        4. Absolutely I believe that a woman would go for the gold, the fame, the title, and in some cases simply money. It’s not all that unusual. The only thing that really sets Kate apart is the in my opinion she had a mother just as greedy and ambitious as she pushing her in William’s direction. William was at the very least dismissive of Kate in their dating years, and yet here she is flashing his dead mother’s ring and still being treated in my opinion as a prop, having done her duty using her womb. Surely you are familiar with the term ‘gold digger’. Not a diss at all, I simply believe that for some women love and contentment are secondary to money and perceived security.

          1. Which is also why women stay with their wealthy husbands even though very unhappy. It happens the world over not just with the BRF.

          2. To be fair men do it too. Still more common amongst women tho. I still can’t tell who was using who in the Tom hiddleston/Taylor swift dating thing but that was def weird and more like a publicity stunt than anything else!
            Halle berry had an ex who was trying to get something like $20000 a month for child support.
            But yes people are willing to put up with a b and c to get x y & z!
            But I view it it as both parties getting what they want. Men going for the trophy wife know what they are getting (usually) and if they think there’s a reason a younger hot woman is with them other than their check book than they’re pretty naive and sad

      2. Now Ellie, don’t you remember the articles after the dad dancing, “unlike Charles, Kate is the only one who stands up to William” bwahahahaha yeah right her public demeanor says anything but that.

    2. Wow, Kate coming from a stable home? If you mean by that: parents who didn’t divorce, ok.
      But, really, the way the children were manipulated by Carole — especially Kate, does not spell stable to me.

      1. There is also quite a lot of suggestion that Kate’s parents though still married essentially live separate lives. This seems to have happened since the marriage of Will and Kate. Perhaps the goal was not worth it?

        1. Considering the annual Mustique getaway has dwindled in recent years, it seems highly likely both parents are effectively living apart. So do the Beckham but it’s all how much your pr can coverup right?

  25. Ellie, Jen, MavenTheFirst, Herazeus, jenny, I agree with you all. Absolutely. Jenny, your comment that the Buckleberry Hillbillies were a normal, stable family if the only standard for that is no divorce is great. Willliam’s frame of reference was very narrow, so they probably did epitomize the ideal family since they were still together (a lot more together than I consider normal) and what fun they had, sumo wrestler at Christmas and a brother and sister ever so close, Pippa and James. They sucked him in big time and fat chance Billy will ever admit that he was in a very real sense being lured in and buttered up, primed for the capture.

    1. Yes, royalsareajoke, William really was manipulated. Such a shame to think that he was used that way. His emotional state seemed ripe for the picking I’d really want to believe that love is there between the couple (W & K), but I’d also like to see the Midds back off. Yes, they are family, but mot moms and dads are close to their married children and their new families, but don’t strangle them and the grandkids with attempts at closeness. It’s as if they are forcing the Cambridges to feel close to them. That’s my opinion, anyway. I can see that Kate would feel close to her family, but I can also see that once one marries and starts a family, one hopes their parents will be loving, but not controlling. IMO, Carole really is still trying to control Kate, William and the kids.

      1. I agree Jen, I agree completely. William was a sitting duck and despite my dislike for him I know that he didn’t stand a chance against the ruthless CarolE. Speaking of a ‘crowded marriage’, and William had to have heard that so many times in his life. I know what that’s like, I’ve seen it and it’s a sure fire way to ruin a marriage even between two people who genuinely love each other. The only way that William and Kate will ever even **know** their own feelings about each other, about what they want is if that needy social climbing lady dog backs off and lives her own life. Her goals will never be met, not if they include being accepted into ‘high society’. She’s too loud, too obvious, too eager and in my opinion downright obsessed. Scary some of the things I’ve read and believe about her. William’s picture on her phone, taking to her bed when Kate rebelled, setting them up despite the obvious glaring signs that William didn’t want to marry Kate, and even giving up her own bedroom so they could go at it. Men don’t always think with their brains. Kate is far too close to her mommy at her age, and if I understand correctly even at that if Katie cries about the way she’s treated mommy takes Billy’s side. Sick sick sick. As far as I’m concerned, children are **not** property. Until God finds another way of creating new human beings women are simply a house for the unborn developing new life, and when the children are of age they are to be set free to make their own way in life. William hasn’t been given that chance, nor has Kate. A marriage between two people like that is flat doomed unless they get a big pair of scissors and cut the cords, sacrifice whatever, tell the controllers to get out, back off, establish boundaries, and declare themselves individual independent people. I don’t see that happening ever with waity and wimpo. And those poor kids, they will be so caught between two very different worlds. No, this isn’t love and concern on CarolE’s part, and I focus on her because I see her as the controller, it’s greed, avarice, and using. She won’t stop while there is breath in her body, not voluntarily. No way.
        Someone on another forum said that Kate was the biggest ** to his family that he could come up with. No words for this, the dude gives his family the proverbial finger and doesn’t even realize that all the while he’s being drawn into a web and used in a way that makes the way he thinks his family used him pale in comparison. I wonder if he blubbered about it to CarolE and she reinforced that idea, poor Bill, forced into a destiny so rough. I utterly despise parents who think their children are merely extensions of themselves and use or even attempt to use them to fulfill their own expectations, and lost dreams.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top