Diana's Ties to Royal Family

News Flash: Marked Highly Important. The Crown is a work of fiction.

R1 - They got a lot of other parts right though. I'm just saying they always make it sound like she was some unknown who had to prove herself and win over these 'strangers' in the Royal Family.

I understand there are a lot of aristocrats and their children in the UK, so I wouldn't expect the Royal Family to know every single Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Duke (well they probably do know all the Dukes) and their kids.

But she lived on their estate and played with the Queen's children. Her father was an equerry to QE2, and both of Diana's grandmothers were ladies-in-waiting to the Queen Mother. Diana called QE "Aunt Lilibet" from a young age.

I know the royal family and how it works is its own thing - but she was hardly an outsider or stranger. Unlike any of the other spouses of QE's children.

The only thing The Crown got right were verifiable historic moments. About 10 percent of the show. The rest is conjecture. Really bad conjecture. The topic of this thread is proof of that. They get nearly everything about Diana wrong. Diana, arguably one of the most famous women in history.

R3 - but I just referenced The Crown as one example - from the very beginning of their courtship, they acted like she wasn't familiar with them. She'll always be an 'outsider' - but it just felt like they made this storyline of her being plucked from the aristrocratic crowd and they needed to get to know her.

That was hardly the case. Let's forget The Crown - I'm talking about everything else that was written about her.

Seems so weird. "Aunt Lilibet" is hardly an outsider's name for the Queen of England.

I can't believe so many people watched The Crown. Anyone with a few brain cells would know it was going to be 95% bullshit.

The elites all know each other. I was surprised to hear that Queen Elizabeth 2 came to the US several times as a private citizen because of horse breeding and racing.

Yes. Diana's supporters like to have revisionist history when it comes to Diana. To excuse whatever fault she may have had in the breakup of her marriage and her psycholocigal problems they paint her as this naive babysitter who fell in love with a prince and was abused. She knew the royal family since birth. She and her sister were marked by the family as top candidates for Charles for years. Her sister dated him for a while but the crown branded her a lose woman so they moved on to Diana. She knew full well what she was getting into and none of royal life and the comprises as a wife she might have to make were a surprise to her. She just overestimated her ability to deal with it.

I type this as someone who absolutely loved her and agrees that the crown did not know how to use her and didn't help the situation by the jealousy, excluding Philip, that everyone in the family had when it came to Diana. They reveled in what they thought would be her fall from grace. It only made her more popular.

R6 - I agree - but I think the Royal Family likes to give Fleet Street tabloids some sacrificial members to target and harass to avoid criticism of the Queen and her children. Andrew's past has been well known for decades, but was never mentioned much before the Epstein case blew up and they had to cover it.

Particularly the wives - Diana, Sarah, Camilla, Meghan. Just total character assassination and accusations.

They don't go after Edward's wife Sophie at all - but she used to work in PR, so maybe she has connections. Princess Anne's husband got some fire, but he fathered a child with another woman while married to Anne - and caused their divorce, so that doesn't seem out of line.

It has always felt like the RF only defends their own and are perfectly happy for the 'outsiders' to get all the stick. Princess Margaret used to get a lot of criticism until the Queen's kids came of age. You don't hear shit about Princess Margaret's two children.

Diana was closer in age to Andrew and Edward. Charles was already in boarding school, when she played with Andrew and Edward as children. Charles didn't really notice her until she was in her teens.

Looking back...how anyone could think that a 19-year-old young woman with no real education (and whose parents had an acrimonious divorce) would be a suitable bride for a serious-minded man more than a dozen years her senior is beyond me.

His grandmother and her grandmother thought of her as if she were like they were at 19...from an aristocratic background whose only option was marriage and expected to ignore the dalliances of husbands. Come to think of it...Elizabeth and Philip were pretty stupid too for not seeing how ill-suited such a match would be.

No, Sophie had her time in the meat grinder when she was still working in PR. Hinting at “access” or something. She had to resign.

Actually, R8, the tabloids went after Sophie precisely because she was in PR and tried to entrap her by recording her making rude comments about politicians. There was a whole "The Sophie Tapes" faux scandal.

Back in the day, Edward also wanted a bit more privacy, a bit more freedom to do his own thing, to escape the royal grind for a bit. He was absolutely ridiculed by the tabloids as a young man.

The only reason you're unaware of this today, aside from ignorance, is because they didn't whine and flap and complain and blame everyone else for things that went wrong. They never fell into the trap that Harry's fallen into of thinking that they are more important than the role. Instead, they did their own thing for a bit, kept their heads down, raised their kids and it's only in the past decade or so that they've become more prominent.

R8 - that's true - QE had two 'sets' of kids, Charles and Margaret, then 10 years later, Andrew and Edward. Diana was between Andrew and Edward in age. But they all knew her - more so than most aristocrats.

But Charles had been around enough and Camilla was married and damaged goods. They wanted some young aristocrat with a clean slate and no scandals.

We'd have to go a far time back to see how other future queens were selected. Lizzy's father's marriage wasn't the one in line under Edward abdicated - and we know what happened there with Wallis Simpson.

So what were the examples to choose from? Queen Mary of Teck? She was going to get married to the future King but her husband died and she then married his BROTHER. Not exactly a great love story or example either.

Then you have to go back to King Edward - who married Alexandra of Denmark in 1863!!! Picking Diana was the first time they had done this since Victorian times - so yes, they used an antiquated model.

Btw - Elizabeth's marriage to Philip seemed plotted and a bit creepy. Philip was pushed forward by his uncle to woo Elizabeth. And to be honest, Philip (who had no title anymore or role) had a lot to gain and was a hot piece of ass when he was younger. I can see with Lizzy went for him - but it was a weird matchup and people talked about Philip being a poor choice at the time.

[quote] I'm talking about everything else that was written about her.

But "everything else" did NOT characterize her as an outsider. We knew she was aristocracy. Many articles even pointed out that she had more aristocratic 'blood' than Charles. We also knew she grew up visiting the royal family, I have no idea what you've been reading.

Maybe you are confusing what happened later when Diana gave her BBC interview. She certainly was an outsider at that point. Also, Sarah Ferguson's father was Prince Phillip's polo manager and later King Charles' so she grew up around the royal family, albeit a commoner.

[QUOTE]Her sister dated him for a while but the crown branded her a lose woman

Actually, she was *loose* with her lips. She blabbed about it to the press. Automatically deemed someone unsuitable back then.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the age difference between Diana and Charles was remarkable. This was the early eighties. The heir to the English throne marries the youngest broodmare he can find who will have him. QEll approved of Diana because she was 'impossibly innocent" with no boyfriends to divulge scandalous secrets. Diana's family 'confirmed' she was a virgin. Needless to say, this virginal 'rule' no longer applies.

^ i don’t think she was interested in a serious relationship with him. All these “suitable” girls knew it was a tough role to fill and Charles was a bit of an Eeyore back then. Diana was 19 and read romance novels.

R15 Romance is VERY serious to a 19 year old girl.

OP, I don;t know why this comes as a surprise to you. Diana talks quite a bit in "Diana: Her Story" about being taken to Sandringham House every Christmas to see a movie with the other children on the estate, which was invariably "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (which she grew to loathe because she had to see it so many times--this was in the years before VCRs).

The Queen and Philip and the Queen Mother certainly knew her parents and stemother, the Earl Spencer and his two wives, but they would have never spent much time at all with the Earl's children. Royalty and aristocracy in those days believed children had no place in adult doings.

Also, keep in mind that the Royal family is at Sandringham for only a few months every year around Christmas, and most of that time is spent with themselves--not with hanging out with the locals who live nearby. It's not like the Queen had them all over to watch TV with her family.

r12

You are correct. In fact, around the time of the engagement, the press noted that Charles, who traveled the world and met many women, settled on the girl next door.

The movie "Spencer" involves Diana walking back to an abandoned Park House as an adult when she visits Sandringham for the Christmas holidays.

Actually, at that time it had been converted by a charity into a hotel for disabled people. Unfortunately that closed with Covid and it now has been empty for four years. But also, from the time Diana’s family moved to Althorp until the charity renovated it, it was empty for eight years.

She was the only living virgin in England at the time so needs must.