Princess Diana ‘was really spiteful, really unkind’, Mountbatten sisters claim

If you love British royal history, you’ll love Vanity Fair’s new feature on the Mountbatten sisters, Lady Pamela Hicks and Patricia, Countess Mountbatten of Burma. They are the daughters of Louis Mountbatten, Prince Phillip’s adoptive father and former Viceroy of India. The Mountbatten (formerly Battenberg) family has been closely associated with the British royal family for decades and decades – Louis Mountbatten was something of a godfather/mentor to both Prince Phillip and Prince Charles, and when Louis Mountbatten was killed in an IRA bombing in the 1970s, the royal family was left reeling from the loss. Louis’s daughters grew up in and around the royal family and from what I can see, the Queen and Prince Phillip are still very close to both women.

You can read the full Vanity Fair piece here – it’s long and there is an extensive and very dishy interview with both Pamela and Patricia just before the publication of Pamela’s memoir, Daughter of Empire: Life as a Mountbatten, comes out. The article is a wonderful, bitchy, elitist look at the old empire and that empire’s attempt at re-branding and modernizing, plus it’s just a wonderful slice of history. What interested me was Pamela and Patricia’s take on the late Princess Diana:

When I float the name of the late Princess of Wales by Lady Pamela, she initially offers a couple of positive remarks, then lowers the boom: “She had enormous charisma, she was beautiful, she was very good at empathy with the general crowd … and she had no feeling at all for her husband or his family. Quite the reverse!

“She was really spiteful, really unkind to him—and, my God, he’s a man who needs support and encouragement. [The marriage] absolutely destroyed him. He looked grey and ghost-like. Now of course he’s blossomed again.

“She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert. She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star.”

[From Vanity Fair]

I mean… come on. For the love of…! I’m not going to pretend like Diana was a saint or that she never did anything wrong, but these two bitching about how awful, wicked Diana hated the poor, maligned royal family is a bit rich. Granted, Diana and Charles were never really going to work out and their personalities just didn’t GO together, but to position Charles are this poor SOB who never got his wife’s support? Ridiculous. And “jive concert”?? Well, the good news is that these two ladies are older than dirt and they have no more f–ks to give.

Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

201 Responses to “Princess Diana ‘was really spiteful, really unkind’, Mountbatten sisters claim”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sixer says:

    Ha – “general crowd”. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. Mind you, it’s not as though any of the current generation actually think any differently. They just don’t say so.

    • nicegirl says:

      Love your comment, Sixer!

    • Sarah says:

      I’d say the Mountbattens’ comments about Diana are sour grapes. Louis Mountbatten desperately wanted Charles to marry one of his relatives (granddaughter?) and it didn’t happen. Now these ladies bad-mouth the woman who took what they felt was rightfully belonging to their family. Blah, blah, blah. Rich people’s problems!

      • daisieb says:



      • Joni Webb says:

        What crap. In Diana’s own words to Andrew Morton – she said she really didn’t care for pop music and that was reports that she did was all lies. She never really went to pop concerts – she much preferred classical music, but the royals used this as a way to make her seem dumb, stupid, and not worthy of the great Charles who used her- a 19 year old, not even old enough to legally drink – as a willing uterus to bear his heir. I don’t believe a word these two sisters say. After Louis was killed, Charles didn’t have anything to do with them. They have no idea of who the real Diana was. To trash her like this now – when her grandson was just born – is such poor manners. Ugh. Just ugh.

      • *unf* Joan Jett says:

        @ Joni Webb:

        I don’t know that much about British Royals and Diana, but…

        - drinking age in UK is 18

        - liking and listening to pop music doesn’t make one stupid / liking classical music does not make one more intelligent

        - it is well known, Princess Di liked Elton John whose music is not what I would describe “classical”

  2. A says:

    Why can’t we all just agree that both parties are at fault (which is imo the case in most divorces barring some extreme examples)? Sure you can argue that one person has 75% of the fault or something, but what does it matter at this point? People are all human, deal with it.

    That said, you can’t really expect these ladies (who are family) not to “take sides”… If anything random people on the street taking Diana’s side are worse.

    • CTgirl says:

      Quite honestly this marriage always came across as a business arrangement where one of the parties, namely Diana, did not understand the conditions of the contract. Was Charles an insensitive ass? Probably. Was Diana an incredibly immature young woman? Probably. The deification of Diana occurred because it is always tragic when a young mother dies and was boosted by the royal family’s rule of not commenting on private issues. Prior to her death, Diana was the only one discussing anything with the press so her side took on the sheen of truth despite no one really hearing another side except from “palace insiders”. Both were in the relationship and both contributed to its demise.

      • A says:

        I completely agree with you, and I wish more people saw it this way instead of EVIL! HOMEWRECKING! EVILLLLLLL

    • daisieb says:

      Diana was the third daughter in a family that was desperate for a male heir. Once her brother was born it wasn’t too long before her mother “bolted” and went to live in Australia. Most British upper class parents weren’t exactly hands on and the children were shipped off to boarding school before they were ten, but Diana didn’t distinguish herself in any way. I can’t imagine that her family gave her a second thought or had the slightest expectations for her. She was a real life Cinderella, complete with a stepmother. Charles, not exactly Prince Charming could not find anyone suitable who would agree to marry him. Diana’s grandmother was lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother and they set up an “arranged marriage”. Ugly duckling Diana was transformed into a swan. For the first time in her life she felt loved and appreciated, not by her husband and new family, but by the media and the WORLD, like nothing anyone had ever seen before or since. She totally eclipsed the royals and all of their sycophants. For this she was resented and the royals were determined to put her in her place.

      Camilla, married mother of two at this point, gave Charles a wedding gift of gold cufflinks with a monogram of their initials like the Chanel logo of intertwining Cs. Diana wanted to cancel the wedding, but she was powerless to stop it.

      She was literally a sacrificial virgin at age 19 to a man of 32 who’s whole life had prepared him to become King and produce an heir to perpetuate this insanity.

      I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way William has conducted this aspect of his life. I doubt that I will live long enough to see the changes he will make to the way the Palace operates and his approach to the Monarchy.

      • mslewis says:

        Did her mother really bolt to Australia? I thought she stayed in Britain and fought for the children, lost primary custody and then married her lover.

        Whatever happen with the mother, I do agree with all you said. Diana is no saint to anyone who really thinks about the things she said and did before and after her divorce.

        People on here can say all the negative things they want about William but he married Catherine because he loves her and she loves him and I don’t think he wants to repeat his father’s mistakes or allow his children to go though what he had to endure as a child.

      • Sherry says:

        If I remember correctly, Camilla and Charles were in love and she wanted to marry him, but he thought he should “play the field.” She didn’t want to wait around for him to sow his wild oats, so she ended up marrying Parker-Bowles and starting a family. Charles then found himself a bachelor at 32 and the love of his life married to someone else. He needed someone without a past, so he married Diana.

        In watching William and Catherine, I have always thought that Charles probably took him aside and said, “Don’t make the same mistake I did. If you love her, marry her. Or she could end up married to someone else.”

      • Carolyn says:

        Really good analysis. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        Who cares what Mountbatten’s think? Oh yeah. One of them has a book to promote….

        I’m disappointed neither of them name-checked Duran Duran or Wham! (Diana’s favourite bands) in their interview :)

      • Suze says:

        You know, I think Diana was a fantastic Princess of Wales. I think she did great good in the world, and overall was very good for the monarchy. But what you’re saying is so full of misconceptions I had to respond.

        Diana’s mother never bolted to Australia. She lived in Great Britain. Sarah Ferguson’s mother was the one who bolted overseas, to South America.

        Diana was no Cinderella! She lead a very privileged life, and in her teen years lived in one of the largest homes in Great Britain, which included a bevy of servants. Whether her stepmother was “wicked” or not is certainly up to interpretation. In her later years, Diana actually befriended her.

        Although the grandmothers pushed the match, in no way was the Diana/Charles union arranged. Both participants went into it willingly.

        Diana wanting to “cancel” the wedding was all in the retelling, many years later, when things had gone bad. In Tina Brown’s book, she quotes one of the Clarence House staff – who were with Diana the night before the wedding – as saying Diana spent the evening before her wedding, riding a bike around the courtyard and singing, over and over very happily, “Tomorrow I’m going to marry the Prince of Wales”.

        As for William, let’s just wait and see what happens there.

      • daisieb says:

        I stand corrected. Frances Shand Kydd, did not move to Australia, but had an affair with and then married Peter Shand Kydd, who had lived in Australia, after he had returned to England. Diana and her mother traveled to Austalia while she was dating Charles prior to the announcement of their engagement.

        Cinderella was the orphaned daughter of the lord of the manor, she was not a peasant or household servant although she was treated as if she were.

        Living in a mansion well staffed with servants does not ensure happiness, but can amplify unhappiness because there is no material deprivation, only emotional deprivation.

      • Suze says:

        I agree with you that Diana felt emotionally deprived as a child. She admitted so herself. It drove both the best and worst of her behavior – something else she admitted.

        I just didn’t agree with the Cinderella analogy. Diana lived a life a privilege that very, very few people can imagine. She wasn’t in rags weeping by the fire, she was always treated like the earls daughter she was.

        However much I disagreed with many of her personal choices, I also think that she was a fabulous Princess of Wales and is still utterly fascinating all these years later.

      • heyea says:

        IMO William married Kate OUT OF PRESSURE and he was too b0ll-less to dump her and suffer the consequences of his image. He is a wimp and those Middleton’s preyed on him. William is the Middleton’s lamb led to the alter if I ever saw one. Funny thing is, in all his desire to rebel against his family he walked right into a family of opportunistic-users who climbed on him like leeches and never let go. Wait 5 yrs, we’ll be talking about the trouble in William’s marriage and how he married out of pressure. Mark that down. Kate and William are no fairytale either. Problem is Kate wishes she had the heartbeat of the public the way Diana did. It’s not happening for Kate.

    • Marie says:

      God bless your heart. Such a relief to hear good sense talked about “that tall tale.”

      However bad it may have been, talking trash to the whole globe about your husband’s family just isn’t on. Ever.

  3. pao la says:

    Charles needed support? He cheated on Diana for many years with Camilla and everyone knew about it. Of course she was unkind and spiteful with him.. and ‘[The marriage] absolutely destroyed him’?! The Royal family got her depressed and lately KILLED. Charles is no victim here, she was no saint, in a divorce both parts are at fault but this is far too much to say. These two sisters just sound jelous and bitter like two old spinsters who take the most obvious side in this story.

    • aims says:

      Exactly. Charles was cheating from day one, and I doubt he took Diane or their marriage seriously. I don’t blame Diane one bit for doing her own thing. Did they want Diane to hold Charles hand and encourage him for his philandering?

      • m says:

        Aims, yes they did want Diana to hold his hand and turn a blind eye. Like every other Princess of Wales before her, she was little more than a breeding mare for the future King of England. Too bad no one let her in on the fact beforehand. But she learnt the game and played it to her advantage. Unlike most, she gave the Mountbatten Windsors a run for their money!

    • Liv says:

      You can say what you want about the late Diana, but when she married Charles she was really young and naive. And it’s pretty nasty to talk bad about a person who can’t answer back because she’s dead. Disgusting.

      • Florc says:

        So when Charles dies we should never speak of how he cheated on Diana? In all well supported truth Diana was young when she married, but it happened. She didn’t stay young or naive for love. She played a good game and was a spiteful woman that had affairs and destroyed at least 1 marriage very publicly.
        Now that she’s gone it’s unbalanced to only remember a glorified image. She was human and imperfect. To make the beauty she did in the world really shine we need to know the whole story and not leave out the parts we don’t like. She wouldn’t have been who she was without those faults.

        It’s disgusting to honor a person by falsely remembering them. Creating a new image to replace who they actually were. Then we’re forgetting the person entirely.

      • V4Real says:

        @Liv people still speak bad about MJ and he’s dead, so what. Like someone said earlier they both had their faults and neither Charles or Diana is without blame

      • NeoCleo says:

        I will never forget the day Charles was interviewed, after the engagement was announced, and a reporter asked him if they were “in love.” I thought it was such a rude question, but his answer! He replied in a bored tone “Yes, whatever that means.” It cast such a pall over the whole affair.

      • Liv says:

        I don’t know if you two misunderstood me. I didn’t say she hasn’t had her faults…we all know that she struggled and had dark parts. What I wanted to point out is that she, at the beginning of her marriage, was in my opinion a young and naive girl, who wasn’t that manipulative like she was later in her life.

        Call me old fashioned but I don’t think it’s right to talk to a magazine like that about the dead mother of two boys who will probably read the interview. And I think there’s a difference when we talk about or it or people who really knew her (or Michael Jackson), especially publicly!


      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Liv, I agree with you about her age. She was 19 years old, for God’s sake. It makes me so angry when people say “she knew what she was getting into.” 19 is too young to get married under any circumstances, in my opinion, let alone into the unprecedented publicity and invasion of privacy and attention and criticism into which she was thrown. Did she handle it all well? No. But this image of poor Charles, grey with grief, is absurd.

        When a marriage goes wrong, a certain kind of person sticks with the side that has the money and power – no matter what they may have done to contribute to the downfall of the marriage. That’s what these two old biddies are about, if you ask me.

      • Kitten Mittens says:

        Diana was indeed manipulative before she was engaged to Charles. I believe LAK listed all the times in Diana’s youth she caused physical and emotional harm to others. I’m not discrediting what Diana did with charities, but she was evil if she disliked you.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @GoodNamesAllTaken, who wrote: “Liv, I agree with you about her age. She was 19 years old, for God’s sake. It makes me so angry when people say “she knew what she was getting into.” 19 is too young to get married under any circumstances, in my opinion, let alone into the unprecedented publicity and invasion of privacy and attention and criticism into which she was thrown.”

        Why was Diana ‘naive?’ She wasn’t a commoner, she was the daughter of a Viscount and became Lady Diana Spencer when her father inherited the title of Earl (just like her brother, who became Earl Charles Spencer upon their father’s death). Is there any reason to believe, as the daughter of a Viscount who was destined to become an Earl, that Diana didn’t grow up in the same circles as other Royals? If she didn’t know anything about actually ‘being’ a Royal by the age of 19, it was because she just wasn’t interested in learning.

        As a young girl, Diana watched Charles date her older half-sister, Lady Sarah … so she knew the press were keen on anyone Charles dated.

        Diana (watched) knew the ‘Royal Circle’ ostracized her mother after her parents divorced, which is why she rubbed her mother in their faces as soon as she married Charles.

        I believe both Diana and her brother Charles (who share the same mother) were emotionally damaged as children. But I don’t believe she was naive.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Emma-the JPLover

        I understand what you are saying, and I’m sure she wasn’t naive about many things involved in that social circle, or that people would be interested in her. I just pointed out how very young she was, and unequipped with the depth and maturity to handle what had to be an overwhelming situation. I think she was very naive about love and relationships. How could she be otherwise? Her favorite author was Barbara Cartland. She had never had a mature, serious relationship with a man. Her parents’ relationship was terrible. She came from a sheltered background. She probably thought love would overcome any obstacle (such as Camilla) and if she could just marry Charles, she could make him love her, that everything would be great once they got married, all the nonsensical, romantic things a 19 year old girl thinks. Then when it didnt unfold that way, she wasnt able to handle it well. I dont think I would have been able to either at that age. That’s what I mean.

      • Cazzee says:

        ‘When a marriage goes wrong, a certain kind of person sticks with the side that has the money and power – no matter what they may have done to contribute to the downfall of the marriage. That’s what these two old biddies are about, if you ask me.”

        Yup, you called it.

        These two are power-worshipping mean girls.

      • Cubfan34 says:

        Diana and Sarah had the same two parents. They were not half-sisters.

      • LAK says:

        Neocleo – please Google Charles and Diana’s engagement interview from which that quote is taken. It’s on youtube. It’s ten minutes long and not just the cut of 25secs of that quote. You’ll find that both Charles AND Diana give several answers as to their affection for each other and Charles finishes the interview with that quote as a rhetorical philosophical statement.

        It is meant to appeal to everyone since we all have different interpretations of love.

        And if you don’t believe me, look at the body language. They are both smiling, relaxed, affectionate. PLUS he never stops stroking her hand throughout.

  4. aquarius64 says:

    I’m sure William and Harry appreciate these two trashing their late mother like that.

  5. Lucinda says:

    This reads exactly like what it is. Two women from an older generation and close to the royals who are taking the royals’ side. Completely. It’s just as biased as those who portray Diana as a saint.

    • It'sJustBlanche says:

      Agreed. I love the that they have “no more f**ks to give” and think it’s absolutely true they could care less but that doesn’t mean they’re not biased.

      I might have to read this.

    • lenje says:

      I agree. Of course they will be taking Charles’ side. And their disagreement with Diana’s entertainment preference? They’re from the much older generation! I adore Diana with all her flaws, but I must say I’m actually giggling reading it. Very… Miss Marple :) :) :)

    • Joan says:

      Totally agree.

  6. Post-Its says:

    I’m SHOCKED that a woman in her early 20s didn’t want to listen to etiquette classes all day and instead wanted to do something fun. Also, they still have ladies-in-waiting? Seriously?

    • Erinn says:

      I agree, but it was the life she was signing up for.

      • LoveGossip says:

        She signed up for a life with a man who at the very least would help her navigate the waters. Instead she got a douche who kept slipping it to a married ex pretty indiscreetly, zero confidantes and a hostile palace staff. If thats not a tragedy what is.

    • Harriet says:

      I think at that point of time, in the early 80′s the Royal Family had no idea how to deal with those wishes. So now we might think it’s outrageous but 30 years ago it stupified them. Not to mention, she was young, and very immature… People forget just how young she was!

      • CC says:

        And there was no internet back then, and little more (if any) beyond a handful of channels. They still expected to keep things as they had been. Flaws being kept tight, all about the ceremonial role, within a crafted public image, but private affairs and “affairs” remaining private.

    • Max says:

      ……and go to “jive concerts”. You know the kind, stocked full of AIDS patients and landmine victims. Such a rebel!

  7. HappyMom says:

    Well, they’re both been close to Charles forever, so of course they’re going to take his side. And from everything I’ve read about the Queen, she did in her own way really try to help Diana. As lovely and admired as Diana was, she was emotionally stunted because of her sad upbringing. I do think it’s tacky for them to be badmouthing her, however. I certainly can’t imagine they’d endear themselves to William and Harry-and truly it doesn’t help Charles anymore to rehash this. That said-can’t wait to read the whole piece!

    • Mindy says:

      It wasnt a stunted upbringing. It was marrying a 36 year old douche at 19 who viewed her as nothing more than uterus.

      Its hard enough living in that fish bowl with all the rigidity that is required but to do it alone must have been terrible.

      • HappyMom says:

        Her mother left her family when she was a tiny child and she was raised by nannies and sent to boarding school at 6. She had serious abandonment issues from the get-go.

      • Jazz Jazz says:

        So true. He married her as a brood mare and he continued his illicit affair with the basset hound Camille. Then he marries horse face and she acts like she’s been royal all her life. Their relationship ruined two marriages. They have nothing to be proud of. At least Diana did something with her life. She cared about people and dedicated herself to helping others. How dare those old shriveled up dirt bags.

      • LAK says:

        Jazz Jazz:

        1. “Their relationship ruined two marriages.”… opposed to the marriages Diana ruined?? Especially after knowing how hurtful that was and still going for it?

        2. “At least Diana did something with her life.”…are you saying that Charles or Camilla haven’t done anything with their lives? Do you know anything about the Prince’s trust or Camilla’s rape kits AND work with Osteoporosis society?

      • Harriet says:

        Agreeing with LAK here. They are both involved with numerous charities. Maybe it’s my stiff upper lip talking here BUT Diana was tactile and liked to be photographed cuddling orphans or campaigning for landmines in front of the press. Just because you don’t go to that extent it doesn’t make you a lesser mortal!

      • Kitten Mittens says:

        The Rape kits That LAK speaks of are amazing!
        It’s an example of Camilla learning about rape, the impact it has on the victims of it and how to lessen that pain with a nice gesture. Camilla and no doubt a small group to hammer out the details came up with baskets of soaps, sponges and other luxurious hygiene products to clean up post rape and examination. It’s a small idea that makes a HUGE difference in that person’s life. I’m sure it’s understood nothing can fully repair the damage done, but a humble little gesture like that speaks volumes! It was mostly behind doors or because the press just didn’t cover it all that much, but the good deed was still done.

      • Suze says:

        Charles was 32 and Diana was 20 when they married.

        She went to boarding school first at nine years old.

        Still an enormous age difference for a marriage, and early to go away to school, but lets get basic facts correct.

    • drma says:

      Charles was the age William is now when he got engaged, 31, he was 32 when he married not 36. Charles was in his very early 30′s, 32 yrs old when he married.

      Diana also had affairs not just Charles, Why do people seem to forget that. She was talking about love but having affairs too. IMO That was not any better and I adore Di.

  8. boredbrit says:

    They want to play that game do they? The Queen had cousins who were put in a mental asylum in Redhill, Surrey. In fact they were both declared dead, one didn’t die until 1986 and the other is still alive. Its disgusting how stuff like this is whitewashed. Its appalling that she is so ashamed of them and has no contact with them. I’m British but I’m not blindly patriotic. Diana was the best thing that happened to that family.

  9. Feebee says:

    Sounds like two biddies who are (possibly rightly) still well pissed over the saintly image Diana holds with some especially after and maybe more so because of her death.

    The royal family couldn’t break Diana and remold her into what they wanted and needed. I guess Diana in turn probably behaved like a child at times and maybe as a total bitch. She did have a lot of public capital. But puhleeeese…. Charles was no victim at the hands of Diana. They weren’t suited for each other and the way they both behaved was a result of the utter stress the situation put on them, as a couple and individually.

  10. teehee says:

    If anything she was understandably pissed at Charles for fooling her in front of the world and using her to make heirs to the throne whilst wooing his ‘real’ love behind her back. So ok, I can see that, but besides that— take a look at any clip of Diana speaking and make your own conclusions.

  11. HH says:

    Without doubt, there were issues on both sides. Diana wasn’t innocent and neither was Charles. The Royal family and their posse must, however, concede the win in this narrative to Diana. She had the media upper-hand and she played the game better. She got burned once it got out of control and there was a complete loss of privacy, but she hit the ground running. With her tragic passing, people want to remember her in a good light. No interivew, book, etc. can turn the tide now.

  12. Dawn says:

    Well Diana was very young and I am sure it was all boring! I will buy the magazine and read it for myself as it does sound very interesting. In fact I buy anything that doesn’t feature a KrapTrashian on the cover or the inside, try it! It’s so refreshing.

  13. Harriet says:

    I’m inclined to believe them to an extent. She knew she had the side of the people and everyone knows how manipulative she was. I think originally they adored each other and were very happy but when things began to break down, Diana did turn her back on them and put them in a difficult light. Oh well. It ended badly. And I LOVE the Mountbattens- and the idea of these two ladies not caring any more!

    I just want to point out Lady Pamela Hicks is the mother of India HIcks who runs a blog- in which she writes about her mother, who happens to seem really lovely and from another world.

    • LAK says:

      i love India Hick’s blog.

      I read it for the tit bits about her mother. I always want to know about these real life historical characters especially of they are women.

      Also, from photo above, doesn’t she look like Dickie in a wig?! LOL. The resemblence is uncanny.

    • Jegede says:

      Funny isn’t it.
      She is beloved but I wonder if she actually like people when the cameras were not around especially women.
      Diana was not on speaking terms with any memebr of her family when she died, she spread malicious rumors about any woman who was at threat to her sainthood (Tiggy legge Bourke ‘s abortion rumors beacuse William and Harry like her started by he Saintly Diana)

      Diana was the third party in several marriages. E.g Oliver Hoare, James Gilby, Will Carling were married men she was banging.
      Hoare and Gilby’s wives kept schtum but Julia Carling publically called her out as a homewrecker. She had issues in her marriage this did not make her empathetic and stop her from causing misery to other women’s marriages. I wonder if the wives of the guys Diana banged over the years would ever consider getting together to do symapthetic interviews with Martin Bashir

  14. Sam says:

    It sounds to me like they are sort of incredulous that Diana didn’t “act” royal after her marriage. She still wanted to go to concerts, have fun, do “regular” things. It’s funny because those are the things that largely endeared her to most of the public – that’s why she was called “the People’s Princess.” I wonder what they think about William and Harry – who seemed to really enjoy the upbringing they got from their mother. Didn’t William discuss this in his latest interview, talking about how he wants George to have a childhood like he did (which was largely thanks to his mother)?

  15. davidbowie says:

    Those two old biddies need to eat a STFU sandwich…with watercress of course.

  16. Jaded says:

    What a couple of hateful old harridans. Diana was destroyed when she found out that Charles and Camilla were canoodling before C & D even got married. She wanted to pull the plug but her sister said “too late, your faces are already on tea cups and dish cloths” or something to that effect.

    Diana tried really hard to make that marriage work but as she said “there were 3 people in the marriage”. When the “Firm” shunned her she had to carve out her own life.

    Diana could be headstrong, manipulative and hysterical, but I believe her heart was always in the right place. As other posters are saying, both parties are usually at fault when a marriage breaks down and this is what happened with them.

  17. erin says:

    Diana was only 19 years old when she married Charles. Both were very very different in their personalities and interests- so it didn´t work out. Maybe Diana didn´t try to become more of a Windsor but I´m sure Charles didn´t try for her either. Both weren´t saints and Diana for sure knew how to use the press for her advantage. No one is perfect but please let this woman rest in peace!

  18. Tig says:

    News flash to these biddies- Diana is dead. Pretty vindictive bunch if they still can’t resist sticking a knife in.
    Every time I watch a replay of that wedding, all I can think of is a lamb being led to the slaughter. And if she matured into a manipulative woman who played the media, what choice did she have?

    • Perception says:

      Tig I’m in agreement with you. When people find out how hideous that family was, they would forgive her that and understand her more.

  19. mslewis says:

    I don’t particularly want to read the VF article, even though I believe everything they say, but I cannot wait to read Lady Pamela’s new book. She has led an amazing life and lived through a lot of history and I think the book would be a very good read. I’m going over to Amazon to see if I can pre-order.

  20. smee says:

    Yeah, it was totally some naive rich girl’s plot to marry herself off to that old man so she withhold wifely support.

    Those pricks deserve zero sympathy and I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if she was knocked off.

    I used to find VF entertaining, but it totally sucks now, esp. with looooong pieces that feature these types of …….

  21. Lia says:

    Charles chose a 19-year-old for his bride, and cheated on her to boot. She was still growing up. What did he expect?

  22. LaraD says:

    This sounds too much like evil Charles and Camilla’s friends trying to bash Diana. Of course Camilla need to bring Diana down so she can be lifted up. Diana can’t defend herself why can’t these so call Royals act royal instead of two-bit nasty thugs.

    • Florc says:

      Charles and Camilla had years and years and years to respond to Diana very openly lashing out at them. While Diana called the press and was more than willing to tell the world how much of a victim she was at Charles’s hand and how horrible he was in every way neither Charles nor Camilla struck back (and they certainly could have). They never spoke a bad word about her and took the abuse. They’re still together and seem very much in love.

      And it’s no secret Diana was mean spirited even as a child. The RF was not keen on what they saw of her behind closed doors. I wouldn’t think the best of a woman who told a party she was so happy for another woman’s miscarriage or making her step mom homeless while destroying all her property. But let’s remember the best and criticize those who say otherwise.

      • Sachi says:

        FLORC – Also the fact that Diana pushed her stepmother down the stairs and admitted it gave her satisfaction.

        Or the crank calls to the men she was pursuing even though she knew they were married. Ironic since she showed how awful Charles’s adultery was for her, yet had no problem inserting herself into other people’s marriages.

        She had a lot of issues and could be a very nasty person when crossed. She helped a lot of people and did a lot of good but that doesn’t erase the facts that she also gave many people grief.

        The thing is, she is dead and so can’t defend herself and it seems in bad taste to say anything ‘bad’ about her. Were she still alive, I wonder if the memories of her “saintly” image will have remained had people been more exposed to her history? The media today wouldn’t have been as kind to her.

      • Aeryn39 says:

        Thank you Florc!
        And I really don’t understand people saying having abandonment issues and having been cheated on is a justification for Diana having been a homewrecker herself.
        Furthermore, the whole “naive 19 year old” bit is ridiculous as well. She was an aristo girl just like the ones who turned down William’s proposals during his Kate breaks because they knew what the job entailed. George VI had to ask the Quuen Mum three times before she said yes – because she knew what the job of being a Royal wife entailed. It’s no big secret to us – how could it be to a Brit aristo Running I’m those circles?
        As for ladies in waiting – since when have they been a surprise? They’ve been accompanying the Queen everywhere for what, half a century and royal personages for how many hundreds of years before that? Plus, Diana was from that “set.” The 8th Earl Spencer had been an equerry for George VI and QEII. Charles had dated her older sister Jane. Sure Diana wasn’t the brightest but I refuse to believe she’s had no idea there would be rules and expectations going in. Anyone would know you just can’t keep being a Sloane Ranger after taking up occupancy at KP.
        I’m not trying to bash the dead. I’m bashing the revisionist historians trying too canonize a very flawed but also very being and beautiful woman. She did much good, but she also did great damage to both the Crown and to the families of the men she trifiled with. Fine. Let her be now.

      • Harriet says:

        Team Aeryn39 and FLORC on this one

      • Florc says:

        Agree with pretty much all of it! Well said ladies!

        Diana was 19 and yes ran in those circles. What makes me sympathize a little is she was in a whirlwind courtship! Being whisked off to new romantic retreats and to be courted in such a manner can make many forget what responsibilities may be involved. The heart takes over and the head is ignored. Yes, Diana knew and she wasn’t all that naive. Before the wedding she knew of Camilla, but had to go through with the wedding. It was a done deal. To leave that soon would have embarrassed her and her family endlessly. And yea. The infidelity is no excuse for either side. Diana took it a step further than Charles and harassed her lover’s wives with threatening late night phone calls or dialing and hanging up when a wife answered at all hours of the night..

        Diana’s step mom to the best of my knowledge did nothing all that bad to her to deserve that. She simply married their mother’s ex husband and wasn’t too keen if not flat out afraid of her step daughter that was trying to cause her physical harm.

        Diana did so much good. I’m not trying to say otherwise. I just want the facts out there when people talk about how perfect she was. She was a complicated person and we shouldn’t forget that made her unique, beautiful, and spiteful and rotten.

    • Tara says:

      Diana was deeply flawed and I suspect bipolar but history will and should shine a clear light on her as a person and a royal.
      She absolutely had no idea what she was getting into. She was an aristocrat but raised in a devastatingly broken home. She was needy and emotional with flashes of a hot temper and a tendency to stay holed up in her room reading stacks of romance novels. She was not an intellectual on any level and was even more innocent than people imagined once they got to know her. She did not have much of an idea of what palace intrigue really involved. While other girls in her social class were hitting the nightclubs, buying couture wardrobes and spending weekends in Gstaad with boyfriends Diana was cooking spaghetti dinners for flatmates and curling up with Barbara Cartland novels and ice cream. She can not be blamed for not knowing that Charles was not obliged to equate love with marriage and behave accordingly. The palace expected Diana to turn a blind eye to Charles and Camilla and just get on with it.
      There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to erase the fact that Charles and Camilla completely crushed Diana and her hopes for her marriage.
      The way Diana handled that pain and the grief she inflicted on others can not be whitewashed away either. But its all in the past and those crones should have kept it there.

      • mayamae says:

        I would imagine that the experience of Diana is the main reason they’ve given up on virginity in a royal bride.

        Surely VF only did this interview with the expectation there would be some good Diana bashing.

        Since these ladies have no problem bashing the dead, are they equally accepting of public attacks upon their father?

      • Jaded says:

        @ Tara – well said, agree totally. I’m old enough to have witnessed the courtship, marriage and subsequent fall-out of their marriage. I believe that if Charles had truly loved her and entered into the marriage as a full, loving and supportive partner, Diana would have become a much different person. It was having to deal with his abdication as a husband that changed her from a loving, hopeful young woman into a scheming, manipulative train-wreck. She learned at a very young age from what was surrounding her in those days – deceit, emotional neglect and adultery.

  23. Relli says:

    Hahahahaha, I love old lady shade!

    I think I am goign to try and use “jive concert” in a sentence this week.

  24. Suze says:

    Well this should unleash a shitstorm.

    There’s probably a grain of truth in this, but Charles was also spiteful and unkind.

    And For heavens sake, I am sure her sons won’t appreciate reading this!

  25. Nicolette says:

    Diana was everything this family is not, and that’s why the public adored her. All these years after her death and they still can’t hide the hate. Pathetic.

    • Cazzee says:

      My first thought upon reading what these two spiteful old women had to say about Diana was:

      “They’re just jealous, because they’re ugly and she was so pretty.”

      Money can buy a lot of things, but you can’t buy sweet, and you can’t buy pretty. Diana was both of these things, people loved her for it, and those two old hags are still jealous to this very day.

  26. Sugar says:

    jive concert ugh now I see these two old biddies as they have been called twerking in the privacy of their own dance room to the beegees…ready sis? Ready! jA jA jA jive talking

  27. Jayna says:

    Spare me. He was madly in love with someone else. Their honeymoon told it all. She was young and inexperienced when she married a much older man that was basically forced into marrying her and who then had to deal with the fact that his wife had become the adored one, which must have been a nightmare for him. She felt isolated. And this old lady is whining about how Diana treated him, didn’t pump him up enough? LOL What a crock.

  28. OhDear says:

    I’m not a Diana fan, but the woman is dead and has been for quite some time. I get that these women don’t give a fuck but it’s been how long now? They need to just let go.

  29. Susei says:

    I believe these two old bitchy ladies. Sounds like the normal clash of generations.

    Diana was not a fully grown up woman when she married. She was a young cute dreamer and had absolutely nothing in common with Charles and he was in love with another woman. Diana wanted fun and love and not rules. Of course she was bitchy to the “traditionalists” and i bet they were bitchy and “know-all” to Diana.

  30. Kate says:

    I always find it funny how people always bring up Charles’s cheating. Are people really that naive? Of course he had mistresses (yes, plural, not just Camilla), it’s practically mandated. Hell, the handful of Kings and Princes throughout history who didn’t screw around with other women were gay, asexual or they died before they hit puberty! Even now the Royals feed the odd story to the press about transgressions, just to make the point that the men in the family are straight and up to the task. NOT having a mistress would be a problem.

    Diana wasn’t an intelligent woman, but she wasn’t stupid enough to believe Charles was ever going to be faithful to her. She was young and childish when they married, but she wasn’t an innocent. She’d seen plenty, she knew what she was signing up for. The white-washing after her death has been amazing. When she was alive it was viewed so differently. People hated Camilla because she ruined the escapist fantasy, they laughed at Charles, but people were also rolling their eyes at Diana’s grabs for sympathy.

    Charles and Diana are/were extremely screwed up people. Charles found happiness, Diana’s life continued to grow increasingly messy, right up until she passed away. She made horrendous choices all her life, Charles wasn’t even her biggest mistake.

    • LAK says:

      Well said.

    • Jegede says:

      Well Said

    • Aeryn39 says:


    • rudy says:

      so, this means William has already started with the mistresses?

    • St says:

      Thank you. It’s always fun to read about “Saint naive poor 19 years old Diana and evil monster Charles”. Charles did found happiness and lives quetly and without scandals. While Diana was still in tabloids with her every step and every man. She cried too much to be victim and have love and support of british people.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Don’t you think that perhaps Charles life wasn’t covered as much in the tabloids because people didn’t care about him? That perhaps her being featured in the tabs was a reflection of her popularity and therefore there was more interest in her?

      • LAK says:

        Tiffany:) Diana was known to call up reporters to give them exclusives eg her final summer, before the big Dodi reveal, she didn’t have so many reporters or paps following her in the south of France initially, but she went up to one of them and promised ‘ a big surprise’ which arrived in the form of snatched pap pics of her and Dodi. That drew tonnes of paps and reporters to the south of France to cover her which eventually ended the way it did.

        It has subsequently become public knowledge that she arranged for one pap to take those initial photos of her and Dodi.

        So in as much as Charles and Diana both drew media reports, Diana was active in drawing them to herself. The very same thing we accuse most famewhores of doing.

    • bobbiesue says:

      Wow, judging from your attitude what does your life look like?!

    • Ennie says:

      Probably the notion of having that mistress, for a long time, since much before her time, let alone, apparently inferior in age, looks and pedigree was too much for Diana.
      Of course Camilla was right for Charles, but a lover like that, who absorbed Carles so much, running in his circles, was something Diana could not manage.

  31. MademoiselleRose says:

    I’ll never feel sorry for Charles after what he pulled on Diana. She was a young girl who went into that marriage thinking she was in love with her Prince and that sh*thead never felt anything for her, was schtooping his mistress the whole time, before and after, and treated her with absolute contempt when she had the colossal gall to be popular. I’ve always thought she was a saint to not say anything for years and years before she finally cracked it, quite spectacularly.

    If I were trapped in a loveless marriage like hers, I would have looked for love elsewhere too. He certainly never had any intention of living up to his vows.

    She was no saint, but she was a hell of a lot nicer than I’d have been in that situation. That family treated her like crap and it’s not like she could just go ask for a divorce. Sure she finally received her freedom, but look at the ruckus that had to be kicked up before it happened.

    It’s such a shame she never got to have a life after all that. It would be fascinating to see where she would be now if she were still alive, whether she would have found some happiness

    • Mel says:

      I agree that being in a loveless marriage – if that’s what it was (amazingly, it IS possible to love more than one person at a time) – mustn’t have been much fun, for either of them. If he was going to be devoted to Camilla, Charles shouldn’t have married anyone else, no matter what mummy (or, especially, daddy) said.

      However, there is overwhelming evidence that Diana – may she rest in peace – must have been very difficult to live with, and not above physical violence. I for one, find it appalling that – as an example – she whacked Charles on the head with his Bible while he was praying at the foot of their bed. (Funny? Maybe. Not for him, I am sure.)

      She was far more physically dangerous to Raine, her father’s second wife, whom she pushed – from behind – down a flight of stairs.

      And she was something of a stalker, witness the infamous phone calls to her (married) alleged lover, Oliver Hoare’s home – calls that, when they were traced back to Buckingham Palace, she blamed on young William, of all people.

      She found herself in painful circumstances, yes – many people do (and without the cushioning of money and privilege). But there is no doubt that she must have been very difficult to live with, unless you were willing to be at her beck and call at all times.

      Having said that… may she rest in peace.

  32. MyLittlePony says:

    I assume the C&C issue was pretty much common knowledge among the upper class in those days. It is also pretty much a fact that men of that calibre (let alone princes) usually have mistresses sooner or later. Usually sooner. However, what truly amazes me that Diana kind of projected the image that all this (or even a possibility of smth like this) was completely alien to her, and that she was thus severely betrayed. Knowing her background (do not forget that she was Lady Diana Spencer), my personal view is that she should have known better. And yes, I think she should have despite her very young age. Had she been a commoner like , say, Waity, I might hold a different view.

  33. mercy says:

    Will they ever let this poor woman rest in peace? Diana was what, 19 when she entered this relationship? And *he* was the one who needed support? Give me a break. The behavour they describe is that of a young girl, but she *was* a young girl. She was essentially hired to bear the royal heirs, which she did. It was the royal family who sold their relationship as a great love story. Everyone would have been better off if they had supported his relationship with Camilla.

  34. Green Eyes says:

    Money can’t buy you class, it seems connected to Royalty cannot either. For someone claiming Diana didn’t want to learn about the etiquette & all being Royalty entails. Think they need a refresher…pretty sure it’s not polite to speak ill of those who are gone & cannot defend themselves, especially for profit. They sound rather bitter & jealous of both Diana and the memory/legacy of Diana. Just very uncouth.

    • Florc says:

      Green Eyes
      But then we wouldn’t images as 1 poster put of Diana at some Jive concert with a bunch of landmines and HIV+ children! I mean that image in the most light hearted manner of course!

      If no body talked about the poor judgement shown behind closed doors how we view those in charge or how history reflects the motives of others would be drastically different and history would repeat itself since we only had an altered version.

  35. someone says:

    Unless you’ve lived with someone who has Borderline Personality Disorder (as many experts have suggested Diana had) you can not imagine the drama you will endure. Simple things turn into never ending drama. Google it if you want to learn more. Yes Diana was beautiful and caring. She did much to bring awareness to the causes she supported. Still, she was all about the drama. William and Harry probably remember every negative thing she repeatedly said about their father to them. They know how vindictive she was about him. This interview won’t be anything new. Any Mom who locks herself in a bathroom and cries to her children about their father treating her horribly while her son passes her kleenex under the door – well I suspect the kids have a pretty good understanding of her mental issues. You know they loved her completely and miss her terribly, but they were under no illusions that their mother was a saint.

  36. HK9 says:

    …hmmmm sounds like someone’s trust fund is running out. I guess this is what famewhoring looks like when you’re a senior. If this is an example of an English “Lady” you can keep it.

    For God’s sake just let it go.

  37. LAK says:

    Whether these ladies are taking sides or not, they are not saying anything no one wasn’t saying when Diana was alive.

    Since they are closely related to the Royal family and brought up in similar manner, they are bound to take their side.

    However, it doesn’t make it entirely wrong especially since they know the people in the drama on a personal level. It’s their version of events from the Royal family perspective just as we have heard other versions of the same events from Diana’s perspective. If you read Margaret Rhodes’s biography, she takes the same view. She is The Queen’s cousin and was LIW to QM and The Queen.

    Further, what they are saying, albight from their royal family POV, isn’t different from what James Whitaker, who knew and followed Diana until she died, said in her obituary which i will leave here.

    • someone says:

      Great article LAK, I hadn’t seen this before. I think the sentence from it that summarizes their marriage the best is “Both partners came to their marriage in need of warmth and affection, but readier to receive than to give.”

      • LAK says:

        James Whitaker RIP, also followed William and Kate closely. His verdict was that Kate wasn’t right for the royal family and that William loved Kate, but wasn’t ‘in love’ with her.

        We’ll see if time proves him right or wrong.

    • Aeryn39 says:

      @LAK Very well said and thank you for the link

  38. Anon says:

    I dare say these old ladies are trying to deflect away, just as the death of Princess Di might have deflected the crimes of many against innocent children. Truth is there, look for it…hear it.
    Stop pedophilia around the globe.

  39. stinky says:

    the photo really says it all, does it not?

  40. lilibet1 says:

    I was told some time ago by a friend who’s old pub landlord (yes really!) met Charles & Diana a number of times that his taking on the pair was that Charles was a lovely, sociable and warm man whereas Diana was cold and snobbish. Just saying!

    • HK9 says:

      You know it’s not the first time I’ve heard that people who have met Charles found him to be warm and sociable with a great sense of fun & humour.

      He really did get a bad reputation from the mess that was his marriage & divorce. Charles & Diana were fallible people who tried to make their marriage work and it failed.

      It’s time to let sleeping dogs lie where this is concerned and move on. There is nothing to be gained from trotting out this old information yet again.

      • Florc says:

        Much like how Diana’s death gets a new investigation every few years. I agree. It’s time to let it go unless some new info is out. Not just old info repackaged.

    • Ennie says:

      Yeah, from the get go he was making his marriage work, his answer “whatever love is” or something like that, at their engagement announcement was ver funny, warm, and nice, told in front of his bride to the world via international outlets.
      Really nice.I wiuld have run to the hills, but They were bound by duty to their families, anyway, he had the upper hand, he had the experience, the power, and already had a lover by his side, ready to jump to him, her husband was even in agreement to this. Lonely he was not, unlike Diana, who could not trust anyone.
      What a sad coming of age for her, on the ouside being loved and lonely in the palace, spies around. She became a creature that tried to be on the same level as an ientire institution.
      Of course it was hardly going to end well.
      Imagine Masako from Japan, who was already a cultured and well traveled young adult within the court.
      She supposedly has a very lóving and understanding husband and still she has suffered quite a lot during her life as a consort of a crown price in an outdated court.
      Even as many take against Diana, she was a product of her environment, and she had the most to lose in everyway.

      • LAK says:

        I hate the misconception that the quote ‘whatever love means’ has been given especially because;

        1. it’s taken out of context. It’s the last 25secs of a 10min interview in which he talks lovingly about her and the life he wants with her. He mentions the house he has bought for them to live in (Highgrove), they are both smiley, affectionate and joshing each other throughout, and his hands are stroking her hands throughout. The last 25secs of the interview do not seem odd taken with the entire interview, but they do seem odd taken in isolation.

        2. It is the way Charles talks when he is trying to sound intelligently philosophical. What does love mean to anyone? Pretty sure everyone on this board would come up with a different answer.

        3. It was reinterpreted by the wronged party to mean something different AFTER she decided that she had been wronged. She admitted almost a decade later to Andrew Morton, when she was out to get the RF, that ON REFLECTION, that comment was the pinpoint of his lack of love…..funny she didn’t feel that way for a good 5-10yrs.

        4. No one watching entire interview, which is available on youtube can say that he was cold, malicious or deliberate when he made this remark.

        ….but it’s remarkable how it has been misconstrued and followed him.

      • Ennie says:

        As a young woman I recall this quote and theinterview, not because Diana or her “team” told me to. This I remember from a long time. And it cannot be denied that even if he was “in love”, it was a very open definition of it, enough to carry around cherished memories of a married lover who had been close to the bride for her (their?) own purposes.
        What a nerve. I would have said that was not only missing a sensitivity chip, to quote a famous interview, but the whole set of them. I understand that Charles was a fragile man, but what a sad situation they all put themselves in. They probably thought that Diana would keep being a docile personality, except Diana who faced this new realityand had to grow fast in the image of those around her, a hypocrite society. Like these older ladies’ family which has a colorful past, to say the least, but probably tried to keep appearances.
        At least William got to choose whomever he wanted, apparently. harry had less pressure anyway, as the second son.

      • Tara says:

        Charles said exactly what he was thinking and it was a horrible, bonehead comment. Period.

      • LAK says:

        I remember this quote too from when I was a kid and all the stories about Charles being cold, unfeeling husband started.

        As an adult, i’ve looked at that interview again to be clear about the quote.

        Given that quote’s significance, I fully expected a similarly cold interview, and the entire 10min interview isn’t like that.

        The quote isn’t remarkable in it’s original context, but with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what really happened with their marriage and helpful pointers from Diana, it took on a life of it’s own.

      • Ennie says:

        LAK, you are very knowledgeable, but even if we as plain civilians form scattered countries (not even Anglo, in my case) do not seem to know the whole story, you keep referring to theaspect of the “love” interview and defending Charles case, but You leave alone other aspects of comments. What is your take on other things mentioned in comments like mine or others?

      • LAK says:

        Ennie – my comment was for that quote and it’s context ONLY.

        In terms of the general debate, I think it was doomed to fail simply because they had nothing in common. Most arranged marriages have common ground on which to build a foundation. This one did not. It makes no difference whether he had mistresses or not, whether they loved each other or not.

        They met only 13 times prior to their wedding. Classic case of rushing into a supposed love marriage without knowing the other person and regreting it almost instantaneously.

        I agree with your assessment that at 19, with no life experience, Diana was ill equipped to handle the situation. And her actions have to be viewed via that prism.

        I also firmly believe that no 32yr old should be dating, and marrying a 19yr old. And when you add the special ‘royalty’ circumstances, disaster!!!

        On a positive note, after the divorce, in her final year, CD became friends again. Not necessarily BFFS, but enough to wish each other well. When she died, he genuinely mourned. He also wore his wedding ring again, until the day he proposed to Camilla. That makes me think that he loved Diana though perhaps not in the way she wanted.

      • Suze says:

        It’s a radical notion, but I agree that Charles and Diana’s marriage failed because of a lack of common ground.

        Even if there had been no affairs (on either side), even if they hadn’t been royal and public, those two would never have succeeded at marriage. Too different. Both way too needy.

  41. bettyrose says:

    A 20 year old wanted to have fun??

  42. DeltaJuliet says:

    Well these two looks like they could stand to go to a jive concert or two. The look like a couple of fun sponges.

  43. Joy says:

    Can we discuss the hair of the lady on the left? $10 says she uses spray starch on it.

  44. AllyUK says:

    This reads like a very poor attempt to even the balance, Diana was and still is seen as the ‘victim’ of their marriage breakdown even before her death.

    I doubt the public will ever know the whole story. I liked Diana but I also like Charles. I like that he cares about our planet and he has a great sense of humour.

  45. PrincessHeart says:

    I would LOVE to know what these ladies think of the work-shy Waity Katie!!

    • HK9 says:

      Well since these “ladies” seem to be in the mood to roll out everyone’s business, if you stay tuned I’m sure they’ll tell the world soon.

    • mayamae says:

      I’m sure they will be more than happy to share their opinions with VF – after Kate is dead of course.

  46. Hello says:

    Perhaps Lady Pamela is still upset that Prince Charles didn’t marry her niece, Lady Amanda Knatchbull.

  47. Bridget says:

    Sometimes it’s funny to read all the comments about how wonderful and amazing Diana was, because when she was alive I swear that woman kept an entire tabloid industry alive. The DRAMA. It was constant and it was epic. That was part of what made her charity work (especially the high profile stuff in the years before she died) so notable, because here was this woman who was like an episode of Dynasty come to life, in all of the landmine safety gear. Saintly she was not. In fact I always just assumed that William made Kate wait so long specifically because his mom (and his parent’s marriage) was such an epic and embarrasing mess that he wanted to be 100 percent committed (I’m not saying that it makes it okay to string Kate along while he dates around to ‘make sure’).

    • someone says:

      I’ve often wondered if what draws William to Kate and her family is the absolute lack of drama in their lives.

      • Bridget says:

        He managed to marry someone that is in many ways the opposite of his mother: long, long courtship, happy to live by his wishes, pretty drama-free, and while an attractive royal bride in her position would pretty much be guaranteed to be a star, she’s not eclipsing him the way Di eclipsed Charles.

      • Suze says:

        Yes, Kate is very much the anti-Diana. And I think William likes it that way.

    • LAK says:

      I am 100% sure that he married or even took up with Kate precisely due to the lack of drama. No matter what is thrown at her, there will never be drama, not even when he takes up mistresses.

      He was never happy with the drama his mother attracted and sadly, according to Paul Burrell, the last conversation they had was an argument where he was telling her off for being such a drama queen and encouraging the paps, and the attendant coverage of her holiday.

  48. bored_01 says:

    Well the royals are real people behind the glamour.. of course they have feelings and personalities that are not completely black and white. The ladies are in the family. One supposes they have a right to thier own opinions.

  49. St says:

    I don’t know. I never liked Diana too. She too… I don’t know. They were portraying her too much as saint. And she felt like it. There was always Saint Diana in our faces every day. I kind of agree with those women. I also felt something like this about Diana even when she was alive. I remember I felt sorry for Charles.

    And seriously – she did portray royal family as some evil cold monsters. Everyone hated them because of Diana. And so many years past and never did Charles or Queen looked like those cold monsters that Diana portrayed them. I also respect that about Charles, that he loved Camilla for so many years and then he married her despite everything and they live very quiet and without scandals.

  50. eliza says:

    Lovely harpies bitching about a dead woman. As if we thought Diana was above being human. She was 19 and thrust into an adult wor ld. Heaven forbid she would want to do fun things.

    As if Charles was some weak man, beaten down by the nasty beast Diana. The Royals and their posh friends are certainly are no strangers to bullying and bad behavior themselves.

    Let Diana in peace for God’s sake.

    • mayamae says:

      They remind me a little of Big Edie and Little Edie – if they hadn’t squandered all their money.

  51. bobbiesue says:

    I think it is grossly unconscionable and lacking in any taste to speak ill of a beloved woman who is no longer here to defend herself. Wait long enough…and a new heir is born and we all sort of… forget her and then BASH her? SHAME on these cantankerous old witches.
    Yes, I’m one of the general public who grew up loving and adoring Diana. LEAVE HER MEMORY BE.

  52. Tiffany :) says:

    Those blue socks with the loafers are AWFUL.

    I think what they are saying is pretty classless. They are simply using a dead woman to promote themselves.

  53. MisJes says:

    Sigh, I can’t even tackle comments on Diana posts anymore. It irks me that the Diana-loonies are so very delusional about their idol. Yes, she did some lovely, thoughtful and charitable things throughout her life. But, she did some terrible, manipulative and classless things as well. Accept this already!

    And for those dismissing these ladies as cranky old witches, don’t forget that this is their family, not yours. You know only what the media puts out there. It is possible there is truth to their accusations, Lord knows many, many other people throughout the years have also revealed Diana for her true self.

    • Stanhope says:

      Brilliant NOT. Are you blonde rich loved by the world? The prosecution rests.

    • Tara says:

      I dont dismiss the legitimacy of the sisters’ observations about the late Diana. I condemn the utter classless impropriety of it. As royals and insiders you would think someone of their breeding would politely decline to speak ill of the long departed ex-wife of a newly married younger relation. If Di hadnt been such a celebrity those ladies would never even have mentioned her – hypocritical. Besides they are not qualified to speculate on how or why Charles and Diana failed to meet one another’s needs.
      You dont have to be a Diana fan or deteactor to be a Diana realist. And any realist can see that this is a bit much of these old ladies sat this point. Not to even mention how Wills and Harry would feel. Pimping out the past to sell a book??

    • St says:

      Yeah. I like how every second comment has to mention that “Diana was just 19 years old, you cruel people”. I feel like it should be read: “She was 13 years old kid who was sold to slavery to royal house to evil Prince Charing and his cruel mother Fairy Godmother”… That’d the vibe I have after reading all those comments about poor naive 19 years old Diana.

      She was 20 years old when she married Charles. She was adult person. She had an affair with James Hewitt while she was married. She was the one who was trashing Charles and royal family publicly everywhere. They did not. So please. Stop with the Saint Diana stuff.

      She just seemed like a cold person to me always. I could really see this from Charles perspective. He was forced to marry and have heir too. He should have marry person who was more suitable and not the one he loved. And then Diana was always cold and hated him and his royal stuff. And probably was always looking at them like they were some robots or cold monsters. None of them was happy in that marriage. Only she was the one to wash her dirty laundry in public. No wonder media went even more crazy about her.

      But as Jolie-Pitt proved – when celebrity wants to disappear from public then they CAN. Jolie-Pitts and their kids can vanish for MONTHS without being papped. And it’s not like they live in cave. They just don’t get papped.

      • Ennie says:

        I think that Diana, probably tried to get leverage and a bit of power to yield against the Royal institution by dedicating to her charities and being in the public eye was what she thought it was a good move, like with Kartie Holmes against the Scientology cult.
        If she had retired of the public eye, she would have been doing what the royal family wanted, and she probably wanted to feel loved in the way she was as the former consort PoW. She was very very famous and did very nice things, but she was paying the price of her new job with the growing media monster that ate her.
        She knew part of her power came from being famous, but she died because of it.
        It is a sad story indeed. I am not a blind Diana fanatic, she did not get to live an ideal life and she really needed someone, like a good mother to talk to and guide her when things became too ich formher in her married life, in her later love life, in many things. I wish she could have grown older and met her grandchild.

  54. Lucky Charm says:

    Just my opinion, but I don’t care how much you are “around” the Royal Family, and “should know what you are getting into”, even if your older sister dated the Prince…at 19 years old you are still young and naive enough to think that you will get your happily ever after when you marry your Prince. Life is full of optimism and promises yet to be fulfilled at that age. For a teenager pretty much left on her own to suddenly be subjected to strict rules and regulations on how to eat, dress, act, think, yes, it can be confining and you would resist doing it. What 20 year old wouldn’t rather go to a club than take etiquette classes for hours? I have no illusions that she was perfect, but let’s be realistic here. She was a teenager who only met her future husband less than a handful of times before getting engaged a few months later, and then becoming a wife and mother within a year. That’s a lot on a young woman’s plate, and do it all in the public eye.

    I was 19 once, and there was no way that I would have been able to handle, with grace, dignity and tact, what was expected of Diana. And I would most definitely, at that age, have expected my much older husband to help me navigate through the waters he’s been in since birth. It’s normal for a younger person to look up to the older person for help and guidance.

    Sitting down and closing my mouth now. :)

    • Tara says:

      Beautifully and sympathetically stated.

    • Sarah says:

      This. She was so freaking young. These old cranky ladies are basically condemning her for wanting to keep some of her independence. What a terrible crime.

    • judyjudyjudy says:

      But you forget that Diana lived around the royals for years and came from one of the most aristocratic families in England. They have been inter marrying over there for years just for the kiddies. Nothing new. She just didnt have any self discipline to study and learn the job beyond the fun part(whatever that was?) and both families made a huge error in putting these two together. Charles barely knew her and she pretended to be other than she was and they both suffered for it.

      I blame the press that wanted a star and Prince Phillip for telling Charles he could do whatever he wanted after kids and 5 years. Phillip didnt get how times had changed and that Diana was never going to just shut up while Charles went elsehwere.

  55. Stanhope says:

    These german trash heifers repurposed as English aristocracy should crawl back in the cave where they keep the heads of Ann Bolyne and Catherine of Aragone. Let us not forget Diana’s blood was more aristocratic than the queen bitch herself. I hope to see the day when William is king that he restores the HRH on his Mother and moves her where the Royal are buried.

    • Tara says:

      Westminster? It is beautiful but I wonder if her family would be comfortable visiting her there. Lovely thought though.

    • Suze says:

      Oh heavens. I’m sure both William and Harry prefer having their mother buried privately where they can visit her in peace.

      These sisters should have kept their crazy mouths shut and left Diana’s memory in peace, as well. Although now at least I have added the phrase “jive concert” to my lexicon, so there’s that to the good.

      Catherine of Aragon wasn’t beheaded by the way, but what the heck, let’s pretend she was. Facts have been scattered to the wind in the hysteria on this thread.

      • judyjudyjudy says:

        I have a feeling more and more stories are going to come out that do not sugar coat our dear Diana. She was a complex person and not everybody thought well of her. But these ladies have zero to be afraid of from anybody and can say whatever they please about her. Nobody can touch them.

    • Tara says:

      Lol @suze

    • Flower says:

      You are of course discounting the fact that there is a very good case for Diana not actually being the natural daughter of Earl Spencer but James Goldsmith . If that is true Diana has no royal blood.

  56. bw says:

    I believe this
    but I also think Charles has lots of secrets….sexually
    and that’s why Will is keeping his family away from him

    I think we’ll see the in-laws at the forefront of this monarchy

  57. Tara says:

    Also I hope these old birds dont think they are doing Charles any favors. He did not hate Diana and did grieve when she died, whatever else transpired between them they were co-parents and human beings. He has to be annoyed at sonething as unnecessary as this if for no other reason than the pain it could bring his children.

    • Suze says:


      Doesn’t do anyone any favors – regardless of what you think of Charles or Diana or the royal family.

  58. Flower says:

    Street angel, house devil. Many who knew her have said so.

  59. Sarah says:

    Oh no, she wanted to listen to her music!! Horrors. Please.

  60. Emma says:

    I believe them. I’ve actually always had that opinion of Diana. She’s pretty and poised and therefore allowed to get away with everything and got all the sympathy, while he was not as attractive so was immediately cast as the villain although it was obvious he’s a good person.

  61. homegrrrrl says:

    Yes, Diana was “good with the peasants”
    Her disco-ing was purely anthropological.
    She wanted to be the helpful old broad on the plane who could say
    “Excuse me, I speak Jive”.

  62. Crackberry says:

    “That said, you can’t really expect these ladies (who are family) not to “take sides”… If anything random people on the street taking Diana’s side are worse.”


  63. raincoaster says:

    The Mountbatten Sisters are part of the circle who enabled the Charles-Camilla affair. Of COURSE they hate Diana.

  64. Jennifer says:

    Whatever. Diana was not perfect because no one is. But the majority of people could careless about her personal problems. It was all about the public image. And based on her public image she came off as a caring and likable woman. Isn’t that what the royal family and any other celebs shoot for? People can say what they want about her but she made the royals interesting. She brought life to that stuck up British family. I do believe from day 1 she knew about charles sleeping around with other women though.

    This is the impact and legacy Diana has left. She is still relevant and people continue to bring her up every chance they get. The press even compare her to Kate, and will continue to compare her to any princess in the near future.

  65. Evie says:

    I always got the vibe that she was a sensitive, kind and generous person, but also moody as hell. Like maybe she had an underlying personality disorder and that’s why she always seemed so tortured, vulnerable, and unstable. Not only that, but imagine having to deal with an emotionally unavailable husband who constantly cheated on her, boring stuffy palace life, stone cold queen Elizabeth who clearly didn’t like her, and having to pretend to be happy because the press was always watching.

  66. Evie Rose says:

    I always got the vibe that she was a sensitive, kind and generous person, but also moody as hell. Like maybe she had an underlying personality disorder and that’s why she always seemed so tortured, vulnerable, and unstable. Not only that, but imagine having to deal with an emotionally unavailable husband who constantly cheated on her, boring stuffy palace life, stone cold queen Elizabeth who clearly didn’t like her, and having to pretend to be happy because the press was always watching.

    • judyjudyjudy says:

      her food disorders were/are serious issues. Eating and vomiting for years is not some simple vanity thing – it points to serious problems that are internal emotionally drive i.e. mental disturbance.
      It is really sad stuff.

  67. judyjudyjudy says:

    the book sounds great – I read about it already in another online magazine and intend to read it. These people lived an important part of history and there are plenty of people who care what they have to say.

  68. RHONYC says:

    DEAD @ ‘jive concert’.

    these two saw-dusted filled punannies need not 2 seats but 2 plots!

    Charles ‘The Victim’…that’s f*cking rich. he’s ‘BLOSSOMED’ again???

    stmfd & stmfu. :roll: