Prince Charles only liked to have sex once every three weeks, according to Diana

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visit the Sandringham Flower Show

Here are some photos of Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, out and about at the Sandringham Flower Show last week. I think this is like the third flower show Charles and Camilla have attended in just the past month? That’s the way it feels, in any case. Camilla wore the royal trend of the year, polka dots, which… I’m fine with, on Camilla in particular. I actually think that Camilla’s style is pretty great these days – she’s not looking to be a fashion plate, but she always looks appropriate for her age and for the occasion, and she knows what’s flattering.

Meanwhile, because this is The Summer of Princess Diana, media outlets are still trying to discover new information about the late princess. In the early 1990s, Diana was working with a voice coach to improve her public speaking and her confidence. The voice coach, Peter Settelen, taped these sessions, which were part-coaching and part-therapy. Diana would often just sit there and talk to Settelen about her life, her marriage, etc. Those tapes were given to Diana, and then Paul Burrell kept them after Diana’s passing, then after that mess (with Burrell’s trial), the tapes were given to Settelen, who promptly sold them. You can read more about the background of the tapes here. In the tapes, Diana revealed some stuff about her sex life with Charles:

In one of the most controversial sections of the tapes, Diana reportedly talks about her sex life with Charles. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, she says of her sex life with the prince “there was never a requirement for it from him.”

“He used to see his lady once every three weeks before we got married.”

Diana also talks about going to the queen to talk about Charles, saying: “I went to the top lady and I’m sobbing. And I said, ‘What do I do?’ (The queen) said, ‘I don’t know—Charles is hopeless.’”

[From The Daily Beast]

I always thought that Charles and Camilla had a passionate relationship which was physical as well as emotional. But it’s probably true that Camilla and Charles only saw each other or slept together once every three weeks after she got married to Andrew Parker Bowles, and then after Charles got married to Diana. So… Charles never needed sex all that often, not even when he and Diana were first married. She always said he brought a stack of books on their honeymoon. How disappointing!

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visit the Sandringham Flower Show

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visit the Sandringham Flower Show

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

93 Responses to “Prince Charles only liked to have sex once every three weeks, according to Diana”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. PIa says:

    Damn…I feel for Harry and William now that all this old gossip is re-surfacing.

    • Megan says:

      I’m sure it was horribly uncomfortable and embarrassing for them as children. I feel bad that they have to relive all that pain.

    • Imqrious2 says:

      Who wants to hear this about their parents??! TMI. I do feel for William and Harry. As for that POS Charles, he just used a young girl for breeding, and then threw her away. Hope there’s a special place in hell for him.

      And for God’s sake, this woman has been dead TWENTY YEARS- STOP TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF HER BACK!! (Looking at that voice coach and tv channel(s)).

  2. KBeth says:

    It’s really gross that this information is being divulged.

    • LAK says:

      Diana was horrendously indiscreet, and relied on her connections with various editors to keep this information on lock and key.

      Yet she betrayed their protection by including this information in her ghostwritten biography, so we all know TMI about their sex life, and nothing on these tapes is new information.

      These tapes are the second set of tapes already aired, and like the first set of tapes, this is the second airing of the tapes.

      Btw, they are also on youtube where they have been for years.

      • Rae says:

        Agreed with @lak

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        Yes, but, Channel 4 or whoever has the choice of airing the tapes or not. I had no idea those tapes existed until maybe two days ago. Maybe so did many other people. As far as I am concerned Channel 4 is exploiting Diana’s image. Vile.

        I find it really weird/pervert that Diana shared such private information with a *voice coach*. She could have done some video diaries if she really wanted to reveal such personal information.

        I feel really sorry for W and H. They don’t deserve this. I would feel sorry for Charles but he cheated and humiliated her big time.

      • LAK says:

        Pumpkin: it’s too late. NBC did a prime time documentary on these tapes, included the footage from the tapes in 2004. Narrated by Anne Curry.

        That’s how they ended up on youtube.

        Channel 4 could be re-airing the original documentary and simply cutting out Anne Curry’s VO and section presentation bits.

        Further, anyone who has a copy of Diana her true story written by Andrew Morton will already be privy to these details because she included them in the tapes she recorded for him. Those tapes were aired after her death. transcripts are available online.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        I understand that @LAK. But even if the tapes have already been aired, can be found on YT, then her biography, I don’t see why Channel 4 would “resurrect” this material. But that’s just me.

      • LAK says:

        The media has never tired of Diana. The express has rarely gone a week without writing an article about her. The media was looking for an excuse to reignite their love affair with Diana. She’s still a ratings winner.

        And Channel 4 has a history of morally questionable programming especially if there is a chance it can damage establishment figures.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @LAK – second all that. And would add that Diana had a reputation as a liar even at school as a kid – it can be a problem with narcissists, who often believe their own lies, which I think she definitely was. So, i wouldn’t take as gospel anything she says about Charles, discreetly or otherwise. She had a huge investment in discrediting him. I wouldn’t blame either son for never marrying, although of course William had to.

      • Carrie says:

        Agree. She really was “horrendously indiscreet”. I was thinking on this the other day, in light of all the regurgitated Diana news. She was actually masterfully manipulative. The story about her knowing the real truth going into the marriage has made watching their wedding ceremony a different experience today.

        I was a big supporter of hers but the more “reviews” are published, it’s making me reconsider which is very weird for me. If it’s having this effect on everyone, wanting it all to stop, I wonder if public sentiment collectively is changing regarding Diana?

    • JenB says:

      I agree.

    • perplexed says:

      This was revealed 10 years ago, I believe. There was a special about the Diana Tapes on NBC, and they showed all of this. I don’t get why the media is acting like any of this information is new. Seriously, I don’t get it, especially given how popular Diana is.

      Her voice coach released the tapes. For what reason, I don’t know. But I also don’t get why she revealed this stuff on tape either….unless she wanted people to know at some point. She was pretty media-savvy and knew people had a habit of turning on her.

      All of this information about their sex life and slapping her dad and throwing her stepmother down the stairs comes from the horse’s mouth. I don’t think she could have predicted she would die so young….but maybe she hoped the tapes would be released after an old-age death to keep the historical record a certain way.

      I do also find it strange that the media is acting like the British wouldn’t have known what the North Americans learned about 10 years ago, what with the existence of the freaking internet and all.

      I realize all of this could be hurtful to William and Harry, but I wonder if it ever crosses their mind as to question as to why she would say this stuff on tape (if they believe she didn’t want people to know such private information).

      • Tourmaline says:

        Yeah @perplexed agree totally all this stuff is old news. As is just about everything else supposedly coming out now on the 20th anniversary of her death. Her brother Charles Spencer is really milking this anniversary for all it is worth, wow he is a distasteful dude.

        And it is weird and inappropriate that she would go on about this stuff to her voice coach Peter Settelen. I don’t think they were longtime close friends or anything so why would she get so confessional with him.

        Kate’s dodgy uncle Gary Goldsmith tweeted that is terrible that these tapes are being broadcast. But its not like everyone in the UK couldn’t have already watched the old NBC special playing these tapes–I’m pretty sure it is on YouTube.

      • Pam_L says:

        I think there is a new wave of shade and hate going on for Charles right now. There was no other reason to bring this up again. But I’ve never believed everything was all his fault. Prince Charles was forced to marry a young woman he was never attracted to who was insecure, emotionally damaged, and didn’t have a lick of intellectual curiosity. He was in his 30’s when they married and the only thing they had in common was her older sister who Charles dated when Diana was a girl. Not a recipe for a successful marriage.

      • Mel says:

        It’s not just the North Americans who learnt it about it 10 years ago. I saw the same programme in continental Europe at about the same time as you.
        It’s really strange. And it’s not the only ancient thing I’ve seen surface as “new”.
        (Random example: the dangers of acrylamide in food. I remember reading about it in the early 1990s – and in the last few years it’s being presented as something new.)
        It’s as if the internet had caused mass-scale amnesia or dementia. Or something.

    • Royalsparkle says:

      Willnot had something to do with thid info
      ..this Di is bill and the middletons in shaming POW.

      Whiny billy was happy with POW as dad – his protection, status- parenting before meeting the middletons.

    • Loopy says:


  3. Louise says:

    Charles has this suit on in Belgium today. I can’t bear the lot of them anymore.

    • Alix says:

      Not the best-tailored one in his wardrobe. Looks kinda baggy.

    • Royalsparkle says:

      Seem that colour POW and Qn Mathilde wirn was to honour in respect to certain group of solidiers servicemenbers on that field in WWI.

  4. Aims says:

    Sexual rejection is so hurtful that I don’t know if people can get over it. I speak of experience on this. There was a time when I would be the only one to start things, and after a while I grew to resent the hell out of him because he never wanted me. So I stopped to see if it was important for him. He never approached me again sexually. It’s still painful , so I have a sex less marriage . It’s awful and the damage is irreversible . You want to be desired , and when you’re not it’s beyond anything I have ever felt.

    • nicegirl says:

      Hope it gets better, Aims.

      • jjj says:

        Visit a reddit called “deadbedrooms”, there’s LOTS of folks dealing with this

    • ZigZags says:

      Thank you for sharing this. I know this scenario all too well and it’s something that many of us are ashamed to talk about.

      • Aims says:

        Thank you for the support . It’s such a shameful feeling . We split the bills, we raise the kids together and we’re best friends . But sex is missing and it has been for years. It’s hard to fake and put on a face that my marriage is full filling when intimacy is gone. I have tried to talk to him, and he dismisses me, making me feel awful . Like I’m sort of pervert because in need sex. I have not stepped out of my marriage , I have always been faithful . It’s too the point now that even if we did have sex, the years of rejection has played such a toll that I don’t even know if I would feel comfortable with him. It’s such a blow to your self esteem . Even sharing this brings up emotions .

      • Chinoiserie says:

        Aims, try to see if he would go to therapy with you or if he would change his mind after reading this comment and seeing how much you are suffering.

        In any case you are really strong person and it’s great that you have been faithfull

    • Veronica says:

      This is part of why I think normalizing sexual dialogue in our society is so important. It would save a lot of couples pain and unhappiness if they felt they could speak openly about what they want from a sexual relationship. Due to various medical issues, I don’t have the highest libido, but I always discuss that with my long term partners. It’s not fair for your husband to make you feel unwanted; likewise, it’s not fair for MY partners to feel unwanted because of a situation beyond their control. I hope you two can find a way to broach that canyon between you.

    • MelB says:

      That’s what happened in my marriage except he also had affairs on the side. So it wasn’t about being tired or stressed. He just didn’t want me. I wish he had the courage to leave me but he didn’t. I finally left. It’s awful, depressing, humiliating, etc. My heart aches for you.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        MelB I am in the same situation you were in, rejecting me no matter what I did and I just found out about his affairs, I am devastated and lost. Much love and strength to everyone here in the same circumstances.

    • AIMS, I feel your pain. Literally. I tried everything and then gave up. He once told me I was oversexed, I felt shame about my sexuality for the first time since puberty. Once my son left to college he moved into that bedroom. In therapy he shamefacedly confessed that he can’t get it up; both the therapist and I urged him to go to the doctor, but so far he hasn’t.
      I seriously considered having an affair (believe me there is no shortage of men who’ve asked me out) but I’m not built that way. It’s catholic guilt I suppose as well as the fear of retribution (smiting sounds painful, lol.)
      So, like you, we share a house and kids and bills but that’s it. It’s not the way I thought our marriage would turn out. We have 5 kids and believe me lots of sex went into making those kids. There were times, not that long ago, when we would have sex two, three times a day. On the weekends we would do it until I was exhausted. Then When he hit 44/45 things changed. In the last 6 years we’ve had sex less than 6 times, and nothing in the last 2 years.

      • Mel says:

        Judy, as a Catholic (not brought up with much guilt) I can tell you that it is actually against the Church laws regarding marriage for either spouse to be consistently deprived of sex.
        If you have an affair with your husband’s consent or knowledge, I don’t think you’d have to fear “retribution”. 🙂

    • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

      @Aims. Don’t blame yourself. Maybe he has a medical (physical or mental) issue and he doesn’t feel confident enough to share it with you. Men can be vulnerable that way. So you could check if there is something going on with him. Just don’t blame yourself.

  5. Nyawira says:

    This has been out for awhile and it brought me no great surprise. He looks like a cold fish in bed to me.

    • FUBAR says:

      I have dated men who would say their ex wife was frigid and didn’t like sex. Then once we had sex, I knew exactly why their wife didn’t want to have sex often. So I side eye people who say things like ” He only wanted to have sex once every three weeks.” Maybe there was a reason. It is none of our business. Only two people were in their bedroom. So shame on the person who put this story our there.

      • LAK says:

        This story comes to us straight from Diana. She first told it for her ghostwritten biography and has repeated it to her voice coach, and probably all her staff and friends.

      • graymatters says:

        I’ve read elsewhere that Charles was always very physical with his lovers, and conflicting information about how intimate Charles and Diana were before marriage (the gyno exam was to ensure that she was fertile, not virginal). But Diana’s bulimia started when she got engaged. That puts a tremendous stress on the body and kills the libido. Charles reportedly also said that he couldn’t feel amorous when she smelled of vomit.

        I really think that Charles and Diana wanted to have a good, monogamous, and happy marriage. But he was too selfish and she was too damaged/young.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Ridiculous urban myth. A simple gynecological exam will never determine whether or not two partners can end up successfully getting pregnant. You can not be able to get pregnant with one partner, be fine with another. Fertility isn’t that simple.

      • graymatters says:

        I assumed it was a fibroids or std, such as herpes or chlamydia, check. That could affect the health of a child and possibly a mother’s fertility.

  6. Veronica says:

    Why do people release this kind of info? Though, honestly, it just kind of highlights how ridiculous it was just refusing his relationship with Camilla. I’m sure he doesn’t regret his sons, but Christ. So much unhappiness that could have been avoided.

    • Avamae says:

      I agree with everything you wrote.

    • milla says:

      He had other girls. One of them was famous and gorgeous Aussie. She died same year as Diana. He is awful person. If he was my father i doubt i would talk to him.

      • marjiscott says:

        Was that Kanga? I believe she passed the same year as Diana . It was strange.

  7. Sassback says:

    Idk that I’ll watch this, it’s just going to taint that adorable documentary Harry and Will did on HBO. That was so riveting and it made me cry on the exercise bike on the gym and I’m not even a Diana-era person, like I’m American and I was in kindergarten when she passed away. Like they definitely don’t want their mom to be exploited even more so after her death. I can’t believe that guy would sell those tapes.

  8. Cheri says:

    It must have been awful for Princess Diana to be so young and beautiful and in a sexless, loveless marriage. This helps me understand her more now. I can’t imagine being married at 19 to a person who rarely wanted to have sex.

  9. Pandy says:

    I don’t really care anymore. It feels like a lifetime ago! Embarrassing to have this stuff released actually.

  10. Des says:

    I have sympathy for Diana if she wanted a more active sex life BUT I also have sympathy for Charles because not everyone has an active sex drive.

    • LAK says:

      There is also their opposite personalities and irreconcilable differences that revealed themselves as early as the honeymoon.

      You are not going to feel sexual with someone you tolerate at best and downright dislike at worst.

    • Pineapple says:

      That’s what I was thinking – how much sex is a good amount? Everyone has a different sex drive and from what I hear, most couples who have been together/married for a while don’t get it on that often anyway…

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        IMO they had an arranged marriage AND they were incompatible. AND had different expectations re marriage.

    • Royalsparkle says:

      I agree.

      I ferl it was more the partner than Charles. Its awful this isvrelease to embarass the POW. it was a Lifetime ago. And they were separated eons before her death…

    • magnoliarose says:

      I never got on the Charles hate train. It was a bad match. She was emotionally damaged and he wasn’t equipped to handle it. He is a throw back and likes it that way. She not so much. It had been common for aristocrats and royalty to have mistresses with discretion. He didn’t expect to be in love but she wanted the fairy tale.
      He is not a villain for heaven’s sake. It was 25 years ago. They mended fences at the end so if she was able to get over it the public should follow suit.

  11. Rapunzel says:

    I call BS. The queen told Diana that Charles was hopeless? No f-cking way. Liz would never.

    I suspect Diana made this and a lot of other stuff up about Charles. The man was married with a mistress and at least one other side chick. No way he’s that disinterested in sex. The tampon convo proves that.

    • graymatters says:

      And the tampon convo also proved that he and Camilla would meet up each weekend.

    • kaiko says:

      the more i read about diana the more i see how her actions speak very loudly of someone who, not only led a tumultuous life, but also seemed to suffer from a serious mental disorder. it’s hard to believe all the stuff she put out there as the lying and spreading of gossip was par for the course with her if you take into account everything in the media. lord knows wm. is very similar to her in his mood swings, unstable behaviour. no doubt something is inherited but thankfully he has created (or had it created for him by his mother in law) a tailor made cushy ‘private’ life that seems to keep his worst qualities under wraps.

  12. LAK says:

    All these indiscreet revelations are historical document.

    Yes, they are prurient because we all remember one person whilst the others are still living, but it’s just as prurient as discussing the sex lives of ye old royals or public figures eg Henry 8’s sex life or Katherine of Aragon telling a court that Arthur’s comment that he’d spent the night in Spain, a euphemism for sex with Katherine, didn’t mean what everyone assumed he meant.

    Or JFK being so insatiable that he had to have sex everyday which led to a revolving door of mistresses whilst Jackie looked the other way.

    Or that Victoria, despite appearances was actually very sexual and rather enjoyed erotica unlike Albert.

    That said, there is a reason royals do not unburden themselves to everyone and anyone. Plus they trust that those who are drawn into the circle of trust will protect them even after death and destroy any and all material that will make them look bad as has happened every time except in Diana’s case because she often placed her trust in random people who she later fell out.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      The other people you discussed are dead so it’s quite different.

      • perplexed says:

        Jackie was alive and her children were probably pre-teens when all the information about JFK’s mistresses came out.

        Diana is actually the only “historical figure” I can think of where the information about one’s sex life comes directly from her. With everyone else, you hear “rumours”, but in her case you can actually see her speaking the words.

      • LAK says:

        The chatter about their sex lives was the stuff of court gossip in their own life times, nevermind 500yrs later.

        The stuff about JFK started coming out about a 15yrs, or earlier, after his death. His children would have read about it before they were adults.

    • Pineapple says:

      At the end of the day royals are humans ans have different sex drive as well.

      I also heard that about Victoria but I didn’t know Albert wasn’t into sex that much? They had so many kids though, regardless!

    • notasugarhere says:

      Do people honestly think Anne’s four-year extra-marital affair with her mother’s employee only involved letters? There was also plenty of talk about Princess-now-Queen Elizabeth shocking her new husband with how much she enjoyed sex. And a woman commenting on Princess Elizabeth’s peaches-and-cream complexion, to which Philip replied, “And she’s like that all over!”

      • martina says:

        Apparently Queen Vic was pretty keen too! And why not?

        Sorry for the repeats, I’m reading the comments from bottom to top. 🙂

    • Royalsparkle says:

      The Jfk part is soooo….this was a man accotding to history and bios – had terrible back problemd – such health issue can limit activities (!?) To the extend people portray JFK

  13. Molly says:

    I mean, I guess not wanting to have sex very often is marginally better than forcing the teenage bride you barely know to have sex all the time. Charles didn’t exactly have exposure to a traditional marriage as a child, so I completely believe his ideas of love and sex were screwed up.

  14. Bahare says:

    I too can relate. I don’t talk about it to friends and others but I am married for 20+ years to a wonderful man.We are the best of friends and he is very affectionate and loyal and kind.But there is no sex.When we talk about about it he says that he wants it too and let’s go and maybe it happens once and then nothing.Despite Viagra and everything else it just doesn’t happen.Though we are 60 now this has been going on for years. Everything else is great but I feel selfish to be so tormented about it as so many people wish for a relationship like ours.

    • tmot says:

      It’s not selfish. It’s perfectly normal to desire a sexual relationship with your partner.

  15. SoulSPA says:

    I’ve seen the tapes ages ago. Including an interview with the voice coach, who was asked by an American journalist as to why had he released the tapes. He said something along the lines, IIRC, he realized that it had been kind of unethical (not sure so don’t quote me) but that he had to make up for loss of income. Because he had suffered some consequences after Diana’s death.
    He also said that the tapes had been withheld in an inquiry (investigation??) and had been in the possession of either Charles Spencer or the Royals (sorry, my memory fails me a bit). And that only part of the tapes had been returned to him. Some had been retained as they contained very sensitive information.

    Now, I’ve heard that initially the tapes had been in the possession of her former butler. Then the inquiery/inquest/investigation withheld them, then returned some to the voice coach. Don’t know if he had had to sign some NDA etc. My big question: if the tapes had been withheld officially, how come they were returned to the voice coach? And provoke a storm in the media? Does anyone of you know more on this subject? Thanks! 🙂

    • perplexed says:

      If I were Diana, I would have made sure my lawyers made the voice coach sign an agreement that those tapes would never get released to the public. I have no idea why she was so trusting with anyone who wasn’t Charles. She didn’t trust the royal courtiers either, but, for reasons that are unclear to me, thought everyone else would be loyal to her? WTF. (I also have no idea why she thought sleeping with the horse riding instructor would be good for her either. That dude had loose lips! It’s not the extramarital liaison I’m offended by — it’s the fact that she picked such a loser with loose lips that bugs me to no end! Man, she had bad taste. Over time, it seems as though the Queen, no matter how cold or distant or stuffy or boring, might have been the best person to trust, since I don’t see her spilling everybody’s secrets for the whole world to hear. I’d rather just deal with the Queen giving me the judgemental side-eye every once in a while rather than gain the embrace of a horse-riding instructor who claimed I smelled like fish.)

      I don’t think she was a bad person, but why she was so trusting of the wrong people I’ll never understand. In the end, I actually think the royal family were more likely to hold her secrets for her, no matter how fragile her relationship with them was.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        I just don’t see why she had to talk about her sex life with her voice coach. Aren’t voices coaches supposed to coach a person on eloquence, accent and such? How many topics are there to choose from?

      • Aurelia says:

        Di was a blubber mouth. I seriously think she didn’t care if they were eventually made public. Remember she loved to air her laundry with Andrew Morton afterall. She was a pretty open person.

      • corporatestepsister says:

        Diana refused to grow up and accept that life wasn’t fair and that she had to stop being reckless and needed to start using her stupid brain. She had no business just revealing everything to everyone and according to Diana, there hasn’t been one single good thing about the man who put her where she was. Without Charles she would not have ended up Princess of Wales and without Charles she would be just another restless, spoiled country wife.

      • corporatestepsister says:

        Diana wasn’t renowned for thinking ahead or using her brain.

  16. Rapunzel says:

    Again, I dont get why everyone just believes what Diana said is true. She had a penchant for manipulation, drama, and even lies. Her accounts should not automatically be considered gospel.

    I suspect she was just bitter and said shit about Charles as a result. She was likely very hurt by him cheating and said things to smear his masculinity. Or in denial, and refusing to admit he could want someone more than her.

    Guys this disinterested in sex don’t engage in cheating upon cheating. The story hardly adds up.

    I love Diana, I do, but she was a flawed woman whose word I would not accept at face value.

    • Carol says:

      Thank you, Rapunzel! And I don’t get why people go on about how she was such a great mom when she had no problem trashing her children’s father to the world. She is no victim here.

    • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

      Neither Diana nor Charles put their children first.

    • magnoliarose says:

      She most likely had Borderline Personality disorder. She at least had the traits. It was her mission to smear Charles out of hurt and anger. She was dazzling. I can’t think of a royal who comes close to her charisma and glamor.

  17. corporatestepsister says:

    You know, Diana once identified with Jackie O., but Jackie didn’t trash her husband to the planet and went through more than Diana ever did (having her husband’s brains blown out right in front of her) and didn’t go on international television and BEG the planet to feel sorry for her. I am fed up with “Diana the Eternal Victim” narrative and frankly once she was divorced, she should have taken more responsibility for the direction of her life. I believe that if Diana hadn’t been rich, or titled, or attractive, she would have been jailed for her antics (the stalking and harassment of the Hoares) and I am certain that she would have a long record of psychiatric incarceration. I don’t believe that she was ever going to pull it together.

    • magnoliarose says:

      When someone sets themselves up as martyred victims beware. They are always the victim and punish anyone they feel rejected them or hurt them. Usually, it is exaggerated in their minds since they are extremely self-absorbed and manipulative. There is no such thing as a special martyr beyond reproach. But I think she was trying to get it together and matured.

    • martina says:

      +1 to both of you. See my comment below.

    • PrincessK says:

      Regarding Hoare, we have never heard of what he actually did. What made her stalk him? What was the exact nature of their affair. Anyway he has been one of the few to remain dignified in silence but I doubt if he was entirely an innocent party.

      • Martina says:

        Probably not but she complained about there being three in her marriage then became the third person in other marriages. She apparently bombarded his house with phone calls.

        Thank Fatal Attraction without the bunny boiling.
        ( As far as we know!)

  18. Martina says:

    From the three in a marriage interview, where she put the doe eyes into full effect “(I want to be the queen of people’s hearts) when she said he wasn’t fit to be a king to her continuous indiscreet comments, did she ever wonder what effect it would have on her children?

    Not that I’m absolving Charles for his behaviour , but he has never criticised her in in public.

  19. PrincessK says:

    I think Diana would be pleased that 20 years on she is still making the biggest headlines and giving the senior royals headaches. Diana will become one the most remarkable historical royal figures of all time.