|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2021 15:01:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2021 15:06:30 GMT
About Diana's mother, Frances Shand-Kydd: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8752503/Princess-Dianas-nanny-claims-royals-mother-spent-lot-time-children.htmlPrincess Diana's nanny disputes claims royal had 'agonising' childhood following her parents divorce - and says that her mother was a 'lovely person who spent lots of time' with her children Princess Diana's former nanny Mary Clarke, 70, has spoken of royal's late mother Disputed the claims of younger brother Earl Charles Spencer, 56, made last week Said Frances Shand Kydd was 'lovely person' who would visit her children often Diana's mother left her father John Spencer, for tycoon Peter Shand Kydd in 1969 By MONICA GREEP FOR MAILONLINE PUBLISHED: 07:32 EDT, 20 September 2020 | UPDATED: 07:42 EDT, 20 September 2020 Princess Diana's childhood nanny has claimed the royal had a 'sheltered' childhood, and said she had no idea of the 'trauma' of her parent's divorce.
Diana's mother Frances Shand Kydd, who passed away in 2004, aged 68, left her father John Spencer, for wallpaper tycoon Peter Shand Kydd in 1969, and, after losing a bitter custody battle for her children, moving out of the family home when the princess was seven.
Last week, Diana's younger brother Charles Spencer, 56, who lives in Althorp House, his family seat in the Northamptonshire countryside, described their childhood as 'ruptured' and 'agonising'. ... Mary was 21 when she started working for the Spencer's Norfolk home on the Queen's Sandringham estate, and beat more than 60 applicants for the opportunity to look after 10-year-old Diana who she described as a 'lovely child'.
In an interview earlier this month, father-of-seven Earl Spencer, who is married to third wife Karen, 47, said that Diana 'used to wait on the doorstep for her mother to return' home following her parents' divorce.
However Mary, who splits her time between the UK and Canada, has called their late mother a 'lovely person', who would often visit her children.
She explained: 'The children spent quite a lot of time with her ... they had wonderful times when they were with her.'
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2021 15:12:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cleopatra on Sept 27, 2021 15:24:08 GMT
Agree re Fellows and whilst alive he caused Diana much grief. The Spencer’s allegedly not bright at all and Johnny was said to be one of the dumbest aristocrats of his generation but got by with exquisite manners, money and a title. I seem to remember he refused to let her live in a house on the Althorp Estate due to " security issues ". That family are certainly flawed
|
|
|
Post by caseyanne on Oct 1, 2021 3:59:31 GMT
Charles Spencer learned from his dear old dad concerning the women in his life. It's a wonder Sarah and Jane seem to be more or less normal.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 1, 2021 12:11:21 GMT
Charles Spencer learned from his dear old dad concerning the women in his life. It's a wonder Sarah and Jane seem to be more or less normal. I always found him to be quite the smug hypocrite. Smug hypocrisy - must be a Spencer family trait.
|
|
|
Post by india on Oct 1, 2021 16:20:08 GMT
He really is a supreme asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2021 13:27:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Nov 18, 2021 17:50:22 GMT
Agree re Fellows and whilst alive he caused Diana much grief. The Spencer’s allegedly not bright at all and Johnny was said to be one of the dumbest aristocrats of his generation but got by with exquisite manners, money and a title. I seem to remember he refused to let her live in a house on the Althorp Estate due to " security issues ". That family are certainly flawed
Not true; Diana wanted "Garden House" and while the Earl initially agreed, he then changed his mind and asked her to consider other homes on the family estate so his family could have more privacy. Diana was an all or nothing type and as a result, got nothing out of it. It wasn't just malice, but it was to keep his family out of the limelight. There were TONS of other homes of the acreage and Diana was just being spoiled and petty.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2021 5:24:39 GMT
www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/1535263/lady-kitty-spencer-inside-home-pictures-michael-lewis-royal-propertyInside Lady Kitty Spencer's 'indulgent' £19m marital home - 'became totally absorbed' LADY KITTY SPENCER, 30, is the niece of the late Diana, Princess of Wales and daughter of Earl Charles Spencer. In August this year, Kitty married 62-year-old businessman Michael Lewis. But where do the couple live? By DOROTHY REDDIN 08:18, Mon, Dec 13, 2021 | UPDATED: 13:41, Mon, Dec 13, 2021
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2021 4:48:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Dec 23, 2021 16:02:13 GMT
I just have no idea why others believe the lie that Diana had a deprived childhood; she still saw her mother, still enjoyed the regular visits, and according to Tina Brown, her life at Althorp and Park House was as idyllic as Winnie the Pooh. She was living on a ROYAL ESTATE as a child, socialized with the royal family/children regularly even on non-holiday occasions, and mixed so often that she was welcomed with open arms. What I notice, is that Diana during the courtship seemed miffed that she wasn't invited to Sandringham for the Christmas holidays, despite the fact that Diana was still not at all a member of that family. Diana oddly didn't seem to realize that she wasn't already family, despite the fact that she had Charles in the bag and it was only a matter of time. What I do notice is how she really did seem to think that boundaries shouldn't apply to her, but shoudl apply to others.
Another area of a red flag is how the Spencer family overthrew the House of Stuart to install the House of Hanover, just so they would be counted as players, not just courtiers of the BRF. I find it mind boggling that the Spencers kept looking down on the BRF, despite the fact that the BRF in fact were/are the ones in charge. Attitude has been a huge problem and it is clear that the Spencers have problems accepting that they are a bunch of privileged people who are LUCKY to be where they are. In all frankness, I would sincerely resent being looked down on by people who would owe be obedience. It would be like being looked down on by your staff instead of the other way around. The Spencers instilled a bad attitude into Diana and I find it mystifying that she was allowed to get away with maltreating staff and nannies. She really did not at all develop well and usually if a child ends up makign threatening phone calls or hate mail at a young age, MAJOR RED FLAG!
I also think the Spencer family did personality traits that Diana had that would have made her incompatible with Charles and would make Diana sick from the pressures that the BRF places on itself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2021 20:05:52 GMT
I just have no idea why others believe the lie that Diana had a deprived childhood; she still saw her mother, still enjoyed the regular visits, and according to Tina Brown, her life at Althorp and Park House was as idyllic as Winnie the Pooh. She was living on a ROYAL ESTATE as a child, socialized with the royal family/children regularly even on non-holiday occasions, and mixed so often that she was welcomed with open arms. What I notice, is that Diana during the courtship seemed miffed that she wasn't invited to Sandringham for the Christmas holidays, despite the fact that Diana was still not at all a member of that family. Diana oddly didn't seem to realize that she wasn't already family, despite the fact that she had Charles in the bag and it was only a matter of time. What I do notice is how she really did seem to think that boundaries shouldn't apply to her, but shoudl apply to others.
Another area of a red flag is how the Spencer family overthrew the House of Stuart to install the House of Hanover, just so they would be counted as players, not just courtiers of the BRF. I find it mind boggling that the Spencers kept looking down on the BRF, despite the fact that the BRF in fact were/are the ones in charge. Attitude has been a huge problem and it is clear that the Spencers have problems accepting that they are a bunch of privileged people who are LUCKY to be where they are. In all frankness, I would sincerely resent being looked down on by people who would owe be obedience. It would be like being looked down on by your staff instead of the other way around. The Spencers instilled a bad attitude into Diana and I find it mystifying that she was allowed to get away with maltreating staff and nannies. She really did not at all develop well and usually if a child ends up makign threatening phone calls or hate mail at a young age, MAJOR RED FLAG! I also think the Spencer family did personality traits that Diana had that would have made her incompatible with Charles and would make Diana sick from the pressures that the BRF places on itself. Oh I'm going to add to this later. You brought up so many great points, KF.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Dec 25, 2021 0:29:34 GMT
Thing is, that Diana was badly brought up. She should NOT have been allowed to disrupt the work of the servants and she should NOT have been allowed to socialize with staff as if the staff were her social equals. I say this for the sake of the staff since staff should be able to chill and have fun and snicker at their employers and not have the employer's daughter around and causing social tension. I dislike how Scandinavian royals think this is okay and how it's okay to basically impose themselves on staff and then suddenly treat staff as well, staff. It's inconsistent and it is clear to me that Diana was being raised in a very messed up way. I dislike how she was at one point pals with staff, then ordering them about, then screaming at them, then suddenly she was best buds. As evidenced by her nanny issues, she had problems discerning these differences and it damaged her ability to develop functional relations with the people who served her. Thing is, that the palace staff had to forcibly remove her from their break room since she wouldn't stop trying to hang out with them despite the fact that they preferred that she not be there. Then there is the fact that she bullied nannies, stuck pins in their chairs, threw an ENGAGEMENT RING down a drain and was never punished. She never did get taught that actions have consequences. If any American kid pulled this, their parents would make them pay for it and I am disgusted that she threw an ENGAGEMENT RING down a drain, that is too low. That she was doing this as a kid is something that should have been seen as a red red red flag. Even at a young age she was mistreating people who would have liked to be there for her, those nannies were there to try to keep her constructively occupied and happy and engaged, not oppress her.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2022 12:33:29 GMT
Aside: Spencer priorities on this date...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2022 14:49:01 GMT
test
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2022 14:58:22 GMT
Aside: Hey, Champagne Charlie, isn't it a little hypocritical that with your family's long-standing history of literally wh#ring out it's women, abusing them privately, regretting their births as only those born with penises seem to matter/have worth, turning children against their mothers, dismissing one's spouse's health/addiction issues, etc,etc,etc, that you are now being smug and self-righteous?
What about what your nephew William, Kate and her family are allegedly doing to the Succession or is "betray the Crown & Succession and look after oneself" the Spencer family credo?
I think we know the answer to that. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11035047/Tiggy-Legge-Bourke-BBC-apologises-Prince-William-Prince-Harrys-former-nanny.html#comments'It's amazing no one has been charged yet': Earl Spencer calls for criminal probe into Diana Panorama scandal after BBC issues apology to William, Harry, Charles and ex-royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke over smears and pays her substantial damages Tiggy Legge-Bourke, 57, appeared at the High Court this morning for a public apology from the broadcaster The row centred around 'fabricated' allegations she'd had an affair with Charles while working as his PA Miss Legge-Bourke said today the smears against her and the royals were 'a source of great upset to me' By TOM PYMAN FOR MAILONLINEPUBLISHED: 05:15 EDT, 21 July 2022 | UPDATED: 10:12 EDT, 21 July 2022
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2022 15:05:44 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11035047/Tiggy-Legge-Bourke-BBC-apologises-Prince-William-Prince-Harrys-former-nanny.html#commentsEarl Spencer again reiterated his call for criminal charges over the Princess Diana Panorama scandal today - as the BBC issued a grovelling apology over the 'shocking' way Martin Bashir obtained the notorious interview. Corporation boss Tim Davie pledged to never show the programme again as a defamation case launched by former royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke over smears made by the rogue reporter came to a close this morning. The broadcaster agreed to pay her substantial damages in response to 'fabricated' allegations that she'd had an affair with the Prince of Wales while working as Charles' personal assistant in 1995. Mr Bashir is also said to have tricked Diana into believing the nanny had become pregnant by Charles by showing her a f#ked abortion 'receipt'. The princess' brother, Earl Spencer, has long called for criminal charges to be brought, but Scotland Yard said it would not launch an investigation after assessing Lord Dyson's report into the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2022 15:08:31 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11035047/Tiggy-Legge-Bourke-BBC-apologises-Prince-William-Prince-Harrys-former-nanny.html#commentsTimeline of the Diana-Panorama scandal1986: Martin Bashir joins BBC as news correspondent and works on programs including Songs of Praise, Public Eye and Panorama. November 1995: The famous interview with Princess Diana turns Mr Bashir into TV's hottest property. 1996: The Mail on Sunday reveals claims that Mr Bashir used f#ked bank documents to persuade Diana to talk. The BBC holds internal inquiry dismissed as a 'whitewash'. 1999: Moves to ITV's Tonight with Trevor McDonald. His scoops include interview with Stephen Lawrence suspects and documentary on Michael Jackson. May 2004: Quits to host ABC's Nightline in US. Suspended in 2008 after making 'Asian babes' remark at Asian American Journalists convention. 2010: Joins NBC News as an MSNBC anchor. He resigns in 2013 after controversial remarks about vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. 2016: BBC re-hires Mr Bashir as religious affairs correspondent. He is later promoted to religion editor. October 2020: Channel 4 documentary alleges there was 'elaborate plot' by Mr Bashir to trick Diana into talking. November 7: The Daily Mail reveals a shocking dossier held by Diana's brother Earl Spencer revealing alleged royal smears, lies and tricks that Mr Bashir used to land his interview. November 18: BBC orders six-month inquiry by former judge Lord Dyson. May 14, 2021: The BBC announces Mr Bashir has handed in his notice on health grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2022 15:16:01 GMT
Aside: They don't know that the BBC is very aware of other matters, too? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11035047/Tiggy-Legge-Bourke-BBC-apologises-Prince-William-Prince-Harrys-former-nanny.html#commentsSome comments:The comments below have not been moderated. KingRichard 111, Loughborough , United Kingdom, less than a minute ago Well after this debacle, the BBC have helped me make my mind up to not renew my licence when it comes up fir renewal. Mr Davie if I hear one iota of complaining about shortage of monies within the BBC then you sort it out and cut the costs within the BBC, Do not ask the public to contribute to a higher licence fee when it becomes due as the enmass of the public will no doubt tell you where to go, and the BBC too. ReplyNew Comment 10Rated Dteamcatcher, Westminster, United Kingdom, less than a minute ago Spencer can bring a private prosecution if he wishes. He has enough money to afford a top QC so let him get on with it if he is serious rather than publicly whining. ReplyNew Comment 11Rated Big Lizzie, Cambridge, United Kingdom, about a minute ago The vast majority of the people in this country fully understand which two people were the major cause of the unhappiness of Diana Princess of Wales. ReplyNew Comment 01Click to rate sean, pontypool, United Kingdom, 2 minutes ago And you are paying for this folks, the bbc don't care they have a bottomless pit of money guaranteed. ReplyNew Comment 14Click to rate Hugh Garssse, Plymouth, United Kingdom, 3 minutes ago You wont see anything on the bbc website about an apology,and you wont be able to comment on it, about time the taxpayer stopped paying for their dishonesty ReplyNew Comment 14Click to rate CHRIS.MRRIS, llantrisant, 3 minutes ago One day soon,there will be legal action by migraine to say she should have an apology and awarded damages because,she has been let down too.lol. ReplyNew Comment 10Click to rate andrea williams, Chepstow, United Kingdom, 3 minutes ago How many times can the BBC break the law and get away with it and then charge it to us. They had the cheek to point the finger at Boris. It beggars belief. Don't think we can afford them anymore ReplyNew Comment 13Click to rate countywize, Newport, United Kingdom, 3 minutes ago For Gods sake let it be. Yes it matters to those involved, but thier use of a dead princess for whatever it is they are selling is plain disgusting. Let it go, nobody else cares. ReplyNew Comment 01Click to rate Thomas, Yorkshire, United Kingdom, 3 minutes ago Earl Spencer is right. Bashir needs Prosecuting! ReplyNew Comment 16Click to rate Busterbritches, Roseville , United States, 4 minutes ago Didn't they also pay for the Martin Basheer fiasco? ReplyNew Comment 20Click to rate View all The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
|
|