If Diana were alive today...

[devin22]

Technology was already moving in 97. 16 years it has changed completely I remember in those days not everyone had a computer, now everyone does. I wonder if Diana would've been involved in social media....

[TLLK]

Technology was already moving in 97. 16 years it has changed completely I remember in those days not everyone had a computer, now everyone does. I wonder if Diana would've been involved in social media....

Congratulations on 100 posts Devin!

[debbydeb]

Congratulations, Devin! For your 100th Post! 

Also, I think Diana will take to and use social media like Rania does.

[LadyC]

Congratulations, Devin! For your 100th Post! 

Also, I think Diana will take to and use social media like Rania does.

I agree that Diana would be using social media- but I think that it could/would have been used against her at the same time, depending on what her life would have been like if she was still alive. 

[Ellenmary]

I agree. Such a marriage would not take place today. A 32 year old educated heir & a 19 year old "drop out" would be subjected to unspeakable media analysis. Her family, aristocratic or not, would be pulled apart even more than they were 32 years ago. Also I think that in today's world the heirs are able to meet & marry people of their own age & interests without all the bloodline scrutiny of the past. Even if the press took a dislike to a modern day 19 year old Diana the outcries of"lamb to the slaughter" would be too much for the Royal family to deal with.

[Miss Marple]

I agree. Such a marriage would not take place today. A 32 year old educated heir & a 19 year old "drop out" would be subjected to unspeakable media analysis. Her family, aristocratic or not, would be pulled apart even more than they were 32 years ago. Also I think that in today's world the heirs are able to meet & marry people of their own age & interests without all the bloodline scrutiny of the past. Even if the press took a dislike to a modern day 19 year old Diana the outcries of"lamb to the slaughter" would be too much for the Royal family to deal with.

The press would have reported on the bad family break up of the Spencers and the fact that Charles was dating the older sister before. And they would focus way more on Diana's poor academic results. Even MM graduated from high school :D.

[devin22]

Thanks for the congrats! I agree LadyC.

[luvcharles]

I agree. Such a marriage would not take place today. A 32 year old educated heir & a 19 year old "drop out" would be subjected to unspeakable media analysis. Her family, aristocratic or not, would be pulled apart even more than they were 32 years ago. Also I think that in today's world the heirs are able to meet & marry people of their own age & interests without all the bloodline scrutiny of the past. Even if the press took a dislike to a modern day 19 year old Diana the outcries of"lamb to the slaughter" would be too much for the Royal family to deal with.

The press would have reported on the bad family break up of the Spencers and the fact that Charles was dating the older sister before. And they would focus way more on Diana's poor academic results. Even MM graduated from high school :D.

The press did report on those things back in 1980/81.  I still have the papers with the stories.

The problem was that everything happened so fast that there was little chance to do any really analysis of her suitability before the engagement was announced.  Had they gone out for say another six months or a year before announcing the engagement I doubt that it would ever have happened.

[Crawler]

The press knew about Diana before the engagement. Charles chose a younger woman because he wanted an heir and a spare. It was considered that someone his own age would have had trouble conceiving in those days.

[luvcharles]

Considering that there were many women having their first child in their 30s at that time it isn't true that it was believed that an older woman would have trouble conceiving.  It was the 1980s - not the 1780s after all.

Many women were marrying into their late 20s even then and having children with no problems.

My own sister-in-law married the following year aged 29 and there was never any thought that she wouldn't have a child.

We are talking after the first successful IVF children were born etc.

My friends and I were in our mid-20s in 1981 and none of us were worried that we wouldn't be able to conceive if we waited another 5 or so years to marry - making us 29/30 - the age at which we all married.

That idea is just total garbage.

[christina01]

Considering that there were many women having their first child in their 30s at that time it isn't true that it was believed that an older woman would have trouble conceiving.  It was the 1980s - not the 1780s after all.

Many women were marrying into their late 20s even then and having children with no problems.

My own sister-in-law married the following year aged 29 and there was never any thought that she wouldn't have a child.

We are talking after the first successful IVF children were born etc.

My friends and I were in our mid-20s in 1981 and none of us were worried that we wouldn't be able to conceive if we waited another 5 or so years to marry - making us 29/30 - the age at which we all married.

That idea is just total garbage.

I do think the BRF were backward in their thinking still in the 80's, and there was talk even then in that supposed modern age that Chuck should marry a virgin. Most of the aristocratic or suitable girls were apparently not that anymore, so along came someone who supposedly was, Diana. She suited everyones idea of who the prince of wales should marry. Diana probably and ironically helped modernise their thinking, and certainly her death did.

[Crawler]

Considering that there were many women having their first child in their 30s at that time it isn't true that it was believed that an older woman would have trouble conceiving.  It was the 1980s - not the 1780s after all.

Many women were marrying into their late 20s even then and having children with no problems.

My own sister-in-law married the following year aged 29 and there was never any thought that she wouldn't have a child.

We are talking after the first successful IVF children were born etc.

My friends and I were in our mid-20s in 1981 and none of us were worried that we wouldn't be able to conceive if we waited another 5 or so years to marry - making us 29/30 - the age at which we all married.

That idea is just total garbage.

Yes IVF was first done in 1978 but it was not as useful as it is today nor as common. There has been talk of whether Kate would be able to conceive naturally because of her age and that was in 2012. I disagree with your statement. Why else would Charles choose a 19 year old girl, a teenager? Was he just a dirty old man looking for a child? No I think he married with the heir and spare in mind.

[Miss Marple]

I think the future Queen of England had to be a virgin - in modern times not so many 20+ virgins were out there. So Chuck's choice was very limited.

[luvcharles]

The idea that she had to be a virgin was out there - yes.

The idea that a late 20s, early 30s woman couldn't conceive was definitely not the view at the time - even the fact that his own mother had conceived twice in her 30s must have said something (even though they weren't the first child) and that his grandmother had her first child at 25 in 1926 and Queen Mary was 27 when she had her first child shows that that idea wasn't around in 1981.

[Miss Marple]

What might have also a reason - Chuck is not the easiest person to live with. They might have hoped that an innocent, uneducated 19 year old was easier to handle and mould than a more experienced woman. It backfired on them - because times changed that much and Diana developed a strong personality.