LETTER: Diana: betrayed, sidelined or ... awkward?

Click to follow
From Mrs Jennifer Miller

Sir: In your editorial "Divorce is the only answer for a modern age" (22 December), you unquestioningly accept that the Royal Family has sought to marginalise and exclude Princess Diana.

When she married, her own grandmother, Lady Fermoy, had been established at Court for years on the staff of the Queen Mother, whose close personal friend she was. Diana's brother-in-law was already a private secretary to the Queen, and her father, Earl Spencer, had been a royal equerry. She always had her own relatives and contracts within the royal household and cannot have been isolated as she now claims.

On her separation, Buckingham Palace announced that the Princess would still be invited to Balmoral and Sandringham, but even at Christmas 1992, she caused immense trouble by refusing to visit Sandringham, making it seem as if she were cruelly kept from her children at such a time.

When Diana wanted to resume public life, the Queen agreed last year that her daughter-in-law should take on the prestigious role of spearheading celebrations for the 125th anniversary of the British Red Cross. During 1995 Diana has visited Russia, Japan, Hong Kong, Venice and Argentina, and travelled several times to the United States. Does this look like being sidelined?

The Prince of Wales gives Diana such a generous allowance that in May she was identified as a "Super A" shopper: one of a small group of really high-rolling consumers.

Yours faithfully,

Jennifer Miller

London, SW15

22 December