gravel, the car door slamming, and the fading sound of the car’s engine, filling her with sadness, confusion, anger, insecurity—and guilt. Indeed, according to Diana’s friend and energy healer Simone Simmons, Diana “always felt especially bleak at Christmas. The season reminded her of her mother’s departure.”
Events moved swiftly after Frances left for good at the end of 1967. She and Johnnie spoke “only through lawyers,” said Frances. “I desperately tried to make contact personally, but it wasn’t fruitful.” On April 10, 1968, Peter Shand Kydd’s wife Janet was granted a divorce, with custody of their three children. The next day,just two newspapers,
The Times
and
The Daily Telegraph
, carried brief accounts of the decision.
The Telegraph
ran four sentences, noting the cause as “adultery by Mr. Peter Shand Kydd with Viscountess Althorp.”The following June, Frances went to court with her own custody plea, which she lost.
That December, Frances filed for divorce on the grounds of her husband’s cruelty, an action that prompted one sentence in
The Times
. Johnnie quickly responded with his own petition charging her with adultery. It was Frances’s cruelty charge that led many journalists to conclude that Johnnie had physically abused her. According to James Whitaker, Johnniemade his own counterclaim because he was “fearful the details of cruelty to her would become public”—a puzzling notion, since the proceedings were closed, and there was no coverage of the case in the press. Whitaker further alleged that “Frances declined to give evidence of his cruelty because her lawyers advised her against doing so.”
Those who knew the situation have said that Frances’s charge was a standard legal device at the time. “In those days, [an accusation of] mental cruelty was one of the more discreet ways to get a divorce,” said Fiona Fraser. More significantly, another member of the Spencer family said that Frances “only accused [Johnnie] of mental cruelty basically to blackmail him into a divorce that he didn’t want to give.”
Frances had no defense against the adultery charge; she had already been identified as an adulteress in the Shand Kydd divorce, which Peter had not contested. What she didn’t anticipate was Johnnie’s stubborn fight for custody of the children:He summoned a string of character witnesses, including Frances’s mother, Lady Fermoy, in an extraordinary rejection of her own daughter. The more charitable view was that Ruth felt the children would be happier in the country than in London. Said one neighbor, “Ruth lived down the road, and she saw Johnnie a lot. I suppose she felt Frances had behaved badly.” Others saw a more insidious reason: Modestly born Ruth Gill couldn’t bear to see her grandchildren leave the prestigious embrace of the Spencers.
Neither the Spencer children nor their friends and relatives knew the specifics of the courtroom testimony at the time.It was not until 1982, with the publication of more than a dozen biographies about Diana, that particulars of the Spencer divorce became widely known. The story of the bitterness between Diana’s parents spilled into the tabloids after Frances issued a statement to biographer Gordon Honeycombe, who wrote
Year of the Princess
, explaining why she was not a “bolter.” As the
Daily Mail
noted that August, “Only now is the full story emerging of a family split that has produced the effect of Earl Spencer remaining close to his mother-in-law Ruth, Lady Fermoy.”
Diana and her siblings had learned in the mid-seventies what their grandmother had done. While Diana shared her mother’s hurt and resentment, she didn’t turn against her grandmother. One reason, according to a Spencer relative, was that the children “hardly knew [Lady Fermoy], anyway.” It was only well into Diana’s marriage, when Ruth Fermoy took Prince Charles’s side as she had with Johnnie, that Diana grew to hate her
Events moved swiftly after Frances left for good at the end of 1967. She and Johnnie spoke “only through lawyers,” said Frances. “I desperately tried to make contact personally, but it wasn’t fruitful.” On April 10, 1968, Peter Shand Kydd’s wife Janet was granted a divorce, with custody of their three children. The next day,just two newspapers,
The Times
and
The Daily Telegraph
, carried brief accounts of the decision.
The Telegraph
ran four sentences, noting the cause as “adultery by Mr. Peter Shand Kydd with Viscountess Althorp.”The following June, Frances went to court with her own custody plea, which she lost.
That December, Frances filed for divorce on the grounds of her husband’s cruelty, an action that prompted one sentence in
The Times
. Johnnie quickly responded with his own petition charging her with adultery. It was Frances’s cruelty charge that led many journalists to conclude that Johnnie had physically abused her. According to James Whitaker, Johnniemade his own counterclaim because he was “fearful the details of cruelty to her would become public”—a puzzling notion, since the proceedings were closed, and there was no coverage of the case in the press. Whitaker further alleged that “Frances declined to give evidence of his cruelty because her lawyers advised her against doing so.”
Those who knew the situation have said that Frances’s charge was a standard legal device at the time. “In those days, [an accusation of] mental cruelty was one of the more discreet ways to get a divorce,” said Fiona Fraser. More significantly, another member of the Spencer family said that Frances “only accused [Johnnie] of mental cruelty basically to blackmail him into a divorce that he didn’t want to give.”
Frances had no defense against the adultery charge; she had already been identified as an adulteress in the Shand Kydd divorce, which Peter had not contested. What she didn’t anticipate was Johnnie’s stubborn fight for custody of the children:He summoned a string of character witnesses, including Frances’s mother, Lady Fermoy, in an extraordinary rejection of her own daughter. The more charitable view was that Ruth felt the children would be happier in the country than in London. Said one neighbor, “Ruth lived down the road, and she saw Johnnie a lot. I suppose she felt Frances had behaved badly.” Others saw a more insidious reason: Modestly born Ruth Gill couldn’t bear to see her grandchildren leave the prestigious embrace of the Spencers.
Neither the Spencer children nor their friends and relatives knew the specifics of the courtroom testimony at the time.It was not until 1982, with the publication of more than a dozen biographies about Diana, that particulars of the Spencer divorce became widely known. The story of the bitterness between Diana’s parents spilled into the tabloids after Frances issued a statement to biographer Gordon Honeycombe, who wrote
Year of the Princess
, explaining why she was not a “bolter.” As the
Daily Mail
noted that August, “Only now is the full story emerging of a family split that has produced the effect of Earl Spencer remaining close to his mother-in-law Ruth, Lady Fermoy.”
Diana and her siblings had learned in the mid-seventies what their grandmother had done. While Diana shared her mother’s hurt and resentment, she didn’t turn against her grandmother. One reason, according to a Spencer relative, was that the children “hardly knew [Lady Fermoy], anyway.” It was only well into Diana’s marriage, when Ruth Fermoy took Prince Charles’s side as she had with Johnnie, that Diana grew to hate her
Similar Books
Hell in the Pacific: A Marine Rifleman's Journey From Guadalcanal to Peleliu
Bill Sloan, Jim McEnery
