A break-out attempt, a jaw-breaking meal, and chilling depictions of self-harm.
Was Spencer really representing Diana, or simply her torment?
Stay tuned to hear what Spencer got wrong about Diana’s story.
Diana Spencer was brought to life on screen once again in the film Spencer,
released in November 2021. The film, starring Kristen Stewart, follows the Princess as she
navigates a chaotic stay with the royal family amid her deteriorating marriage to Prince Charles.
While the film may seem like a historical drama, director Pablo Larraín made it clear from the
opening credits that it is not intended to be an accurate retelling of events.
As noted by NPR, Spencer opens with the following message:
"A fable from a true tragedy."
In its review of the film, NPR noted that Spencer takes into account a
rough outline of the princess' union to Charles and the royal family, writing:
"There's little reason to believe this story is literally true."
Rather, the film is only supposed to ‘feel’ true, giving viewers a more nuanced
understanding of the internal struggles that Diana faced throughout her life.
Set over a Christmas weekend in 1991, Spencer is not a film that characterizes Diana's entire life,
but a closely-focused portrayal of just a few days in the last years of her time as a royal.
But the weekend in question is an imagining rather than a recreation of
actual events — calling into question the accuracy of the film.
In the dramatic biopic, Diana is separated from Charles, but is not yet divorced. However,
History noted that the couple didn't actually separate until December 1992, a year after the
film's time frame. NPR characterizes the princess’ journey in the film as one of self-reflection:
“Diana realizes the depth of her own despair and decides to pursue her freedom.”
In actuality, a number of events in the following December of 1992
forced Diana and Charles to go their separate ways. These events included the release of
Andrew Morton's tell-all biography about Diana, as well as the "Camillagate" phone call scandal,
which fractured the couple’s public image until divorce was inevitable.
One of the most grueling aspects of Spencer is Diana's experience with disordered eating.
Diana did have a well-documented history with bulimia, but the timing of the film got
her recovery all wrong. In the movie, Major Alistair Gregory, played by Timothy Spall,
insists on weighing Diana after she arrives at Sandringham House for the Christmas weekend.
History vs Hollywood notes the dark tone surrounding this gesture, writing:
"The film implies this was done to track Diana's eating disorder."
But in real life, Diana was in recovery by this point.
Spencer dabbles with Diana's eating disorder, her history with self-harm,
and an acute sense of paranoia. While the late princess did experience these tragedies,
however, she was also starting to overcome them by the early 1990s. As reported by Rolling Stone,
Diana began recovering from her eating disorder in the late 1980s, thanks to a
change of values as she healed. Diana recalled in her autobiography, Diana: In Her Own Words:
"I suddenly realized what I was going to lose if I let go, and what was worth losing.”
Additionally, weighing guests when they arrived to celebrate Christmas and when
they left was a royal family tradition, a way to see how much everyone indulged.
It’s very well known that Diana Spencer had a complicated relationship with Prince Charles,
but what was her relationship with Queen Elizabeth like?
As far as Spencer is concerned, the relationship was filled with meaningful conversations. While
walking outside the estate with Diana, the queen comments on Diana’s overwhelming press coverage:
"The only portrait that really matters is the one they use to put on the 10-pound note.
When they take that one, you understand all you are my dear is currency."
The conversation is devastating to say the least, but History vs Hollywood points to this scene
as evidence that the film is not true to life. Diana's real relationship with Queen Elizabeth
was far more distant, as characterized by Andrew Morton in his 1992 biography, Diana: Her True
Story. The relationship between the two women was, quote, "formal," and Diana more or less kept her
distance, so a conversation like the one depicted in Spencer almost certainly never happened.
Diana Spencer faced incredible challenges throughout her life,
but the film Spencer took some liberties when it came to portraying the princess' anguish.
As noted by NPR, Kristen Stewart's Diana develops a deep bond with the character Maggie,
played by famed actress Sally Hawkins. Maggie serves as a dresser for Diana, but she also
provides emotional and physical comfort and safety for the princess. The character of Maggie
is described as Diana's only friend, someone that she clings to throughout the Christmas weekend.
While it's true that Diana really bonded with dressers and others who worked as household staff,
the relationship that was forged on-screen between Stewart and Hawkins
is partially inaccurate. One of Diana's real dressers, Jacques Azagury, spoke to
the Daily Mail about his interactions with the princess, and the bond he recalled was
entirely different from the emotionally severe relationship on screen. He said:
"My favorite memory of Princess Diana was her presence. Another great memory was
the sheer fun we had together, especially when it came to choosing her next look."
It's no secret that Diana was controlled in a number of ways by the royal family and
its structures. As noted by History, the princess was reportedly very nervous that
‘The Firm’ was trying to control her every move, in part because of Prince
Charles' ongoing relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. At one point,
the princess even thought that the palace was trying to sedate her. But unlike the film Spencer,
the real-life Diana didn't have a specific member of staff devoted to watching every little
thing she did. Kristen Stewart's Diana had Major Alistair Gregory watching over her like a hawk.
As noted by History vs Hollywood, the character of Major Gregory served as a barrier between
Diana and the press, but also occupied a helicopter-type guardian role, keeping the
princess on a short leash. While it's true that other royal employees monitored Diana's behavior,
Major Gregory was an entirely made-up character, with no ties to any one real-life figure.
Public interest in Diana Spencer was arguably at an all-time high when Spencer was released. Due
largely in part to Emma Corrin's portrayal of the late princess in Netflix's hit television
drama The Crown, more and more people have been overwhelmingly curious about Diana, her life,
and her mental health struggles. And while both The Crown and Spencer laid Diana's grief bare,
friends of the late princess told The Telegraph that both adaptations
missed a crucial part of Diana's personality: her sense of humor.
In Spencer, a young Prince William asks Diana:
"Tell the Major what’s happened to make you so sad."
“Sir. Don’t know what you mean sir.” “I want the truth soldier.”
Diana’s real life friends, hairdresser Sam McKnight, and Ingrid Seward,
editor of Majesty magazine, responded to the heartbreaking scene, and the rest of
the film’s depiction of the princess they knew so well. McKnight shared:
"She was charming,
funny and really normal — that was a huge part of her attraction. It was never in a fake way.”
Seward agreed with his sentiment, adding:
“She was very funny about it all,
that's how she dealt with life — she was either crying or laughing."
Diana Spencer’s history of self-harm is nothing short of chilling.
Spencer incorporated this part of the princess’ history into its plot, although the scenes
depicting self-harm were greatly exaggerated, according to History vs Hollywood. In the film,
Kristen Stewart's Diana is seen taking wire cutters to her arm.
Described as "gut-wrenchingly intense" by the U.S. Sun, the scene is made even more tragic by
a young Prince William begging his mother to join him for dinner through a locked bathroom door.
"Mummy … you said to tell you if you are being really silly. Mommy you’re being really silly.”
History vs Hollywood characterizes the scene as typical Hollywood overkill. Royal biographer
Penny Junor seemed to agree, telling the U.S. Sun that it was unnecessary and gratuitous:
"Poor old William is all I can say. And let's leave Diana with a shred of respect and dignity.
I know William was there when she was unhappy but it sounds to me the movie is factually incorrect."
Diana Spencer has always been a person of interest, but there has certainly been a
resurgence as of late. Spencer is just one of the mediums in which Diana's story is
being told to a new audience. But, according to makeup artist and Diana’s friend Mary Greenwell,
the film missed the mark when it came to Diana's charisma.
“I go on longer. Sometimes.” “Yes, but I’m faster.”
Where Spencer depicts a tortured princess, Diana actually began marching to the beat
of her own drum in the 1980s. A 1985 article in Vanity Fair called her:
"The mouse that roared."
She had transformed from the ‘shy Di’ introduced to the
world in her engagement interview to a marvel of the world’s stage.
The version of Diana that we see in Spencer does not account for the princess' gravitas.
In fact, during the month that the film is set, the real Diana posed for a Vogue cover shoot,
and it was said to be a game-changer. Speaking to The Telegraph, Mary Greenwell said:
"The moment she found her power was doing the Vogue cover, it changed everything for her. It was
hugely empowering for her because it wasn't about anything other than being absolutely herself."
While 1991 was tough for Princess Diana,
the year was also intermixed by personal growth — Diana's marriage would dissolve in December 1992,
only furthering her ability to grow outside of the royal family. But in Spencer, the on-screen
Diana is desperate, if not hysterical, to get out of her environment at the Sandringham House.
Kristen Stewart's Diana attempts to leave Sandringham for her childhood home,
Park House, which is located close by. The house is shown boarded up, having seemingly been empty
for some time. First and foremost, some of the details of Park House in the film were wrong.
The property was shown to have a moat, while there was no such feature in real life.
Secondly, Diana didn't try to escape to her childhood home at all. History vs Hollywood
reported that the entire sequence was a fictional component of the film. They write of the scene:
“[It was] meant to symbolize Diana's desire to escape the confines of the
Royal Family and her deteriorated marriage."
Shortly before he married Diana, Prince Charles gifted Camilla Parker-Bowles a
bracelet with initials "G" and "F", for Gladys and Fred; nicknames they had for one another.
Additionally, Diana found cufflinks with two "C" letters intertwined while on her honeymoon,
according to the U.S. Sun. So, perhaps Spencer used these historical anecdotes as inspiration
for the dramatic scene involving a pearl necklace intended for Camilla, but given to Diana.
While Diana wears the necklace, she goes into a trance-like state, and a symbolic scene comes to
life. The imagined sequence shows Diana breaking the necklace apart, with the pearls dropping into
the pea soup sitting in front of her at the dinner table. Diana then ‘eats’ the pearls,
which crunch and shatter horribly as she chews. So what was the point of the scene? It was meant
to symbolize the ongoing events of her life: Diana’s struggle to swallow the painful reality
of her situation, and her desperation to have her pain acknowledged by Charles.
Diana Spencer’s chic sense of style constantly made headlines.
She is still hailed as one of the most influential fashion figures,
her style seemingly tied to her development as a royal, and then as a royal rule-breaker. While
a hairstyle might seem to be one of the lesser details of Diana's story, it was a component that
Spencer got drastically wrong. And, as it turns out, this was more symbolic than it may seem.
As noted by The Telegraph, Diana traded her fluffy, romantic 1980s hairstyle for a short,
power haircut in 1990. It was the era of supermodels,
according to her hairdresser, Sam McKnight, and the two opted for an edgier,
more sophisticated cut than what the princess was previously known for. However, in Spencer,
Diana is shown with a far more relaxed, 1980s-era hairstyle — and this may have been on purpose.
Diana's short hair represented her transition to independence and self-fulfillment.
Meanwhile, the hairstyle present in the film is far more indicative of Diana's style when she was
in the most miserable throes of her marriage and eating disorder, among other hardships.
Diana Spencer was a philanthropist, an advocate, a mother, and a friend. While tragic events and
experiences took place in her life, she was far more than the negative aspects of her short time
on Earth. While Spencer depicted a war-torn Diana, desperate to break free from the confines of the
royal family, the actual Diana was engaging in far more than just escape tactics at the time.
As noted by USA Today, she was, as always, a dutiful mother to her boys,
while she cared for sick friends, and traveled on behalf of the royal family.
“In the next few days, we shall focus world attention on this vital,
but until now largely neglected, issue.”
While the Christmas weekend conveyed in Spencer is an imagined experience,
Diana did actually spend the holiday with the royals that year — just,
in far less dire circumstances. Diana’s friend Ingrid Seward told The Telegraph:
"That Christmas she was there with Fergie, she was pretty miserable and
she wasn't speaking to Charles, but she wasn't cutting herself at that stage. [Spencer] piled
every bad thing into one weekend which is taking poetic license a little far."
For all of the film and television adaptations that have brought Diana Spencer into the 21st
century on-screen, we must ask ourselves what the woman herself would've thought about it all.
While Diana herself can't tell us about how she would want her story told,
her close friends and confidants can — and luckily for us, they did.
Makeup artist Mary Greenwell, a close friend of the late princess,
told The Telegraph that the aura of mystery surrounding the late princess is misplaced.
"She's now seen as this kind of martyr, which I think is wrong. She did amazing things,
but she's misunderstood. All I'd say is that the portrayals you see now are not the best
way to understand her. She wouldn't want to be on this pedestal with all this glory and fame."
Indeed, the testimonies from her friends and close allies allow for the conclusion
that not one piece of film or television will ever get Diana 100% right. She was,
without a doubt, a singularly stunning human being, whose subtle cocktail of courage, vogue,
humility, and dedication makes it impossible for any script to fully embody her.
If you are struggling with an eating disorder, or know someone who is, help is available. Visit the
National Eating Disorders Association website or contact NEDA's Live Helpline at 1-800-931-2237.
You can also receive 24/7 Crisis Support via text (send NEDA to 741-741).