Author Topic: A 'Lasting Tribute'  (Read 2537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Trudie

  • Diana-ites
  • Forum Nobility
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,040
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: Diana
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2017, 08:15:05 AM »
No it is not "Charles supporters". It takes quite something spectacular to come from the wedding of the century or even of all time, becoming one of the most privileged woman in the world to dying in Paris chased by the paparazzi in a write off car driven by a drunken driver and on a rendezvous with a rich layabout. That is what they call a mess and nobody could have predicted it when Diana walked down the aisle as the new Princess of Wales.

She had the world at her feet and three it all away. You can blame Charles all you like and talk about heirs and lines of succession, I doubt it affects Charles in any way. He is not the one that ended up in that mess. At the very least he knows how to look after his interests and knows where his bread is battered.

Besides all this is very little to do with the memorial, just the typical blame game that makes it impossible to have a tribute. Nothing is acceptable to you other than a eulogy of the wonderful Diana who was a victim of everybody. Sorry but that does not convince me and it certain does not convince everyone (not just "Charles supporters").

Well lets look at the first paragraph here shall we? When Diana walked down the aisle as  the new Princess of Wales you are right no one could have predicted the mess Charles created when he married a naive 20 year old using her for the purpose of breeding legitimate heirs being suitable instead of his real love a totally unsuitable woman with a past who was only qualified to be his mistress.

In the second paragraph yes Diana was a very privileged woman however it was not Diana who threw it away. Diana endured more years of trying to gain Charles affection and attention only to be rebuffed in the process and it was Charles who filed for the separation and divorce. Yes Charles knows how to look after his interests all he has to do is have his sycophant friend speak for him due to his HRH and as far as knowing where is bread is buttered he never had to worry about that it was his due to his accidental birth to number one in the line after his mother.

Now lets get down to the final paragraph a Statue is fitting to Diana not only as the mother of a future king and grandmother to another Diana with her tireless work using that title and platform worked to highlight important causes some deemed unsuitable but nonetheless made a difference this alone made her a standout withing the monarchy. No one here and certainly no true Diana fan would call her a saint. The difference with Diana was her childlike desire to make the world a better place and in certain areas I would say she succeeded especially with Aids, homelessness and landmines.


 
The following users thanked this post: sandy


Online Duch_Luver_4ever

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,828
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: Diana, Princess of Wales
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2017, 08:16:54 AM »
Wrote a book so missed out on the last 4 posts while i was typing... :snowflake: :snowflake: :snowflake:

@Kritter , the early parts of the marriage have little to do with the statue. The "grey" part I was referring to was the assertion that it was the Diana fans in isolation that caused the delay in the statue.

I thought I gave the RF and Charles a going over on the post, but I do think @royalanthropologist  had a good point that explained part of it, but not all of it by a long shot.

However, her and I have have a common ground that not many Diana fans and Camilla fans(for the record she also does like Diana, check the posts) would usually have because I dont take the shrill or shout her down at any cost re: Camilla and/or Diana and I like to think (but I wouldnt speak for her) that shes taken some of my thoughts on board as a result, and I have with her (trust me, @Curryong  can confirm, if you think royal is bad, try going on TRF as a Diana fan  :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: ).

As for Dodi an Diana, it was a summer fling that was designed for public consumption, it was an early harbinger to the things you see with Taylor Swift and the Kardashians as far as publicly managing a relationship for publicity/external motives. It was mentioned in another post about the media being contacted, Diana had contacted the photog that took the pic "the kiss" an Italian photog, she would call asking what he got, and why the pics were so grainy when they were in Sardinia. (Story of a Princess has a great part on that).

As far as Diana being a "mess" well thats a subjective term, id imagine somewhere some paper article may have said that or not, but for example the doc over her "year off" showed several examples of challenges she had.

She did have mood swings, and staff got rode rough several times (but she also could be much kinder and noticed good work better than her royal contemporaries that she likely learned a lot of the behavior that people looked askance at).

She had several things to overcome in her marriage from the way she was treated, and having to make her own way, which she was very admirable in dealing with them, most ppl her age would have crumpled under the stress, and todays snowflakes, not a chance...but there were also areas that bear looking at (like the lack of warning from her sisters/friends about C&C, discounting things like the Private Eye article about C&C on the trip to Rhodesia/Zimbawbe handover, the news/tabloid and even gossip about how more and more women we turning Charles down, for example Anna Wallace's exit at that party should have given her pause, and her mother/grandmother/older women mentor roles in her life preparing her for what marriage was likely to entail).

But the windsors and the lifestyle did rub off on her, in terms of how staff was treated(at one point trying to blame her staff over the calls to Oliver), a bigger desire for material things, in some ways losing touch with people (she remarked how novel it was queuing at Ronnie Scott's with Hasnat, when she must have had to queue several times in her Colherne Court days).

Charles was in a sticky spot having to marry and Diana wanted to be in the right place at the right time, its not as black and white as one thinks, although id say the grey is shaded more in Diana's favor due to her age, lack of knowing what royal life would entail, the lack of preparation by her new family, but most importantly in my mind, how he could not have seen her like I did. Listen to the men in the boys doc about Diana, and you can hear in their voice and see on their face the love and adoration she could make you feel. To me thats Charles "unforgivable error" so to speak in the situation (thats not the best words for it, but I hope you know what I mean).

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2017, 08:24:44 AM »
Yes, a scholarship helps to inspire young people to do more for others and to engage in public works. I think she would have liked that. Rockefeller is long dead but his scholarships are still helping and inspiring many people across the world.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy, TLLK


Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2017, 08:30:06 AM »
Quote
The loser in all this was Diana and it need not have been like that had she been wiser.

A 19 year old is supposed to be wiser than a 30 year old.    :laugh10:  Charles should have been wiser & he & His Mistress would not have had their story told.

Quote
The idea that Diana did not have mood swings or throw tantrums

Why wouldn't she after her husband & his nanny/mistress were treating her like human garbage. Maybe you believe it is alright for men to treat women in that manner but most women will try to remove themselves from that situation.?

Quote
I also don't buy that narrative of the teenage victim.

What would you call a teenage victim?

Dear you should really try comprehending what you read, believe me you will understand much more in life once you accomplish that.   :bday10:

Quote
Diana was her childlike desire to make the world a better place

It is not a childish desire to make the world a better place, it is a heart full of love that brings that about in people. Of course there are the cold hearted people who can see nothing but themselves like Charles that the ones with hearts are forced to deal with.

Quote
its not as black and white as one thinks,

Sure it is. They used a teenager for their own means & they paid for doing so. Life tends to make one pay for things like that. Camilla & Charles thought Diana was a Mouse but when she found her voice she roared like a Lioness. They are still running scared even after she died 20 years ago.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 08:39:02 AM by Kritter »
 
The following users thanked this post: Trudie, FanDianaFancy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2017, 08:36:31 AM »
I know it is a losing battle but I will try again: Diana was over 30 when she really started making really big mistakes in her life. That is when she was in the midst of the war of the waleses and that final tragedy in Paris. She was not a child. She had a good 15 years of public life under her belt with access to many advisers who would have told her not to do certain things had she listened to them.

You say she wanted out, she said she didn't and was surprised when it all blew up and they wanted her out. Diana to her credit sometimes realized that she had made mistakes but that is only after her initial emotional responses that always landed her in trouble.

In any case this is about selecting a suitable and lasting memorial for her. Once again I know it is a losing battle, but I was hopeful that for once her sons and those who really knew her would be able to do it without getting bogged down into the old recriminations and blame game.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #105 on: December 15, 2017, 08:41:01 AM »
I know it is a losing battle but I will try again: Diana was a teenager when she was abused & that brought about her adult reactions.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2017, 09:01:56 AM »
I really do think it is an appalling insult to real victims of abuse to use that word to describe one of the most privileged women in the world. It really is and shows the extent of hyperbole that makes this story so unreal. Diana accepted a proposal from a man she barely knew, knowing very well that he was in love with someone else. She desperately wanted to be princess of wales, despite her misgivings about the man. She always had the option of saying no to the proposal but she didn't because she wanted to be married to Charles. Even when he was long tired of her, she still insisted she wanted to remain married to her alleged "abuser". That marriage brought her incredible opportunities. To call her a victim is the height of exaggeration and mischaracterization.

There are many, many people who have suffered worse marriages and relationships when they were even younger than Diana. Not all of them ended up where she ended up. Diana was telling lies, making up stories and falling out with people before she ever met Charles. She confessed to slapping her own father and pushing her step mother down stairs.  She went after married men, harassing one of their wives and knowing how painful that can be. How all that is to do with Charles is beyond me. Charles was not the most important determinant of Diana's personality and it is really pathetic that everything that went wrong with her and her life is somehow laid at the feet of Charles. No wonder he got fed up of the whole thing.  Diana had a fragile insecure personality that is unable to handle rejection, a core competency for any adult. She would never ever have a mature relationship unless that aspect of her personality was addressed.

Once again, this is really about her memorial not a review of the war of the waleses.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 


Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #107 on: December 15, 2017, 09:06:54 AM »
^ You think women with money can't be abused.   :wacko:

Check these out they are good.    :monkey:    :monkey2:

Here is one of a statue      :liberty:
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Online TLLK

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,060
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Gal power!!!!!!
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #108 on: December 15, 2017, 09:12:43 AM »
Yes, a scholarship helps to inspire young people to do more for others and to engage in public works. I think she would have liked that. Rockefeller is long dead but his scholarships are still helping and inspiring many people across the world.
Exactly!!! :goodpost: @royalanthropologist -The Diana Award would be the perfect place to start by offering a scholarship. William, Kate and Meghan are university graduates and I believe that Diana would  like to have seen  more young people have the opportunity to attend a university or college. :snowflake:

More information on the Diana Award. https://diana-award.org.uk/nominate/
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 09:17:37 AM by TLLK »
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy, Duch_Luver_4ever, royalanthropologist

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #109 on: December 15, 2017, 09:19:21 AM »
Diana was not abused. Had she been "abused", she would never have said she wanted to remain married to her "abuser" when they told her that she had to divorce. It is simply preposterous to suggest that Diana was an abused wife. It makes a mockery of the entire abuse process and sets back the women's movement significantly. Nobody can take us seriously if we insist that Diana was an abused woman.

btw TLLK, I did think that Diana award was a good stepping stone. It is always good to give someone tangible to follow an award. Research into bulimia and other eating disorders might be a great idea as well. I personally had never heard about bulimia until Diana spoke about it. There was a hospice that named an award after Diana which I thought was rather touching given the fact that she was touching AIDS patients at a time when everybody (include me) was so frightened about the disease.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 09:25:41 AM by royalanthropologist »
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #110 on: December 15, 2017, 09:27:47 AM »
She just did all that royal "perfect role" that they all play.

Here is another good one.     :banana:

Here is Charles in his younger days    :polo:

Here is the statue again      :liberty:

 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Online Trudie

  • Diana-ites
  • Forum Nobility
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,040
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: Diana
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #111 on: December 15, 2017, 05:20:34 PM »
Diana was not abused. Had she been "abused", she would never have said she wanted to remain married to her "abuser" when they told her that she had to divorce. It is simply preposterous to suggest that Diana was an abused wife. It makes a mockery of the entire abuse process and sets back the women's movement significantly. Nobody can take us seriously if we insist that Diana was an abused woman.

btw TLLK, I did think that Diana award was a good stepping stone. It is always good to give someone tangible to follow an award. Research into bulimia and other eating disorders might be a great idea as well. I personally had never heard about bulimia until Diana spoke about it. There was a hospice that named an award after Diana which I thought was rather touching given the fact that she was touching AIDS patients at a time when everybody (include me) was so frightened about the disease.

Apparently you have never suffered abuse in anyway shape or form from a man. I suggest you educate yourself as to what constitutes abuse it is not simply being battered and I find your post an insult as I am a survivor of spousal abuse. You have no idea why women want to stay with their abuser number one is the children and number two isolation make no mistake Diana was isolated even from her own family she just couldn't just ring up say her mother or sister and say how about lunch at noon today?


 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, FanDianaFancy, Kritter

Online sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,121
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Lasting Tribute\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'
« Reply #112 on: December 15, 2017, 06:20:35 PM »
Diana was not abused. Had she been "abused", she would never have said she wanted to remain married to her "abuser" when they told her that she had to divorce. It is simply preposterous to suggest that Diana was an abused wife. It makes a mockery of the entire abuse process and sets back the women's movement significantly. Nobody can take us seriously if we insist that Diana was an abused woman.

btw TLLK, I did think that Diana award was a good stepping stone. It is always good to give someone tangible to follow an award. Research into bulimia and other eating disorders might be a great idea as well. I personally had never heard about bulimia until Diana spoke about it. There was a hospice that named an award after Diana which I thought was rather touching given the fact that she was touching AIDS patients at a time when everybody (include me) was so frightened about the disease.

What about Morton? Diana wanted her story out there because of the nasty stories Charles friends leaked about her. They still do even after she's dead. Ask Junor.

Diana deserves a statue.

Blaming the wife instead of the husband and his mistress does indeed set back the women's movement.  Nobody can take women seriously if they make excuses for Charles. Who admitted he married her preferring the mistress. Charles even put Diana down in public.

Double post auto-merged: December 15, 2017, 06:21:12 PM

Exactly!!! :goodpost: @royalanthropologist -The Diana Award would be the perfect place to start by offering a scholarship. William, Kate and Meghan are university graduates and I believe that Diana would  like to have seen  more young people have the opportunity to attend a university or college. :snowflake:

More information on the Diana Award. https://diana-award.org.uk/nominate/

This can happen in addition to the statue which she does deserve. IMO

Double post auto-merged: December 15, 2017, 06:28:24 PM

I really do think it is an appalling insult to real victims of abuse to use that word to describe one of the most privileged women in the world. It really is and shows the extent of hyperbole that makes this story so unreal. Diana accepted a proposal from a man she barely knew, knowing very well that he was in love with someone else. She desperately wanted to be princess of wales, despite her misgivings about the man. She always had the option of saying no to the proposal but she didn't because she wanted to be married to Charles. Even when he was long tired of her, she still insisted she wanted to remain married to her alleged "abuser". That marriage brought her incredible opportunities. To call her a victim is the height of exaggeration and mischaracterization.

There are many, many people who have suffered worse marriages and relationships when they were even younger than Diana. Not all of them ended up where she ended up. Diana was telling lies, making up stories and falling out with people before she ever met Charles. She confessed to slapping her own father and pushing her step mother down stairs.  She went after married men, harassing one of their wives and knowing how painful that can be. How all that is to do with Charles is beyond me. Charles was not the most important determinant of Diana's personality and it is really pathetic that everything that went wrong with her and her life is somehow laid at the feet of Charles. No wonder he got fed up of the whole thing.  Diana had a fragile insecure personality that is unable to handle rejection, a core competency for any adult. She would never ever have a mature relationship unless that aspect of her personality was addressed.

Once again, this is really about her memorial not a review of the war of the waleses.

ANother example of setting back the women's movement. Blaming the 19 year old for accepting the proposal instead of the 32 man who knew full well he did not love the woman when he proposed to her.

Diana in her naivete assumed that because Charles proposed to her he loved her. And he proposed to her and did not choose Camilla. Isn't that reasonable for brides to expect. No DIana did not know "full well" she found out after the wedding ceremony and on the honeymoon that Camilla was going nowhere.

Diana had loyal friends her entire life. She dropped the ones that provided safe houses for Prince Charles and Camilla.

Diana desperately wanted a loving home not the title. She had a title. Again, blaming the woman and making assumptions about her motives. Charles wanted heirs and he needed to marry to get them. Diana was on the list, she was an aristo.

DIana did not "insist" anything. Divorce was discouraged by the royals. PRince Philip wanted (according to letters he sent) her to stay in the marriage as did the Queen, even if in name only. So where is your blaming of them.  Charles was becoming increasingly emotional abusive to her. She wanted out. And you forget they were separated in 1992 so there were 3 years of separation and one of their being divorced.

You seem to like to believe Diana was a failure and could not sustain relationships. That's rich since the only one Charles could sustain a relationship with was a woman who resembled his nanny and for much of the time was hi s friend's wife. Before Diana, women dumped Charles.

Diana would have been a tremendous success and would have met a real man IMO instead of mistress obsessed wimpy Charles.

Charles should have got counseling from someone before even thinking of marrying anybody.  There are many "personality" quirks in Prince Charles that should be addressed. The current wife spends time living in her former residence. Even she must need  a respite apparently.

Double post auto-merged: December 15, 2017, 06:36:15 PM

I know it is a losing battle but I will try again: Diana was over 30 when she really started making really big mistakes in her life. That is when she was in the midst of the war of the waleses and that final tragedy in Paris. She was not a child. She had a good 15 years of public life under her belt with access to many advisers who would have told her not to do certain things had she listened to them.

You say she wanted out, she said she didn't and was surprised when it all blew up and they wanted her out. Diana to her credit sometimes realized that she had made mistakes but that is only after her initial emotional responses that always landed her in trouble.

In any case this is about selecting a suitable and lasting memorial for her. Once again I know it is a losing battle, but I was hopeful that for once her sons and those who really knew her would be able to do it without getting bogged down into the old recriminations and blame game.

Yes and The Prince of Wales himself messed up beginning in seventies when he felt it OK to get involved with his friends wives. Once Camilla married she should have been off limits to him and once Dale married she should have been off limits. Charles did not go into his marriage with Diana with a clean slate, he was clinging to the mistress and shamelessly contacted her during his honeymoon with Diana and wore her little gift of cufflinks in front of Diana. He seemed to have the 'maturity" of a 14 year old.

I take it you loathe the idea of a statue and you keep on about scholarships and so on. She deserves a statue.

Charles mistake was marrying Diana when he knew he did not love her.  And no, Diana did not know "everything" about his plans for obvious reasons.

I see you never blame Charles yet talk about women's rights. I don't get i t.

Double post auto-merged: December 15, 2017, 06:42:19 PM

I agree with @Duch_Luver_4ever in as far as the complex emotions and campaigns are. The BRF has mixed emotions about Diana. On the one hand she is the mother of members and created publicity for them, on the other she also did a lot of damage to the institution. They are mainly ambivalent and unsure in their responses to her hence the desire to "forget her". She was not someone they wanted dead but she was also not someone that they missed in terms of her antics.

Now as for @Kritter and @sandy, this is a memorial for Diana not Charles. It is certainly not a question of whether or not he is popular and as far as I can tell he is doing pretty well despite his lack of popularity amongst Diana fans. The loser in all this was Diana and it need not have been like that had she been wiser. Charles has everything he wanted without  lifting a finger.

By her hitting her self-destruct button Diana put things in motion. The idea that Diana did not have mood swings or throw tantrums runs completely contrary to her own accounts of her instability in that marriage. It was not a myth created by Charles. By her own admission, Diana was volatile and suffering from a mental illness (I know someone is going to say that bulimia is not a mental illness but that has been pretty much proved by the experts in the field that it is). 

I also don't buy that narrative of the teenage victim. Many of the horrendous mistakes Diana made were after she was 30 years of age (that magic number at which some Diana fans claim C&C should have known better).
Diana was not the first or last person to be left by her husband for a mistress. In fact she too went after married people.

This idea that she was 19 when she did all that stuff is just not plausible. Besides we are back to the justification mode instead of the memorial ideas. This is always the case with some Diana fans...they are wired to think that they are fighting her corner when in fact they are just putting people's backs up and making it much more difficult to have proper memorials for Diana. Your responses to my even-handed post are just a classic example.

Her being 19 when Charles proposed is very relevant. He had to marry a young woman to have his heirs and an aristo. He married her knowing he did not love her. He dumped her after the second child was born and then had his friends' trash her to the media. It set off a chain of events. And he was not man enough to drop the mistress.

So other women experiencing bad treatment by a husband "justifies" Charles behavior to Diana. I think not. When Diana hit thirty it was 1991. It was nearly a decade after Charles buddies leaked stories about her. 
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 06:42:29 PM by sandy »
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Kritter


Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #113 on: December 16, 2017, 12:30:48 PM »
Apparently you have never suffered abuse in anyway shape or form from a man. I suggest you educate yourself as to what constitutes abuse it is not simply being battered and I find your post an insult as I am a survivor of spousal abuse. You have no idea why women want to stay with their abuser number one is the children and number two isolation make no mistake Diana was isolated even from her own family she just couldn't just ring up say her mother or sister and say how about lunch at noon today?

I would not want to personalize this but I insist that Diana was not an "abused woman". It is very insulting to the adult protection cause to say such a thing.  I also have some rhetorical questions:

(a) Why was she isolated from her family? Was she in a prison? Were they forbidden from having contact? Could it be that Diana was poorly socialized and always had fraught relationships with everyone and not just her estranged husband?
(b) If she wanted to remain for the kids, how did she cope when they finally told her that she had to leave the marriage (divorce)? Were the kids no longer in play or had some magical situation changed to make it easier to have access to them after separation? Could it be that Diana was using the children as an excuse to remain married to Charles when she knew that there was no other reason for him to be with her because he did not love her or enjoy her company?
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,973
  • Activity:
    12%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #114 on: December 16, 2017, 01:06:56 PM »
She wasn't isolated from her family or friends. that's nonsense. Of course it isn't as easy to meet one's friends as a royal, than if you are a private individual, but of course she could call up her sisters or friends or even her mother and arrange a meeting.  She couldn't just say "can we meet at the pub in an hour" but it is not as if she was forbidden to see them or kept away form them
As for the children, I think that she did fear leaving the marriage at times because she was afraid that she would not be able to have full custody of the children.. or take them with her if she decided to live abroad.  but the queen would never take them from her.. so that was an exaggerated fear.  She would have to let the RF have a role in their upbringing.. and could not have them lvie with her full time.. but that was all.
I think that she did want to leave the marriag at times, but when told to do so, by the queen, told to get a divorce, she panicked..
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #115 on: December 16, 2017, 01:38:00 PM »
Of course she was neither isolated nor abused. If my husband had been "abusing" me for the best part of 15 years then his mother suggested that we divorce and she would pay me $30 million to get away (with shared custody to the children), I would jump at the opportunity. I certainly would not be stalling matters and asking for an office next to my "abuser". Definitely I would not be watching programs involving my abuser with his mistress or "joking" about appearing at their parties disguised in a cake.

Diana knew very well what she had lost because of her impulsiveness and addiction to victim-hood. When finally Charles moved to end it for good, she wanted to cling on. That does not speak to me of someone that is "abused". If he was anywhere as bad as she claimed, she would be ecstatic to finally be rid of Charles. But there she was, was telling people that she never wanted a divorce even after Panorama. All she wanted was to be the permanent "wronged wife" so that everyone would tell her how much she had suffered. What she had not counted on was the finality of a divorce where Charles no longer had any obligation to her. When that happened, she started making up stories about him spying on her or trying to kill her ( as if he ever really cared what was going on in her life).

Besides the notion of going abroad was just designed to try and take the children away from Charles in revenge. She absolutely loved the media attention as long as it was positive for her and negative for the BRF. The idea that she wanted to get away from the UK was just typical of her "I am such a rich poor girl" attitude. Diana could have led a quiet and private life if she chose after the divorce,  but that is not what she wanted. She had tried that stunt in 1993 in one of her strops when she dropped all her charities but still could not resist the limelight. She soon came back and never wanted to leave the publicity circuit.

Diana was one of the first and most important reality television stars of our age. A poster child for "first world problems". Her calling card was: "Look how hard it is for me being one of the the most privileged woman in the world".
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #116 on: December 16, 2017, 05:30:57 PM »
What a shame that the POW & his nanny/mistress Abused Diana for years & a female (if you are) voices opinions supporting the abusers right to abuse explaining away the abuse because the wife through circumstances stayed. The wife should have given up everything including the children if she did not like the abuse. The abused wife is the blame. Isn't that just exactly what the abuser always says to the abused spouse? "I wouldn't have abused you if only you had not made me."
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,973
  • Activity:
    12%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #117 on: December 16, 2017, 06:02:54 PM »
how did Charles abuse her??  Did he speak to her cruelly?  Did he keep her short of money?  Did he treat her with physical cruelty?  Did he kepe her at home, and not allow her to go out?
Did he take her chidren away from hier??
Tha'ts abuse.  yes he was sometimes unkind to her. Most people are unkind to their spouses at times.  They lose their tempers, they bicker, they have big rows.  They say unkind things.. Its normal.  Diana was well abel to shout back at charles and yell abuse at him. 
Yes charles had an affair and Diana had affairs.  He was unhappy, she was unhappy adnd they boht foudnd solace with other lovers. He didn't object to her havig boyfrends if it kept her happy... how is that abuse?
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK, royalanthropologist

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #118 on: December 16, 2017, 06:12:32 PM »
There was no abuse. Just another fantasy to reinforce the Diana the saint vs Charles the devil false fairy tale. The "nanny mistress" thing is a gratuitous insult that is meant to shut down debate. So is the questioning of my gender. All are tactics to get away from the facts. Diana was not and has never been an abused woman. Had she been abused, we would never hear the end of it. She always loved the story of herself as a victim and if she had been a real victim of abuse, I am sure she would open a media franchise to show the world how much she had suffered.

The truth is that Diana was angry that Charles had left her and found happiness elsewhere. She could not stomach that and always found ways to interfere in his life after he left. If she could not have him, she would destroy him. That is why Camilla's 50th birthday was so painful to her. She was out of Charles life and he was getting on just fine despite her constant missives and lies in the media. She wanted to do something to disrupt his happiness even if it meant serious danger to herself and an invasion of her privacy. The Dodi photo shoot was just that...a still very immature woman (despite 36 years, two children and a divorce behind her) trying to remain relevant to her ex and setting off a disaster in the process.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 06:15:08 PM by royalanthropologist »
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #119 on: December 16, 2017, 06:33:00 PM »
Quote
how did Charles abuse her??  Did he speak to her cruelly?

YES!!!!!!!!

Quote
The truth is that Diana was angry that Charles had left her

He never left the Nanny/Mistress.    :xmas21:
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Online sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,121
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A \'Lasting Tribute\'
« Reply #120 on: December 16, 2017, 06:43:54 PM »
There was no abuse. Just another fantasy to reinforce the Diana the saint vs Charles the devil false fairy tale. The "nanny mistress" thing is a gratuitous insult that is meant to shut down debate. So is the questioning of my gender. All are tactics to get away from the facts. Diana was not and has never been an abused woman. Had she been abused, we would never hear the end of it. She always loved the story of herself as a victim and if she had been a real victim of abuse, I am sure she would open a media franchise to show the world how much she had suffered.

The truth is that Diana was angry that Charles had left her and found happiness elsewhere. She could not stomach that and always found ways to interfere in his life after he left. If she could not have him, she would destroy him. That is why Camilla's 50th birthday was so painful to her. She was out of Charles life and he was getting on just fine despite her constant missives and lies in the media. She wanted to do something to disrupt his happiness even if it meant serious danger to herself and an invasion of her privacy. The Dodi photo shoot was just that...a still very immature woman (despite 36 years, two children and a divorce behind her) trying to remain relevant to her ex and setting off a disaster in the process.

The most cruel thing Charles did was to marry Diana when he preferred Camilla and no he never gave up his mistress.

The Dodi photo shoot did not take place at the time of Camilla's birthday. She was photographed sitting on a diving board and she was not involved with Dodi then. Look it up.

ANd the media did not want a cover story of Camilla grinning wearing the bling. IT was a no brainer to choose Diana. Yes, Camilla was ecstatic she got the bling and got to grin for cameras.

Diana's dating was not always "all about CHarles." So Diana dating was designed to interfere with Charles. She had every right to date and down the road remarry. Too bad if it "disrupted" Charles party for Camilla. He found ways to stick it to DIana via Poison Pen writers like Junor. She is Camilla's buddy. And he was too cold hearted to consider how it hurt their sons to have Diana bashed that way.

Diana was abused, so you think it "OK" for Charles to put her down in public saying she had  a "little mind." But I suppose you excuse everything the great man does.

Camilla and CHarles were sneaking around for years and their "happiness" came at a great price

Double post auto-merged: December 16, 2017, 06:46:52 PM

how did Charles abuse her??  Did he speak to her cruelly?  Did he keep her short of money?  Did he treat her with physical cruelty?  Did he kepe her at home, and not allow her to go out?
Did he take her chidren away from hier??
Tha'ts abuse.  yes he was sometimes unkind to her. Most people are unkind to their spouses at times.  They lose their tempers, they bicker, they have big rows.  They say unkind things.. Its normal.  Diana was well abel to shout back at charles and yell abuse at him. 
Yes charles had an affair and Diana had affairs.  He was unhappy, she was unhappy adnd they boht foudnd solace with other lovers. He didn't object to her havig boyfrends if it kept her happy... how is that abuse?


And you don't think it abusive of him to marry Diana when he knew he preferred Camilla? How do you think that made her feel? He admitted this later to his biographer. I call that abuse. ANd he dumped her when she had the heir and spare.

Charles was finding "solace" throughout the marriage. With Camilla and at times, Janet Jenkins

Charles  put down Diana in public and in front of other people. There is a record of it. And he would say in front of others she had a "little mind." Do you think that "OK? Really?

ANd it is abusive to wear the other woman's cufflinks and sport them in front of the wife on their honeymoon.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 06:46:52 PM by sandy »
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Kritter

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,973
  • Activity:
    12%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #121 on: December 16, 2017, 06:47:36 PM »
He did give up his affair with Camilla, even Diana didn't say that he was sleeping with Camilla all throrugh their marriage..
and I woudlnt say that he spoke to her "cruelly".  I would say he was sometimes unkind or sarcastic, and she was harldy backwards at yelling at him.  There are accounts of her shouting four letter wrods at him, in front of people..
Most couples quarrel, sometimes in public, and say nasty things to each other in temper.. that's not abuse...
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Online sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,121
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A \\\'Lasting Tribute\\\'
« Reply #122 on: December 16, 2017, 06:47:45 PM »
Amabel, Charles was in touch with Camilla the entire time. He would meet up with her at the hunts and other events and even called her up on the honeymoon. They were said to be meeting up in friends' homes as early as 1983. I think she was calling the shots the entire time.  Charles was emotionally attached to Camilla and admitted he preferred her when he married DIana. It is not always about just their having sex, it kept Charles from fully committing to his first wife. Diana was frustrated she was not a yes Charles no CHarles sort, she had every right to complain about the situation. SO wives should not say four letter words? Tell that to the millions of wives who do. Charles put her down all the time and at a lunch talked right in front of her about how good it is to have a mistress. Jephson was shocked at the way he put down Diana. Charles preferring another woman then ditching Diana for her after she had the babies he needed and then putting her down, yes that was abuse.

What a shame that the POW & his nanny/mistress Abused Diana for years & a female (if you are) voices opinions supporting the abusers right to abuse explaining away the abuse because the wife through circumstances stayed. The wife should have given up everything including the children if she did not like the abuse. The abused wife is the blame. Isn't that just exactly what the abuser always says to the abused spouse? "I wouldn't have abused you if only you had not made me."

So many times, I see posts that Diana "asked for it." And the defenders of Charles blame HER for accepting the proposal of marriage and don't blame Charles for proposing. Shows the mindset.

Double post auto-merged: December 16, 2017, 06:53:58 PM

She wasn't isolated from her family or friends. that's nonsense. Of course it isn't as easy to meet one's friends as a royal, than if you are a private individual, but of course she could call up her sisters or friends or even her mother and arrange a meeting.  She couldn't just say "can we meet at the pub in an hour" but it is not as if she was forbidden to see them or kept away form them
As for the children, I think that she did fear leaving the marriage at times because she was afraid that she would not be able to have full custody of the children.. or take them with her if she decided to live abroad.  but the queen would never take them from her.. so that was an exaggerated fear.  She would have to let the RF have a role in their upbringing.. and could not have them lvie with her full time.. but that was all.
I think that she did want to leave the marriag at times, but when told to do so, by the queen, told to get a divorce, she panicked..

Well Diana's mother when she bolted lost custody of the children. Her mother testified against her. If Diana upped and left of course the custody of the children would be an issue.

The Queen told Charles AND Diana to divorce not just Diana. The Queen just let this situation get worse and worse. She was warned about Camilla years before and did nothing about it. Charles should not have married if he preferred the mistress.

Double post auto-merged: December 16, 2017, 06:55:41 PM

I would not want to personalize this but I insist that Diana was not an "abused woman". It is very insulting to the adult protection cause to say such a thing.  I also have some rhetorical questions:

(a) Why was she isolated from her family? Was she in a prison? Were they forbidden from having contact? Could it be that Diana was poorly socialized and always had fraught relationships with everyone and not just her estranged husband?
(b) If she wanted to remain for the kids, how did she cope when they finally told her that she had to leave the marriage (divorce)? Were the kids no longer in play or had some magical situation changed to make it easier to have access to them after separation? Could it be that Diana was using the children as an excuse to remain married to Charles when she knew that there was no other reason for him to be with her because he did not love her or enjoy her company?

So Charles had no problems?! Really. Any man who thinks it OK to sleep with his friends' wives has issues galore and his way of dealing with people is to me somewhat bizarre.

ANd speaking of "using the children," Charles used William less than a year after DIana died, in his Camilla campaign.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 06:55:41 PM by sandy »
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Kritter

Offline Kritter

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #123 on: December 16, 2017, 06:57:20 PM »
Quote
He did give up his affair with Camilla, even Diana didn't say that he was sleeping with Camilla all throrugh their marriage..

Only until the spare was born. He had to keep that sperm count up & couldn't afford having sex with the Nanny/Mistress until he had accomplished their goal.

Quote
I woudlnt say that he spoke to her "cruelly"

I would say he spoke to her cruelly & treated her abhorrently.

Quote
Most couples quarrel, sometimes in public, and say nasty things to each other in temper.

Yes couples argue but that is not what Charles was doing IMO.

Quote
So many times, I see posts that Diana "asked for it."

That is the only way they can justify the cruelty C&C perpetrated against Diana.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,992
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: A 'Lasting Tribute'
« Reply #124 on: December 16, 2017, 06:57:39 PM »
He abused her so much that she did not want to leave even after they wanted to give her a divorce settlement and allowed her equal access to the children? Like I said, she wanted to remain married to him (in her own words) after all that so called "abuse". And of course the assumption that insulting and throwing things at him or telling lies about him in the media is not abuse...because she is a woman? Thanks but no thanks. Diana was a privileged woman who had it all and threw it away.

It is deliberately naive to believe that everybody gets married and stays married because they are madly in love with the person and with nobody else. It is not. Some people are lucky in that way, others are not. You make your marriage what you want it to be. If you can't stand it, you ask for a divorce (or a separation in Diana's case). You don't constantly look for ways to rope yourself into the life of that person you say is your "abuser". No wonder some men just get fed up with the whole victim-hood thing and turn away.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

 

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites