Princess Diana curtseyed

Started by LouisFerdinand, September 15, 2017, 12:29:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

royalanthropologist

If the queen indeed "merely tolerates Camilla" then I for one would take that tolerance any day over the kind of acrimony she had with Diana. Wishing things does not make them so. I think Camilla is sitting comfortably where she is vis-a-vis the queen.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Her son Charles had the acrimony with his mother. He trashed his parents via DImbleby and Bedell Smith and Junor repeated the "poor miserable with his parents CHarles" spin. The acrimony was so bad his siblings had to speak up for their parents.

I could say wishing does not make it so regarding your bad thoughts about Diana.

I don't think the Queen spends a whole lot of time with Camilla. By all accounts, Sophie is her favorite and she IMO is a  whole lot more comfortable with her.

royalanthropologist

#477
Irrelevant details and tangents IMO.

Like I said Camilla is quite happy where she is. She is in a much, much better position with the BRF than Diana ever was. I doubt the queen is ever going to write to Camilla any time soon calling for an early divorce. The BRF were thoroughly sick of Diana's antics by the time she left. With the exception of her sons, everybody was relieved it was all over.

The fiction that her divorce was a "victory" is nothing more than that...a fiction. She had a the world at her feet and gave it all away for a press scoop. If she was not out of the BRF as you claim, she would not have made a fuss about the loss of title and being isolated. She was out. The queen and Charles were just being polite by saying they "considered her a member of the family". The reality is that she was out and she of all people knew it.

Even attending events involving William and Harry (which you seem to equate to being a member of the BRF) would require the express permission from the sovereign. The family would suffer her presence for the sake of the children but still people who were confident enough about their influence on the queen like the QM would from time to time make their feelings known. That is why she eventually decided it was no longer feasible to go to Balmoral. Nobody wanted her there and she could feel the royal chill when she got there.

Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 11:03:58 AM


Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2017, 09:44:49 AM
well Diana was prone to do that.. In one bio, I have read that she said to one of her aides, "you know I never meant this to happen", when the divorce was going through..and the aide thought "Huh?? What?? She MADE this happen"
She was the one who fought to get out of the marriage and then seemed afraid and angry when the queen finally decreed a divorce.  Left to himself, Charles would have gone on seeing Camilla discreetly and being married to Diana, and leaving her to find a man if she wanted one.   Diana kicked up a  fuss and went on pushing until she was finally pushed out. The RF and the queen DID want to keep her inside the tent, and were prepared to overlook her having a lover provided she was discreet, even prepared I think to tolerate her being more popular than Charles...and being a bit "outside the box".  THey knew she was an asset and they didn't want to lose her. But when she openly fought her husband and the RF, they would not tolerate that forever.
Diana arranged the Bashir interview in secret because she KNEW that the RF would be furious, then was suprirsed when the queen lost her patience and said this is the end, you're getting a divorce

That just about sums my view of Diana's incoherent thinking. Never meant the divorce to happen when she did everything in her power to ensure it happened??? Diana was living in a fairy tale. She never could quite understand the relationship between her actions and their consequences.

Having said that; I do believe she never really intended for Panorama to become a divorce. Some say that she imagined members of the BRF would be so moved by her performance that they would contritely make amends. How sad was that when you consider what happened next?
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

You say it's irrelevant. It is relevant. Charles did trash his parents yet you blame Diana for doing what Charles did. I don't get why you dismiss it. Charles did cause his parents hurt by bashing them to DImbleby, Junor and others.

Camilla got into the family in a very controversial way. Apparently Charles gave her a pass back in the early seventies and moved on to sowing wild oats because as he told Dimbleby he was "not ready" to get married. HE could not have been bothered to tell her to wait for him. And he apparently wanted someone else to marry and be the mother of his heirs. He did not choose Camilla but chose her to be the married mistress.  And he had other mistresses like Kanga and Janet.

Diana was chosen from those considered suitable to marry and be the mother of his children. Camilla had a "past" and some exes had even come forward over the years. She and Andrew were married for 22 years and had 2 children and ultimately 5 grandchildren. She had a first marriage. SHe had contempt for DIana and undermined her every step of the way. It was no accident IMO that she sent those little cufflinks for Charles to wear on his honeymoon with DIana. She called Diana that "ridiculous creature."   She only was able to marry CHarles after the Queen Mum passed on and after years of work with Bolland.  She was not welcomed into the family immediately. She is still not liked by all in the public.

Diana still had the heirs and William and Harry talk about her and pay tribute to her and adored and loved her. Diana was not "out" by any stretch of the imagination.

Why would the Queen not give permission for DIana to be involved in events with her children? Do you see the Queen as that "petty." 

Did you really want Diana to be seen treated as a pariah?  You dislike her but that is a rather harsh assessment. IMO.

It took years for Camilla to be married to CHarles. She was not allowed to sit next to Charles at royal events after Diana passed on. So much for the Queen's "warm" welcome of her.

I think people do "suffer" Camilla' presence to this very day.

How do you know how the Queen was advised about Diana. To me it is more wishful thinking that people did not want DIana to appear at royal events with William and Harry. The Queen would not have had William and Harry without Diana. Charles did not have the children all by himself.

royalanthropologist

"Camilla had a "past" and some exes had even come forward over the years"???

What an incredibly pompous construct in this century? One of the reasons I like Camilla is that she crushed that fairy tale. Girls with pasts are quite entitled to romance and marriage.

I am sorry but I cannot take seriously any suggestion that divorce for Diana was a victory. It really is not convincing at all. $40 million for a crown?...terrible bargaining skills IMO.

As for Camilla's present position:  it really is cold comfort to Diana (and perhaps some of her fans) that: "At least they choose me to be the wife. At least he did not marry her the first time. At least I am the one that bore the children. At least it took 8 years for him to marry her again. At least they did not allow them to sit together before they were married. At least she got in in a controversial way".

Cold comfort indeed. Diana lost that battle and lost it in a spectacular way, partly due to emotional thinking.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#480
Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl and deliberately undermining her for years and instrumental in breaking up a marriage? Really. So let's give the girl with the past the Nobel Prize. LOL> The women IMO was greedy and out for Number One. She became the married mistress when her daughter was still in diapers. I see nothing admirable about the woman. Charles chose not to marry her. And Diana was praised back then as having a history but no past. Camilla did have exes, even if you are in denial about it. A banker who was her first lover came forward. This is a fact. If you think it all pompous go complain to the media and even Charles who chose not to marry the woman back in the early seventies. If it had not been Diana, it would have been another aristo not Camilla Shand.

Camilla was named by Charles as the mistress. Camilla started out as married mistress when her youngest child was still in diapers. I see that as more sordid than admirable.

Charles had his fairytale, having his cake and eating it too. And he made sure he got it.

Diana won the war. Camilla is not popular with all and way down in popularity polls and many do not want her to be named Queen. Diana had money of her own to live a comfortable secure life. Why would you think women should live in a marriage (you admit Charles loathed her) that was a sham for more money. You would then criticize her for being "mercenary" and "selling out." Diana just can't win with you.

Camilla had to wait 8 years, even with Diana dead and buried. The Queen Mum did not want a C and C wedding in her lifetime. Charles had to spend megabucks for some PR for Camilla.

Camilla did have a past like it or not.

royalanthropologist

#481
Diana did not win the war. She had a series of successful  but temporary PR scoops and iconic status as an enduring symbol for faux feminism and constructed victim hood. After her divorce: she lost her position, title, prospects, status and even later on her life. That is not victory, even by her own admission. She wanted to remain married to Charles, Princess of Wales and later on Queen. All that was no longer possible.

I would also point out that your statement that "Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl" is misleading on both counts. I admire Camilla for very different reasons from what you are trying to attribute to me: I admire her for shattering that nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before. Secondly Diana was not a teenager on her wedding day, let alone when Charles finally returned to Camilla.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Diana won the war. You wish she had "lost" and been a pariah. It's interesting that said Pariah was admired by Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa.

She was a victim but she fought back.

She did not lose status, prospects and she still had title Princess of Wales. You only wish she was a big flop. Evidence is out there to the contrary.

If the Girl with the Past had "won" Charles would have fought to marry her back then. He did not even try. He could have avoided making her married mistress if he married he back then. He did not.

There is nothing wrong with a woman marrying her first boyfriend or not having many boyfriends before. Nothing at all wrong. Camilla "shattered nothing," she just set back feminism by making her "career" being a royal mistress and  helping to see off the first wife.  I would say women who truly achieved something and became PResidents or successes in their own rights are the true heroines.

Diana was a teenager when she got engaged and the time Camilla first "mentored" her.

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 12:04:39 PM
Diana did not win the war. She had a series of successful  but temporary PR scoops and iconic status as an enduring symbol for faux feminism and constructed victim hood. After her divorce: she lost her position, title, prospects, status and even later on her life. That is not victory, even by her own admission. She wanted to remain married to Charles, Princess of Wales and later on Queen. All that was no longer possible.

I would also point out that your statement that "Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl" is misleading on both counts. I admire Camilla for very different reasons from what you are trying to attribute to me: I admire her for shattering that nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before. Secondly Diana was not a teenager on her wedding day, let alone when Charles finally returned to Camilla.

Again you forget a few things first of all the nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before was shattered by Sarah who openly lived with her boyfriend Paddy McNally who even took her I believe it was Windsor to meet Andrew at the beginning of their relationship. As for Diana you are right on the fact she was not a teenager on her wedding day she only turned twenty on July first with the wedding held 28 days later. I suppose she matured real fast in those 28 days.



royalanthropologist

#484
@sandy. Diana was not a victim. She was a very privileged woman that threw it all away on a whim. Fighting your husband in the press and making a fuss does not turn you into a heroine. It merely means you have a histrionic personality that cannot cope with rejection.

Being admired by Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela is another red herring. It has absolute nothing to do with her divorce or loss of status. They admired her for her charity work. 

Diana was NOT The Princess of Wales. You can debate it till the cows come home but it will not change that fact. She was not. That title can only belong to the wife of POW and she was no longer that. She was allowed a courtesy use of "Princess of Wales" as if it was a name, not a title.

In fact had she remarried, even that she would no longer be able to use. Her full title after the Divorce was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales. But of course her pride would not allow her to use Lady Diana Spencer because it was a come down from what she had once been.

Here is a link to explain it all: Princess of Wales

According to you Sandy: "I would say women who truly achieved something and became PResidents or successes in their own rights are the true heroines. "

Does that mean that Diana was no heroine or was she a special case because she married into the BRF and used it as a platform?



Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:03:42 PM


btw @Trudie. I agree with you that Diana was an immature 20-year old even then. I actually think it was very wrong for someone to be given so much power, prestige and responsibility  at such a young age when she was not born to it.

A 30-year old woman who is well-educated and has "lived" might have had a much better shot at it. That is why that thing about "a woman without a past" is so annoying to me, especially when compared with Charles' array of mistresses. 

I was just rejecting the notion that Diana was the teenage bride that was preyed upon without her consent.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Yes, she was a victim. She expected a happy marriage but found the husband did not really love her. All the money could not buy any sort of happy life for her with Charles.

I knew you would ask that about Diana. Diana though unlike Camilla was admired by Mandela and Mother Theresa. I think she would have made a name for herself after her divorce as a humanitarian and dedicated charity worker. Camilla OTOH did not do any charity work or anything on her own UNTIL she married the Prince of Wales and during the run up to the marriage when she was learning from Bolland.

Camilla had no "shot" at Charles  before her first marriage because he simply did not pursue her as wife material back then.

Diana was naive and you admit Camilla had "lived." Charles wanted someone naive because he wanted the girl of no experience as a bride. Had Diana "lived" when a teenager

Charles would have rejected her

Women who are married to influential men CAN do things on their own. Case in point: Eleanor Roosevelt recognized as a humanitarian and was an admirable woman in her own right. before and after her husband passed on. Even getting to be  a UN delegate at an older age.

Diana was not called Lady Diana Spencer AFTER the divorce. She was Princess of Wales. She probably would have gone back to Lady Diana had she remarried. She was still Diana, Princess of Wales. It was not Diana Spencer it was Diana, Princess of Wales, nee Lady Diana Spencer.

Well I guess it must be fantasies to the Queen who let her keep the PRincess of Wales title without the HRH. That's the reality of it. Even if you did not like her to keep the title.

Mandela and Mother Theresa admired Diana no matter how you spin it.

Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:44:42 PM


Quote from: Trudie on November 04, 2017, 12:48:27 PM
Again you forget a few things first of all the nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before was shattered by Sarah who openly lived with her boyfriend Paddy McNally who even took her I believe it was Windsor to meet Andrew at the beginning of their relationship. As for Diana you are right on the fact she was not a teenager on her wedding day she only turned twenty on July first with the wedding held 28 days later. I suppose she matured real fast in those 28 days.

I agree. And Edward got to live with Sophie before the marriage. The thing I emphasize is Charles did not pursue Camilla as wife material back then by his own choice.

amabel

Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 12:54:55 PM
@sandy. Diana was not a victim. She was a very privileged woman that threw it all away on a whim. Fighting your husband in the press and making a fuss does not turn you into a heroine. It merely means you have a histrionic personality that cannot cope with rejection.

Being admired by Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela is another red herring. It has absolute nothing to do with her divorce or loss of status. They admired her for her charity work. 

Diana was NOT The Princess of Wales. You can debate it till the cows come home but it will not change that fact. She was not. That title can only belong to the wife of POW and she was no longer that. She was allowed a courtesy use of "Princess of Wales" as if it was a name, not a title.

In fact had she remarried, even that she would no longer be able to use. Her full title after the Divorce was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales. But of course her pride would not allow her to use Lady Diana Spencer because it was a come down from what she had once been.

Here is a link to explain it all: Princess of Wales

?



Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:03:42 PM


btw
A
No, she was not Lady Diana Spencer princess of Wales... She was Diana princess of Wales, without the HRH.  She didn't have to revert to her maiden name

royalanthropologist

@sandy. That sedgeway into Mandela and Mother Theresa is really quite weird. What have those people got to do with Diana's marriage and divorce? Are you telling us that they admired her for the mess she made of her marriage or for her press forays? I thought they admired her for her charity work. They had absolutely nothing to do with her private life.

Then how this relates to Camilla is completely beyond me. I am certain Camilla has met neither Nelson Mandela nor Mother Theresa. They were just not in her circle and I doubt she was losing sleepless nights about them not "admiring" her. Where did that come from?

Interestingly Nelson Mandela dumped his wife for his mistress and actually married her...so maybe he might have a lot more in common with Charles than you care to imagine. I would also doubt he would have the nerve, inclination or interest in judging Camilla for adultery when he had done the same.

I could also start picking apart Mother Theresa to demonstrate why she was not the sweet dear you seem to imagine she was. Someone doing charity does not equate to kindness. "Charity" is excellent PR for celebrities and a job for others. It is a mistake to imagine that "humanitarians" are always smiling and kind because they do it in front of the cameras.

I am sure Charles has stories to tell about the humanitarian Diana. Besides Diana the humanitarian did not leave a single penny to charity in her will, despite the fact that she did make a will and had close to $30 million to her name. Diana the humanitarian did not hesitate to dump hundreds of charities when the whim took her and she wanted to manipulate the BRF for insisting on a separation. Diana the humanitarian was criticized by AIDS charities for turning a planned event into a publicity tour with a celebrity AIDS victim, against the wishes of the consultant doctor. She was not asked back for that reason.

These great humanitarians can be false gods for those that worship the cult of celebrity. Real charity and kindness is done in private. It needs no award, no acknowledgement and certainly no press to take images of a beautiful princess who has dressed down so that she does not look ridiculous against the backdrop of emaciated kids in Africa.

I would also highlight that without Charles, nobody would really know or care who Diana was. She would be just another posh lady leading a mundane life in the shires with the occasional visit to London. It was marrying Charles that catapulted her to all that. She then forgot that little fact and it started going downhill for her.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#488
No it is not weird. I was refuting your insistence that the Divorce "ruined" Diana and she would not be sought out anymore. She was not ruined, she was one of the most famous women on the planet even after Charles. Even after the divorce she won a humanitarian award and was admired by Mandela (who wrote the preface to a book about DIana's Charities).She was not a "nothing" even though you seem to think she was.

If you read the threads more carefully  you can see where "that came from."

Mother Theresa became a saint. Your assessment of her was apparently disagreed with. 

Your Camilla is certainly no "sweet dear."

So if Charles is a great humanitarian how come he does not put charities in HIS will. Maybe he could use the $$$ for charities instead of for his lavish lifestyle.

It's odd that now the $30 million is a "great" settlement to you before you were practically making it sound she was living on a poverty level and talked about all of Charles money in comparison.

If a celebrity or famous person does  not call attention to the charity and does it "quietly" it defeats the purpose of calling attention to the charity.  So did you want the humanitarians to conceal what they do.  In "private" defeats the purpose. NObody would know about it. Or very few.

And without Charles lucking out and being born first he would just be another Prince Andrew. He just lucked out by the timing of his birth. He would be another posh prince that few paid attention to. ANd leading a mundane life.

NOthing went downhill for Diana. Again, fortunately there were people who unlike you, appreciated her.

You even throw St. Theresa under a bus because she happened to like Diana. If she loved Camilla you would IMO have a very different point of view.

royalanthropologist

I have neither the time nor inclination to demonstrate that Mother Theresa was far from being a saint or that being admired by Nelson Mandela was not a guarantee that Diana was better off after her divorce. That is not even talking about the murders of hundreds of Africans that Nelson Mandela sanctioned.


Neither can I take seriously any suggestion that Diana benefited from her divorce. It is a nonsensical argument which flies against all evidence and her own statements. Why would she resist something that was going to benefit her? Weird, I say.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

I hink that most people would prefer to be alive and in a comortable positon, than to be dead and admired by mother Teresa or Nelson mandela.  Diana took fright when the queen ordered the divoce because she was realising that if she was out of the RF, she was going ot lose the protection that being royal gave her.

sandy

#491
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 05, 2017, 06:26:12 AM
I have neither the time nor inclination to demonstrate that Mother Theresa was far from being a saint or that being admired by Nelson Mandela was not a guarantee that Diana was better off after her divorce. That is not even talking about the murders of hundreds of Africans that Nelson Mandela sanctioned.


Neither can I take seriously any suggestion that Diana benefited from her divorce. It is a nonsensical argument which flies against all evidence and her own statements. Why would she resist something that was going to benefit her? Weird, I say.

Of course she was better off. She got out of a marriage intolerable with the husband not wanting her. You say all the time how much he did not want her. DId you think she had no feelings at all?

No it is not a nonsensical argument just because you don't agree with it.

Amabel, DIana did not "take fright". If she were such a frightened little mouse she would not have fought back. She'd have been a frightened mouse if she had just sat back and tolerated the bad marriage.

If you think nothing of her being admired by world leaders, that's your choice. My point is that royal keeps putting her down as a "nothing" without the royal family. My point is she was not.

So you think she should have just stayed in a marriage for years where the man (as royal has said loathed her). I think that sets back women's rights for centuries.

I think she had every reason to be proud that she WAS admired for charity work not just being a wife of the PRince of Wales.

She did not "leave" the family since she had two royal sons, one a future King.

Honestly I don't get the constant put downs of the woman

Charles lost out too because his popularity was eroded from those years and Camilla is not the most popular person in the world.

AMabel, the divorce did not mean death. She was in an auto accident which killed her. I think you and royal are on two different topics.  Royal talks about Diana after the divorce you talk about her being dead. Which is the topic?

I thought it was the LIVE Diana after her divorce. You do make the QUeen sound like a cold woman. Diana was not ousted. She had the royal sons.

amabel

Yes Charles lost out, but he in the end, has maintained his place in the succession, has a happy marriage and will in due course be King, living a busy fruitful life with his family and friends.  Diana's post divorce life was sadly very short, and not that successful.  She would not have ben in a car accident had she not been divorced, becase she would have had sensible PPOS in charge of her security.  As you know. She would not have been involved with a man like Dodi Fayed or Mohammad Al Fayed, had she been still married to Charles.
And the queen DIDNT do more than formally recognise her, after the divorce. She treated Diana politely but distantly,  as you know very well, she did not even want to make any real statement of greif after Diana's death, to the point wehre she did not do so until pushed into it by public opinion.

sandy

Charles wants what Charles gets. He would not have married Camilla if he would lose his place in succession, IMO. He made sure he would not lose his place in the succession and it took years for him to marry her.

How happy the marriage is , is subject to speculation. She has her separate dwelling in any case. The "happiness" of Charles caused a lot of damage along the way.

You don't know if she would not have been in an accident without the divorce. That is kismet. I know that the same argument that if Charles had not dumped her for Camilla  she'd still be alive. DO you believe that too?

Mohammad Al Fayed was a friend of her father and stepmother. She was "involved" with him before 1997. Raine worked for Harrod's. She dated Dodi that Summer.

If Charles had not dumped her, she would have seen her grandchildren.

It was not as if she had a real marriage to Charles, as royal keeps pointing out, Charles had contempt for Diana.  She might have gotten sick from the years  with a man who rejected her. She could have died if she stayed with him and put up with the overt dislike.

How do you know how the Queen treated Diana? She had no use for Camilla for years and did not invite her to royal events, and if she did, she was not allowed to sit with Prince Charles. The Queen if she really had to be forced to make that speech seems very inhuman to me. You are not making her look good.

SophieChloe

[gmod]I believe it is time to close this thread. We've gone from "curtseyed" to the saga that was Diana & Charles (and Camilla). There are many a thread to talk about that. Cheers! SCxx[/gmod]
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me