George Michael's intimate relationship with Princess Diana

[wannable]

All those rejections does not matter, my point is the two Spencer sisters dated the ultimate price Prince with the compliance of their parents - one got the job done.  There is no wrong doing by any party as they were all in it.   

[Kritter]

^ What has any of that got to do with C&C plotting to emotionally abuse a teenager?

[royalanthropologist]

20 year olds are not teenagers. Moreover, Diana lots of emotional (and physical) abuse herself. She was no innocent victim or angel. On the contrary she was a determined girl and only got burned when she took things too far.

[royalanthropologist]

I don't think the Spencers were "desperate" since they had royal blood and were related to Winston Churchill.

No matter what bloodlines Diana had, she was not royal by birth and certainly her family was way down the ranking of the nobility. An earl is really nothing compared to a prince.

She really did want to be a princess and did not revert to her old title of Lady Diana Spencer after the divorce because it would be a downgrade after all she had thrown away with her impulsiveness. The Spencers were desperate for the match and had always had royal pretensions. Queen Anne had to banish one for over-familiarity and they continued in the same vein of exaggerating their importance. 

The Tudors were very versed in dealing with earls who thought above their stations. The Windsors are far more placid, hence Charles Spencer's speech. I can only imagine what Elizabeth I would have done to his head if an earl had dared to make such a speech in her presence.
Double post auto-merged: January 11, 2018, 10:02:04 PM

She thought he loved her. And she loved him. If she did not love him she would not have said yes. And she had no clue as to how the marriage would turn out. And why is Diana blamed for accepting and not Charles for proposing when he knew he did not love her. Why is the onus on Diana? And not Charles?

Because a proposal is not a command. You say yes to a proposal and then moan about it for the next 15 years meanwhile insisting that you don't want a divorce. My own view is that a lot of what Diana put out in the press was a pack of lies. It was all intended to portray herself as the biggest victim on earth and her husband as the worst person on earth. The truth lies somewhere in between. Sensible people know that. It is only partisans that took her word for gospel truth.

If Diana imagined that Charles was madly in love with her then she was quite willfully naive, emotionally blind and tad silly. Charles has never behaved with her like a man in love. He told her as much in that interview when he said "whatever love means".

[sandy]

A great fuss was made about Diana's bloodlines in the wedding souvenirs an articles about how she descended from the Stuarts. It was a big fuss.

A proposal is not being asked to accept a job in a company. It is  traditionally done because the man has fallen in love with the woman and the woman accepts because she reciprocates the love. Of course it's not a command. I don't get the allusion to command. Diana justifiably assumed he proposed because he loved her.

Diana did not lie. Charles agreed that he had an affair with Camilla and talked about the times he was involved with her. He also admitted to his biographer he preferred the mistress when he married her. Diana spent 10 years in the marriage before the MOrton book. During that time, Charles pals were leaking ugly stories about her.

Diana was not cynical the way Charles was. A man in love tends to propose. Charles should have told her he did not love her. Honestly your free passes for Charles could fill a multi volume encyclopedia.

Diana was allowed to keep the Princess of Wales title as Fergie was allowed to keep the Duchess of York title. The royals allowed this. I guess you'd have loved to have Diana demoted to Lady. But she probably would have given up the Princess of Wales title with a remarriage.

Frances Shand Kydd was not "desperate" for the match and had misgivings that she did not share with Diana (see the Max Riddington book about Frances).

What is with you about all the beheading talk? DO you really feel THAT strongly in loathing the Spencers? Camilla would not have been admitted into the family had she lived in Tudor times once the wife had given the King the heir and spare

You make it sound like Diana was some gold digger pushed in front of Charles. Charles had a "pool" of women who were aristo and wealthy for possible wives. Diana made the list. HE pursued HER remember?

He was so "desperate" he did not even think of how it would hurt Diana if he married her and did not love her and the thick headed Charles thought it was OK to wear the C and C cufflinks on the honeymoon with Diana. Talk about an insensitive clod. Elizabeth I would have exiled him had he been her son.
Double post auto-merged: January 11, 2018, 10:34:18 PM

My politics have nothing to do with my love for Diana. I've been hardly singing Charles's praises, just explaining in real world terms what was at play.

Agreed, there is blood on both families hands, in some ways worse on the Spencers as the older ones had to have seen what was going on, but led poor Diana, as she said, like a lamb to the slaughter (I do think theres more to that, I think part of it was she thought she was a crafty enough lamb to avoid the butchers blade, when that didnt work out, the tears started).
It had lots to do with it, if she was such a feeble inexperienced teenager, where the hell were the people in her life with more experience and wisdom whos job was to keep her safe? Its bad enough what C&C did, but its not like they broke into her house and kidnapped her to do it.

The thing is Charles was not some scary person that the parents had to protect Diana from He was supposed to be an honorable man and was trusted. HE even called up John Spencer after he proposed to Diana and had a cordial conversation with him. The way you make Charles wound is he is some shady character who had to be warned about.

Where the hell was Charles ethics when he knowingly proposed to Diana knowing he did not love her? I doubt he told John Spencer he proposed to Diana without loving her, judging from the joyous reaction from Spencer.
Double post auto-merged: January 11, 2018, 10:40:01 PM

meant sound as if he is some shady character.

Charles is the one responsible and I don't get the free passes he gets from you.

[Kritter]

Love means to do no intentional harm to the person. To support them in their successes & failures.

Lust means you like their physical attributes.

You harm Diana's memory by going on about her faults while acting as if Charles had a rational reason for what he & Camilla did to her.

Then you go on & on about how her blonde hair glistened in the sunlight.    :hmm:

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I discussed her hair in response to what @TLLK wrote, my first entry had nothing to do with her physical attributes and something sweet she did, which set her apart from other ppl and showed a glimpse of things she would do later in life.

I do support her in success and failure, but that doesnt mean I cant recognize things shes done wrong. You love ppl in spite of their failings, as we all have them.

Those failings get discussed because mostly the forum deals with the turning points of the events in her life, not some hum drum day where all she did was go to the gym, have lunch, etc.

If one asked Charles, im sure he would claim he had rational reasons, I disagree with his course of action, but one can understand it in rational terms, and also look at some of the warning signs and things missing on Diana's side that could have prevented her going through that. In a dream perfect world it wouldnt have happened, but since they were going to do that, I would have preferred that Diana be more aware of possible outcomes and be more prepared for what happened so she could have avoided it or been able to deal with it better.

[Kritter]

^ See that is not love.

I do support her in success and failure, but that doesnt mean I cant recognize things shes done wrong.

You go on incessantly about her failures & many of them you created. She failed to recognize the signs 0f blah blah blah. So because she was a naive 19 year old & not a psychic who could see into the future Charles is excused from his wrong doing & it is placed all on Diana. If only her family had cared enough. Once again excusing Charles's behavior. There was a rumor or phone call or she was seen in a man's company so she had to be having an affair with him which makes her as guilty as Charles. On & On & On. No none of that BS is called love of someone nor supporting them.

When a man loves a woman & she fails at something he does not go on & on about it & then say Dear I am just driving you into the ground so you can see your failings for your own good because I am trying to be fair.

If one asked Charles, im sure he would claim he had rational reasons

Yes he tried that in Dimbelby. The rational public did not buy into any of it because there is NO reason to treat another human being the way C&C treated Diana.

some of the warning signs and things missing on Diana's side that could have prevented her going through that.

What sane person could foresee that a Prince of the UK would treat his bride & the Mother of his heirs the way that Charles treated Diana. Only a demented person could have rationalized & foresaw anything close to what they had planned for her.
Double post auto-merged: January 12, 2018, 06:16:26 AM

Princess Diana of Wales‏ @DianaPrincessOW

#PrincessDiana in 1994 during an oil painting session at American painter Nelson Shanks's studio in London. It was taken by his wife, Leona. In the session, the princess sat in front of the painter wearing only a petticoat and a white chiffon blouse designed by Tomasz Starzewski,
while her green taffeta skirt was draped on a mannequin. Remembering her, Nelson said: "It was a painful time for Diana. Charles had just done that TV interview in which he'd admitted adultery but failed to mention that he'd ever loved her.
I think she was more hurt by this omission than by anything he did say. She remained in love with him, or with an idea of him. It took her a long time to realize it was over.
She would be sitting, posing, and suddenly you'd see she'd be thinking of something painful. Her face flushed and tears welled up in her eyes. She often arrived to the studio crying."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTMVR9jXkAAT5iC.jpg

Constant emotional abuse throughout the marriage to King Tampon.

[sandy]

CHarles was the one who proposed knowing he did not love her. He is responsible.  And it's another series that she should have "known better" aka the woman asked for it.

[Kritter]

^It's always the woman's fault unless it is Camilla & then it is the fault of Diana, Janet, Sarah etc..    :teehee:

[sandy]

In Junor's book about Camilla she praises her for keeping an eye on other women who come close to her husband. But when it comes to Diana's concerns about Camilla Junor chalks it up to "paranoia." Typical thinking of C and C sympathizers.

Camilla had TIggy and Elizabeth Buchanan sacked

[Kritter]

Someone like Camilla would never let another woman near the man because she knows how she got him & fears someone will do it to her since Charles is a weak individual.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

[edited

If Diana was such a naive young girl, a babe in the woods, if you will, then it was more important than ever for those in her friends and family to have looked out for her, either by preparing her better for life, or that the ever growing number of women throwing Charles back in the dating pool was a cause for concern.

If you let a child walk to school without teaching them about traffic and they get hit by a car, yes if the car hit them, and thats awful and the car driver has a part to play, but had the parents did their job, the incident wouldnt have happened at all.

Given he was awarded "S@#$ of the year" by his mens club shortly before the wedding, his lack of serious relationships and growing number of women running away from all he had to offer as future queen for these girls, and his general reluctance to marry were all red flags to any potential bride, or if she was sufficiently young and inexperienced enough, her family, friends, etc. Wouldnt you want as many ppl looking out for her as possible?

Fretting that something shouldnt have happened isnt near as productive as having the affected person prepared or counseled enough to have avoided the situation in the first place (and other future potential similar situations)rather than relying blindly on the good will of strangers, what are you three, a bunch a Blanche Dubois's LOL.

I think it was telling when she said at 19 you think you know whats going to unfold, she had pics of him and said she wanted to be either a dancer, or Princess of Wales, whether it was starry eyed innocence, or shrewd force of will, it was something she wanted without understanding what was going on, someone should have been looking out for her, not like her mum, keeping her mouth shut over her misgivings.

Like the other quote said she was in love with an idea of him, given how much do we ever really know someone, thats true in degrees for everyone, but my god, the ppl that were supposed to care for her should have not been asleep at the switch. Had she not gone through with it, Charles might not have been the only man she would have had to watch out for in her life. Better as they say to teach the girl to fish, than having to always provide one.

[Trudie]

[gmod]This comment/link was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards: User Conduct and Etiquette and Registration Agreement. Replies may also be deleted..[/gmod]

[royalanthropologist]

The first part of healing is understanding and accepting. Sharing can also heal but not with the likes of George Michael where the story ends up in the press. Diana could never ever heal because she was constantly trying to convince everyone just how much it was not her fault that things went pear-shaped. Of course logic suggests that it takes two to tango.

[gmod]

This comment/link was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards: User Conduct and Etiquette and Registration Agreement. Replies may also be deleted. Please see any private notification for more details.

[/gmod]

[SophieChloe]

[gmod]What is it with our Members (new or old) insulting each other left, right and center? For now, this thread is locked for Housekeeping. SCXX[/gmod]

[SophieChloe]

[gmod]This thread is now unlocked. Please keep it On Topic and not about each other. Cheers. Otherwise it will put on Pre-Mod. SCxx[/gmod]