George Michael's intimate relationship with Princess Diana

Started by Kritter, January 04, 2018, 09:41:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TLLK

QuoteI dont think anyone is going to suggest she slept with George Michael, she didnt have the right equipment for him. Like a lot of young girls she enjoyed hanging out with gay men, theyre a non threatening male presence they can share common interests (fashion, style, etc). She one time was smuggled into a gay club dressed as a man with Freddy Mercury, and was friends with Elton John, and other gay men.

Wow that is one that I'd never heard about before. Thanks for sharing this @Duch_Luver_4ever. And for what it's worth I agree with all who believe that she never slept with George Michael.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Quote from: TLLK on January 05, 2018, 10:53:35 PM
Wow that is one that I'd never heard about before. Thanks for sharing this @Duch_Luver_4ever. And for what it's worth I agree with all who believe that she never slept with George Michael.

Youre welcome @TLLK always love spreading Diana knowledge, but I also admire youre vast knowledge of royals all over the world, im afraid im a one trick pony :partaay:

Quote from: Kritter on January 05, 2018, 04:31:09 PM
Don't use your life savings on that bet.

20 years later trying to promote himself. Why would she tell a servant something like that? Could he have done anything to change that? NO


Im guessing you didnt follow the royals in the 80s and early 90s, it was very much suspected about Edward, maybe just because of his lack of girlfriends and delicate nature (quitting the Marines didnt help with all that).

As for Diana telling a "servant" something like that, Burell like the courtiers of old, the Medici's, etc. used IMO  a Machiavellian nature to be more than just a mere servant. Yes he was her butler, but also a fixer of relationships, an enabler of her bulimia, he schemed and schemed to move closer and closer to her and as she pared her staff down, she both relied on him more and more, and felt she could trust fewer and fewer ppl. 

She would tell Burell something like that, which he had no control over, due largely to the fact that she had few ppl she could talk to in person at KP when she was alone. She was throughout her time in royal life chatting away to the "downstairs staff" she felt a connection to them, and to her credit thought of them as full human beings, unlike some other royals. But it also left her vulnerable to snakes like Burell whispering and weaseling his way into her good graces.

As far as Camilla being  apart of history, legacy, jewels, etc. I would guess that she feels that shes gone much much further than she ever expected back in the 70s when she first took up with Charles, so I dont think other than the usual royal worries about publicity and courting the public, that she's concerned with a grand legacy.

Im sure she would like to try and win over the public and make them forget about the whole Diana thing, but thats never going to happen, nor should it, IMO. While the bread rolls have mostly ceased flying in her direction, without any sort of contrition to the public and acknowledgment of Diana's legacy, is the majority of the public warm to her.

The best she can hope for is to ride out whatever time Charles will have on the throne, and secure a decent exit should he predecease her, so that she doesnt share Raine's fate (not that I think she will, but at the same time I dont think the boys will lay out velvet pillows for her either).

But that is lightyears away from what she expected as just getting the social favor and odd luxury trip or outings as the secret escort of the PoW when it all started. As much as theres things that gall me about the whole thing, I do think at least for ppl that study royalty, Camilla will be regarded as someone who played the game at a level and skill far above her weight, as a country set girl on the outer periphery of things. (although at the same time one can hardly put as a feather in their cap conning a naive 19 year old who was a step or two behind...but shouldn't have been as per my previous "grey" post). But she was able to sidestep bad publicity, the potential of her lover losing his crown, the difficulty her divorce caused and her maneuvering of Charles to have to support her and bring her closer into his orbit, etc.
"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.

TLLK

QuoteIm guessing you didnt follow the royals in the 80s and early 90s, it was very much suspected about Edward, maybe just because of his lack of girlfriends and delicate nature (quitting the Marines didnt help with all that).

@Duch_Luver_4ever -Don't let Sophie see that reply.  :P

'Prince Edward not gay'

QuoteShe also spoke out to deny rumours about her husband's sexuality, saying: "I can tell you he's not gay."

She added: "I had heard something before we met, but I put it down to the fact that he was working in theatre and people had presumed he was gay.

"I never believed it - so it wasn't something that crossed my mind when I met him.

"How I'd love to be able to go out and sing from the rooftops: it is not true. I want to prove it to people, but it's impossible to do that."

Duch_Luver_4ever

Is she a big Edward fan?  :snowflake:  Not that theres anything wrong that (man, now i want to go rewatch some Seinfeld now)
"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.

sandy

Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on January 06, 2018, 12:18:01 AM
Youre welcome @TLLK always love spreading Diana knowledge, but I also admire youre vast knowledge of royals all over the world, im afraid im a one trick pony :partaay:

Im guessing you didnt follow the royals in the 80s and early 90s, it was very much suspected about Edward, maybe just because of his lack of girlfriends and delicate nature (quitting the Marines didnt help with all that).

As for Diana telling a "servant" something like that, Burell like the courtiers of old, the Medici's, etc. used IMO  a Machiavellian nature to be more than just a mere servant. Yes he was her butler, but also a fixer of relationships, an enabler of her bulimia, he schemed and schemed to move closer and closer to her and as she pared her staff down, she both relied on him more and more, and felt she could trust fewer and fewer ppl. 

She would tell Burell something like that, which he had no control over, due largely to the fact that she had few ppl she could talk to in person at KP when she was alone. She was throughout her time in royal life chatting away to the "downstairs staff" she felt a connection to them, and to her credit thought of them as full human beings, unlike some other royals. But it also left her vulnerable to snakes like Burell whispering and weaseling his way into her good graces.

As far as Camilla being  apart of history, legacy, jewels, etc. I would guess that she feels that shes gone much much further than she ever expected back in the 70s when she first took up with Charles, so I dont think other than the usual royal worries about publicity and courting the public, that she's concerned with a grand legacy.

Im sure she would like to try and win over the public and make them forget about the whole Diana thing, but thats never going to happen, nor should it, IMO. While the bread rolls have mostly ceased flying in her direction, without any sort of contrition to the public and acknowledgment of Diana's legacy, is the majority of the public warm to her.

The best she can hope for is to ride out whatever time Charles will have on the throne, and secure a decent exit should he predecease her, so that she doesnt share Raine's fate (not that I think she will, but at the same time I dont think the boys will lay out velvet pillows for her either).

But that is lightyears away from what she expected as just getting the social favor and odd luxury trip or outings as the secret escort of the PoW when it all started. As much as theres things that gall me about the whole thing, I do think at least for ppl that study royalty, Camilla will be regarded as someone who played the game at a level and skill far above her weight, as a country set girl on the outer periphery of things. (although at the same time one can hardly put as a feather in their cap conning a naive 19 year old who was a step or two behind...but shouldn't have been as per my previous "grey" post). But she was able to sidestep bad publicity, the potential of her lover losing his crown, the difficulty her divorce caused and her maneuvering of Charles to have to support her and bring her closer into his orbit, etc.

I don't think Camilla could have been too surprised. She wanted a relationship with Prince Charles and enjoyed the perks and power that being associated with him brought her  and did not mind being the mistress after he decided not to pursue her as a wife back in the early seventies.

Camilla IMO is very interested in her glorification, she cooperated with gal pal Junor who raised her to sainthood. And apparently does not mind Junor's bashing Diana. She does care IMO very much and is opposite from the PR image of her being "down to earth" and "not wanting anything." She seems to have the broadest grins when wearing bling.

Edward had girlfriends pre Sophie. He seems most "noted" for the hissy fit he had when It's a Royal Knockout was criticized by the press.

I think as the years went by, Burrell does a lot more embellishing.

TLLK

Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on January 06, 2018, 12:29:48 AM
Is she a big Edward fan?  :snowflake:  Not that theres anything wrong that (man, now i want to go rewatch some Seinfeld now)
I'd hope so because she's married to him!!! :hehe: (Sophie the Countess of Wessex, not the moderator.)

Kritter

Camilla is a manipulator & Charles is her dupe.

Edward is not gay & he was not the one in the letter otherwise Diana would not have kept it. She got along with Charles's brothers for the most part. Charles is the one who has always been resentful of his brothers because he felt the Queen should have treated him as if he were the only one that mattered. He was close to the QM because she did treat him as if he were the only one that mattered.

The QM even tried to do the same with William & Harry but her life ended & when Diana's life ended William started showing his resentment for Charles & the BRF. Had they dealt differently with Diana then William would not exhibit such resentment for the Monarchy & what it stands for now.

Diana was a better parent than Charles because a parent must be able to see others & their needs. Charles is incapable of seeing anyone but himself.

William & Harry love Charles but not as much as they would if he had been a better Man, Husband & Father.

Diana did have friends contrary to what some want to spin & that is who she would have talked to about her innermost personal thoughts & not an opportunistic servant.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Quote from: TLLK on January 06, 2018, 12:42:09 AM
I'd hope so because she's married to him!!! :hehe: (Sophie the Countess of Wessex, not the moderator.)

Ah, thanks for clearing that one up for me @TLLK
"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.

royalanthropologist

Good parents do not badmouth their children's' families to perfect strangers.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Trudie

^@royalanthropologist it goes both ways and a good parent doesn't limit contact with the wifes side of the family. A silent way of bad mouthing them



Duch_Luver_4ever

Aside from the Morton book, Diana didnt badmouth the RF to strangers, although she had bad luck/judgement in who she confided in with some calls being recorded (Gilbey and GM). She used to get upset if ppl badmouthed Charles in front of her, reminding them he was the father of her boys (A curious bit of human nature, how many times have we heard someone complain about a spouse/family member, but if someone outside the situation says anything, that same person feels immediate loyalty to defend them, seen it so many times with different ppl).

I'd like to hear more on Charles/royals limiting the boys access to Diana's side of the family, i'd have thought it would be more discussed, especially last year.
"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.

Kritter

Quote from: Trudie on January 06, 2018, 03:40:10 PM
^@royalanthropologist it goes both ways and a good parent doesn't limit contact with the wifes side of the family. A silent way of bad mouthing them

Charles & his cronies "bad mouthed" Diana even after her death so that disqualifies Charles on top of his cutting the Spencer's out of their lives because his ego was bruised.

royalanthropologist

#37
Quote from: Trudie on January 06, 2018, 03:40:10 PM
^@royalanthropologist it goes both ways and a good parent doesn't limit contact with the wifes side of the family. A silent way of bad mouthing them

Very true but I am sure the Spencer sisters have never been denied access to W&H. BRF seems to get on very well with them. In fact one of their husbands was the principal courtier to the queen. They also liked Johnny quite a lot and Charles was even said to like Rainer. It is mainly Frances and Charles Spencer that seemed to have been shut out. I actually think it was absolutely the right thing for Charles to cut Charles and Frances out of his children's lives. Frances had become a bitter drunk and Charles was a hypocrite who had dared cause offense to the BRF. His marital life made POW look like a priest by comparison. I think Charles was being a responsible parent by keeping those two as far away from the kids as possible.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

 RIF posters: Wasn't Charles Spencer mostly living in South Africa during the years that the boys were in school?

royalanthropologist

Yes but I don't think POW really wanted him to be anywhere near the boys after that "blood family" speech. I think POW once saw him at a party in SA but that was just about their level of interaction. At William's wedding, the Spencers were placed on the bride's side of the aisle. I am sure if it had only been the sisters and not Charles; they would be on the groom's side. I know that POW will never call the Spencers "this f...n family" or bad mouth men in public but I get the feeling that Charles Spencer is not exactly welcome at royal events. It is  more of sufferance for the sake of politeness. The other Spencer siblings have always been popular at court and POW seems to like them.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

Here's Earl Spencer's home in South Africa that he sold in 2000 upon his return to the UK.  Diana and the boys apparently visited there in the years before her death and her last visit was in January 1997.

Tarrystone estate that belonged to Earl Spencer goes on sale for ?4.8 MILLION | Daily Mail Online

The brothers were at Eton and later St. Andrews (William) and Sandhurst (both) during those immediate years after Diana's death so their holiday time was likely limited to short visits with their Spencer relatives.

sandy

Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 06, 2018, 04:59:12 PM
Very true but I am sure the Spencer sisters have never been denied access to W&H. BRF seems to get on very well with them. In fact one of their husbands was the principal courtier to the queen. They also liked Johnny quite a lot and Charles was even said to like Rainer. It is mainly Frances and Charles Spencer that seemed to have been shut out. I actually think it was absolutely the right thing for Charles to cut Charles and Frances out of his children's lives. Frances had become a bitter drunk and Charles was a hypocrite who had dared cause offense to the BRF. His marital life made POW look like a priest by comparison. I think Charles was being a responsible parent by keeping those two as far away from the kids as possible.

Charles invited Frances to see William and Harry after Diana died. He did not cut her out of the boys lives. She moves to a remote part of Scotland and no she was not a 'bitter drunk.'  She was quite ill at the end of her life. And no it was not because of "drink." Charles Spencer was no more hypocritical IMO than Charles Windsor.

Raine was close to Diana I don't think she and Charles WIndsor were all that close.
The boys did see their Uncle Charles at various events among which were the fountain dedication, the Diana Memorial Concert and Service and on other occasions.

Charles Windsor never shut the two Spencers out the lives of his sons.



Double post auto-merged: January 06, 2018, 09:04:59 PM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 06, 2018, 05:30:54 PM
Yes but I don't think POW really wanted him to be anywhere near the boys after that "blood family" speech. I think POW once saw him at a party in SA but that was just about their level of interaction. At William's wedding, the Spencers were placed on the bride's side of the aisle. I am sure if it had only been the sisters and not Charles; they would be on the groom's side. I know that POW will never call the Spencers "this f...n family" or bad mouth men in public but I get the feeling that Charles Spencer is not exactly welcome at royal events. It is  more of sufferance for the sake of politeness. The other Spencer siblings have always been popular at court and POW seems to like them.

Charles Spencer was invited to royal events and the Spencers were front and center at William's wedding. It does not matter if they were on the bride's side or not.  When Charles and Diana got married, the Spencer relatives other than Diana's immediate family sat elsewhere.

Double post auto-merged: January 06, 2018, 09:06:50 PM


Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on January 06, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Aside from the Morton book, Diana didnt badmouth the RF to strangers, although she had bad luck/judgement in who she confided in with some calls being recorded (Gilbey and GM). She used to get upset if ppl badmouthed Charles in front of her, reminding them he was the father of her boys (A curious bit of human nature, how many times have we heard someone complain about a spouse/family member, but if someone outside the situation says anything, that same person feels immediate loyalty to defend them, seen it so many times with different ppl).

I'd like to hear more on Charles/royals limiting the boys access to Diana's side of the family, i'd have thought it would be more discussed, especially last year.

Certainly when the boys came of age, Charles would not have dared try to cut off the boys to Diana's side of the family.  Will and Harry got in touch with their Spencer relatives on their own. ANd it is a matter of record that Charles Spencer was invited to events involving William and Harry.

Duch_Luver_4ever

While like many of her generation, Frances liked a tipple or two, she did have a neuro-muscular disorder that was responsible for the bulk of her badger like disposition and made her look like she had too much to drink when she moved about.

While she might have felt she was giving Diana "tough love" with her opinion of Diana's relationship with Khan and others, considering how little she set Diana up for success in love and marriage, the time and ability for her to give advice to her had long passed.... >(
"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.

royalanthropologist

#43
You I didn't know about the neuro-muscular disorder. Here I was judging her thinking she was a perpetual drunk. Thanks for educating me.

Double post auto-merged: January 07, 2018, 07:58:35 AM


@sandy writes

"Charles Windsor never shut the two Spencers out the lives of his sons."

Glad you cleared that one up. I thought that one of the posters here had suggested that was yet another of his sins allegedly because his ego was bruised.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

I had mentioned this earlier somewhere on the discussion board that Charles invited Frances to be with the children after their mother died.  They were not buddy buddy but Charles and Frances realized she needed to be with her grandsons.

Frances by Max Riddington is based on interviews she had towards the end of her life. She mentioned her illness.

Kritter

^ Was that after the Eulogy? Charles would have only had a problem with Charles Spencer anyway. Her sister had married a man that put the Monarchy above family so no one really expected all of them to be cut out of W&H's lives.

The Windsors (for their public image) played as if Diana was important to them & Charles Spencer handed them their heads on a platter in the Eulogy.

I don't think he cared for the public display of a close loving family. The Windsor's were using her even in death. Being her brother (he did love Diana) that had to irritate.

royalanthropologist

The Windsors never cared or even pretended to care for Diana. There was no attempt at some kind of "family unit". C&D were divorced and the BRF was definitely glad about that...no more insider leakages for a start. The family had to be bullied by the press and Tony Blair to even mention Diana or show her any respect after her death. There was never, ever an attempt to pretend they liked her.

As for Charles Spencer "handing their heads to them on a platter", that is always a matter of opinion. In my view he was an extremely ill-mannered man whose own life is completely messed up. His treatment of women is appalling by any standards. To stand there and pretend that he was this champion for Diana was sickening hypocrisy. Absolutely glad he was soon found out and exposed for the scoundrel he really is.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Never? The Queen was very happy at the Charles and Diana wedding. And as late as 1991 the Queen and Prince Philip were attempting to have C and D stay together even planning the second honeymoon cruise, which did not work out. I don't think the Queen cared for her children divorcing. With two of her children separating one divorcing she said it was her "annual horribilis" so she was not thrilled with the family turmoil. NObody bullied the Queen, I think she ostriches and the public opinion was unfavorable to her, not Tony Blair who was trying to resolve a potentially damaging issue. Even Charles wanted the funeral.

How was Spencer "found out?" His lifestyle included divorce just like some of the royals and his treatment of women is no worse than some of the royals.  He still has his title and lives his life. He is invited to events involving his nephews. One of the Spencers (Charles' niece) is a godmother to Charlotte.

amabel

Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 07, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
The Windsors never cared or even pretended to care for Diana. There was no attempt at some kind of "family unit". C&D were divorced and the BRF was definitely glad about that...no more insider leakages for a start. The family had to be bullied by the press and Tony Blair to even mention Diana or show her any respect after her death. There was never, ever an attempt to pretend they liked her.


That is not accurate if you mean literally that they NEVER cared about her.  They did start out liking and welcoming her and certainly were willing to take her into the family and recognise that she was a great asset.  Certianly though, by the end of the marriage, they had become very disillusioned with her, even the queen, and its true, they DIDNT like her or want to keep her  within the family any more.  I think the queen felt the last straw was Di doing the interview with Bashir and then being difficult about the divorce...and that was why she made it clear that Diana would not retain her HRH.. She didn't trust her, not to leak things to the press...
As for Charles Spencer, he is hardly a scoundrel. I think it was understandable that he loved Diana and probably felt guilty about the rows and problems thye had had, and was angry at the time of her death..   But I agree it wasn't appropriate to then use her funeral to crtiicise the RF..  there was a time and place... and that wasn't it.

Trudie

There was a time in the 80's that Diana's father actually turned up at KP to see Diana and the boys and he was turned away. Also don't you think it was telling that once Diana married every holiday was spent with the Windsors. Unless it was a family wedding the Spencers were mostly on the outside looking in to see Diana and the boys.