Princess Diana curtseyed

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

royalanthropologist

If I don't believe Diana entirely then I am in the same company as her own brother and grandmother who on different occasions called her a liar or something to that effect.

Besides, there is no requirement for me to say nice things about Diana. Just like there is no requirement for you to say nice things about C&C.

What is certain is that I will never stop pointing out the falsehoods and double standards that are used to make Diana into this mythical perfect victim and C&C her bad nemeses.

Yes, the discussion is relevant because of the suggestion that there was a lot more going into that Curtsey than a princess greeting a foreign king. I am not sure whether she had an affair with Juan Carlos or not but it was certainly discussed.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#176
Her brother did this in a fit of temper. Brothers and sisters fight and call names. These two did. They made up. If he wanted to cozy up to the royal family he would have condemned his sister at the pulpit at her Funeral. He didn't. She probably did some name calling of him too and after he took away his offer of the cottage, called him a liar too.

Charles lied and said he'd never marry again. And lied when he said he would give up other women when he married Diana.

No, there is no requirement but you rarely say anything nice about her yet say you "like her." You call her out as a liar.

Fermoy turned against her own flesh and blood which I find unnatural. She was an ardent royalist who sold out her daughter and granddaughter. If you admire her that's your choice.

What falsehoods? You are adamant in not believing Diana when she said she had no sexual affair with Mannakee. Even though she said this in a venue that she thought would never be made public.

If you are "not sure" she had an affair with Juan Carlos it shows your mindset about her. He was a womanizer. Diana did not go for men who would put her as a notch on their bed posts. It is insulting to the late Diana to even think she was desperate enough to hit the sheets with the head of another royal house. It's as if she's a nympho the way she's described. Where would she have had the sex with Juan Carlos with her husband and sons around and his family. Behind a statue or something? I think this is just another way of trying to whitewash C and C by making Diana look like a nympho or sex maniac. Junor has done this in her Diana bashing books.

royalanthropologist

I am not alone in disbelieving Diana on certain things and not taking her word as gospel truth. Her own brother said as much and her grandmother called her an actress. There are numerous instances of Diana lying and exaggerating for effect.

She also has a history of self-contradiction when she realizes the full impact of her original lies or exaggerations e.g. I threw myself down the stairs to hurt myself because Charles would not pay attention to me. Later on she realizes how selfish that is to her unborn child, it changes to a mere fall. This was an embittered ex wife and everything she said about Charles and his family was colored by that state. She had nothing good to say about them precisely because they had rejected her.

Like I said, everything that needs to be said on this particular issue is confirmed by her own words. Unadorned, unexplained and unsugarcoated; they suggest an inappropriate employer-employee relationship. Plain English and nothing more.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#178
Well there is Penny Junor. And other Camilla and Charles devotees.

Granny Fermoy was a snob and a royalist. She betrayed her own daughter so she would not get custody. She wanted the Spencer children to be near the royal family. It is unnatural for a grandmother to turn against a daughter and granddaughter. Something wrong with Fermoy. It was hypocritical for her to trash anybody considering her own behavior.

What about how selfish Charles was knowing he did not love Diana yet marrying her anyway. And not out of contact with his mistress the whole time. He wanted what he wanted when he wanted it.

If you believe Diana fell down the stairs with no broken bones, it shows how much you want to paint Diana as "evil." Just like Penny Junor does in her books. She fell down a few steps. Diana's letter at the time to a friend proves this.

Why would not Diana be embittered? A man pretending to care for her then throwing her over when she got "tiresome" and after she delivered the heir and spare. And insisting like a man child that he is still entitled to keep the other woman around.

her family should have told her there was something wrong with a man who sleeps with his friends' wives. Princes of Wales are not always saints.

She said there was no sexual affair. I believe her.

What about Charles touchy feely behavior in public with "employee" Tiggy whom Camilla called the "hired help." Kissing, hugging, touchy feely in public with her. Camilla saw her off too. And another employee Elizabeth Buchanan got the bum's rush from Camilla because she was spending a lot of time with the Prince of Wales and they got along so well together... But Charles' behavior is not inappropriate according to his defenders (the usual defense is she was like a sister to him and she was an old friend). And there are no touchy feely photos of Mannakee and Diana to "prove" your point. But plenty of evidence of Charles inappropriate behavior. In the age of Weinstein revelations, no way would Charles have gotten away with it. Tiggy also mouthed off to the press about Diana's mothering and deliberately kept Camilla away from her wedding.

Double post auto-merged: October 18, 2017, 02:17:29 PM


Camilla and the blonde private secretary who's paid the price for being too close to Prince Charles | Daily Mail Online

royalanthropologist

#179
I am quoting Diana's own words re: the fall and the guard. You are the one that wants to reinterpret her words to suite your view. I am merely repeating what she said.

"He is the greatest fella I ever had"

"I threw myself down the stairs bearing in mind I was carrying a child"

The words speak for themselves.

As for being embittered, calculating and manipulative later in her life; I am not blaming Diana entirely for that. She had been dumped and did not have the mental resources to deal with it so she turned that way. Besides she was being criticized in the media so she wanted to get her side out, albeit she turned out to be much better at PR than the BRF.

What I am saying is that bitter, calculating and manipulative ex-wives are not the most objective narrators of the breakdown of their marriage. Understandably and naturally, they do everything to avoid blame and assign blame to the other party. That is why I take everything Diana said with a pinch of salt with reference to her marriage.

Those who knew her were very clear that Diana was a consummate and accomplished liar when it suited her. She also liked to exaggerate and was paranoid about certain things. It was her personality, besides all the good things she did. Even her own brother called her "complex" in his eulogy.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

You keep denying the exchange: Was it sexual (Settelen) No replied Diana.  What is there to 'reinterpret about that" of course you say Diana is a "liar." So that's your bias.

You ignore Diana's flat out denial. Not everything is "sexual". "had" can mean other things besides sex. A woman "has" a boyfriend she dates not sleeps with.

Mental resources to deal with it? How can anybody really deal with such a rejection? Einsteins can be rejected too. Only a cold woman who married Charles for money and signed a contract would be able to remove herself and be detached, enjoy the perks and so on. Unfortunately Diana fell for the guy.

Charles is the one who avoids blame the most. He never ever took any blame publicly. Camilla even played victim. His attitude of blaming others is plain to see if the Dimbleby, Junor and Smith books are read. Junor and Dimbleby had access to him and to his friends and to Camilla in their research.

Complex is not an insult. It can be a compliment. Unlike Charles calling Diana and Fergie "simple minded."

Camilla lied about having anything to do with or knowing about Charles and Diana's separation. When all evidence says she did. Charles pledged to be faithful with his mistresses watching him lie. He never separated himself from Camilla. I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all. At this late date the two are still defensive, Camilla playing victim and cooperating with Penny Junor (Camilla and Charles saints and Diana the "nympho sinner." Every man who said hello to her she took to her bed like a Spider.

If Charles had ditched the mistress and married Diana for love (he did neither) I think she would have been content and happy. Charles behaved abominably marrying her just so he could have  his heir and spare. And his mistress trashed Diana to him every chance she got.

royalanthropologist

My point is this: Diana's words mean there was an inappropriate relationship. Her later denial was to save face when she actually realized the implications of what she was saying e.g. first one to cheat. Hence the contradiction between "best fella I ever had" and "it was not sexual". The two things do not match which to me indicates that the former is closer to the truth than the latter. Diana had a history of doing this e.g. falling down stairs etc.

Yes, there are women who are cheated on and even abandoned but go on to lead independent lives with engaging in bitter quarrels with their ex. Others find a way of dealing with the situation to maintain their position, decorum and the family e.g. queens Sylvia and Sophia. Others divorce amicably and maintain good relationships with their in-law (princess of Denmark). Diana chose the bitter avenging wife route (fair play to her) but not everybody does it that way. She also had to be prepared for the consequences of the route she chose.

You speak with great confidence about apportioning blame (Charles is more to blame etc.) when you don't really know that principals or the details of the situation. Nobody but the principals know what really happened and they are not about to tell us the complete truth. What you have done is to pick a side and find facts to support your side. Nothing wrong with that but it is disingenuous to pretend that your side is the right side based on the limited facts provided by an embittered ex wife.

When you call someone "complex", it is a polite way of saying they have a good and bad side. It is not a compliment but meant to deter the would-be hero worshipers who insist that person is perfect. Earl Spencer knew his sister a lot more than I or you. Therefore I suppose his diagnosis of her character carries more weight than us.

Camilla lied about knowing the separation. She did and it was disingenuous on her to do so. However, I question the sweeping statement that "I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all." Lady Fermoy Earl Spencer and Robert Fellowes might have a different take. Fellowes tendered his resignation from a prestigious job because of Diana's lies and manipulations. Fermoy called her an "actress" and Charles Spencer was even more explicit calling her "manipulative and deceitful". I doubt any of C&C's siblings or grandparents would describe them in quite those terms.

You seem very disturbed by Junor's book but actually it is a very tame book when compared to Morton or Bashir. It is a very tame book...just that it doesn't say what you like in the way that you want it. Junior is no worse than Morton or Bashir. I reject the idea that cooperating with Junor is somehow a worse crime because it isn't. Diana said many, many nasty things about C&C without resort for many years. You should not be surprised when the other side says its own side. In this case they said it quite gently and not with the vitriol and malice of Morton and Bashir.

I do admit though that Diana is sometimes a victim of "S**T Shaming" without evidence or justification. That is a reflection of a sexist and moralistic society that wants to prescribe what people do instead of minding its own business.  My own beef with her is that she was a hypocrite by complaining about adultery then pursuing married men.

You assume Diana would have been happy and content if Charles had loved her more. I disagree.  Diana's problems went way beyond Charles. He might have made them worse but he certainly was not the cause of her unhappiness or erratic lifestyle. She could never be happy until she built the right mental resources to handle relationships without becoming clingy, controlling or manipulative.

For example: Khan did love her in the soapy kind of way she said she wanted but it went pear-shaped; partly because she was back to those traits which are the biggest relationship killer going. A case in point is dating Dodi to make Khan jealous or Charles angry or Camilla envious. Then visiting his parents without invitation.  It is those childish games that always ended up hurting her. Mature well-adjusted people know that rejection is part of life and you have to find a way of dealing with it. You can't expect unconditional love and support from anyone other than your parent. Even your child can get fed up if you are too erratic.

It is untrue to say that Charles only married her to have two children. He did not and never said he did. Neither did Diana say so. She was indeed said to be outraged that people would say he only married her to get an "heir and spare" (a tabloid term that neither of the parents ever used).
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Duch_Luver_4ever

Entertaining back and forth, you two  :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh  :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall  down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).

Thats the tricky thing with Diana in that she could be less than 100 percent honest, she lied in addition to the people mentioned above to journalist Clive James and Max Hastings about the book and Panorama, who mentioned she fooled them right to their faces. Also there was the time at school when the woman driving her and Charles Spencer threatened to kick her out of the car if she kept telling lies.

Yes, Einsteins get rejected too, but, and I dont want to speak for @royalanthropologist  but my take on mental resources wasnt just raw frontal lobe intelligence, its things like emotional maturity, stability, experience, etc. and Diana, like most ppl, had precious little of that in her early 20s, and that was kind of the point of what they wanted in a bride.

This might get me on the wrong side of the women, but I think if you want to call something sexist, its the whole idea of have a blank slate of a woman marrying a "prince charming" to me, it basically says the prince is hoping for an emotional blank or cripple that he can either mold, or be certain he wont be inconvenienced or challenged. That I think was far more detrimental to her than anything from seeing other ppl.

I dont think it was so much "s@#t shaming" as both the evolutionary psychology baggage we as a species carry, and the corner she frankly, painted herself into by playing the wronged woman card. not that its a bad card to play, but it does require the player of it to have a spotless romantic record lest the claim of hipocracy rear its ugly head.

I also find it humorous that if she can have an affair with one of Charles close friends, that its impossible to have had one with Juan Carlos. She was still very young emotionally, younger than her actual age, and she was rejected, and looking for validation, and she was very keen on older, fatherly, prominent men, JC would "tick all the boxes" on that, compared to say in her mid 30s where she was much more assured, confident and hitting her sexual peak, biologically, her choices of men were much different then compared to mid 80s. Also she was a desirable woman who at that time was rejected by her husband, I dont think it makes her look bad for seeking affection, but cause some ppl have dug in so much on dates and such, their dogmatism locks them in from seeing a bigger picture of her.

I also find it funny that the claim of opportunity suggesting the only option was to do it behind a statue, when the same person used to debunk Eri's refuting of C&C playing around at the hunt when she would claim the same thing, that they could only have done it outside, so it didnt happen.

Ah so much of using the other sides arguments for trying to shield Diana from looking less than whiter than white  :lol:

Theres so many posts im probably missing some points i want to make, my point is she was a complex person (and I like RA's definition of that) who was trying to work through those problems, she could be less than honest, have mood swings, a temper every bit equal to her husband, and be hard on a friendship or family....but she could also be very honest about what she was feeling and what needed to change in the world, be consistently kind and compassionate to people suffering and in pain, she could be loving, personable and remember and value friends and family though think and thin, she could make you want to love and care for her as much as she wanted to do so for others.

Theres was a lot going on in that wonderful head and heart of hers, and I think without looking at the less than perfect side, the wonderful side doesnt look as good, its easy to be good if youre perfect, but to do all she did with what she was going through and the options she had to do nothing, or be as horrible as other wealthy people makes what she did all the more amazing and wonderful to remember.

She didnt have to be perfect to still be loved and appreciated like she is :flower:
"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

The above post :goodpost: is a perfect demonstration why it is possible to like and love Diana without turning her into some kind of miss goody two shoes who could do no wrong. Such perfect people are boring and soon get on everybody's nerves. The "putting up and shutting up" solution also has some consequences as Hillary Clinton can testify. There would be many who would consider Diana to be a step ford wife if she had just taken up knitting to cope with the infidelity in her marriage.

For me, the most interesting aspect of this all is that POW did not seem at all bothered that JC was interested in or flirting with his wife. When you look at the photos, it is as if he is a hand or assistant who is a bit bored with what is going on. He does not seem to be remotely interested in his wife, family or what is going on. Those who read body language would know.

I can confess that in the same situation, I would probably make a lot of mistakes and react in unpleasant ways. Nobody likes to be told that they are surplus to requirements especially after giving their best years to a marriage.

Yes Diana was capable of honestly, foolish and self-destructive honesty. I for example would never confess to anyone that my husband was declaring undying love to his mistress on my honeymoon. I would not because of "survivors pride" but she told it as it was. She opened up the sham and dysfunction. That does not mean she could also not be deceitful. Even young children can lie.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Oh what nonsense/  Do you really think that Charles woud not be bothered if Diana were so foolish as to start an affair with a royal married Monarch, much older than her... who was also a relative of his???/

royalanthropologist

He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#186
Quote from: amabel on October 18, 2017, 06:59:04 PM
Oh what nonsense/  Do you really think that Charles woud not be bothered if Diana were so foolish as to start an affair with a royal married Monarch, much older than her... who was also a relative of his???/

Diana certainly would not have even considered it. The man was a womanizer. A dead end situation and she would have risked losing custody.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:42:17 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 06:20:04 PM
The above post :goodpost: is a perfect demonstration why it is possible to like and love Diana without turning her into some kind of miss goody two shoes who could do no wrong. Such perfect people are boring and soon get on everybody's nerves. The "putting up and shutting up" solution also has some consequences as Hillary Clinton can testify. There would be many who would consider Diana to be a step ford wife if she had just taken up knitting to cope with the infidelity in her marriage.

For me, the most interesting aspect of this all is that POW did not seem at all bothered that JC was interested in or flirting with his wife. When you look at the photos, it is as if he is a hand or assistant who is a bit bored with what is going on. He does not seem to be remotely interested in his wife, family or what is going on. Those who read body language would know.

I can confess that in the same situation, I would probably make a lot of mistakes and react in unpleasant ways. Nobody likes to be told that they are surplus to requirements especially after giving their best years to a marriage.

Yes Diana was capable of honestly, foolish and self-destructive honesty. I for example would never confess to anyone that my husband was declaring undying love to his mistress on my honeymoon. I would not because of "survivors pride" but she told it as it was. She opened up the sham and dysfunction. That does not mean she could also not be deceitful. Even young children can lie.

So not having sex with Mannakee and telling Settelen there was no sex makes her a goody two shoes? She had an affair with Hewitt and was involved with him a few years. SO she was not some woman who would be celibate for the rest of her life (cheating husband no divorce and all that). Camilla turning to Charles when her husband cheated was considered "downright upright" by Charles good friend, Penny Junor.

Hillary was alleged to have cheated. Vincent Foster comes immediately to mind. She also unlike Diana had big ambitions to be President of the United States. It was "two Clintons for the price of one" or so their "selling point" went. Hillary certainly was and is out for Number One. Different scenarios. Hillary is no doormat.

You forget that Diana and Charles maintained appearances for ten years. She did not run to the media back in 1981-82. It took time and years of Charles increasingly emotionally abusive (I do think he was) and CHarles' friends going to the media. She just got fed up and wanted to put her side out.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:44:10 AM


Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 18, 2017, 06:06:41 PM
Entertaining back and forth, you two  :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh  :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall  down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).

Thats the tricky thing with Diana in that she could be less than 100 percent honest, she lied in addition to the people mentioned above to journalist Clive James and Max Hastings about the book and Panorama, who mentioned she fooled them right to their faces. Also there was the time at school when the woman driving her and Charles Spencer threatened to kick her out of the car if she kept telling lies.

Yes, Einsteins get rejected too, but, and I dont want to speak for @royalanthropologist  but my take on mental resources wasnt just raw frontal lobe intelligence, its things like emotional maturity, stability, experience, etc. and Diana, like most ppl, had precious little of that in her early 20s, and that was kind of the point of what they wanted in a bride.

This might get me on the wrong side of the women, but I think if you want to call something sexist, its the whole idea of have a blank slate of a woman marrying a "prince charming" to me, it basically says the prince is hoping for an emotional blank or cripple that he can either mold, or be certain he wont be inconvenienced or challenged. That I think was far more detrimental to her than anything from seeing other ppl.

I dont think it was so much "s@#t shaming" as both the evolutionary psychology baggage we as a species carry, and the corner she frankly, painted herself into by playing the wronged woman card. not that its a bad card to play, but it does require the player of it to have a spotless romantic record lest the claim of hipocracy rear its ugly head.

I also find it humorous that if she can have an affair with one of Charles close friends, that its impossible to have had one with Juan Carlos. She was still very young emotionally, younger than her actual age, and she was rejected, and looking for validation, and she was very keen on older, fatherly, prominent men, JC would "tick all the boxes" on that, compared to say in her mid 30s where she was much more assured, confident and hitting her sexual peak, biologically, her choices of men were much different then compared to mid 80s. Also she was a desirable woman who at that time was rejected by her husband, I dont think it makes her look bad for seeking affection, but cause some ppl have dug in so much on dates and such, their dogmatism locks them in from seeing a bigger picture of her.

I also find it funny that the claim of opportunity suggesting the only option was to do it behind a statue, when the same person used to debunk Eri's refuting of C&C playing around at the hunt when she would claim the same thing, that they could only have done it outside, so it didnt happen.

Ah so much of using the other sides arguments for trying to shield Diana from looking less than whiter than white  :lol:

Theres so many posts im probably missing some points i want to make, my point is she was a complex person (and I like RA's definition of that) who was trying to work through those problems, she could be less than honest, have mood swings, a temper every bit equal to her husband, and be hard on a friendship or family....but she could also be very honest about what she was feeling and what needed to change in the world, be consistently kind and compassionate to people suffering and in pain, she could be loving, personable and remember and value friends and family though think and thin, she could make you want to love and care for her as much as she wanted to do so for others.

Theres was a lot going on in that wonderful head and heart of hers, and I think without looking at the less than perfect side, the wonderful side doesnt look as good, its easy to be good if youre perfect, but to do all she did with what she was going through and the options she had to do nothing, or be as horrible as other wealthy people makes what she did all the more amazing and wonderful to remember.

She didnt have to be perfect to still be loved and appreciated like she is :flower:


Why on earth would Diana be attracted to a womanizer many years older than she was? That was not her 'type." she wanted reassurance and love not a "hit and run" sort of relationship with a womanizer.

And she was soon to be involved with Hewitt later that year (1986) who was more her type.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:53:59 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 04:42:57 PM
My point is this: Diana's words mean there was an inappropriate relationship. Her later denial was to save face when she actually realized the implications of what she was saying e.g. first one to cheat. Hence the contradiction between "best fella I ever had" and "it was not sexual". The two things do not match which to me indicates that the former is closer to the truth than the latter. Diana had a history of doing this e.g. falling down stairs etc.

Yes, there are women who are cheated on and even abandoned but go on to lead independent lives with engaging in bitter quarrels with their ex. Others find a way of dealing with the situation to maintain their position, decorum and the family e.g. queens Sylvia and Sophia. Others divorce amicably and maintain good relationships with their in-law (princess of Denmark). Diana chose the bitter avenging wife route (fair play to her) but not everybody does it that way. She also had to be prepared for the consequences of the route she chose.

You speak with great confidence about apportioning blame (Charles is more to blame etc.) when you don't really know that principals or the details of the situation. Nobody but the principals know what really happened and they are not about to tell us the complete truth. What you have done is to pick a side and find facts to support your side. Nothing wrong with that but it is disingenuous to pretend that your side is the right side based on the limited facts provided by an embittered ex wife.

When you call someone "complex", it is a polite way of saying they have a good and bad side. It is not a compliment but meant to deter the would-be hero worshipers who insist that person is perfect. Earl Spencer knew his sister a lot more than I or you. Therefore I suppose his diagnosis of her character carries more weight than us.

Camilla lied about knowing the separation. She did and it was disingenuous on her to do so. However, I question the sweeping statement that "I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all." Lady Fermoy Earl Spencer and Robert Fellowes might have a different take. Fellowes tendered his resignation from a prestigious job because of Diana's lies and manipulations. Fermoy called her an "actress" and Charles Spencer was even more explicit calling her "manipulative and deceitful". I doubt any of C&C's siblings or grandparents would describe them in quite those terms.

You seem very disturbed by Junor's book but actually it is a very tame book when compared to Morton or Bashir. It is a very tame book...just that it doesn't say what you like in the way that you want it. Junior is no worse than Morton or Bashir. I reject the idea that cooperating with Junor is somehow a worse crime because it isn't. Diana said many, many nasty things about C&C without resort for many years. You should not be surprised when the other side says its own side. In this case they said it quite gently and not with the vitriol and malice of Morton and Bashir.

I do admit though that Diana is sometimes a victim of "S**T Shaming" without evidence or justification. That is a reflection of a sexist and moralistic society that wants to prescribe what people do instead of minding its own business.  My own beef with her is that she was a hypocrite by complaining about adultery then pursuing married men.

You assume Diana would have been happy and content if Charles had loved her more. I disagree.  Diana's problems went way beyond Charles. He might have made them worse but he certainly was not the cause of her unhappiness or erratic lifestyle. She could never be happy until she built the right mental resources to handle relationships without becoming clingy, controlling or manipulative.

For example: Khan did love her in the soapy kind of way she said she wanted but it went pear-shaped; partly because she was back to those traits which are the biggest relationship killer going. A case in point is dating Dodi to make Khan jealous or Charles angry or Camilla envious. Then visiting his parents without invitation.  It is those childish games that always ended up hurting her. Mature well-adjusted people know that rejection is part of life and you have to find a way of dealing with it. You can't expect unconditional love and support from anyone other than your parent. Even your child can get fed up if you are too erratic.

It is untrue to say that Charles only married her to have two children. He did not and never said he did. Neither did Diana say so. She was indeed said to be outraged that people would say he only married her to get an "heir and spare" (a tabloid term that neither of the parents ever used).

Who did Diana deny this to? She never said she had an "affair" with Mannakee. She gushed to Settelen about her attraction to him and how he "understood her." But she did not say Mr. Settelen Barry and I had sex so what did she backtrack from?  A woman says I had a boyfriend or I had a friend. "Had" is not necessarily meaning "sex". So there was no backtracking. It was, what Diana thought, a private conversation never to be aired or recorded for the public. Settelen for one reason or another was someone she trusted. She could very well have said, yes we had sex and it was Great. She didn't. If you don't believe her, it's because you prefer Charles and Camilla and it is "better" (like Penny Junor thinks) if Diana "cheated first." Ingrid Seward was the one who backtracked. She first said they "did it" after the tapes she retracted and said they "didn't." Junor is the biggest Diana loather of all, she has some "thing" for Charles and finds Camilla "sexy." Of course she'd think the worst of DIana.

Diana was fond of Dodi. She really tried to continue the relationship with Hasnet. But she wanted to go public with him. I think he'd  have been satisfied with the visits to KP and perhaps her going incognito on dates with him.  But she wanted more. She liked Dodi because he did go public with her. Neither of them are alive to tell a thing about their relationship. It could have been only a Summer Fling.

Diana did say she wanted a third child and Charles turned her down. Since no third child materialized he ended the relationship (intimacy) after Harry was born. Charles moaned about Harry not being a girl but that could have easily been remedied if they had tried again. Harry was the spare, William the heir. That's what they were called. Charles got what he wanted and that was that.

Everybody is complex. Nobody is a stick figure with one mood only and one personality. If a person is not complex there is something badly amiss.

You keep ignoring how Fermoy betrayed her own daughter and grandmother. If you think she is qualified to give an opinion like that about her granddaughter (considering what Fermoy did to hurt her own family) that's your choice. I think she's a big phony. She pushed her daughter Frances to get involved with John Spencer even if it was known that he was about to get engaged to someone else. So she did not care that she broke up another woman's relationship for her own ambitions for her daughter.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:58:25 AM


I am not 'disturbed' about Junor's book. I know Junor is a snake and it is par for her course. I am not surprised about the Camilla book. BTW there were some scathing comments in the media about Junor's hype about the ex married mistress being the "savior of the monarchy."

Bashir and Morton got Diana's side. Neither Morton or Bashir "gush" like High school students about Diana. They did not socialize with Diana.

OTOH, Junor socializes with C and C and even accompanied Camilla on a vacation (photographs to prove it.). She calls Camilla "endearing and sexy" and giggled in an interview that she has a "soft spot" for Charles (obviously). She gets shrill in her attacks on Diana. But as I said it's par for her course.

Curryong

Sorry Duch_, but I don't believe that Diana had a fling with Juan Carlos. Primarily because Imo he's revolting physically and in every other way, and I refuse to believe that Diana would have fancied the creep!

sandy

It's like saying Diana had a fling with BIll Clinton.

TLLK

Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
Which likely fueled some of her more desperate attempts to attract his attention. :no:

sandy

This is no surprise. Charles liked that sort of thing. He had an arrangement with Camilla and her husband had his own outside interests (though Charles backed off when the PBs were having their children). Same with the Tryons, Dale's husband stepped aside so Charles could be with her. Charles in his own way IMO is very cold blooded. Diana's family should have taken her on a round the world tour and kept her away from Charles and his lifestyle.

amabel

Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
and yiou don't think that an affair with a fellow monarch, "A Catholic King!" who was a relative, would have been a scandal which wuodl have seriously affected boht the Spanish king and the English Monarchy?
I hope Diana would not have been such a fool, but if she had, you can bet Charles would have been affected by it

royalanthropologist

I do not believe the theory that Charles is a "cold fish" that is happy for his wife to sleep around. It was just that with Diana, the attraction was either limited or had long died away. As far as he was concerned, she could do what she liked as long as she did not bother him or the institution.

I do believe in the theory by @TLLK:  this drove Diana more desperate because she could not quite figure out that someone as beautiful and popular as her could be spectacularly and permanently rejected by her husband. This later on fueled her clinginess in subsequent relationships because she was afraid of a repeat performance.

She was never quite sure of or secure with her role in relationships so she often turned to manipulation, control and neediness to try and prevent a break up. Unfortunately, that often made the break up more likely, speedier and permanent. I once read that when Hoare broke it off, she became even more desperate to have him back hence the crank calls. Diana was the child that was forever frightened of being left alone behind. She could never cope with solitude or rejection right up to the end of her life.

Even that third child  with Charles thing was a Hail Mary to try and keep Charles, a trick that has been used by many women who do not want their husbands to leave them. Get a child and hope it will bring you together. A child does not resolve fundamental problems in the marriage. It might even make them worse.  I also totally reject @sandy's theory of marriage for an "heir and spare". That is nothing more than a tabloid yarn.

BTW @Curryong, Diana did not exactly look for models in her men. The pattern was typically older men who had means. JC fits the bill to a "T". Looking at Khan and Dodi I really question her choices but again each to their own.  Her exception was Hewitt but once again she tried to control him far too often and it went pear-shaped.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Diana did not "sleep around."  Charles' behavior IMO is cold blooded. He even showed resentment to Diana even after she and Hewitt got involved.

Diana did not have "clinginess" to expect her husband to be a real husband. She did not marry Camilla's lover she married a husband. If he preferred Camilla, he should not have married Diana to get those heirs.

Why is Diana blamed for the relationships and not the partners?  For one thing Hewitt and Diana could have had no real future. SHe was not going to bolt and risk losing custody of her sons.

DIana's relationships did not include running to older womanizers who would have the sex then move on to the next one. It's like saying she'd have craved being with Harvey Weinstein.  Hewitt was not much older than Diana and neither were Dodi or Khan; Khan and Hewitt were close to her age.

WHy do you reject my "theory.?' Charles wanted his own children to succeed. If Diana had been barren he would not have married her IMO. Why do you think she had the physical exam before she married CHarles? For nothing?

No it was not a Hail Mary. Diana at that time felt there was some hope. There wasn't. It was a small window.  WHy not trash Charles for the way he acted?

If DIana wanted to "trick" Charles there were more reliable ways of doing so. She asked, he said no. How is that trickery?

Diana and Charles back then had a difficult time getting a divorce even if they wanted one. The institution must have "tricked" Prince Charles.

Diana had no real security in the extra marital affair with HEwitt. No future for them. After her divorce she was involved mainly with Khan and then for a few weeks in 1997 was seeing Dodi. Hardly "sleeping around."


dianab

#194
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 18, 2017, 06:06:41 PM
Entertaining back and forth, you two  :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh  :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall  down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).
I believe she threw herself from few stairs. she was going through bulimia. what for her was a cry for help and for others looks like a spoiled girl wanting attention. Charles, in his dimbleby book, confirmed diana cut herself but he said the cuts werent deep and any band-aid was enough. I remember back then the press jumped at him for being a uncaring and insensitive man. janet jenkings said when she slept with him in 1991,  charles talked about this stairs episode.

sandy

#195
Quote from: amabel on October 19, 2017, 06:53:32 AM
and yiou don't think that an affair with a fellow monarch, "A Catholic King!" who was a relative, would have been a scandal which wuodl have seriously affected boht the Spanish king and the English Monarchy?
I hope Diana would not have been such a fool, but if she had, you can bet Charles would have been affected by it

I agree. Why would Diana go for a lecherous womanizer. She was not that desperate.  It is a joke to think JC would have had a real relationship. Just wham bam thank you ma'm. That's how he racked up all the women. He did not stay with any for very long and had the long suffering wife.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:12:29 AM


Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 11:06:09 AM
I believe she threw herself from few stairs. she was going through bulimia. what for her was a cry for help and for others looks like a spoiled girl wanting attention. Charles, in his dimbleby book, confirmed diana cut herself but he said the cuts werent deep and any band-aid was enough. I remember back then the press jumped at him for being a uncaring and insensitive man. janet jenkings said when she slept with him in 1991,  charles talked about this stairs episode.

Diana wore those gowns that showed her shoulders and arms. No scars were seen.  ANd yes, it was a few steps. If she rushed headlong down a full flight she'd have been hospitalized and certainly would have had broken bones.

Prince Charles cheated on Camilla with Janet Jenkins.  If one can cheat on a married woman when married himself.

Self harm is a bulimia symptom. I think Charles was the spoiled one.

dianab

#196
Quote
Diana wore those gowns that showed her shoulders and arms. No scars were seen.  ANd yes, it was a few steps. If she rushed headlong down a full flight she'd have been hospitalized and certainly would have had broken bones.

Prince Charles cheated on Camilla with Janet Jenkins.  If one can cheat on a married woman when married himself.

Self harm is a bulimia symptom. I think Charles was the spoiled one.
yes i'm saying she threw herself from few steps and NOT she fell acidentally

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:21:32 AM


If a married man is in love with his married mistress and sleeping with another woman, yes he's/was cheating on his mistress

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:22:52 AM


Quote from: Curryong on October 19, 2017, 12:59:53 AM
Sorry Duch_, but I don't believe that Diana had a fling with Juan Carlos. Primarily because Imo he's revolting physically and in every other way, and I refuse to believe that Diana would have fancied the creep!
charles was/is much more revolting physically than jc (i'm talking about camilla affair here), in 198/90s IMO. btw i dont believe there was any affair between them.

sandy

She had a row with Charles over his leaving for some event or lunch (perhaps involving Camilla). In any case it was still a few steps. She did not intend to kill herself.

The trouble is Charles did not apprise her in detail of what he expected of her. Before the engagement. She got a remote, stubborn man who still contacted his mistress and wanted to continue the same lifestyle. Diana was already pregnant with the heir. I don't think he had much of a concept of marriage that involved the partner's feelings. Stephen Barry said Charles did not really need to get married. The only thing missing for Charles were the heirs and Camilla helped promote Diana as a match for him thinking she would be very amenable to whatever Charles wanted.

royalanthropologist

@sandy. I want to correct another thing. There was never a test for virginity or fertility for Diana. She has never said such a thing  and none of her physicians or the palace has ever said such a thing. That is yet another tabloid yarn that is taken as gospel truth in order to feed a certain narrative.

Diana was clingly in all her relationships. I hear there was even an American billionaire who broke it off with her when she suddenly appeared at a place he was meant to be and then pretended that it was an accident. As for Hewitt, she actually wanted him to change his posting to suit her needs and her demands for completely loyalty as well as constant attention.

It is telling that Charles (who you call spoilt and consider dysfunctional) has been with the same woman Camilla as far back as 1986 and has been officially married to her since 2005. From 1986 to 1997, Diana had at least 4 different relationships that never quite worked out. Who of the two could not sustain a romantic relationship?
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#199
Yes, there was. One of Diana's relatives, her mother's brother went to the press and confirmed she "passed" the test and was a virgin. This is a true story. Diana also reportedly was not too happy about having to get a physical exam.

It was not a tabloid yarn. Do you really think Charles would have married a woman who possibly could not have had children? I very much doubt it. There had to have been a check up. If he married a barren woman (who was not given a physical exam), he could have had the marriage annulled. No question, Charles wanted heirs.

Camilla had other relationships with men besides her first and second husbands. Some of the men came forward and this disqualified her (in people like Mountbatten's estimation) as being a wife and mother of Charles' children.  Charles was involved wtih Camilla after she had her children and before Diana, and he was in contact with her throughout his marriage to Diana. Charles was with Janet Jenkins and this is well documented. So he cheated on Diana with (at least) two women during that time period. Janet and Camilla make two extra marital relationships.

Diana could not have had a relationship that "worked out" unless she bolted and jeopardized custody of her sons. I can imagine your condemnation of her if she had bolted. Diana had the documented relationship with Hewitt (both parties admitted an affair) and the documented relationship with Khan (who admitted an affair). Hoare neither confirmed or denied an affair and I doubt ever will. Diana never commented publicly on Hoare. Carling denied he had an affair with Diana. So you are upping the number of lovers. And what Camilla did was a lot worse, she interfered with the marriage from day one and even before she tried to play "mentor" and "advised" Diana. Charles IMO is spoiled and dysfunctional. Isn't it dysfunctional of him to have two male friends and think it "OK" to play house with their wives. The affairs with Kanga and Camilla are well documented.

Diana was in a no win situation with Charles. How can she "sustain" a relationship with a man who did not marry her for love. I think your blame is misplaced here.

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 01:35:38 PM


Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 11:14:19 AM
yes i'm saying she threw herself from few steps and NOT she fell acidentally

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:21:32 AM


If a married man is in love with his married mistress and sleeping with another woman, yes he's/was cheating on his mistress

Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:22:52 AM

charles was/is much more revolting physically than jc (i'm talking about camilla affair here), in 198/90s IMO. btw i dont believe there was any affair between them.

Charles was and is never really attractive. He looked nerdy, then looked OK at the time of his first marriage. I doubt Camilla would have given him the time of day had he not been the Prince of Wales. Her "type" seemed to be Andrew Parker Bowles who was said to be attractive but I don't t hink he ever was.