Author Topic: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1  (Read 4625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #250 on: June 18, 2017, 04:53:11 AM »
She did take William and Harry on nights to visit and help the Homeless. This is a fact.

There are people who are up at night in hospitals, patients that is.

I did not get a sense at the time that people all believed Julia Carling. Carling denied an affair. She moved on.

At the time, the calls were blamed on pranksters not Diana. I have an old magazine from the time that says just that.

Diana did more in the way of charity work in her last year than some did in ten.

I don't watch Gary Linaker. I did not see any comedians here make fun of Diana. Joan Rivers used to make fun of Camilla but did an about face and trashed DIana (after Diana died) to score points with Prince Charles and Camilla.

You criticize DIana for sitting near Richard Kay but for ten years Camilla was phoning up Stuart Higgins to give 'her side.'

CHarles' PPOs reported Diana's every move. WHich is why she got rid of them.

I don't think amabel you speak for "all people" believe it or not not everybody thinks about Diana the same way you do. Who are these 'people' you refer to, you can't speak for everybody on the planet.

Jackie Onassis' every relationship got put under a microscope after JFK died. Diana had the same issues. Not everybody thinks MAF vulgar and awful. He was a friend of Diana's father, for many years. Not everybody thinks like you do.  Diana could date and she was divorced. Give her a break, she did not marry the man, she died young.
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Trudie


Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #251 on: June 18, 2017, 07:51:14 AM »
For myself, and I lived in Britain for most of 1996 and 1997, I can remember jokes being cracked by comedians about Diana and journalists (especially female journos) going to town on her especially in that last summer with Dodi, where she exhibited some rather odd behavior.

Diana didn't seem to be able to make up her mind about whether she wanted the press and photographers near her on that yachting holiday or not. She did get criticised by Tory MPs for her work with Landmines and I remember one article in particular in which she was criticised for delving into politics and seemingly favouring one side (Labour.)

However, and this is a big caveat, journalists and comedians don't represent the British public. Parts of it yes, but not the whole. Just because journalists want to change the narrative because they're bored doesn't mean the British public immediately follows.

I remember whenever she appeared in a new dress or gown in those twelve months before her death, or appeared looking glamorous for one of her charities or the ballet, then Diana's photo would appear on newspapers' front pages. The glossy women's magazine stories on Diana still brought in customers. Newspapers and magazines in those days knew 'Diana sells'. She did throughout her life as a Royal and for the period afterwards.

 I can remember people having a giggle over a photo of Diana in full makeup and hospital gown and mask observing an operation, presumably one of Khan's. However, she was still incredibly popular and loved. I can remember very few criticisms and jokes about her from ordinary people, the women who continued to buy magazines with her on the cover, people who turned up to see her when she appeared in public.

Yes, the public became less interested in the Wales saga and the stories about their quarrels had reached the end of their shelf life IMO. However, those years left the people that I mixed with and many of my family and friends with a much more jaundiced view of Charles and his mistress that of Diana and her lovers. Some changed their view of the royal family in view of what they'd read. As for Diana, many thought it was odd that she should be with a playboy like Dodi, but few took it seriously.

That wasn't the case with Charles and Camilla. I can honestly say that if I were able to time travel back to July 1996 and ask a large group of family, friends, workmates, who, out of Charles or Diana, they sympathised with the most, empathised with the most and who was more popular with them, it would have been about 90% Diana and the rest wouldn't have cared about royals enough to give an opinion.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Trudie

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,050
  • Activity:
    76%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #252 on: June 18, 2017, 03:36:36 PM »
well I can say that most people I mixed iwht, did not care for Charles or Camilla, but in general, they were equally jaundiced about Dana.  And she was in the papers more, so she was commented on more.   the fact that they might have felt that C and C hd beaved badly, didn't mean that tey had any time for Diana.  Mostly, (while some were very saddened by her death -others weren't) mostly people in a large office I worked in, were sceptical about Di's claim to be something better and warmer and more in touch than the RF, that she was a not very bright, vain woman, who wanted costnant press attention, and who was no more "in touch" or useful in the world than her in laws.
Crtiicism of her "odd behaviour" by journalists and people in general, came about well before the summer of Dodi.  There as the chasing Hoare with Phone calls.  there was the Panorma interview, which many thought was just Diana acting stupidly, wanting to show off on TV.. the visits to hosptials etc etc...
 


Offline royalanthropologist

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Activity:
    86%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #253 on: June 18, 2017, 04:59:08 PM »
There was once a program discussed Diana's side of the story. Apparently she was perplexed as to why Charles should prefer Camilla over her. Now that Camilla has given an interview of sorts about her life, I can see what happened. You just have to compare the two stories and you will can probably work out some of the reasons why he decided to go for the older less attractive woman. Camilla is optimistic, realistic and even humorous. Diana's tapes sound bitter, twisted and almost always complaining about some sleight committed against her. Nobody likes to live with a perpetual victim. Diana would have been better advised to put out a much more positive outlook to her life; even if it meant moving on from an unfulfilling marriage.  The constant wronged wife routine can become old very quickly.

I was also amused that someone here suggested that the palace workers were working on the DM comments since their judgmental phrases sounded so similar. That is just projection. Most of the repetitive hateful phrases on that forum are written by about 20 pro Diana fans who use different aliases. You can tell by the fact that they use the same words and phrases. They then echo one another with phrases similar to these: "well said, too right" etc. One of them has wished Charles an early death (so that a 90+ plus mother has the displeasure of burying her own son) and Camilla to suffer from cancer (someone who thinks like that ought to be locked up for public safety reasons). I would not really classify such people as Diana fans. They are trolls.

If you are a young person (post 1997) and listen to the Morton tapes, what comes across is a woman who is very disturbed but with a tendency for victim hood. Every thing and every person is wicked for not paying enough attention to them. That is the real danger of exposing these private tapes. They will diminish Diana and make her out to be some bitter ex-wife type who is unable to let go of the problems in her past. I would hope that Diana was far too optimistic to wallow in self-pity for the rest of her life had she lived long.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #254 on: June 18, 2017, 05:00:42 PM »
Amabel, I think Charles and Camilla got the worst of it.  I can't imagine though people "glad" Diana died or not even "sad." They would have to be made of rocks not to be sad that someone is dead. Your office is not the world. My office did not like Charles and Camilla and liked Diana. The slams at her not being bright, vain, and wanting press attention seems to fit Charles more. He got so so grades, he is vain, and he likes attention so much so he got jealous of his first wife. His vanity comes out when he gets mad at people who disagree with him. Charles Dimbleby interview, the year before Dianas, got heavily criticized and did a lot of damage, forcing the PBs to divorce probably before they had planned. Hoare chased her BTW. Diana was pursued by Hoare. Hoare had a roving eye and had made his wife uncomfortable in the early nineties when he had a mistress. He's no angel. I don't get why Diana is the only one trashed.

royalanthropologist, why wouldn't Camilla be optimistic, she's set for life and got what she worked for all those years. Charles cannot afford another divorce and even if they wanted one, they could not divorce. Camilla was playing victim and poor me in the interview if she had been humorous and optimistic she would not have. She should not have given that interview it made her look like she was blaming others for her own bad behavior.

No it is not projection--a few names pop up who make the same comments  and cliche bashing of Diana. There is someone from India, and a few others that I won't name. IT is obvious.

You are expressing your opinion and trying to spread propaganda to "young people." Why not play the Camilla gate tape where Charles and Camilla are scheming about getting together when her husband is not home.  And both not wanting an ambulance strike to end in London (where lives were being lost) so the pesky husband won't come home.Or Camilla calling Diana "that ridiculous creature" in a letter to Charles. Or her photos of her "befriending" Lady Diana. I think Camilla a big phony and very greedy and self entitled. She was said not to be very popular with her neighbors. I think Charles a foolish man who got involved with his so called best friends' wives.

The real danger for Charles and Camilla's spin is that not everybody buys into it. Some of it is laughable.

There are Camilla trolls who say Diana is better off dead, her sons think of Camilla as their mother and Camilla raised them, making fun of Diana's accident, and so on. They will diminish Camilla and Charles and make them look like a pair of losers.

BTW there are people who are Diana fans who don't wish Camilla dead but do call her out on her role in breaking up the marriage.

Camilla trolls are rampant on the DM comments board and get over 100 red arrows from others.

How can DIana be condemned as anything when she died at age 36. She did not live to 90 so there is no clue how things would have ended up for her. Charles controls the PR and some believe the ridiculous spin he puts out with Penny Junor having the power to diagnose Diana. So stupid.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 05:15:03 PM by sandy »
 
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #255 on: June 18, 2017, 05:12:45 PM »
Diana's life and character are not encompassed by one set of tapes or one interview. She had many many friends who described her as fun, funny, humorous and witty. They remembered her full-throated laugh, throwing her head right back, and her love of life.

 Harry at the 10 year memorial specifically spoke of her sense of fun. There are many anecdotes about her joking and teasing with others. Otoh, not many people could work out why Charles preferred Camilla. One journalist I remember said that the French categorised Charles at the time of the War of the Wales's  as 'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress'.

Philip wrote to Diana stating that he couldn't understand how Charles could 'prefer Camilla over you' and he wasn't just talking about her looks.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #256 on: June 18, 2017, 05:16:39 PM »
I think it was unfortunate that Charles somehow got the idea he was "above" common decency. He felt it OK for him to be involved with his friends' wives. It caused much damage to him and to others.
 
 


Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #257 on: June 18, 2017, 06:22:10 PM »
Journalists and comedians may have criticised and joked about her in the twelve months or so before she died. Some of your friends, amabel, may not have liked her. However, she did change the way the royal family does things, she left a long legacy behind, people still bought books and magazines about her, the piles of flowers to mourn her were unprecedented, and two and a half billion people world wide watched her funeral. Two and a half billion who didn't think she was vain, self centred or a publicity hound.

How many for Charles's funeral, a million or so? How many for Camilla? About five thousand onlookers on the streets, if she's lucky! Twenty years after Camilla's death will people on forums, on Tumblrs, on the Internet be discussing her or Charles? No!  Documentaries, tributes to Camilla on the twentieth anniversary? I think the answer's No!

Diana was loved and adored in life by people all over the world and remembered fondly by those who met her, after she died. The facts about how people reacted to her death speak for themselves, as do Charles (and his ex mistress's) poll numbers, even today. Low, low, low, and this is a future King, if he survives his mother.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 06:27:42 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Trudie

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,050
  • Activity:
    76%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #258 on: June 18, 2017, 06:52:00 PM »
Amabel, I think Charles and Camilla got the worst of it.  I can't imagine though people "glad" Diana died or not even "sad." They would have to be made of rocks not to be sad that someone is dead. Your office is not the world. My office did not like Charles and Camilla and liked Diana. The slams at her not being bright, vain, and wanting press attention seems to fit
For Gods sake Sandy I didn't say that anyone said that they were glad Di was dead. nor did I say that my office was te whole world.. but it was  large number of people, and just as valid for taking sounding for.  if it comes to thtat, in my present workplace Noone ever mentions the RF or Di except one person...
And while no one was glad,  many people were not particularly sad, any more than most of us are sad to hear of the death of someone we don't know. Of course we feel a little pity but it is not a deep sadness. 

Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 06:58:43 PM

Journalists and comedians may have criticised and joked about her in the twelve months or so before she died. Some of your friends, amabel, may not have liked her. However, she did change the way the royal family does things, she left a long legacy behind, people still bought books and magazines about her, the piles of flowers to mourn her were unprecedented, and two and a half billion people world wide watched her funeral. Two and a half billion who didn't think she was vain, self centred or a publicity hound.

How many for Charles's funeral, a million or so? How many for Camilla? About five thousand onlookers on the streets, if she's lucky! Twenty years after Camilla's death will people on forums, on Tumblrs, on the Internet be discussing her or Charles? No!  Documentaries, tributes to Camilla on the twentieth anniversary? I think the answer's No!

.
I didn't say they were my friends.  But I'd say they were fairly typical of people.  mostly they didn't take any notice of the RF but in the early 90s the Waleses war was so out there that one could hardly totally ignore it, so it was coffee break conversation.  And generaly I'd say that I was one of the very few that sympathised iwht Diana. Mostly the others DID think she was vain, brainless and tiresome.  They didn't think highly of Charles Cam or te rest of the RF either, so it is not a case as you seem to think that everyone who "hates Diana" loves Charles and Camilla.
Yes Diana had worldwide popularity.. but within a few years, while she still had a lot of fans, and is still remembered, the numbers going to KP and laying flowers etc went down every year. within less than a year, a charity walk in her honour had to be cancelled because ofa low take up rate.  she's not forgotten, she never will be, by her own family and friends and her fans, but I think that her massive populiarty has faded now.
As For Charles and Camilla, maybe they are never goig to be as popular as she was in her heyday, but we don't know what will happen when they pass away.  They will be King and Queen and they will be elderly so they wotn get the rush of sympathy that one may get if one dies young and tragically.  And realy does it matter?  Its nice to be mourned but I'm sure anyone would rathter have a longer life and more happiness in that life...
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 06:58:43 PM by amabel »
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #259 on: June 18, 2017, 07:57:30 PM »
You don't know how many people felt that way. There have never been definitive surveys. Sadness was felt with many I think it safe to say. How deep the feeling was known only by the individual so that cannot be measured. And feeling sorry for the boys and those who lost a parent identified with what happened to them.

I know typical people who like Diana to this day and loathe Camilla and Charles. I would say Charles was the brainless and vain one. He lacked common sense which got him in the trouble he had. Any man with half a brain would have walked away when the women he dated married elsewhere.  He thought it OK to get involved with his friends' wives. I am not so sure how"happy" Charles is, he is a chronic complainer. Camilla whined about her "lot" in the unfortunate interview. So I think the two are big on self pity and self justification.

I understand the flowers left were taken up quickly and not left to sit.  If the massive popularity has diminished then why are lines forming to see the exhibit at Kensington Palace, about her iconic fashions.
 
 

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Activity:
    86%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #260 on: June 18, 2017, 08:46:08 PM »
I disagree with curryong about dead people and crowds. Dead people do not mind if they are buried by billions or a single person, it is simply not in their realm. That is the realm of the living. I seriously doubt that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.

I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.

I can tell you people that the Diana tapes were very badly received by the young people I know when they were republished in 2017. They felt that she was whining too much and not appreciating the advantages the life gave her. Others asserted that Diana's problems appeared to have been there long, long before she ever set eyes on Charles. The behavior towards Raine Spencer and the governesses is particularly alarming. Diana herself admitted that she and Charles were very messed up. It was only the older girls that appeared well-adjusted.

The pro-Diana group on DM was overwhelmed by the negative response and some of them resorted to complaining about how people were being too judgmental. Huh...that is rich coming from people that have been judging C&C for decades :lol:

Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 08:50:54 PM

"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"

Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown us this fact time and time again. There is absolutely no doubt that Diana was an aesthetically stunning woman but that did not help her to find a long lasting satisfying romantic relationship. By contrast: the ugly duckling does not seem to be doing too badly in the love stakes. She married amazingly well and she has a husband who is devoted to her. No amount of money, looks or public adoration can buy that.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 08:50:54 PM by royalanthropologist »
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #261 on: June 18, 2017, 09:26:11 PM »
^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.

I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.

 A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying  and who believes he is in the right on every question, a man who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry a very young woman  when he was in love with his mistress,--that's not the sort of man I want as my King. I'll prefer the histories of King George VI and this Queen Elizabeth, and honour them instead.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #262 on: June 18, 2017, 11:49:03 PM »
I disagree with curryong about dead people and crowds. Dead people do not mind if they are buried by billions or a single person, it is simply not in their realm. That is the realm of the living. I seriously doubt that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.

I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.

I can tell you people that the Diana tapes were very badly received by the young people I know when they were republished in 2017. They felt that she was whining too much and not appreciating the advantages the life gave her. Others asserted that Diana's problems appeared to have been there long, long before she ever set eyes on Charles. The behavior towards Raine Spencer and the governesses is particularly alarming. Diana herself admitted that she and Charles were very messed up. It was only the older girls that appeared well-adjusted.

The pro-Diana group on DM was overwhelmed by the negative response and some of them resorted to complaining about how people were being too judgmental. Huh...that is rich coming from people that have been judging C&C for decades :lol:

Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 08:50:54 PM

"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"

Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown us this fact time and time again. There is absolutely no doubt that Diana was an aesthetically stunning woman but that did not help her to find a long lasting satisfying romantic relationship. By contrast: the ugly duckling does not seem to be doing too badly in the love stakes. She married amazingly well and she has a husband who is devoted to her. No amount of money, looks or public adoration can buy that.

It depends what young people are told.

DIana should have had a long standing romantic relationship with her husband but Camilla butted in and Charles was too wishy washy--he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Camilla saw off the wife to get her rewards and kindness had nothing to do with it.
 
 


Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,050
  • Activity:
    76%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #263 on: June 19, 2017, 01:31:17 AM »
You don't know how many people felt that way. There have never been definitive surveys. Sadness was felt with many I think it safe to say. How deep the feeling was known only by the individual so that cannot be measured. And feeling sorry for the boys and those who lost a parent identified with what happened to them.

I know typical people who like Diana to this day and loathe Camilla and Charles. I would say .  If the massive popularity has diminished then why are lines forming to see the exhibit at Kensington Palace, about her iconic fashions.
as ther are no "definitive surveys" then the people I have met, who were not Di fans, are just as valid as your idea that almost everyone mourned her  deeply.. and that the only ones who didn't were somehow "got at" by Charles .
People are going to see her dresses because they are fashion items, not necessarily because they were worn by Diana.  There were shows of Margaret's dresses too.. I'm sure they got a lot of people going to them.

Double post auto-merged: June 19, 2017, 01:32:33 AM

^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.

I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.

 A
well not everyone feels like that. Most people are essentially indifferent and as Long as Charles is doing a decent job, is not involved any scandals, he is the heir and he'll be crowned.  And I'm sure he'll be Ok with that.

Double post auto-merged: June 19, 2017, 01:39:02 AM

that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.

I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.


The
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 08:50:54 PM

"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"

Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown
I would say that most of us hoped to be mourned - but by our loved ones.. not by the general public..  and I agree that Charles and Cam are harldly fusisng around wondering if there will be thousands or whatever watching their funerals on TV.  They will get a decent turn out anyway because of their position. Diana had a lot of people mourning her because of her position, her beauty and her early tragic death.. as well as because of her good qualities.

There will always be those who disapprove of Charles because he behaved stupidly, and these people must also disapprove of Diana, because she too behaved stupidly.
I agree tat it seems pretty shallow to denigrate Camilla because of her looks..
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 01:39:02 AM by amabel »
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #264 on: June 19, 2017, 02:45:42 AM »
I did not say "almost everyone." My point is there were no surveys. You say "most" and I question on how that can be definitively known. Some may not even care.

they will see the dresses because they worn by Diana. If they just wanted to see dresses they can go to a Department Store and save the wait in line. The subject of the thread is Diana not Margaret.

I think Camilla's looks are irrelevant. I don't think her a nice person regardless of her looks.

Charles was involved in scandals of his own making. He was fortunate that in his younger years the bad stuff did not show to the unaware public. I read a 1981 book about C and D and it goes on about how Kanga and Camilla were "just friends" and played hostess for him because he did not have a wife. Oh and Camilla helped select Diana.
 
 

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,050
  • Activity:
    76%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #265 on: June 19, 2017, 11:13:14 AM »
I did not say "almost everyone." My point is there were no surveys. You say "most" and I question on how that can be definitively known. Some may not even care.

they will see the dresses because they worn by Diana. If they just wanted to see dresses they can go to a Department Store and save the wait in line. The subject of the thread is Diana not Margaret.

I think Camilla's looks are irrelevant. I don't think her a nice person regardless of her looks.

I didn't say "most".  I said most of the people that I knew through various places I worked.    And yes it is very likely true that a large secton of people were not bothered by Diana's death.. ie they were vaguely sorry but it didn't greatly affect them.  that's normal for public reaction to the RF.
As for the dresses we are not talking about "dresses In a shop".. as you know very well.  We are talking about "high fashion dresses" worn by a histrorical figure. Of course many go because they liked Diana.. others may go just because it is an exhibition and they want entertainment.. or because they like to see fashionable dresses.. esp when worn by some historical figure.  The Royal palaces have run exhibitons on other royals' clothes... besides hers.
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #266 on: June 19, 2017, 11:19:52 AM »
But that does not reflect the entire population. Diana wore the dresses, that's why they went. They could go to other places to see high fashion dresses.
 
 

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Activity:
    86%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #267 on: June 19, 2017, 11:51:59 AM »
^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.

I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.

 A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying  and who believes he is in the right on every question, a man who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry a very young woman  when he was in love with his mistress,--that's not the sort of man I want as my King. I'll prefer the histories of King George VI and this Queen Elizabeth, and honour them instead.

That there is  the manifesto of republicanism (or more precisely situational monarchism). In a monarchy you do not choose the monarch. Whether you like them, respect them or not does not really figure. What matters is that they are the eldest legitimate heir of the previous monarch. Unless they have a mental defect or some serious cognitive disability, a lack of popularity or respect does not figure into the ascension of a British monarchy. Republicanism works differently. You get to select the latest flavor of the cycle (depending on how much campaign finance they can raise and how good they are at hiding their real self).

I wish Australia all the best, whatever system they choose. The monarchy is no longer particularly relevant there and maybe they have to chart their own path. That is a process that has been brewing for a long time and in the end the final break will not really be about Charles but a former colony that wants to chart its own new course. I am also certain that Charles would not want to be a king based on x-factor polling trends. Even democratically elected officials do not like to play that game. Ultimately it is Australia's choice and good luck to them.

Also allow me to butcher one of your specific quotes Curryong, just to show that insults are easy to throw and less easy to justify:

"A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying  and who believes she is in the right on every question, a woman who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry an older man who clearly did not love her. --that's not the sort of woman I want as my queen. "

Not very nice, is it?
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #268 on: June 19, 2017, 04:19:02 PM »
^ The Queen is loved and respected in Australia. It is that love and respect that kept the numbers at bay during the referendum on the monarchy here in 1999. People acknowledge her decades of service as head of the Commonwealth. It is why when the republican movement here talks of the next referendum they speak of one happening 'after the Queen dies'.

Yes, republicanism has a long history in Australia. However, the last referenda was won for the monarchy, at least in great part because of Australia's feelings about our Head of State, Elizabeth II.
There are just not the same feelings for Charles or the respect, which is why he is regarded here as the great gift for republicanism.

 Camilla is even less well regarded. You would think it would be different as Charles spent at least part of his education in Victoria and feels in consequence that he has a special link to Australia, as per some of his speeches.

You may feel that he wouldn't regard the loss of the realm he has always praised and has a fondness for. I think that although Charles will recognise that Australia has a right to decide its own destiny, that he will regard it as a wrench, and I would say that I know far more about Charles's links to this country than you do.

 He will also regard it as a shame when New Zealand follows suit in a short period after Elizabeth's death. These are two realms where his mother has been HOS  for over 60 years, and Australia and Canada are the two biggest realms in the Commonwealth.

Please DO NOT lecture me, by the way, on the rules and process of succession to the throne  within the BRF. I KNOW them extremely well and have done all my adult life. I was born and was brought up in Britain, I've been a history buff for decades and read modern European history at university. I don't need lessons thank you!

You obviously don't believe that popularity matters where royalty is concerned. However, a popular royal couple always give a huge boost to the esteem in which a monarchy is held. Diana was wildly popular here. She brought people out in their millions on the first tour of Australia the Wales's did together, masdive crowds in capital cities and in bush towns, and they weren't coming out  to see Charles. She was popular on visits afterwards as well. People loved Diana and the kind of enthusiasm for her that I saw on those tours can't be faked. Who knows, Diana may have helped stay for some more years a process which now seems almost inevitable here.

Thank you for twisting my feelings about Charles back to yours about Diana.

However, Diana stood at that altar with love in her heart for her groom and she had feelings for no-one else. That can't be said about Charles. She didn't complain to friends that her father had written to her obliging her to marry Charles or else. He did, completely over-reacting to a reasonable request. She was 19 when she became engaged, he was 32, but who was the bigger baby in terms of maturity?   

As for vanity, it wasn't Diana who became extremely jealous of her spouse's popularity and the love people had for him,  and, in a fit of spite and self pity, said to a friend 'All he ever did was say Yes to me'! That remark of Charles's shows his character in which vanity, resentment and self pity rule!

I have written before  of King Willem Alexander's very different response to the Dutch people's delight in his wife Queen Maxima. But then, Willem Alexander is secure in himself in a way that Charles will never be. Yes, Diana had faults. However so does Charles, and IMO these loom larger in a future monarch.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 04:25:11 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Trudie

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Activity:
    86%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #269 on: June 19, 2017, 04:46:51 PM »
Your entire comment @Curryong confirms to me what I have always suspected. That many of Diana fans were not really about the institution but an individual. Once Diana was no longer part of the package, they moved on to other  institutions (Willhelm etc.). That works very well for European monarchies and fair play to them. If New Zealand wants to follow Australia, good luck to them too. Charles cannot and should not try to stop them.

No, I will not stop pointing out the contradictions of supporting a monarchical system and then turning around asking to effectively do a popularity contest for who is the best monarch. As you know; I resist any attempt to tell me what to do, how to think or even to join popular fan clubs. That is just me and that is why one of the reasons I defend Camilla. Thanks, but no thanks to the echo chamber.

I think the British monarchy is better off without situational support. The Diana fan club does not and should not choose the next British monarch. They can  and should organize memorials for her but they should never be allowed to influence the ascension of the monarch. They do not represent Britain or the commonwealth. They are certainly not objective in their criticism of Charles so I would not trust them to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether he will be a good or bad king. I am glad that the British establishment resisted that premise.

By her indiscretions and media forays; Diana did much to destroy the reputation of not only the monarchy but also of her husband. Many, many people have marital problems but not all of them splash them on national papers or try to get their husband/his family out of a job in revenge. Queen Sophia of Spain and Queen Sylvia of Sweden come to mind. Responsible people do not invite their fan club into their marital problems and then simultaneously expect it to survive the resultant pressure. It is a testament to Diana's lack of insight that she did not consider that Morton, Bashir, DM writers, Express writers, Tony Blair etc revealed nothing about their own private lives but were given unfettered access to Diana's problems.

Diana was no fan of queen Elizabeth II. Indeed her "queen of people's hearts" plea was a direct challenge to the monarch who soon showed her in subtle but firm ways that she was not in charge. Diana was used by secret Republicans without even realizing what she was doing.  The reactions of many of her fans to Diana's death showed that they too were never really fans of Elizabeth II or the monarchy per say.  That is why I never trust their motives when they give advice on how the monarchy must adapt and survive. What they really want is for the monarchy to be punished for failing to join the Diana fan club. They had their star and wanted her there; institution or no institution.

When the exasperated monarchy finally pushed Diana out (at the time she was acting like a 5th columnist in the institution); the Diana fan club bayed for blood. They still do today but the rest of the population is having none of it. That is why Charles remains Prince of Wales and will in due course be King. That is why the jubilee celebrations were a success despite hardly mentioning Diana. People came and they will come to Charles' coronation. Hopefully those who snipe, insult and threaten will stay right at home so that those that still support the institution can enjoy the occasion.   It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy that they survived the Diana-inspired media attacks on the institutions and members of the institution. 
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #270 on: June 19, 2017, 05:18:58 PM »
I have never stated that I believe that the monarchy should be a popularity contest. The Queen has been my monarch my entire life, and I respect and revere her. I do not respect and revere Charles as a man or as a future monarch. That is entirely my preference and I am entitled to it. I have expressed why I feel that way many times on this forum. However, that isn't bringing the monarchical system down to any level.

As a Commonwealth citizen of Australia I am entitled to express my views about my Head of State and the future Head of State of Australia.

You are extremely dismissive about Diana fans and attempt to make a case for those who esteem Charles, by referring to people who like Diana as operating 'in an echo chamber'. You can believe that Charles, a future monarch, is not vain, self-pitying, convinced he is in the right and unwilling to listen to criticism if you like. However, Charles's biographies are replete with examples of him exhibiting just those characteristics.

I suppose his co-operation with books by Dimbleby and Junor are evidences of Charles's high mindedness and care for the monarchy. Certainly the monarch, his mother, no doubt felt that he had raised the institution to another level when he criticised her failings as a mother. Similarly he certainly elevated the position of Prince of Wales and heir to the throne when he outed his married mistress in front of millions to Jonathon Dimbleby.

It seems to me that you are perfectly fine with attributing all sorts of sins and failings to Diana but you refuse to admit that your idols ever have feet of clay, something you perpetually accuse Diana fans of doing.

By the way, what does 'moving on to other institutions' mean? I do think that Willem Alexander behaves perfectly with regard to Maxima, his wife, certainly in a more mature fashion than Charles ever did. That doesn't mean that I have moved my allegiance to the Netherlands royal house. That is a preposterous suggestion. I have in fact maintained an interest in the history and affairs of monarchies of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands in particular since I was a little girl, which was a long time before Diana came on to the scene.

It's Willem Alexander not 'Wilhelm', by the way though as a matter of fact I have had an interest for years in the history of the Hohenzollen Royal House and the Austrian Habsburgs as well. Before Diana, as well, with those.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 05:31:17 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline royalanthropologist

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Activity:
    86%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #271 on: June 19, 2017, 06:02:34 PM »
Of course people can choose to like or "loathe" Charles. They can even choose to become republicans when a particular heir is not to their liking. What I object to is Charles being castigated and attempts made to suggest that he cannot do his job, simply because he chose the wrong woman to marry. People divorce and fall out. It does not mean that they are denied their birthright or that they are the devil incarnate.

The most powerful person on earth at the moment is a multiple divorcee and multiple adulterer. The former King of Spain and the current King of Sweden have been accused of adultery. That tells me that the sins Charles is meant to have committed do not preclude him from being a head of state. He is not a priest and has not aspired to be a priest. He is a prince, with all the failings and weaknesses of a prince. If he as bad as some Diana fans tell us; Diana would not have fought for so long and so hard to remain married to him.

I also refuse to accept the notion that Diana's wild popularity was somehow a plus for Charles. It was not and her fans made it clear they preferred her to him (you yourself said that they came to see Charles and not Diana in Australia). That would have been fine, if they were not been aggressively rude to him on the walkabouts. As far as I am concerned, the Diana fan club should not be surprised if someone they treat as an enemy walks away.

The Diana fan club treated Charles as an enemy right from the beginning of the marriage, throughout the marriage and after the marriage. He can and should ignore their sniping because they demonstrably do not wish him well or to succeed in his work. Better to focus on those who still value him as a human being and as a prince.  Like I said before, it is not worth the effort to try and convince a committed anti-Charles fan that he is anything other than a wicked man.

Diana's popularity was used as an instrument to denigrate Charles' work and later to denigrate the work of the monarchy. Diana's popularity was personal to her and when she was pushed out of the monarchy; some of her fans went with her. The monarchy survived (despite all the dire predictions by gleeful republicans) and will continue to survive. Charles has every chance of being a good and effective King (despite the gleeful predictions to the contrary of the Diana fan club).

I am old enough to remember when some Diana fans were predicting that they would "skip a generation", that he would never marry Camilla and that she would never be accepted. I think the last 17 years have shown the dangers of writing off the monarchy too soon.

As for Willem, it was a typo. Maxima is a great girl and a great queen. She supports her husband and tries to bring out the best in him. Maxima never deliberately tries to upstage or ridicule any member of the royal household.  She gets on well with her in-laws and does her best to ensure that the institution within which she married is popular and successful. Maxima does not conspire with the press, republicans and her fans to bring down the monarchy. That is why I think her situation is rather different from that of Diana. Of course Maxima also has the advantage that her husband is demonstrably in love with her. Diana's husband was not and she knew it right from the beginning; even if she tried to convince herself otherwise.

As for Dimbley. Charles' book was mainly about his work as prince of wales and his childhood. There were a few lines which the Murdoch press and Diana fan club chose to highlight in order to make it all about their star. The book and interview are very substantial biographical pieces in which Diana features very little. By contrast, Diana's two autobiographical media forays were almost entirely composed of attacks on Charles, his family and her own family.

Charles did complain about a cold and distant mother as well as a hectoring father (all facts supported by secondary sources). He also said he did not love his first wife and felt that he had been pressurized to marry her  when he was not ready (a statement of fact, if Diana's own words are to be believed). This is nothing compared to the deliberate acts of betrayal, fantasy, slander,  exaggeration, sentimentalization, hypocrisy and outright treason that were Morton and Panorama. Charles never ever questioned Diana's ability to do her job and he certainly never attacked her family. She did all those things to him and his family. Dimbleby is child's play by comparison to what Diana and her co-conspirators did.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,614
  • Activity:
    78%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #272 on: June 19, 2017, 06:53:30 PM »
Again we have the characterisations by you of all who liked and admired Diana as 'members of the Diana fan club', a demeaning sort of compartmentalisation. What about members of the Charles fan club including several of Charles's friends who, in spite of no medical background tried to put across the idea that Diana was as mad as a hatter?

The fact that adulterers can do their job doesn't excuse their actions in committing infidelity. Nor does the fact that other royals and Heads of State have committed adultery. I don't care that the Kings of Spain and Sweden were adulterers. I do care, and care very much, that the future Head of State of the land of my birth is one. I can remember a time when the BRF were looked up to as aspirational models on how to behave. That time has passed but  in any case I find it impossible to have the same sort of feelings for Charles as I have for his mother, and that is entirely due to his behaviour before and during his marriage.

By the way, the people who loved and admired Diana weren't against Charles 'from the beginning of the marriage' as you assert. It was regarded as a fairytale union by the public at the beginning, certainly up to and after the birth of William, and to a certain extent, Harry. It was only later, after some journalists questioned the narrative and it was seen that the couple spent a great deal of time apart that battle lines really began to be drawn.
 
The following users thanked this post: sandy

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,427
  • Activity:
    84%
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #273 on: June 19, 2017, 07:01:16 PM »
Your entire comment @Curryong confirms to me what I have always suspected. That many of Diana fans were not really about the institution but an individual. Once Diana was no longer part of the package, they moved on to other  institutions (Willhelm etc.). That works very well for European monarchies and fair play to them. If New Zealand wants to follow Australia, good luck to them too. Charles cannot and should not try to stop them.

No, I will not stop pointing out the contradictions of supporting a monarchical system and then turning around asking to effectively do a popularity contest for who is the best monarch. As you know; I resist any attempt to tell me what to do, how to think or even to join popular fan clubs. That is just me and that is why one of the reasons I defend Camilla. Thanks, but no thanks to the echo chamber.

I think the British monarchy is better off without situational support. The Diana fan club does not and should not choose the next British monarch. They can  and should organize memorials for her but they should never be allowed to influence the ascension of the monarch. They do not represent Britain or the commonwealth. They are certainly not objective in their criticism of Charles so I would not trust them to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether he will be a good or bad king. I am glad that the British establishment resisted that premise.

By her indiscretions and media forays; Diana did much to destroy the reputation of not only the monarchy but also of her husband. Many, many people have marital problems but not all of them splash them on national papers or try to get their husband/his family out of a job in revenge. Queen Sophia of Spain and Queen Sylvia of Sweden come to mind. Responsible people do not invite their fan club into their marital problems and then simultaneously expect it to survive the resultant pressure. It is a testament to Diana's lack of insight that she did not consider that Morton, Bashir, DM writers, Express writers, Tony Blair etc revealed nothing about their own private lives but were given unfettered access to Diana's problems.

Diana was no fan of queen Elizabeth II. Indeed her "queen of people's hearts" plea was a direct challenge to the monarch who soon showed her in subtle but firm ways that she was not in charge. Diana was used by secret Republicans without even realizing what she was doing.  The reactions of many of her fans to Diana's death showed that they too were never really fans of Elizabeth II or the monarchy per say.  That is why I never trust their motives when they give advice on how the monarchy must adapt and survive. What they really want is for the monarchy to be punished for failing to join the Diana fan club. They had their star and wanted her there; institution or no institution.

When the exasperated monarchy finally pushed Diana out (at the time she was acting like a 5th columnist in the institution); the Diana fan club bayed for blood. They still do today but the rest of the population is having none of it. That is why Charles remains Prince of Wales and will in due course be King. That is why the jubilee celebrations were a success despite hardly mentioning Diana. People came and they will come to Charles' coronation. Hopefully those who snipe, insult and threaten will stay right at home so that those that still support the institution can enjoy the occasion.   It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy that they survived the Diana-inspired media attacks on the institutions and members of the institution. 

Diana never spoke out publicly against the Queen. Charles did via his talks with Dimbleby who was researching the Life oF Charles and had full access to Charles, his friends, relatives, and correspondence. It got so bad his siblings spoke out to defend their parents.

Diana was not "pushed out" she would have had a role to play as the mother of a future King and be invited to events involving  the sons she had with Prince Charles. She already appeared with Charles at a school event for Prince William. She would have been at Christenings, Weddings, Graduations front and center. She was not "cast out" since she was able to keep her royal apartments.

What about the Charles fan clubs that constantly deride and mock Diana?

Diana was for the monarchy, she spoke of how she envisioned William's future role and how Harry would be of help to him. She encouraged the boys to get interested in charities.

Double post auto-merged: June 19, 2017, 07:07:06 PM

Of course people can choose to like or "loathe" Charles. They can even choose to become republicans when a particular heir is not to their liking. What I object to is Charles being castigated and attempts made to suggest that he cannot do his job, simply because he chose the wrong woman to marry. People divorce and fall out. It does not mean that they are denied their birthright or that they are the devil incarnate.

The most powerful person on earth at the moment is a multiple divorcee and multiple adulterer. The former King of Spain and the current King of Sweden have been accused of adultery. That tells me that the sins Charles is meant to have committed do not preclude him from being a head of state. He is not a priest and has not aspired to be a priest. He is a prince, with all the failings and weaknesses of a prince. If he as bad as some Diana fans tell us; Diana would not have fought for so long and so hard to remain married to him.

I also refuse to accept the notion that Diana's wild popularity was somehow a plus for Charles. It was not and her fans made it clear they preferred her to him (you yourself said that they came to see Charles and not Diana in Australia). That would have been fine, if they were not been aggressively rude to him on the walkabouts. As far as I am concerned, the Diana fan club should not be surprised if someone they treat as an enemy walks away.

The Diana fan club treated Charles as an enemy right from the beginning of the marriage, throughout the marriage and after the marriage. He can and should ignore their sniping because they demonstrably do not wish him well or to succeed in his work. Better to focus on those who still value him as a human being and as a prince.  Like I said before, it is not worth the effort to try and convince a committed anti-Charles fan that he is anything other than a wicked man.

Diana's popularity was used as an instrument to denigrate Charles' work and later to denigrate the work of the monarchy. Diana's popularity was personal to her and when she was pushed out of the monarchy; some of her fans went with her. The monarchy survived (despite all the dire predictions by gleeful republicans) and will continue to survive. Charles has every chance of being a good and effective King (despite the gleeful predictions to the contrary of the Diana fan club).

I am old enough to remember when some Diana fans were predicting that they would "skip a generation", that he would never marry Camilla and that she would never be accepted. I think the last 17 years have shown the dangers of writing off the monarchy too soon.

As for Willem, it was a typo. Maxima is a great girl and a great queen. She supports her husband and tries to bring out the best in him. Maxima never deliberately tries to upstage or ridicule any member of the royal household.  She gets on well with her in-laws and does her best to ensure that the institution within which she married is popular and successful. Maxima does not conspire with the press, republicans and her fans to bring down the monarchy. That is why I think her situation is rather different from that of Diana. Of course Maxima also has the advantage that her husband is demonstrably in love with her. Diana's husband was not and she knew it right from the beginning; even if she tried to convince herself otherwise.

As for Dimbley. Charles' book was mainly about his work as prince of wales and his childhood. There were a few lines which the Murdoch press and Diana fan club chose to highlight in order to make it all about their star. The book and interview are very substantial biographical pieces in which Diana features very little. By contrast, Diana's two autobiographical media forays were almost entirely composed of attacks on Charles, his family and her own family.

Charles did complain about a cold and distant mother as well as a hectoring father (all facts supported by secondary sources). He also said he did not love his first wife and felt that he had been pressurized to marry her  when he was not ready (a statement of fact, if Diana's own words are to be believed). This is nothing compared to the deliberate acts of betrayal, fantasy, slander,  exaggeration, sentimentalization, hypocrisy and outright treason that were Morton and Panorama. Charles never ever questioned Diana's ability to do her job and he certainly never attacked her family. She did all those things to him and his family. Dimbleby is child's play by comparison to what Diana and her co-conspirators did.

The mistresses of the King of Spain did not see off the wife. In any case two wrongs do not make a right.

Charles buddies questioned Diana's sanity and had no business doing so, they also did this after she died.. Remember Nicholas Soames and the Mountbatten sisters? Charles friends Junor, Smith and Seward derided Diana. I expect Charles will reward them well.

Sorry but I find it patronizing to refer to "Diana fan clubs." People can think what they want without being put in a category like that.

Charles and Diana put up appearances for about 10 years. Charles jealousy was the problem early on of his wife's popularity. Charles should have gotten help for his jealousy issues.

Smith went full blast on trashing Diana. Dimbleby had to use some restraint because Diana was still alive and he could be sued.

Charles' own behavior caused the question of skipping a generation. Charles admitted he slept with his friend's wife and told his biographer (printed in the book) he would continue to see her. APB then got a divorce from her. Charles was not treated as an enemy from the beginning. They were the golden couple back then.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 07:07:06 PM by sandy »
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Trudie, Curryong

Offline Trudie

  • Diana-ites
  • Forum Nobility
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,698
  • Activity:
    22%
    • Favorite royal: Diana
Re: Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1
« Reply #274 on: June 19, 2017, 09:00:25 PM »
@ Royalanthropoligist I have been reading all this back and forth and must ask you why is it that for the most part anyone commenting favorably on Diana is either a troll or a member of her fan club treating Charles as an enemy?. First of you are totally misinformed if you believe Charles was treated as an enemy from day one. Charles and Diana announced their engagement everyone was delighted that Charles had found love and were excited for him and he was cheered the moment he stepped out of his carriage at St Paul's. Everyone followed Charles and Diana buying into the love story and fairytale that Charles was in love with his wife. Well as we all know the fairytale was just that and it was Charles by his own admissions Daddy was to blame for pushing him into the marriage.

You love to sit here and portray Diana as playing the victim well news flash Charles has played the victim his entire life not once taking responsibility for his choices. Diana in panorama owned her part in the marriage breakdown not once blaming her parents for bullying her into the marriage as Charles did, she never publicly blamed her parents as remote uncaring people as Charles did and his siblings felt they had to defend. Yes there are on both sides extreme head cases either for or against but ultimately and lets be clear as far as the marriage went neither behaved well in their tit for tat however Diana in the 80's no one from Diana's circle briefed the press on her unhappiness unlike Charles Highgrove set who made it their mission to speak about how unhappy poor Charles was after years of that yes it was time Diana put out her side and if one listened closely to Panorama Diana did endorse Morton for the most part.

Ultimately the Crown will sit on Charles head. I believe Charles does care deeply for the citizens and will be a good King as Pow he has done a stellar job and unlike his predecessors has expanded the role with his work ethic unlike the previous Edwards VII and VIII who were more interested in their entertainment. As with any new reign I have read that with each change republicanism always rears itself but in the end the monarchy does survive.


 
The following users thanked this post: sandy, Curryong

 

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