Princess Diana: In search of happiness

[royalanthropologist]

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

[TLLK]

You are quite right TLLK. Charles and Diana had similar personality flaws when it came to needing encouragement and also not wanting to hear critical advice. They could not complement each other in that respect and it did contribute to their dysfunction as couple.

Neither of them had/has a great deal of self-confidence IMHO so it was difficult for them to trust their own instincts and decisions. Both were prone to freezing out those who were actually being true friends by confronting them when it was obvious they were making poor choices and exhibiting troubling behavior.

[amabel]

I don't know of Charles falling out with friends, as such.  maybe with advisers if they didn't' agree with him, or with other socialites that he mixes wtih but wouldn't consider close friends.  However I don't think any of us like to be told we are in the wrong or what to do, even when people ask for advice, they don't usually take it unless it gibes with what they really want to do.

[sandy]

I think because they get sycophantic praise at times, senior royals like Charles have some arrogance and criticism is jarring. It's not as if Charles has to earn a living like the common folk and must get used to criticism at work.

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

HOnestly, I don't get your rambling post. These were not personal friends of Charles like the Van Cutsem's so your "logic" does not hold water. These were Journalists not personal friends. In case you did not get my post, I was talking about Personal Friends not Media People who are earning a living writing about royals. So no you did not get it right. Why not ask what the post meant before you go in for sarcasm. It might have saved you the need to reach for a glass of something strong.

[TLLK]

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party.  :partaay:

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party.  :partaay:

I brought snacks LOL :hall5:

[amabel]

I think because they get sycophantic praise at times, senior royals like Charles have some arrogance and criticism is jarring. It's not as if Charles has to earn a living like the common folk and must get used to criticism at work.

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

HOnestly, I don't get your rambling post. These were not personal friends of Charles like the Van Cutsem's so your "logic" does not hold water. These were Journalists not personal friends. In case you did not get my post, I was talking about Personal Friends not Media People who are earning a living writing about royals. So no you did not get it right. Why not ask what the post meant before you go in for sarcasm. It might have saved you the need to reach for a glass of something strong.

YOu were saying as I understand that it that Diana was foolish to believe that charles' friends were her friends.  But she didn't paritucularly trust his friends.  As I was saying the peole she "over confided in" were media people like Morton and Bashir, and to an extent Peter Settlen who was just hired by her.  THey are the people she over trusted not Charles friends. 

[sandy]

I did not say she "over trusted" Charles friends. She thought they were her friends This is hair splitting. You are  talking about journalists who were not "friends" of Diana.  So you are over analyzing and again trying to be a D.A> LIghten up.
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:19:55 AM

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party.  :partaay:

What party? 
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:21:38 AM

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party.  :partaay:

I brought snacks LOL :hall5:

Your pal royalanthropologist's premise is wrong.  Diana was not "friends" with reporters. She saw these people only a few times. Settelen was a hired speech coach not a personal friends. CHarles and "Diana's pals" were his friends not reporters or speech coasts.

I suggest you split up some apples and oranges with your new best buds. Maybe at the party one of you can have figure it out. :lol:
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:39:31 AM

speech coaches (correction)

[Trudie]

Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake.  Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:

C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party.  :partaay:

I brought snacks LOL :hall5:

Is this the high school clique? this is getting totally ridiculous now IMO it has gotten to the bully Sandy phase. IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability. Diana authorized her true story then after the separation he decided to capitalize on again in Diana her new life which she was not happy about then once dead he could tell the world and capitalize further. Bashir had his own agenda this did not make either of them Charles friends. Settleton he was content to sit on the tapes again until she died then hey lets cash in.

Diana did freeze alot of people out who started to take advantage of the friendship Diana offered but normal people do this not just royals. Diana being a young naive girl when she married at first did misplace her trust but as she matured and fully understood her position she gained a more mistrustful position of anyone wanting to befriend her.

[royalanthropologist]

I wish to categorically say that I am not bullying anyone. As far as I am concerned, this forum is for sharing diverse views. Ironically @Trudie, you have just repeated the very same thing that caused us all this angst. I wrote:

"I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other."

You in turn wrote:

"IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability."

Somehow my initial post became controversial because I did not include a missive about Charles friends. It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.

@Duch_Luver_4ever  has had to put up with really appalling responses; all because of daring to express a different opinion. Even providing ample proof failed to elicit any acknowledgement or expression of regret.  When you reach that point, it is better to see the funny side of life.

My philosophy is: "if you are continuously conflicting with so many people who do not have any previous reason to dislike you...then perhaps it is something that you are doing which is causing it".

[TLLK]

It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.

Yes it does get exhausting that the lady's own words are not accepted as being factual anymore. I'm tired of fighting over every little sentence and have chosen to involve myself in other threads. And if that includes a few hypothetical adult beverages :partaay: with posters who are also ready to take a break, then everyone is welcome. Duch has brought the snacks so join us if you are ready to take a break from the in-fighting @Trudie and @sandy.

[Trudie]

^ No thank you I am past the high school stage.

[TLLK]

Very well then, just know that I'm done with the infighting and would welcome anyone who is ready to do the same.

[sandy]

I wish to categorically say that I am not bullying anyone. As far as I am concerned, this forum is for sharing diverse views. Ironically @Trudie, you have just repeated the very same thing that caused us all this angst. I wrote:

"I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other."

You in turn wrote:

"IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability."

Somehow my initial post became controversial because I did not include a missive about Charles friends. It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.

@Duch_Luver_4ever  has had to put up with really appalling responses; all because of daring to express a different opinion. Even providing ample proof failed to elicit any acknowledgement or expression of regret.  When you reach that point, it is better to see the funny side of life.

My philosophy is: "if you are continuously conflicting with so many people who do not have any previous reason to dislike you...then perhaps it is something that you are doing which is causing it".

I would like to point out this is a problem with every high profile person. They need to distinguish the real friends from the false ones.  And these same people try to make money off their knowing a "famous" person.

My issue was you brought in media people not "friends" of Diana to give a comparison then you and your pals had a "party." Over what? A true comparison would be:

Charles friends: the Van Cutsems, Nicholas Soames, the Romseys, and I would add Michael Fawcett, the employee/friend of Charles. They IMO pretended to like Diana but were loyal to Charles, though Mrs Van Cutsem had a falling out with Camilla.

Diana's friends (loyal to her): Elsa Bowker, Lucia Flecha de la Lima, Caroline Bartholomew, Rosa Monckton
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:57:37 PM

It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.

Yes it does get exhausting that the lady's own words are not accepted as being factual anymore. I'm tired of fighting over every little sentence and have chosen to involve myself in other threads. And if that includes a few hypothetical adult beverages :partaay: with posters who are also ready to take a break, then everyone is welcome. Duch has brought the snacks so join us if you are ready to take a break from the in-fighting @Trudie and @sandy.

I'd like to  point out I was not the one who had a "party" to taunt another poster.

Most of the "quotes" attributed to Diana were from Lady Colin Campbell and Tina Brown.

[royalanthropologist]

Just like any high profile person, Diana was bound to be exploited. It was unwise to be so unguarded about sharing her problems.  The journalists wanted a story and after getting their story; they watched from the sidelines as the house crash and burned. Diana had some gurus and fortune tellers that were just feeding her lots of nonsense. One was disparagingly referred to as some sort of stepmother figure; seemingly friendly but systematically showing Diana in a very bad light.

Paul Burrell wrote probably one of the worst books about Diana. It made her look like a right loon. People were wondering how could a servant be privy to so much private information about his boss. I think an employee once wrote that Diana had a favorite sex toy she traveled with. Really, that is beyond the boundaries of friendship or being an employee. 

Even Morton presented a woman who was bitter, lonely and mentally disturbed. That is not what Diana intended and came to resent how she was being presented. Panorama was a disaster in terms of Diana's fortunes but it gave the BBC the scoop they wanted as well as the chance to poke fun at the monarchy which many staff members hate to this very day. Diana should have realized that there were much bigger things that getting her piece out or getting revenge on Charles. Instead she became fodder for a cunning press.

You also have to be wary of amateur marriage counselors when you are having marital problems. Some of them may not have very good intentions, as Diana soon learnt. That is why when some of us were getting married, our mothers warned us never to divulge the internal problems of our marriages to third parties unless were completely certain they were worthy of our trust.

[Curryong]

This is quite weird, but when I went into work today I spoke to a co-worker about the doco on Diana that was coming up featuring her sons and their memories of her, just a couple of throw away remarks.

One of the other workers, a retired policeman from Wales, just sat listening to the conversation and then piped up 'I met her you know!' It turned out that he had been one of the policemen who had guarded Charles and Diana during their first visit to Australia when the crowds went mad for her. At the end of a long day Diana had gone over to thank the police and noticed Tony's Welsh accent. She asked him where he was from in Wales and discussed the area with him.

The next morning she came over again and as she was passing him she said, with a lovely smile, 'Hello Tony!' His inspector was behind him and asked him in surprise how Diana knew him. Tony joked that they had been to school together!

That's just a little anecdote, but it says something about the effect Diana had on people. Over thirty four years and this man can still remember her smile, her eyes and hair, her interest in what he was saying, her charm and her remembering his name. It was the same visit in which I saw her, on an evening excursion but of course never got to speak to her.

[sandy]

Just like any high profile person, Diana was bound to be exploited. It was unwise to be so unguarded about sharing her problems.  The journalists wanted a story and after getting their story; they watched from the sidelines as the house crash and burned. Diana had some gurus and fortune tellers that were just feeding her lots of nonsense. One was disparagingly referred to as some sort of stepmother figure; seemingly friendly but systematically showing Diana in a very bad light.

Paul Burrell wrote probably one of the worst books about Diana. It made her look like a right loon. People were wondering how could a servant be privy to so much private information about his boss. I think an employee once wrote that Diana had a favorite sex toy she traveled with. Really, that is beyond the boundaries of friendship or being an employee. 

Even Morton presented a woman who was bitter, lonely and mentally disturbed. That is not what Diana intended and came to resent how she was being presented. Panorama was a disaster in terms of Diana's fortunes but it gave the BBC the scoop they wanted as well as the chance to poke fun at the monarchy which many staff members hate to this very day. Diana should have realized that there were much bigger things that getting her piece out or getting revenge on Charles. Instead she became fodder for a cunning press.

You also have to be wary of amateur marriage counselors when you are having marital problems. Some of them may not have very good intentions, as Diana soon learnt. That is why when some of us were getting married, our mothers warned us never to divulge the internal problems of our marriages to third parties unless were completely certain they were worthy of our trust.

Diana and Charles did not go to marriage counselors. HE sought advice from his friends which was a bad idea. They wanted to score points with a future King and were not objective.

Dimbleby's book and interview re: showed Charles to be a  peevish, egotistic, jealous grievance collector.  he showed a lot more bitterness than Diana. Grousing about his parents and his schooling and so on.

Morton got Diana's "side out there" and was a riposte to the stories leaked by Charles friends.

Burrell made Charles seem a whole lot worse. Diana did not look like a "loon."

Charles had his own mentors and gurus. Diana had to talk him out of having Armand Hammer (who was a very controversial person) being godfather to Prince William.

Charles is alive and can get his vengeance on Diana by cooperating with Sally Smith, who has the knives out for Diana. I think Charles is a very bitter individual.

[TLLK]

That's just a little anecdote, but it says something about the effect Diana had on people. Over thirty four years and this man can still remember her smile, her eyes and hair, her interest in what he was saying, her charm and her remembering his name. It was the same visit in which I saw her, on an evening excursion but of course never got to speak to her.

What a lovely story @Curryong and thanks for sharing it. I agree that she certainly had a charisma that was so remarkable.
While happiness in her own personal life was difficult to find, she was able to brighten the lives of many that she met.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Agreed @TLLK and @Curryong a lovely story, and im glad you got to see her, as even the best camera dimmed her brightness by half.

I think thats her best legacy, all those little, but important details, that stay with a person for all their lives, its not curing cancer or stopping a war, but its still a vital thing people need in their lives, and she was able to do that for tens of  thousands, while also trying to make the world healthier and more peaceful.

lookie there...1,000 posts, and a nice subject to do it on

[Curryong]

Congratulations Duch_ on reaching your 1,000th post.  :thumbsup: And a lot more to come we hope!

[Trudie]

IMO Diana would never have had to search for happiness if the one person she had fallen in love with had totally returned those feelings. The Queen fell in love with PP at the age of 13 and here she is at the age of 91 happy and still in love with the same man because he totally returned his love to her.

[royalanthropologist]

Congratulations on the milestone. What a great topic to hit them. I have been away so I am posting on my smartphone.  :goodpost: :happy17:

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Ah, i figured you were away, your presence was missed  :consoling1:

[LouisFerdinand]

Princess Diana had celebrity status. She was a wonderful person. Why does happiness not come to such a lovely lady?

[Curryong]

Short answer. Diana WAS wonderful but she was also flawed, as well as being married to the wrong man for her.