How did Diana do in school?

royalanthropologist · July 09, 2017, 03:29:02 PM

So if Diana wanted that life of a carefree independent woman, it was very foolish of her to accept Prince Charles' proposal. That is not an ordinary marriage. To pretend otherwise was the height of delusion. The principal and primary role of the wife of the heir to the throne is to produce a legitimate heir. Beyond that, they are supposed to support the monarchy. This was not a Disney fairy tale and thinking it was was Diana's biggest mistake.

As for Diana's happiness, I maintain that Diana remain unhappy right up to the end. She had worked with her enemies and enemies of Charles in such a way that she made the marriage or any compromise impossible. She had given up her title and position on a whim. She had taken on a frightening world of vultures and press intrusion which was not giving her any peace. Above all she had participated in traducing and smearing her ex husband to the extent that they could not have a civilized relationship any more. All for what....to let it all hang out and let the world see her pain? The outpouring of sympathy would never bring Charles or her marriage back.

I think those stunts of her inviting photographers on the yacht and promising them "something surprising" and what she would do next speak of someone that was still lonely. A happy person would just have gone on quietly with her holiday. Instead she called the press in and started giving them instructions on the best pictures to take. The poses were designed to seek attention and reportedly wipe Camilla off the front pages, not the behavior of a happy and contended woman but one who is desperate to remain relevant in her ex's life. This was her last and most tragic attempt to upstage Charles. Even now @Curryong muses about how Diana might have successfully upstaged Charles and Camilla in the media (btw PR victories are no substitute for personal happiness, as Diana's life showed). That is not the wish, ambition or behavior of someone that is happy with their life. If you are spending your precious time trying to upstage your ex and his new girlfriend it is a clear indicator that you are a very unhappy person.

Diana was devastated by the 50th birthday that Charles held for Camilla. She knew (much better than some of her most ardent fans it seems) that Charles was not the ogre that she had painted in her spiteful books and interviews. She knew that he had tried to make the marriage work even if he was not in love with her. She knew that he had tried to help but she had been unwell and had rebuffed his efforts. She knew that the marriage failed because of both their faults and not because of Charles or Camilla alone. And of course she knew that he was the only man among her lovers who could be with her for an extended period of time. Diana had unilaterally surrendered her marriage and title for a Pyrrhic PR victory with Morton and Bashir. She was outside the cocoon of royal protection and the press was going to have a field day with her.

Her impulsive vengefulness had cost her a lot and all for nothing. Her new life (beyond the kids) was uncertain. Khan had gone and Dodi was very poor compensation for the loss of the Prince of Wales. She was on the verge of being attacked in the press. The sour grapes thing was just a form of reassurance to make people believe that she was not bothered by the divorce. She was bothered by the divorce and later on she was realizing the monumental mistake she had made in precipitating that divorce. Charles was now openly with Camilla, yet she (who feared abandonment ) was effectively without a long term relationship.

As Diana knew very well, it was only a matter of time before Charles married Camilla. Her love rival whom she had worked so had to destroy in her press offings was going to be the Princess of Wales and the next queen. A happy marriage between Charles and Camilla would disprove the big myth Diana had created that Charles was a bad man who was incapable of having a happy marriage or loving anyone (I get often see some pathetic reassurances by some Diana fans that "Charles only loves himself" or alternatively suggestions that he "only gets on with Fawcett" i.e. he is a gay guy who sleeps with women. They want to keep the myth going even if everything else disproves it).

I know some people are going to have a meltdown about this message but there is nothing I can do. It is what it is. I apologize for busting the bubble and bringing another perspective to the echo chamber but it is my opinion.

As for @sandy. This statement is very typical of Diana fans

"Hasnet Khan was suitable, a respected physician. He was a step up from Charles IMO title or no title."

That relationship failed, FAILED, FAILED. He never proposed or married her or stayed with her for as long as Charles. Saying that Khan is a step up to the future King of England is really out of this world...even you know that sounds ridiculous.

amabel · July 09, 2017, 03:32:15 PM

All this may be true but it has nothing to do with the topic

royalanthropologist · July 09, 2017, 03:40:26 PM

I am responding @amabel. Responding to a post by curryong. Very soon people will just stop commenting in order to stick to the rules.

Curryong · July 09, 2017, 03:56:23 PM

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on whether Diana would have achieved happiness had she lived. I believe she would have. You do not but then you dislike Diana intensely. In the end your opinion is just that, an opinion.

What's more, alive or dead, she produced the heir to the throne after Charles, and the spare. It's her blood that will flow through the Kings of England for the next two generations, and beyond, not Camilla's. For all your praise of Camilla, HER children and grandchildren and their children will fade into obscurity. Diana's won't.

And Charles's heir adores his mother, talks often of her and is I'm sure teaching his children about her. You can attack Diana as much as you like, and you do, but she will be the mother and grandmother of Kings and will remain a significant historical figure.

amabel · July 09, 2017, 03:56:50 PM

I know Roya but I thought that it had been agreed to stick to the Diana's education topic and leave stuff about her later life to antotehr thread. I think that in any case the Diana and education topic has been thrashed out, she didn't do well at school.. simply.

royalanthropologist · July 09, 2017, 04:08:46 PM

No. I don't dislike Diana intensely @Curryong. It is just that I don't wear rose-tinted glasses when talking about her. There is good and bad, just like everybody.

As for the heirs and fame; once again we go back to this. Being famous does not bring you happiness. Many, many celebrities know this. I am sure most people would prefer to be happy than to be famous.

The sweeping statement that Camilla's descendants will fade into obscurity or that Diana's blood will flow through all the future kings of England is a tad premature. History has shown us that we know nothing. One of the strongest blood claimants to the British throne is an obscure farmer in Australia whilst a family descended from German immigrants reigns supreme...so do not take the ironies of fate too lightly. :hehe: Elizabeth II was once destined for a life of obscurity as a daughter to the second son. Look where it all ended

Curryong · July 09, 2017, 04:32:13 PM

And when have you ever seriously criticised Charles for anything? Oh yes, the rose coloured glasses firmly in place there! And the Aussie farmer is a claimant whose bloodline doesn't run in the legitimate line.

royalanthropologist · July 09, 2017, 04:39:54 PM

The eyes see what they want to see. I have critiqued Charles many, many, many times. It is just that some people are not satisfied with anything but a description of a mythical ogre that the press and Diana described to them. Charles is not a bad man. He just made some poor decisions about his love life.

Curryong · July 09, 2017, 04:52:52 PM

While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!

sandy · July 09, 2017, 06:01:39 PM

Junor dismisses the weirdness of Charles domestic arrangements with Camilla when she was married to someone else. Charles gets many free passes.

TLLK · July 09, 2017, 06:33:36 PM

Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 09, 2017, 04:03:50 AM
Agreed @TLLK it was an example of how she could be willful, even at a young age. I recall I have another post to catch up on where another poster doubted her willful nature as a young adult, when she had given many examples of it, be it her opinion on the wedding vows, her "chief chick" sign in her apartment, her opinions on her pregnancy and childbirth, as well as how William would be raised, not to mention her cleaning out Charles's staff (at least as far as Mr, Barry said, as I recall he said he never met someone so determined as Diana).

But it was often a double edged sword and could work against her as well, especially later in life.

Yes it can be a double edged sword. On one hand it can keep you focused and determined to succeed and on the other it can keep you isolated from solid advice and trouble.

sandy · July 09, 2017, 07:39:41 PM

IT was not exactly revolutionary back then for the word "obey" to be left out of the wedding vows (Diana did not want it in). However, it raised more eyebrows when Fergie wanted obey in her wedding vows. So I don't think Diana was all that willful about it. Diana did not have much say on the delivery and agreed to time the birth of William around Charles polo games. DIana was no so "revolutionary" at the beginning of the marriage.

amabel · July 09, 2017, 08:19:42 PM

Quote from: Curryong on July 09, 2017, 04:52:52 PM
While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!

well she was uneducated and possibly not vey clever. And while mentailly ill is an emotive term, I think she did have psychological problems. and I dotn believe she was "determined to wreck the monarchy " but she was reckless in what she did, attacking it.
And yiou yourself as I recall stated tat she was unwilling ot try at things which she found difficult...

sandy · July 09, 2017, 08:33:22 PM

I don't think DIana had "psychological problems" or was "mentally ill." Her friends and employers did not say there was "something wrong" with DIana before her marriage to Charles. DIana managed to live on her own away from her parents (she did not need any "keepers") and took on some part time jobs. Her employers had nothing but good things to say about Diana. And she got along well with her flatmates. Diana was expected to marry well as were her sisters. Diana's sister Sarah had anorexia nervosa but nobody called her "mentally ill." I think it unfair to label Diana that way. Even if someone has "psychological problems" it does not give the man an excuse to cheat. The vows say in sickness and in health. Or does it whitewash a man keeping a married mistress (someone married to his "good friend)." Diana probably would have let well enough alone had Charles friends not leaked nasty stories about her to the press back in the eighties. Camilla also went to the Sun Editor with "her side". Diana did try things she found difficult and got more confident as she got older. Charles' mistake was not going for counseling to try to work out things with his wife. Instead he moaned and whined to his friends (some letters came into public domain) and his friends started attacking Diana and leaking stories. I think Charles had some unresolved issues. He wanted his flesh and blood heirs and married only for expediency's sake and did not think that perhaps his wife would mind his lifestyle having married mistresses and being "civilized". Which is why a main problem was Charles not putting everything out on the table to Diana and telling her specifically all he expected in their marriage. Before proposing.

Curryong · July 09, 2017, 09:27:37 PM

Quote from: amabel on July 09, 2017, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 09, 2017, 04:52:52 PM
While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!
well she was uneducated and possibly not vey clever. And while mentailly ill is an emotive term, I think she did have psychological problems. and I dotn believe she was "determined to wreck the monarchy " but she was reckless in what she did, attacking it.
And yiou yourself as I recall stated tat she was unwilling ot try at things which she found difficult...

I was trying to be fair. But of course I should have realised that it would be turned against me at every conceivable opportunity, while Diana gets constantly put in a bad light. Every minute detail of Diana's life and actions gets criticised by you and Royal while Charles and Camilla get one 5000th of that sort of minute examination.

Where are the pages and pages of threads about Charles and Camilla and their actions and motivations? His self pity and dithering and indecision and put downs of Diana during their married life? Her callousness and manipulation and disdain for her lover's wife? Non-existent!

Oh Yes of course it has to be remembered, doesn't it, that Diana was 110% at fault for what happened during the Wales marriage and before, (possibly more, perhaps 1 millionth per cent) while Charles and Camilla have no blame whatsoever to be attributed to them. Ever. Every action of theirs was so completely selfless. Those two ought to be christened The Untouchables as far as you and Royal are concerned!

royalanthropologist · July 09, 2017, 11:51:18 PM

I have put my response in the Digest rather than here.

amabel · July 10, 2017, 06:31:30 AM

well since this thread is about Diana, and Di is, for all her faults perhaps the more intriguing individual, its natural that she gets a lot of discussion.I dot see all this attacking her that others see. But I think that when people make extravagant claims, that are dubious or not true, it is bound to attract people who reply and state that the claims are not accurate. When people say "Diana left money to charity".. its easily provable that she didn't. It doesn't mean she was a bad person, it just is a proven fact that she did not leave anyting to charity. When people says she was a wonderful angel and 100 times beter than Charles, I tink that is very debatable and of course it is going to attract debate..

sandy · July 10, 2017, 01:17:08 PM

Quote from: amabel on July 10, 2017, 06:31:30 AM
well since this thread is about Diana, and Di is, for all her faults perhaps the more intriguing individual, its natural that she gets a lot of discussion.I dot see all this attacking her that others see. But I think that when people make extravagant claims, that are dubious or not true, it is bound to attract people who reply and state that the claims are not accurate. When people say "Diana left money to charity".. its easily provable that she didn't. It doesn't mean she was a bad person, it just is a proven fact that she did not leave anyting to charity. When people says she was a wonderful angel and 100 times beter than Charles, I tink that is very debatable and of course it is going to attract debate..

I see a lot of nit picking about Diana. She died young. The will could have been changed down the road. She had no clue she was going to die at age 36. Maybe if she had had a terminal illness she would have left money to charity, knowing when she would die. She put a lot of her time into charity work which Camilla did not do in the time before 1997 when Bolland started working with her. I doubt Camilla will leave one penny to charity. Diana certainly contributed her fair share even in her last year when she donated the gowns go be auctioned for Charity. She did not keep them for herself.

I don't get the wish for Diana by some to be a total failure, losing wars and so on. The woman died at age 36.

Charles and Camilla lost the war in the sense that with all the megabucks spent on spin, not everybody loves them to say the least. The Junor book is getting slammed because she makes Camilla a saint.