I mentioned this in another thread about how princess Diana was actively involved with and seeking new charities. I found the article where it came from. It's from 2017 when PW and PH did those documentaries. I think they also invited charities close to her heart.
So, I think it should be posted here.
This is the extract from article:
"They also met with the founders, former and current patients of the Osteopathic Centre for Children. Tragically, the Princess was learning more about this charity and was due to meet them in early September 1997 - just a month after hear death - to help launch their Sweet Pea appeal."
Prince William and Harry pay tribute to Princess Diana | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4835948/Princes-William-Harry-pay-tribute-mother-Diana.html)
Her seeking new charities or getting in touch with different charities shows that she was serious about her 'post HRH' role. IMO this shows that she was finding her feet and charting a new course for herself.
It indicates that she wouldn't have been in a 'middle ground' for too long and it showed her 'carrying on' somewhat quickly, which is rather remarkable.
This also puts her summer months into perspective IMO. It indicates that she wasn't dwelling on her past but rather looking ahead. And was indeed rather carefree and having fun, instead of being the lonely, desperate person she was being portrayed as. Though of course no one is free from feeling sad from time to time.
I thought it was an interesting tidbit about her future plans about her work, which has been overshadowed by the gossip about her private life. IMO.
Good info about the Sweet Pea project. That's great! Yes, I think that Diana, had she lived, would definitely have sought out new charities, ways to help others. I don't believe she would have sank back into the shadows and become some sort of social butterfly.
She was a bit lost and finding her way following her divorce, but that encompassed only the last year of her life really, and I think it's a mistake to treat what Diana did or didn't do with her charity work in 1996/97 as a solid template for her life going forward. She was still a young woman with new worlds to conquer when her life ended so prematurely.
Thank you
@oak_and_cedar for sharing this information about the late Diana, Princess of Wales and what could have been future charitable endeavors for her.
Video from August 30, 2017 with the D/DssoCambridge and Prince Harry meeting with the Sweet Pea appeal.
Twitter (https://twitter.com/kensingtonroyal/status/902900817015033856?lang=en)
QuoteTRH's meet with the founders, former & current patients of the Osteopathic Centre for Children.
i read diana wanted got involved with causes where she knew will made a difference and help the most she could and then move on to another cause. and she wanted made docs and highlight the cause - what she was doing with the landmines cause.
i dont believe she wanted to follow that usual royal duty/job - spend 30 minutes at a place, cut a strip and read a speech...
yes, i believe those people who said she was leaving those other charities... to me, it's clear she wanted another life and probably out of Britain. She'll continue her charity work but in another way imo
Quote from: dianab on March 17, 2020, 11:30:07 PM
i read diana wanted got involved with causes where she knew will made a difference and help the most she could and then move on to another cause. and she wanted made docs and highlight the cause - what she was doing with the landmines cause.
i dont believe she wanted to follow that usual royal duty/job - spend 30 minutes at a place, cut a strip and read a speech...
yes, i believe those people who said she was leaving those other charities... to me, it's clear she wanted another life and probably out of Britain. She'll continue her charity work but in another way imo
She had 6 charities, and was supposed to be taking a deeper interest in them.. but did not really do so. If she had been serious about that idea, she could have concentrated on the charities she had and learned more about them, so she would not just be a ribbon cutter. She did appearances for an American AIDS charity... and said she was giving up the Red Cross/Landmines charity. Unfortunatley she was fitful and its hard to say what she would have done.
that royal job/duty of being charity patron is in itself to be a ribbon cutter.
when diana took the former elizabeth taylor's daughter-in-law to aids charity after her divorce, the president or director of that charity or whatever disliked that. and he cut diana off of charity.
i understand she wanting stick to charity docs instead of just being a face and a ribbon cutter at a charity.
From which i read she was due to give a speech about landmines at a country
Quote from: dianab on March 18, 2020, 12:08:17 AM
that royal job/duty of being charity patron is in itself to be a ribbon cutter.
when diana took the former elizabeth taylor's daughter-in-law to aids charity after her divorce, the president or director of that charity or whatever disliked that. and he cut diana off of charity.
i understand she wanting stick to charity docs instead of just being a face and a ribbon cutter at a charity.
As I recall it was Aileen Getty? THe charity had asked Diana not to bring this woman and Diana did, so they weren't too happy but they did not "cut her off". One charity, I think it was the AIDS one, said thehy began to leave her out of events because she would not commit to them...If she wanted to prove herself as a serious charity worker/fund raisier, this flitting around did not look good. How long would it be before she moved on to something else? Would she stick at a documentary long enough to get it finished.
Yes, it was Aileen Getty episode.
i remember some people talking diana was serious about docs. she was about having some meetings in sept 1997. and she was still involved with landmines cause and was about having a trip related to that.
and she also said to Richard Kay that she was going to give up her formal charity role..which she had only taken up a year or so earlier.. wehre she cut down to a few charities. She was apparenlty going to set up a foundation with MAF and Dodi... She said a lot of things.
People now try and diminish and sneer about Diana's efforts in raising money for her charities and bringing publicity to causes like Landmines, homelessness, AIDS and leprousy. That wasn't what the heads of dozens of charities she was involved with in her lifetime said when they paid tribute to her after her sudden death.
The People?s Princess: Diana?s charitable legacy (https://www.charityfinancials.com/charity-financials-insider/the-peoples-princess-dianas-charitable-legacy-1727.html)
She was divorced barely one year before dying and in that year she did many things for worthwhile causes. Her work publicising the Landmines issue was praised by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons after her death.
Most ex spouses of royals drop many charities after a divorce, which is what Diana did. However, that doesn't mean that she became detached or cold hearted about people who were suffering. I'm convinced that she would have been back by the millennium with a couple of dozen good causes under her belt and working hard for them.
yes she did things and it wasn't that she didn't care, but she didn't stick to things. She said a lot of stuff towards the end of her life that was confusing about what her plans were... that she was going to start a foundation with the FAyeds.. that she was giving up the Red Cross... So who can say how long the "new causes" would have lasted? Im sorry she didn't have more time but she was volatile in the last year or 2, and I did wish that she had had a chance to show she COULD stick to something and become a serious charity worker in her own right...
But Diana did stick to things. Things such as Centrepoint, the charity for the homeless she took on in 1992 and stayed with as patron to the end. She didn't just flit around, taking this up and dropping that. Centrepoint, AIDS charities, the Marsden Hospital, she was actively supporting 62 charities at the time of her death according to the article below which gives details. Many of them had been taken up by Diana years before.
Princess Diana's Charities Prior to 1996 (https://www.oocities.org/highgrove.geo/charietiespre1996.html)
Quote from: Curryong on March 18, 2020, 02:30:34 AM
But Diana did stick to things. Things such as Centrepoint, the charity for the homeless she took on in 1992 and stayed with as patron to the end. She didn't just flit around, taking this up and dropping that. Centrepoint, AIDS charities, the Marsden Hospital, she was actively supporting 62 charities at the time of her death according to the article below which gives details. Many of them had been taken up by Diana years before.
Princess Diana's Charities Prior to 1996 (https://www.oocities.org/highgrove.geo/charietiespre1996.html)
but what does actively suporitng mean? Donations? Occasional visits? public engagements? Its not at all clear IMO. centrepoint was one of the charities she kept and I am sure she did her best but a lot of her statements were confusing about what she was going to do, charity wise. She told R Kay that she was giving up "royal" charity, such as her patronage of the Red Cross, and going to do some work with the Fayedds? Which given that her relationship with Dodi was new and problaby not going to last, probably was not going to happen....
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 12:54:01 AM
yes she did things and it wasn't that she didn't care, but she didn't stick to things. She said a lot of stuff towards the end of her life that was confusing about what her plans were... that she was going to start a foundation with the FAyeds.. that she was giving up the Red Cross... So who can say how long the "new causes" would have lasted? Im sorry she didn't have more time but she was volatile in the last year or 2, and I did wish that she had had a chance to show she COULD stick to something and become a serious charity worker in her own right...
This was her last year. One year after the divorce. I never heard her say directly she was going to start a foundation with the Fayeds. The relationship with Dodi possibly fizzling out would have put a damper on that.
She did not live to a ripe old age. She died at age 36. For that reason she should be cut some major slack.
Double post auto-merged: March 18, 2020, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Curryong on March 18, 2020, 12:46:55 AM
People now try and diminish and sneer about Diana's efforts in raising money for her charities and bringing publicity to causes like Landmines, homelessness, AIDS and leprousy. That wasn't what the heads of dozens of charities she was involved with in her lifetime said when they paid tribute to her after her sudden death.
The People?s Princess: Diana?s charitable legacy (https://www.charityfinancials.com/charity-financials-insider/the-peoples-princess-dianas-charitable-legacy-1727.html)
She was divorced barely one year before dying and in that year she did many things for worthwhile causes. Her work publicising the Landmines issue was praised by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons after her death.
Most ex spouses of royals drop many charities after a divorce, which is what Diana did. However, that doesn't mean that she became detached or cold hearted about people who were suffering. I'm convinced that she would have been back by the millennium with a couple of dozen good causes under her belt and working hard for them.
I agree. Divorce is a major life change. SHe was of course regrouping. ANd she only had One Year to live after the divorce.
Considering that there was only a relatively short time between Diana's divorce and her untimely death, it's difficult to know what her future plans were for her charitable work IMO.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 12:28:28 AM
and she also said to Richard Kay that she was going to give up her formal charity role..which she had only taken up a year or so earlier.. wehre she cut down to a few charities. She was apparenlty going to set up a foundation with MAF and Dodi... She said a lot of things.
Many people close to her (ie. Susan Kassem) said she intended leave those remaining charities.
Ex-wife of Prince joachim of denmark also left most of her charities and stayed just with one or a few, no idea if nowdays she has any charity involvement.
btw the fact was diana had a trip scheduled about landmines cause. people inovolved in this cause always said how grateful they are to diana wanting get involved in it.
I think it was obvious after the separation and it continued after the divorce, she didnt wish to be a ribbon cutter.
if she was leaving britain, to be patron of those charities wouldnt work out imo
Double post auto-merged: March 18, 2020, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2020, 12:39:02 PM
I agree. Divorce is a major life change. SHe was of course regrouping. ANd she only had One Year to live after the divorce.
imo it only officialized a 4 years long situation that diana and charles were going through... be a ribbon cutter wasnt her ambition as far charity work was concerned. that lifestyle of 300 or 400 engaments in a 1 year, wasnt something she wanted anymore...
Quote from: TLLK on March 18, 2020, 02:06:41 PM
Considering that there was only a relatively short time between Diana's divorce and her untimely death, it's difficult to know what her future plans were for her charitable work IMO.
True but once she was out of the RF, her charity work did become fitful. I had hoped that by deciding to stick ot a small number of charities, she could show that she had the ability ot learn in depth about them and be a real help but she didn't seem to ebe very focussed.
She was officially out when she got a divorce. That was about one year before her death. It was only one year so I don't see how any prognostications can be made. She had a very full year including the highly successful charity auction of her iconic outfits. Huge success. The Anti Landmine Campaign did bring her praise. She was newly divorced and regrouping like billions of other divorcees do. She had to get used to sharing custody, life without the HRH and so on. Diana was one of the most focused people I have seen. She could not have clung to the royal patronages, the Queen may have had plans to transfer them to royal family members.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 06:44:07 PM
True but once she was out of the RF, her charity work did become fitful. I had hoped that by deciding to stick ot a small number of charities, she could show that she had the ability ot learn in depth about them and be a real help but she didn't seem to ebe very focussed.
Unfocused! A real help?
You have read, I suppose, about the enormously successful Angola trip on behalf of the Landmines campaign in the last year of Diana's life. She also made a speech about the cause in London, was pencilled in to attend an international symposium in Oslo in the September and was going to visit Cambodia and Vietnam in the autumn, an Autumn she didn't live to see. She certainly knew about the Landmines cause in depth, was focused on it and spoke about it to politicians.
Even in 1995 she went to Hong Kong and raised millions for Hong Kong charities and for the Leprosy cause she had been involved with for years. That isn't being 'a help'? Raising funds is one of the main focuses in being a Royal Patron and Diana did that brilliantly.
This insinuation that Diana just flitted around and knew little about her charities in spite of working for many of them for years, was little help to them except as a figurehead, and wasn't focused on any cause that mattered is completely without merit in my view.
She brought enormous publicity to a myriad of good causes throughout her life, yes, even after leaving the royal family, and huge donations to whatever she was promoting. 99% of other royals, from the BRF and other Western Royal Houses, would have loved to have had half the impact Diana had around the world with regard to causes and charities.
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2020, 07:25:50 PM
She was officially out when she got a divorce. That was about one year before her death. It was only one year so I don't see how any prognostications can be made. She had a very full year including the highly successful charity auction of her iconic outfits. Huge success. The Anti Landmine Campaign did bring her praise. She was newly divorced and regrouping like billions of other divorcees do. She had to get used to sharing custody, life without the HRH and so on. Diana was one of the most focused people I have seen. She could not have clung to the royal patronages, the Queen may have had plans to transfer them to royal family members.
There was noting to stop her keeping the patronages. SHE chose to give them up. She had some work during the year but it wasn't focussed. She didn't do as much for the AIDS trust as they had hoped.. she was talking about givng up the Red Cross just as she had had a success with the Landmines.... She worked for the American AIDS charity but ddn't do much for her British one.. so its hard to be sure what she was thinking.. or if her future charity work would be fitful....
She was not a royal anymore. There is no proof that the Queen did not request that she transfer the charities Diana had to other family members. She was focused She was in a transitional stage and just did not sit back doing nothing. She died in 1997 so I don't see how any judgments about her or her character can take place. She was still young and thought she'd have years ahead, She could not possibly do it all in one year. I think she should be cut some major slack. I think she did more in that one year that most of us may never do. Ever.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 07:51:59 PM
There was noting to stop her keeping the patronages. SHE chose to give them up. She had some work during the year but it wasn't focussed. She didn't do as much for the AIDS trust as they had hoped.. she was talking about givng up the Red Cross just as she had had a success with the Landmines.... She worked for the American AIDS charity but ddn't do much for her British one.. so its hard to be sure what she was thinking.. or if her future charity work would be fitful....
While I believe Diana's sudden decision to resign from the majority of her then patronages/charities was a poor decision, I do believe that she would have been a high profile and enthusiastic representative for her remaining six and any others that she chose to take on in the future. However I do believe that it was not as easy a transition from an official working member of the Firm to a newly divorced woman without the support/guidance of experienced courtiers to smooth the way. IMO that likely was why there were some hiccups.
Quote from: TLLK on March 18, 2020, 09:25:52 PM
While I believe Diana's sudden decision to resign from the majority of her then patronages/charities was a poor decision, I do believe that she would have been a high profile and enthusiastic representative for her remaining six and any others that she chose to take on in the future. However I do believe that it was not as easy a transition from an official working member of the Firm to a newly divorced woman without the support/guidance of experienced courtiers to smooth the way. IMO that likely was why there were some hiccups.
I believe that her
Trouble is that she might not have stuck at whatever she took up. when she was In the RF she had support, she had courtiers and advisers and was able to do her job. But when she had only a few charities, she also had lost many advisers and did not listen to the ones she had left.She was at the mercy of her own whims and friends who suggested things and then she would dabble and move on... She didn't seem to me to be focussed ,and her charities felt that there was no use rellying on her...
Double post auto-merged: March 18, 2020, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2020, 08:19:22 PM
She was not a royal anymore. There is no proof that the Queen did not request that she transfer the charities Diana had to other family members. She was focused She was in a transitional stage and just did not sit back doing nothing. She died in 1997 so I don't see how any judgments about her or her character can take place. She was still young and thought she'd have years ahead, She could not possibly do it all in one year. I think she should be cut some major slack. I think she did more in that one year that most of us may never do. Ever.
The queen did not care what she did. She didn't expect her, no doubt, to suddnely give up all her patronages. Diana chose to give them up herself. She was advised by her PR consultant to be more cautious about giving them all up, but she didn't listen.
Quote from: Curryong on March 14, 2020, 11:37:31 PM
Good info about the Sweet Pea project. That's great! Yes, I think that Diana, had she lived, would definitely have sought out new charities, ways to help others. I don't believe she would have sank back into the shadows and become some sort of social butterfly.
She was a bit lost and finding her way following her divorce, but that encompassed only the last year of her life really, and I think it's a mistake to treat what Diana did or didn't do with her charity work in 1996/97 as a solid template for her life going forward. She was still a young woman with new worlds to conquer when her life ended so prematurely.
IMO she was reassesing things, finding new ground and how to best forge ahead. In those months, during the summer and leading up to it, I think she was 'cleaning house' and I think she looked carefree and happy those weeks in july - august.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2020, 08:57:31 AM
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 12:54:01 AM
yes she did things and it wasn't that she didn't care, but she didn't stick to things. She said a lot of stuff towards the end of her life that was confusing about what her plans were... that she was going to start a foundation with the FAyeds.. that she was giving up the Red Cross... So who can say how long the "new causes" would have lasted? Im sorry she didn't have more time but she was volatile in the last year or 2, and I did wish that she had had a chance to show she COULD stick to something and become a serious charity worker in her own right...
But according to this article, with regards to the sweetpea foundation, there was no mentions of the Fayed's being brought in. I think that Diana would have gone ahead regardless, and according to this article she was making plans for herself. In all likelyhood, this talk about a charity with the Fayeds has been blown out of proportion IMO.
but that was what she said in her last talk with Rich Kay.. that she wanted to set up this foundation and work as a private person.. and step back from a "semi royal" charity role... (although she had already cut down on her charity work.... ). I had beleived her idea was to get more involved wit the 6 charities she had taken up, learn more about them, work with them in depth. But in fact she seems to have done less for them than if she'd been Royal with 100 patronages to keep up with. I felt we saw little of her at charity work in the last year.. and her charities felt the same.
And then you hear that she had talked of dropping the Red Cross which had been worknig with her on the Landmines issue..where she had been a big help and it had been a triumph for her in the sense that it got her a lot of positive attention.. and that sounds like odd and fitful behaviour. I think she was very much at the mercy of whatever caught her attention at the time and it was hard to predict what she would do. Its hard to imagine that the Fayed Foundation was going to happen but she did talk of it.. and seemed to see herself dropping charity work altogether or cutting back even more...
The Fayed story was hearsay IMO> Had there been a press conference with Diana announcing it, then it would have been believable. Diana may have had an idle thought about it and Kay ran with it. Diana had so many sources of funding and did not need Fayed's. though he might have contributed some money to it.
She "talked" of dropping the Red Cross. It does not sound like odd and fitful behavior. She had to regroup. She could not just continue doing the same work she did when she had the HRH for obvious reasons. It seems to be forgotten that there was disapproval of her anti Landmine campaign and she may have been pressured to discontinue it.
She never "talked" publicly about any Fayed foundation. People can say what a deceased person "said" because the person is not around to refute it.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2020, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 18, 2020, 09:39:34 PM
Trouble is that she might not have stuck at whatever she took up. when she was In the RF she had support, she had courtiers and advisers and was able to do her job. But when she had only a few charities, she also had lost many advisers and did not listen to the ones she had left.She was at the mercy of her own whims and friends who suggested things and then she would dabble and move on... She didn't seem to me to be focussed ,and her charities felt that there was no use rellying on her...
Double post auto-merged: March 18, 2020, 09:41:13 PM
The queen did not care what she did. She didn't expect her, no doubt, to suddnely give up all her patronages. Diana chose to give them up herself. She was advised by her PR consultant to be more cautious about giving them all up, but she didn't listen.
Of course the Queen cared what she did. She was an ex wife and a non royal. The Queen and courtiers would watch to see what she was doing and Diana had to get approval from the Queen as to where she took her sons for vacations.
So she was caving in to pressure about the Landmines? It does not sound as if she was very committed ot her work for them then.
I said she was pressured I did not say she was caving in. She died on August 31, 1997, how did she have time to cave in?
Quote from: sandy on March 19, 2020, 01:18:36 PM
I said she was pressured I did not say she was caving in. She died on August 31, 1997, how did she have time to cave in?
She was considering giving up the Red Cross.. and doing some other kind of charity work.. or possibly none. if she was doing so because of pressure from ? who? about the natur of the work, that's not what she said when called a "loose canon". She gave the impression she believed in what she was doing and was committed to it...
If you saw the clip she got questioned about why she was there. Check out youtube.
Quote from: sandy on March 19, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
If you saw the clip she got questioned about why she was there. Check out youtube.
Yes and she said that she wasn't political, that she was taking up the job due to concern for people, from a humanitarian point of view.. Surely you are not saying she was going to bow down to Tory pressure?
I will only say this once more and I am moving on. The woman died on August 31, 1997. Though in future there may be imaginative novelists who write a book about "what if" Diana had lived. I think one was already written where Diana was hiding out and faking her death.
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2020, 07:25:50 PM
She had to get used to sharing custody, life without the HRH and so on. Diana was one of the most focused people I have seen. She could not have clung to the royal patronages, the Queen may have had plans to transfer them to royal family members.
Diana was sharing custody of her sons for 4 or 5 years when she died. I'm not sure life without the HRH was that different to her than one led since the separation.
Quote from: dianab on March 19, 2020, 07:36:46 PM
Diana was sharing custody of her sons for 4 or 5 years when she died. I'm not sure life without the HRH was that different to her than one led since the separation.
It was different. Once the divorce happened she was oout of the RF and she lost her HRH. That made her decide to give up her patronages.
I disagree that her lfestyle changed or the days she spent with her sons.
She lost her HRH after the divorce, she received a large settlement. She no longer could work for and represent the royals. Lots of differences.
Quote from: dianab on March 20, 2020, 12:29:15 AM
I disagree that her lfestyle changed or the days she spent with her sons.
No but her status changed and she decided to cut back on her charities. Her PR Adviser advised her against doing it, that it might look like she was dropping all her work in a petulant fit because she had lost the HRH but Diana did not heed her.
Double post auto-merged: March 20, 2020, 12:38:24 AM
Quote from: sandy on March 20, 2020, 12:36:10 AM
She lost her HRH after the divorce, she received a large settlement. She no longer could work for and represent the royals. Lots of differences.
that didn't affect her charity patronages. She chose to give them up... all at once....
She was going through a divorce, what petulant fit? She was out of the royal family, she was regrouping. No proof that she would not have taken some of them back. Her charities reps turned out at her funeral so obviously they did not hold grudges.
I think she'd have been a huge success.
Quote from: sandy on March 20, 2020, 01:01:19 PM
She was going through a divorce, what petulant fit? She was out of the royal family, she was regrouping. No proof that she would not have taken some of them back. Her charities reps turned out at her funeral so obviously they did not hold grudges.
I think she'd have been a huge success.
Her charities were harldy going to act sulky when she had died tragically... but after her death, the ones she kept said crticial things. Do you think that they would invite her again to be their patron, when she had walked out once before....
What possible difference does it make now? Diana is dead. She may have regrouped had she lived. Period.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 19, 2020, 09:40:38 AM
but that was what she said in her last talk with Rich Kay.. that she wanted to set up this foundation and work as a private person.. and step back from a "semi royal" charity role... (although she had already cut down on her charity work.... ). I had beleived her idea was to get more involved wit the 6 charities she had taken up, learn more about them, work with them in depth. But in fact she seems to have done less for them than if she'd been Royal with 100 patronages to keep up with. I felt we saw little of her at charity work in the last year.. and her charities felt the same.
And then you hear that she had talked of dropping the Red Cross which had been worknig with her on the Landmines issue..where she had been a big help and it had been a triumph for her in the sense that it got her a lot of positive attention.. and that sounds like odd and fitful behaviour. I think she was very much at the mercy of whatever caught her attention at the time and it was hard to predict what she would do. Its hard to imagine that the Fayed Foundation was going to happen but she did talk of it.. and seemed to see herself dropping charity work altogether or cutting back even more...
Richard Kay said that Diana said that. We did not get to hear it from Diana herself. It could very well have been just something she mentioned MAF had suggested. If i'm not mistaken Kay also said he believed Diana and Fayed would have married but later revised that statement.
According to the article I posted she was intent on committing herself to new charities. And it was done without the Fayeds.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 22, 2020, 08:02:53 AM
Richard Kay said that Diana said that. We did not get to hear it from Diana herself. It could very well have been just something she mentioned MAF had suggested. If i'm not mistaken Kay also said he believed Diana and Fayed would have married but later revised that statement.
According to the article I posted she was intent on committing herself to new charities. And it was done without the Fayeds.
True he revised the statement in hte light of further information. He didn't say anything about the charities she had mentoned. So I think it is fair to say that what he had heard from her, he continued to believe...
I think that her history in the last year of her life showed her to be volatile about her charity work. She might have improved and committed to things had she lived longer but all the same, I think it is fair to say that one can't be sure. Charities were disappointed that she had left them so suddenly at the time of the divorce. The charities she kept were somewhat disappointed that she had agreed to stick with the 6 of them.. but had not really "done any deeper work" and had in fact done vey little for one of them.. She had done work for an American AIDS charity rather than the Britsih one of which she was patron. Perhaps that showed that her heart wasn't in England any more and she was considering moving away....
A major life change like divorce requires some volatility. One can't just stay in the same spot and situation. DIana would have her heart in England always because of her sons.
Quote from: Curryong on March 14, 2020, 11:37:31 PM
Good info about the Sweet Pea project. That's great! Yes, I think that Diana, had she lived, would definitely have sought out new charities, ways to help others. I don't believe she would have sank back into the shadows and become some sort of social butterfly.
She was a bit lost and finding her way following her divorce, but that encompassed only the last year of her life really, and I think it's a mistake to treat what Diana did or didn't do with her charity work in 1996/97 as a solid template for her life going forward. She was still a young woman with new worlds to conquer when her life ended so prematurely.
So well put! How amazing that her nature and gifts were to reach out to the most unfortunate and helpless ones, and she connected with them and others in the most remarkable way. As time went on her life would have been divided into two main segments: her altruism and those new worlds you mentioned; and her private relationships (family and otherwise), and she would always have been in the news for both.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 22, 2020, 02:52:32 PM
So well put! How amazing that her nature and gifts were to reach out to the most unfortunate and helpless ones, and she connected with them and others in the most remarkable way. As time went on her life would have been divided into two main segments: her altruism and those new worlds you mentioned; and her private relationships (family and otherwise), and she would always have been in the news for both.
I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity. She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier. THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...
She always enjoyed working and she was regrouping. She was indeed involved with the royals since she started dating Charles and was engaged at age 19. It was a big life change for her. It is unknown if she would have remarried or not. She could have remarried at age 50. Maybe she wanted to be single for a while. Jacqueline Kennedy was an iconic person and pursued by the press and paparazzi much like DIana. The press never cooled down on the Jackie saga and i doubt they would have cooled down on Diana.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 22, 2020, 08:21:56 PM
I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity. She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier. THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...
You keep saying that Diana couldn't commit to charity work, presumably in that brief year she had to live after her divorce, in spite of evidence to the contrary about the Landmines endeavour and the selling of many of her iconic clothes for charity.
Why did she have to live quietly? Not go to parties, mix with any celebrities, some of whom had been her friends for years? Never go out socialising, travelling, to parties?
And why did she have to 'find a few nice men to date'? Presumably Hasnet Khan wasn't 'nice' or acceptable.
And paps followed her everywhere, she meant big bucks to newspapers and magazines all over the world. They wouldn't give that up without a fight. If there was nothing happening in her life then they would make stories up about her. And probably offer people money to do so.
Even today an actor has come out and stated that a couple of British tabloids offered him 70,000 dollars to say that he had dated Meghan Markle when she was single, including made-up dirt on her. They hadn't dated and he refused.
However, if you think that the tabloids wouldn't have done the same sort of thing with Diana then I've got a bridge to sell you. She remained at the time of her death the most famous woman in the world and that gravy train meant millions to the media during her lifetime.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 22, 2020, 09:36:54 AM
True he revised the statement in hte light of further information. He didn't say anything about the charities she had mentoned. So I think it is fair to say that what he had heard from her, he continued to believe...
I think that her history in the last year of her life showed her to be volatile about her charity work. She might have improved and committed to things had she lived longer but all the same, I think it is fair to say that one can't be sure. Charities were disappointed that she had left them so suddenly at the time of the divorce. The charities she kept were somewhat disappointed that she had agreed to stick with the 6 of them.. but had not really "done any deeper work" and had in fact done vey little for one of them.. She had done work for an American AIDS charity rather than the Britsih one of which she was patron. Perhaps that showed that her heart wasn't in England any more and she was considering moving away....
Well, to me, his revision shows that he did and does put his own interpretation into it. IMO.
I happen to believe that she was sensible in that year. Of course charities that she left would be upset. However, she was no longer an HRH, and to keep being a patron to hundreds of charities, and without the support of the RF staff was just not realistic. IMO.
I think she did 'deeper work'. This is perhaps the reason for her leaving a number of charities. So she could focus on the few big ones.
And she managed to impress President Mandela, for instance, with her work. No small feat, IMO.
Also, her looking into say the 'sweet pea' charity endeavour shows that she spent those months preparing for the fall.
My opinion is that she was busy that year with 'cleaning' out the old with regards to her personal life, but also her professional one. I think she would have continued to be public with her charities.
I do think though that perhaps she would have had a slightly more different approach than the RF, in other words still being public but making more room for being 'private'.
However, IMO, she would not have moved away from England. Harry was only 12 by that time and she would have wanted to be active in both his and Williams life.
I also don't see her wanting to be too far away from any grandchildren.
Double post auto-merged: March 22, 2020, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 22, 2020, 08:21:56 PM
I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity. She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier. THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...
I don't believe that she would have given up being public for charities. After all, she knew she could draw attention and money into causes simply by lending her name to it.
She did date Fayed, and though I don't think they would have married, I think they would have still dated for a few more months. I think he was nice to her too. IMO.
But she didn't do deeper work. That may have been her idea at first but instead of learning about charities in depth, she seems to have done less for the few charities she kept... which annoyed some of them. She talked about dropping the Red Cross.. and taking up wrok with the Fayeds, which showed to me that she was very vague and uncertain what she was doing.
If she wasn't considering leaving the UK how come her brother said she "talked endlessly of getting away from Engladn?"
Her brother should have known better, he knew how he was devoted to William and Harry and would not move away from them. She might have had a "vacation home" somewhere but she would be near the boys. She could never have taken them on any permanent basis if she moved out of the country.
Quote from: sandy on March 22, 2020, 11:09:54 PM
Her brother should have known better, he knew how he was devoted to William and Harry and would not move away from them. She might have had a "vacation home" somewhere but she would be near the boys. She could never have taken them on any permanent basis if she moved out of the country.
Since they were at boarding school she was not seeing them all the time anyway.. so why not move out of England where she felt the press were so unkind ot her? She could still come home and see them durng holidays or take tehm away for a holiday.....
and if Charles Spencer said she talked of getting away from England.. then unless he was lying,,, she DID talk about getting away from England. So what should he hhave "known better"?
Why would she leave her sons? She never indicated she would not "remove herself" to another country. She was very involved with them. She would not want to leave them with the royals to raise.Not all of England was unkind to her.
Quote from: sandy on March 22, 2020, 11:14:43 PM
Why would she leave her sons? She never indicated she would not "remove herself" to another country. She was very involved with them. She would not want to leave them with the royals to raise.Not all of England was unkind to her.
But they were at school.. and they were alos 50% of their free time with the RF.. So she only saw them for limited amounts of time. She could spend as much time with them and live outside the UK...And according to her own brother, she did talk about removing herself to another country...
Diana was not planning to leave the uK no matter where her sons were. I read accounts of this during her last year that she did not want to move and leave her sons. She did not just have "limited" time with them. Her brother IMO does not know what he is talking about.
Quote from: sandy on March 22, 2020, 11:21:25 PM
Diana was not planning to leave the uK no matter where her sons were. I read accounts of this during her last year that she did not want to move and leave her sons. She did not just have "limited" time with them. Her brother IMO does not know what he is talking about.
Why would he say soemthing if it wasn't true? What had he to gain by saying this, if it wasn't true? I would assume that as she was his sister, he DID know what he was talking about when he said that she was keen on getitng out of the UK. She DID have limited time with them.. they were at school most of the year. for their holidays they spent half the time with Charles.. so her time was limited to half of their holiday time.
I read that her friends like Rosa Monckton maintained she would not leave her sons and move to another country. It should not be forgotten she would have had to get permission about vacation venues from the Queen, when she wanted to take them on vacation. It would be a nightmare for her if Will and Harry were not allowed to go to her "new place." Her brother can say a lot of things and his sister can't refute them anymore. It's not as if she would 'rarely' see them.
Quote from: sandy on March 22, 2020, 11:46:51 PM
I read that her friends like Rosa Monckton maintained she would not leave her sons and move to another country. It should not be forgotten she would have had to get permission about vacation venues from the Queen, when she wanted to take them on vacation. It would be a nightmare for her if Will and Harry were not allowed to go to her "new place." Her brother can say a lot of things and his sister can't refute them anymore. It's not as if she would 'rarely' see them.
why wodl he say anything? If it wasn't true.
And I presume that if wherever she wanted or to take them to, was safe there would be no problem with getting permission from the queen for them to spend holdiays times with her. Or she could come back to London to spend the summer with them.. She would only see them during half of their school holiday time. THat was the way it was.. they were at school.. and half of their holiday time was spent with the queen and Charles.
He's not Diana.
I think Diana had more time with them than the way you describe it.
Quote from: sandy on March 23, 2020, 12:01:29 AM
He's not Diana.
I think Diana had more time with them than the way you describe it.
but she didn't. She went to see them sometimes during term time. otherwise, she saw them during HOlidays, and half of the holidays had to be spent with Charles. That is why they were at Balmoral while she was in Paris with Dodi.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 22, 2020, 08:21:56 PM
I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity. She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier. THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...
I know she didn't like the press interfering in her private life, but I think they always would have done. And I'll always think of her as a person who was often very unhappy. Those final pictures of her in Africa with children injured by landmines were amazing. There was no faking how she felt about those children. Perhaps she had done as you say and given up on all but the things she really felt moved to do.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 22, 2020, 10:39:52 PM
But she didn't do deeper work. That may have been her idea at first but instead of learning about charities in depth, she seems to have done less for the few charities she kept... which annoyed some of them. She talked about dropping the Red Cross.. and taking up wrok with the Fayeds, which showed to me that she was very vague and uncertain what she was doing.
If she wasn't considering leaving the UK how come her brother said she "talked endlessly of getting away from Engladn?"
Respectfully, the talk of charities with the Fayeds is hearsay. It's claimed by one journalist. For all we know MAF perhaps suggested something to Diana which she then mentioned in passing?
Her planning with charities in the UK shows that she was independent in that regard.
She was in all likelyhood exasperated with the press in the UK. It was IMO her venting. But she would not leave a 12 year old child and a 15 year old one. And I think she tried to keep in contact as often as she could while her children were away in private school.
When Burrell was arrested, if I remember correctly, the police found many, many letters to the princes from Diana, which he then had taken. So I think she was active in their lives whichever way she could.
I don't think she would have left the UK. I think she would have married and settled down not too far from PW and PH.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 23, 2020, 03:22:36 AM
I know she didn't like the press interfering in her private life, but I think they always would have done. And I'll always think of her as a person who was often very unhappy. Those final pictures of her in Africa with children injured by landmines were amazing. There was no faking how she felt about those children. Perhaps she had done as you say and given up on all but the things she really felt moved to do.
Yes I think her feelings for helping other people were genuine.. but she was never 100% steady in her commitment to things. Perhaps if her private life had been happier and more settled she might have found it easier to make commitments. But in her last year or 2, her charities said that they felt she had a lot going on in her life and they accepted that she wasn't always willing/able to commit to work things. I think that she was worried about being alone, and preoccupied with her private life and trying to manage the press..
but I do think if she had kept things quiet for a few years, the press would get bored and move on to greener pastures... esp as she got older....which is why I think leading a quiet private life, doing perhaps some hands on charity wrok, would have given her satisfaction and kept the press in a state of gradually losing interest.. Diana dating was going to be an interesting story for them.. but Diana living quietly, would gradually become less interesting....
Double post auto-merged: March 23, 2020, 09:56:01 AM
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 23, 2020, 08:56:18 AM
Respectfully, the talk of charities with the Fayeds is hearsay. It's claimed by one journalist. For all we know MAF perhaps suggested something to Diana which she then mentioned in passing?
Her planning with charities in the UK shows that she was independent in that regard.
She was in all likelyhood exasperated with the press in the UK. It was IMO her venting. But she would not leave a 12 year old child and a 15 year old one. And I think she tried to keep in contact as often as she could while her children were away in private school.
When Burrell was arrested, if I remember correctly, the police found many, many letters to the princes from Diana, which he then had taken. So I think she was active in their lives whichever way she could.
I don't think she would have left the UK. I think she would have married and settled down not too far from PW and PH.
of course she loved the children, adored them... but she was not in their lives day in day out. she had enough money to spend more time abroad and to come home when she could spend time with them.. which was mostly half the holidays.... sicne they were spending time with Charles and the RF durng the other half of their holiday time. Di was rich enough to fly into London and visit them at School the odd weekend... according to some reports she considered living in S Africa, which was close enough to the UK to fly back home easily...
Double post auto-merged: March 23, 2020, 10:59:44 AM
Quote from: Curryong on March 22, 2020, 08:54:34 PM
You keep saying that Diana couldn't commit to charity work, presumably in that brief year she had to live after her divorce, in spite of evidence to the contrary about the Landmines endeavour and the selling of many of her iconic clothes for charity.
Why did she have to live quietly? Not go to parties, mix with any celebrities, some of whom had been her friends for years? Never go out socialising, travelling, to parties?
And why did she have to 'find a few nice men to date'? Presumably Hasnet Khan wasn't 'nice' or acceptable.
A
However, if you think that the tabloids wouldn't have done the same sort of thing with Diana then I've got a bridge to sell you. She remained at the time of her death the most famous woman in the world and that gravy train meant millions to the media during her lifetime.
at the age of 36, yes. In another 5 to 10 years, I think the interest would have diminished. Esp if Diana really DID lead a quiet life without much public appearances. the press was in it for the money.. if the public got bored or there was simply no story other than vague speculation, I think it would diminish and the press would move on to the next glamour girl.
And I think leading a quiet life would have been better for her, as well as good in terms of keeping the press at bay. She could still see her friends but if she kept RPOs, and kept her life low key, she could keep the press at bay bit by bit..
as for men, She and Hasnat Khan had parted ways by the last few months, as you know. Their affair had lwasy been a difficult one, with him not being happy with the idea of a permanent commitment.. not because he didn't love her but because he did not want to be part of the public circus nad he did not want to upset his parents by such a marriage. He loved her but it wasn't working out. So Diana clearly thought it was time to move on. unfortunately she moved on to someone whose father WANTED the whole circus to continue, who didn't care for her deeply. So I think if she gave up on Khan, she was In dire need of a nice man who could handle a certain amount of press attention, who was rich enough to help her keep it at bay and who would be good to her.
I doubt it would have diminished. Much interest would be when Diana's first grandchild arrived for example. DIana was not one to sit back and do nothing, she was motivate and proactive. Why should she have to "hide out" because of the press?
Hasnet Khan wanted the relationship but did not want to go public.
There is no proof at all that Diana was planning to marry Dodi Fayed. She also was not going to rush into another marriage.
Double post auto-merged: March 23, 2020, 11:49:56 AM
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 23, 2020, 12:04:41 AM
but she didn't. She went to see them sometimes during term time. otherwise, she saw them during HOlidays, and half of the holidays had to be spent with Charles. That is why they were at Balmoral while she was in Paris with Dodi.
Unless you lived her life you don't know how much time she spent with them.
Sandy yes we do know how much time she spent with them. They were at school most of the year. She could have them home for the odd weekend or visit tehm during term time but not too often. And when they had holidays, according to their custody agreement they had to spend half the time with their father. so she only had half their holiday time. That's not a huge amount of time. That's why they were in Balmoral when she died and she was away on holiday, because they had to spend half their hols with Charles.
And IMO living a quiet life was the only way to avoid the press attention that Diana claimed she hated and found stressful. If she was leading a quiet life, and kept her RPOs, the press would lose interest as she got older. So she would have a less stressed life, she might have more satisfaction from keeping away from public appearances and doing her own thing privately....
It's well known the times that charles and diana had with their sons.
Definitely she traveled a lot when they were at school or with charles.
Diana move to another country will be a natural move than was her lifestyle since she got separated.
Diana on the cover continued to sell many magazines in summer/97
i believe she'll move to another country but will continue with her public humanitarian work.
She did not get bad press because of Dodi, The last cover story she had while still alive was People's A Guy For Di. I did not see any negativity here. She was dating she was divorced, she did not elope with him. 40 or 45 is not "old." SHe was not getting a "lot" of criticism as I recall. She was not flitting that last year,. I disagree with your put downs of her. How many of us can have accomplished what she did in that one year. How many received praise from Mandela. I saw no flitting.
Quote from: sandy on March 23, 2020, 02:07:03 PM
She did not get bad press because of Dodi, The last cover story she had while still alive was People's A Guy For Di. I did not see any negativity here. She was dating she was divorced, she did not elope with him. 40 or 45 is not "old." SHe was not getting a "lot" of criticism as I recall. She was not flitting that last year,. I disagree with your put downs of her. How many of us can have accomplished what she did in that one year. How many received praise from Mandela. I saw no flitting.
She may have still been liked In America, but she was less popular here. As you know. the Sudnay papers had to pull negative stories about her when she died so suddenly... because she was getting a lot of negative commentary...
I know people in the UK and they found DIana popular and liked her. I never saw "a lot" of negativity about her.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 23, 2020, 09:52:50 AM
of course she loved the children, adored them... but she was not in their lives day in day out. she had enough money to spend more time abroad and to come home when she could spend time with them.. which was mostly half the holidays.... sicne they were spending time with Charles and the RF durng the other half of their holiday time. Di was rich enough to fly into London and visit them at School the odd weekend... according to some reports she considered living in S Africa, which was close enough to the UK to fly back home easily...
Double post auto-merged: March 23, 2020, 10:59:44 AM
at the age of 36, yes. In another 5 to 10 years, I think the interest would have diminished. Esp if Diana really DID lead a quiet life without much public appearances. the press was in it for the money.. if the public got bored or there was simply no story other than vague speculation, I think it would diminish and the press would move on to the next glamour girl.
And I think leading a quiet life would have been better for her, as well as good in terms of keeping the press at bay. She could still see her friends but if she kept RPOs, and kept her life low key, she could keep the press at bay bit by bit..
as for men, She and Hasnat Khan had parted ways by the last few months, as you know. Their affair had lwasy been a difficult one, with him not being happy with the idea of a permanent commitment.. not because he didn't love her but because he did not want to be part of the public circus nad he did not want to upset his parents by such a marriage. He loved her but it wasn't working out. So Diana clearly thought it was time to move on. unfortunately she moved on to someone whose father WANTED the whole circus to continue, who didn't care for her deeply. So I think if she gave up on Khan, she was In dire need of a nice man who could handle a certain amount of press attention, who was rich enough to help her keep it at bay and who would be good to her.
I don't think that Diana spent time with her children mostly on the holidays only. There are paparazzi pictures of Diana spending time with William and Harry and being out and about in London even during the school year. I think she was always on 'stand by' in case they needed her. Besides that we don't know how often they communicated via phones and letters. And how often she visited them at school.
Also, her office was in London, and her work was centered there.
I don't think that Diana seriously considered moving away from England. For one, I don't think she would have left, say, a 12 year old Harry and moved to SA, for instance. And even if she waited until he was 15-18 she might have met someone and settled down in the UK. IMO she didn't intend to leave.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think the relationship with Diana and Khan was some big love story. Diana had good instincts about people, and her moving on very fast shows that something was amiss. But this is just my opinion. I think she was quite happy moving on, which showed in the pictures of her during her summer.
I think Fayed was quite interested in Diana, and was serious in courting her.
IMO Diana wasn't all that interested in her partners income. She was after all a millionaire in her own right, had started to invest her money, and if she really was only interest in wealthy men she wouldn't have gotten involved with Khan for two years.
She did visit them at school but she could not do that all that often. She had a few weeks in the summer, and a week or so at Xmas and Easter..
She looked into getting Hasnat Khan a job in S Africa, when she was seeing him, because she thought it was a place she could live with or marry him, so she must have considered moving there.
She moved on quicikly because she had finally realised that the relationship with Khan wasn't likely to end in marriage.. because he did not really believe ti would be possible for them to be married. She certainly was very much in love with him and put up with the problems for 2 years because of that love.. but I dont think she was likely to break up with a man until she had another one, however temporary, to take his palce. So when she met Dodi, she was willing to end things with Hasnat Khan.. who was hurt but realised that their relationship was never going to become a permanent one. So yes IMO if the Khan relationship had worked out, she would have been wiling to move to S Africa, fi they could have been together there.
However much time Diana spent or didn't spend with her children due to boarding school terms, Charles spent less.
With the exception of the few days of Xmases spent with the other royals and the biannual Balmoral summer holiday, later spent at Birkhall when the boys were older, he was at work for their holidays.
That was one of the reasons Mark Dyer and Tiggy were employed after the separation. They were less big brother and big sister than pseudo parents. He was said to have regretted spending little time with the boys, especially the teenage Harry, at Highgrove. People who put their work and duties above their children when they are young and need them, almost always regret it later.
Quote from: Curryong on March 24, 2020, 07:53:47 PM
However much time Diana spent or didn't spend with her children due to boarding school terms, Charles spent less.
With the exception of the few days of Xmases spent with the other royals and the biannual Balmoral summer holiday, later spent at Birkhall when the boys were older, he was at work for their holidays.
That was one of the reasons Mark Dyer and Tiggy were employed after the separation. They were less big brother and big sister than pseudo parents. He was said to have regretted spending little time with the boys, especially the teenage Harry, at Highgrove. People who put their work and duties above their children when they are young and need them, almost always regret it later.
but that's not the point. the point is that Diana was restricted in how much time she saw the children because they were at Boarding school... and because they had to spend time with the queen and their father as well.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 24, 2020, 07:26:45 PM
She did visit them at school but she could not do that all that often. She had a few weeks in the summer, and a week or so at Xmas and Easter..
She looked into getting Hasnat Khan a job in S Africa, when she was seeing him, because she thought it was a place she could live with or marry him, so she must have considered moving there.
She moved on quicikly because she had finally realised that the relationship with Khan wasn't likely to end in marriage.. because he did not really believe ti would be possible for them to be married. She certainly was very much in love with him and put up with the problems for 2 years because of that love.. but I dont think she was likely to break up with a man until she had another one, however temporary, to take his palce. So when she met Dodi, she was willing to end things with Hasnat Khan.. who was hurt but realised that their relationship was never going to become a permanent one. So yes IMO if the Khan relationship had worked out, she would have been wiling to move to S Africa, fi they could have been together there.
Diana visited them at school, went on vacation with them, they probably saw her on days off, and she went out with them from time to time when they could.
They went to private schools and my guess is that Diana had the same amount of visitation of any parent who?s children went to private school.
William was 15 and Harry 12 and both had been to private schools since the age of nine. Diana separated from PC in 92 and divorced him in 96. She herself was not required to remain in England yet she stayed and made it her base. I think that?s very telling.
Also, Prince William was interviewed in the documentary or one of the articles about his mother. In it he said something about Diana coming and getting the children ?worked up? and then leaving. The implication was that she would pop in unannounced from time to time. That means that he believes that she would be nearby. That is also telling IMO.
Who says Diana wanted to marry Khan? Was it really that serious?
We don't know the dynamics of the relationship and Diana isn't here to tell us her version. But why is Diana made out to be someone who is unrealistic and who Khan had to 'snap back to reality' or give a 'reality check' to?
It could very well have been Khan asking for second chances and promising to improve. We simply don't know. But I don't think that Diana was clingy or desperate.
I think she had feelings for Khan and was in love, but, people fall out of love, and for different reasons.
IMO the most realistic scenario is that as time went on she started to see where she and Khan differed in outlook and decided to move on. Those things happen to couples all time.
Diana, in my opinion, was a person of standard and integrity and guts. And I personally don't think it's fair to say that she waited to have found someone so that she could leave her current partner. For all we know she might have contemplated it for a while, and she wasn't in love and then decided to move on.
But perhaps that doesn't fit into the narrative of 'desperate' and 'unreasonable' Diana.
So I don't think it's a case of, if Khan wanted too Diana would jump at the chance. She was a reasonable person who perhaps thought that it would be better if they went on their separate ways. Also, Khan, if I remember correctly, mentioned that he 'would take Diana back' but it depended on how her relationship with Fayed went. That sounds a bit 'desperate' to me.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 24, 2020, 08:00:11 PM
but that's not the point. the point is that Diana was restricted in how much time she saw the children because they were at Boarding school... and because they had to spend time with the queen and their father as well.
It is the point, because the narrative painted by you in your posts is that Diana had too much time on her heads away from her boys, by 1996 was burned out and uninterested by the engagements she had carried out for fifteen years, and therefore her private life became messy.
That is in spite of several people pointing out the charity work and endeavours she performed and was planning to follow in 1996/1997 and beyond, chopped short by her death.
Restricted family time happens with all parents who send their children off to boarding school early. Charles and Diana were of a generation where such removal of young children from their homes to the often alien environment of school away from everything they had known, was acceptable. Today, neither Will or Harry would probably have attended boarding school so young.
And children of divorced parents always spend time away from one parent. However, when it was Diana's time to have her boys she was there for them 110%.
She would not have, like her ex, have allowed them to roam about alone (William and Harry when at Highgrove) to pubs etc while she worked, or put in a pseudo nightclub in the cellar any home she may have rented to keep her boys happy while she was elsewhere, like Charles did at Highgrove.
The vast majority of parents who are divorced and have children at boarding school devote themselves to their children for that time, brief though it may be. Diana did that. Charles not so much!
no my point was that Diana might well have left the UK, because the time she could spend with her boys was limited....She could easily come and see them durgn their holidays or have them to stay with her, and live abroad.
I don't think DIana would have wanted to put an ocean between herself and her sons.
Quote from: sandy on March 24, 2020, 11:08:55 PM
I don't think DIana would have wanted to put an ocean between herself and her sons.
then why did she ask Christaian Barnaard for a job for H Khan? She must have wanted to move away, to S Africa, where her brother was then living.. to be with him...Or if she had stayed with Dodi, odds are they might have lived in Paris and America, as he tended to flit around.....
Double post auto-merged: March 24, 2020, 11:24:19 PM
Quote from: Curryong on March 24, 2020, 09:12:56 PM
It is the point, because the narrative painted by you in your posts is that Diana had too much time on her heads away from her boys, by 1996 was burned out and uninterested by the engagements she had carried out for fifteen years, and therefore her private life became messy.
I don't think she was uninterested in her charity work but I do think she was burned out. She planned, if I remember correctly to keep 6 charities and to dedicate herself in more depth to those few areas. But it didn't work out that way. She didn't do as much for them as they hoped. I don't think she managed to spend more time at them and learn more about them. She had time on her hands because the boys were at school or with the RF.. but she didn't as far as I can see, translate that time to learning more about the charities she had kept. Jephson said that he had tried to find work he hoped she would enjoy but that Diana didn't want to commit to it.. because IMO she was burned out. She had made the effort to do the charity work while she was sitill a working royal.. but she ran out of steam by the last couple fo years. So I am not sure how likely it was that she would have found new charities and given them a full meed of her attention. I had hoped when she made the decision in 1996 to give up her large number of charities, that she would do such an excellent job with the small number she was keeping.. but in fact, it was rather disappointing because she was not seen around all that much.
It was her public life, IMO that was messy, rather than her private life. For a time she did have a lover who was a decent guy and whom she might have found happiness with.. had she not been a Princess and he a Muslim Doctor. (of course when she moved on to Dodi, it got messy). But her public life was rather fitful, and while I think she was sincere in wanting to still do good, she wasn't really able to commit to things and that was bound to annoy her charities. I think she still wanted to help people but a lot of her attention was focussed on her private life.. She was looking for a man.. and I think if she could have had the boys living at home, she would have liked that better than a brilliant career as a philanthropist.
Asides from the 'sweetpea' charity endeavour, I remember reading about Diana wanting to take on the issue of illiteracy.
Has anyone else read about this?
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 25, 2020, 11:24:48 AM
Asides from the 'sweetpea' charity endeavour, I remember reading about Diana wanting to take on the issue of illiteracy.
Has anyone else read about this?
I seem to remember something being mentioned.. that she was thinking of making documentaries about issues like the one about the her trip to Africa... and illiterarcy was one issue she might tackle.
The documentary about her being in Angola is still on youtube, or parts of it.
I do wonder if she met up with charities dealing with illiteracy or nothing had formalized yet.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 24, 2020, 09:11:14 PM
Diana visited them at school, went on vacation with them, they probably saw her on days off, and she went out with them from time to time when they could.
They went to private schools and my guess is that Diana had the same amount of visitation of any parent who?s children went to private school.
W
Also, Prince William was interviewed in the documentary or one of the articles about his mother. In it he said something about Diana coming and getting the children ?worked up? and then leaving. The implication was that she would pop in unannounced from time to time. That means that he believes that she would be nearby. That is also telling IMO.
Who says Diana wanted to marry Khan? Was it really that serious?
We don't know the dynamics of the relationship and Diana isn't here to tell us her version. But why is Diana made out to be someone who is unrealistic and who Khan had to 'snap back to reality' or give a 'reality check' to?
It could very well have been Khan asking for second chances and promising to improve. We simply don't know. But I don't think that Diana was clingy or desperate.
I think she had feelings for Khan and was in love, but, people fall out of love, and for different reasons.
IMO the most realistic scenario is that as time went on she started to see where she and Khan differed in outlook and decided to move on. Those things happen to couples all time.
Diana, in my opinion, was a person of standard and integrity and guts. And I personally don't think it's fair to say that she waited to have found someone so that she could leave her current partner. For all we know she might have contemplated it for a while, and she wasn't in love and then decided to move on.
But perhaps that doesn't fit into the narrative of 'desperate' and 'unreasonable' Diana.
So I don't think it's a case of, if Khan wanted too Diana would jump at the chance. She was a reasonable person who perhaps thought that it would be better if they went on their separate ways. Also, Khan, if I remember correctly, mentioned that he 'would take Diana back' but it depended on how her relationship with Fayed went. That sounds a bit 'desperate' to me.
of course she was in love with Khan and wanted to marry him. She went to Pakistain to visit his family and they liked her on a personal basis but still said tht they didn't think ti was a good idea for them to marry. YOu don't do that unless you are very much in love. She asked C Barnaarrd to give him a job in S Africa.. which Khan did not want. Again she was harldy likely to do that if she didn't love him and want to be with him.
. Khan loved her but IMO he had a clearer idea of the realities of such a romance and he probably could not see any way tehir romance could work. But he did love her and he hoped against hope. He has mentioned how he had said to Di that Paksitan might be a place they could live free of the media circus, but she returned from a trip to Pakistan and told him she didn't think things would work out there. Probalby having seen the country, she realised it was very foreign to her.. and having met his family she had a better idea that they might not accept her as his wife. But they had this stormy on and off romance for 2 years, breaking up and getting together again. Because sadly, they DID love each other and yet it was very hard for them to find a way of being together.
as For Williams' remarks, he could not know, 20 years after her death, what she would have done in later life. He was just talking in a general way, imagining her coming to see him and his children.. He's hardly likely to say 20 years Later, "I think Mum would have married some American or someone foreighn and come back to England a few times a year.." He is going to fondly imagine her just "popping in"....
Double post auto-merged: March 25, 2020, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 25, 2020, 11:31:01 AM
The documentary about her being in Angola is still on youtube, or parts of it.
I do wonder if she met up with charities dealing with illiteracy or nothing had formalized yet.
I dobut if anything serious had been done. I think she was full of vague plans....
Quote from: sandy on March 25, 2020, 12:08:31 PM
Even if he had reciprocated I don't think she and Khan would have rushed into a marriage less than a year after her divorce.
Vague plans? I don't think so, she got the attention on the cause. She got much praise for it.
what cuase? She didn't get attention on literacy, as an issue because she did not have a chance ot do anything about it.
She did not have a chance to live the rest of her life which was cut off prematurely.
I was talking Landmines.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 25, 2020, 12:14:17 PM
I still see no tangible evidence of Diana wanting to marry Khan.
Her visiting her boyfriends family while visiting the country is nothing unusual.
I think her actions are telling. She could have moved away anytime between 92-97. Yet she stayed and even endured the continuous harassment from the press.
I don't think that she was full of 'vague plans'. Sadly she did not have enough time to materialize them.
She could nto have moved away in 1992.. she had to negotiate a divroce and her children were very young then. But her own brother said that she "talked endlessly of getting away from England".. and she did things to indicate that she was keen on moving. She asked Barnaard to give Khan a job. Why on earth would she do that if (a) She did not love Khan, (b) she did not want to marry him and (c) she was commtited to staying in England for her boys. By 1996 to 97, she was getting less favourable press, her boys were older and she had to send them to boarding school and could not drop in to see them every weekend.. so she saw less of them. So by 1996 to 97 I think her desire to get away from England had become stronger. She was stuck in an apartment in KP, the boys were away. Her lover was a man from a foreign country who considered going back there to live and I think she had gotten fed up with England and its unkind press.. and wanted a new life.
And I would say that vistiign a boyfriends's home country, IS pretty unusual. Its a long long way to go, just to meet the in laws.
The KHan family were amazed that she had turned up, and so was Khan himself. Their attitude was that they liked her, and she was a nice person but they did not want him to marry outside his religion and culture. So Diana's trip did not result in the family telling Khan "Oh she's lovely, you really ought to snap her up".
Khan has said that he and Diana talked about getting married.. and that he had told her that he felt the only place they might be free from media intrusion, which he hated, was to live in Pakistan where he himself considered moving back to, to work for his people there. As I said in my last post, Diana paid a visit and came back to say that SHE didn't think that Pakistain would work out. I think that when she visited, she realised that it was a very foreign place, where someone like her would not feel at home.. and that she could see that Khan's family would not welcome her. So she realised reluctantly that they were not likely to find a place they could be together. That was why their relationship was on and off, with Khan no doubt trying to tell her that he loved her but that it would be impossible for them to be together. He was getting racist hate Mail in england.. He did not want to live in S Africa or other places.. But Diana kept on trying to find a way for them.. and it didn't work out. I think he loved her and has never quite gotten over her.. but he knew realistically that they could not find a place to be together or a life that suited them both.
As for Dodi, do you really think it was wise that she seems to have "fallen in love" with him so quickly? I don't think the affectionate feeling lasted very long.. she was IMO getting fed up wit him and his sloppy ways within a few weeks.. but he suited her for a short time. but if she had NOT fallen for him or had an affair with him she would have been safe.
Her sons knew her as children. THey kenw about her men friends, but I doubt if they are likely to want to talk about that sort of thing now...
Double post auto-merged: March 25, 2020, 01:02:09 PM
Quote from: sandy on March 25, 2020, 12:31:37 PM
Rosa Monckton maintained that Diana was not about to rush into a second marriage as did other friends of hers. Khan would have been happy IMO continuing to see her but not going public and not making commitments. If Diana had been "desperate" for him she would not have moved on. There were apparently some serious discussions between them about their future.
yes tehre were discussions between them and she wanted to marry him.. but they kept coming up against impasses. He was not English. He was from very different relgion and culture. His family were against such a marriage. He was not as rich as her. Eventaully when she found another man, Diana realised that she and Khan were not going to be able to amrry and she moved on. But it was a disaster....
William was a teen during the divorce negotiations. And Harry two years younger. They were not little children. SHe had no 'understanding" with Khan, they were still working out their relationship no proposal was imminent. Clearly.
It was not being in Pakistan that "would not work out" it was the cultural differences, And Khan's family wanted him to marry a woman of his own faith and culture. I don't see Diana ever having all these details you mention made public--she never publicly spoke about it, others did later including Burrell. Diana is not around to give her side of the story of the relationship.
Diana wanted a commitment, all the things you mention were not the key issue. He did not want to be seen with her in public but wanted just to have private visits at KP. Diana moved on and changed her number, she actually initiated the breakup, Khan said he could not reach her by phone anymore.
I don't think Diana "fell in love" with Dodi, she enjoyed his company and was fond of him. She never said she "loved" him. It is a matter of speculation how Diana "felt" about him since she died and could not give her account of the relationship. It is not her relationship with Dodi that caused the accident, That is Kismet. One could say that if CHarles had ditched Camilla she would not have been in Paris that night of the 31 August. How do you know she would have been 'safe' if she had not met him. Life is unpredictable, who could have foreseen that many lives are in jeopardy now because of a virus.
Why would William and Harry have to talk about Khan or Dodi?
Please read the posts. Oak and Cedar has quoted William saying that Diana would have hopped in unexpectedly.. so she would likely have been living in England.
Accoridng to Khan, he felt that MAYBE living in Pakistan would work out, that it was a place where the tabloids were not likely to chase them. (he was probably right....if she had moved there they would probaby have lost the press intrusion after a while. the tabloid reporters would not want to set up campt there to get pics of them.)
But DIANA when she had seen the place, did not think it would work out, so it seemed like there was nowhere in the world they could live. Yes there were cultural differences, Khan was OK with a limited discreet relationship, but Diana wanted more. Because he loved her, although he probably knew in his heart that it would all end In tears, he tried to keep away but kept on coming back.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 25, 2020, 12:59:44 PM
She could nto have moved away in 1992.. she had to negotiate a divroce and her children were very young then. But her own brother said that she "talked endlessly of getting away from England".. and she did things to indicate that she was keen on moving. She asked Barnaard to give Khan a job. Why on earth would she do that if (a) She did not love Khan, (b) she did not want to marry him and (c) she was commtited to staying in England for her boys. By 1996 to 97, she was getting less favourable press, her boys were older and she had to send them to boarding school and could not drop in to see them every weekend.. so she saw less of them. So by 1996 to 97 I think her desire to get away from England had become stronger. She was stuck in an apartment in KP, the boys were away. Her lover was a man from a foreign country who considered going back there to live and I think she had gotten fed up with England and its unkind press.. and wanted a new life.
And I would say that vistiign a boyfriends's home country, IS pretty unusual. Its a long long way to go, just to meet the in laws.
The KHan family were amazed that she had turned up, and so was Khan himself. Their attitude was that they liked her, and she was a nice person but they did not want him to marry outside his religion and culture. So Diana's trip did not result in the family telling Khan "Oh she's lovely, you really ought to snap her up".
Khan has said that he and Diana talked about getting married.. and that he had told her that he felt the only place they might be free from media intrusion, which he hated, was to live in Pakistan where he himself considered moving back to, to work for his people there. As I said in my last post, Diana paid a visit and came back to say that SHE didn't think that Pakistain would work out. I think that when she visited, she realised that it was a very foreign place, where someone like her would not feel at home.. and that she could see that Khan's family would not welcome her. So she realised reluctantly that they were not likely to find a place they could be together. That was why their relationship was on and off, with Khan no doubt trying to tell her that he loved her but that it would be impossible for them to be together. He was getting racist hate Mail in england.. He did not want to live in S Africa or other places.. But Diana kept on trying to find a way for them.. and it didn't work out. I think he loved her and has never quite gotten over her.. but he knew realistically that they could not find a place to be together or a life that suited them both.
As for Dodi, do you really think it was wise that she seems to have "fallen in love" with him so quickly? I don't think the affectionate feeling lasted very long.. she was IMO getting fed up wit him and his sloppy ways within a few weeks.. but he suited her for a short time. but if she had NOT fallen for him or had an affair with him she would have been safe.
Her sons knew her as children. THey kenw about her men friends, but I doubt if they are likely to want to talk about that sort of thing now...
Double post auto-merged: March 25, 2020, 01:02:09 PM
yes tehre were discussions between them and she wanted to marry him.. but they kept coming up against impasses. He was not English. He was from very different relgion and culture. His family were against such a marriage. He was not as rich as her. Eventaully when she found another man, Diana realised that she and Khan were not going to be able to amrry and she moved on. But it was a disaster....
She didn't go to Pakistan only to visit Khan's family. She was a guest of Imran Khan's and visited his hospital that treated poor people with cancer.
Pakistan was one of the nations she had visited with some frequency. She was there as early as 92. Similar to Egypt and India.
I seriously doubt that she went to Khans family unannounced. For one, it would have been a logistical nightmare, and the press would have been alerted. Secondly, Diana was a courteous person, and she would have given a heads up.
Also, if I remember correctly, it was Khan who asked her to visit them. I think it was in his statement?
He also mentioned how she came back with excuses when she examined the places where they might live.
I think the relationship has been hyped to high heavens as a means to 'underpin' the point that Diana was 'unreasonable' and unable to recognize a good thing.
His only public statement about her was odd and came across as unkind. I think, and this is just my personal opinion, that he is an opportunist who's mainly looking out for himself. I also don't think it's matter of him 'getting over her'. Based on his comments, and this is just my opinion, he was scorned that she moved on.
I don't think that Diana would have married Fayed. But she was happy in being with him and his family. She was enjoying herself, and I don't think that she was heartbroken about leaving Khan.
William and Harry were not young children. William was a teen and in all likelyhood had many discussions with Diana. In any case, as her son, he knew her better than most.
Quote from: QueenAlex on March 25, 2020, 01:26:47 PM
Please read the posts. Oak and Cedar has quoted William saying that Diana would have hopped in unexpectedly.. so she would likely have been living in England.
Accoridng to Khan, he felt that MAYBE living in Pakistan would work out, that it was a place where the tabloids were not likely to chase them. (he was probably right....if she had moved there they would probaby have lost the press intrusion after a while. the tabloid reporters would not want to set up campt there to get pics of them.)
But DIANA when she had seen the place, did not think it would work out, so it seemed like there was nowhere in the world they could live. Yes there were cultural differences, Khan was OK with a limited discreet relationship, but Diana wanted more. Because he loved her, although he probably knew in his heart that it would all end In tears, he tried to keep away but kept on coming back.
I read the posts.
It makes no sense. If his family did not approve of her because of cultural/religious differences why would he think it ideal for her to be in Pakistan. She could not even live with him there because of the family. the press can travel to Pakistan, there are flights there.
It was the family not the place.
Khan can say a lot of things but Diana is not around to give her side. He admitted he could not reach her after she changed her number. She was not "unreasonable" she gave the relationship time.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 25, 2020, 11:31:01 AM
The documentary about her being in Angola is still on youtube, or parts of it.
I do wonder if she met up with charities dealing with illiteracy or nothing had formalized yet.
No I had not read about literacy as a potential cause, but it's always an issue that needs attention especially among adults who are functionally illiterate or are second language learners. IMO it would have been a wonderful cause to take up.
[gmod]
Reminder-This is a thread about Diana's possible charity endeavors not her romantic relationships. Please stay on topic[/gmod]
If Diana had married Khan and moved to Pakistan the tabloid press would have lost interest. They were not going to set up in a far off foreign country to get pix of her with her new husband. Khan's family would not approve, no matter where they lived, but he himself wanted to go back there, when he had worked in Britain for a time. He probably thought that Pakistan was the best place for them to avoid the papers and that maybe in time, his famly would come to accept his marriage to Diana.
But she was the one who said it would not work out. As I've said, most likely when she visited the family and travelled to Pakistan and realised how foreign it all was, when she actually spent time with an ordinary rich but middle class family, she knew she would not really want to live there permanently and that Khan's family were not likely to be friendly with her.. So she began to give up on her dream and told Khan that it would not be a good place to live. Probably Khan knew that if Diana spent a little time there, and met with his family she would realise that it was too foreign and different for her.. and that she might realise then that his family were not likely to be happy with the marriage and that would be a mistake for htem to marry. But he still loved her and could not entirely give up on the relationship. She broke off with him because she ahd met Dodi, and he was a rich guy who would be able to give her wealth, comfort, and security..
Quote from: TLLK on March 25, 2020, 02:40:46 PM
No I had not read about literacy as a potential cause, but it's always an issue that needs attention especially among adults who are functionally illiterate or are second language learners. IMO it would have been a wonderful cause to take up.
Yes, I agree. The sad thing about it is that many adults who are illiterate are ashamed to admit it so they are reluctant to get help. I think Diana would have helped alot with removing the stigma, if you can call it that.
Also, I did read that she had made comments about wanting focus child labour and so on. I think I read it the Simmons book, though who knows if it's accurate. I think it's better to take what she says with a pinch of salt. IMO.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on March 28, 2020, 10:30:03 AM
Yes, I agree. The sad thing about it is that many adults who are illiterate are ashamed to admit it so they are reluctant to get help. I think Diana would have helped alot with removing the stigma, if you can call it that.
Also, I did read that she had made comments about wanting focus child labour and so on. I think I read it the Simmons book, though who knows if it's accurate. I think it's better to take what she says with a pinch of salt. IMO.
the Simmons book? The one that claimed she had a fling with JFK Junior?
I don't tink I'd beleive anything in that book.
ANd I think Diana would have to be very cautious with dealing with "issues" where they might veer into the political.
Dianna knew that the causes she pursued would be helped enormously from her attention and efforts. What a satisfying feeling it must have been, but then a lot of responsibility, because she couldn't possibly help them all. She had to decide which ones she would support or continue to support following her divorce. I've always thought that was a work in progress and that she wasn't hurrying about it.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 29, 2020, 02:42:44 AM
Dianna knew that the causes she pursued would be helped enormously from her attention and efforts. What a satisfying feeling it must have been, but then a lot of responsibility, because she couldn't possibly help them all. She had to decide which ones she would support or continue to support following her divorce. I've always thought that was a work in progress and that she wasn't hurrying about it.
but she wasn't all that committed after her divorce. I think she did drop the charities because she was tired out and didn't want to have 100 patronages, even if they didn't ask much of her.. but her PR lady told her that to drop them so suddenly would look like petulance, and was too hasty.. It looked like she was annoyed that she had lost her HRH.. and that she was taking the opportunity to drop all the charities that she had, because she didn't really want to do the work any more.
Diana did not listen,.
I think that she did mean to concentrate on the ones she kept and learn more about them and be a more "in depth" worker for them...but in practice she didn't seem to do a lot and some were disappointed by her behaviour.. I think that they were grateful for what she had done in the past but felt they couldn't rely on her.