Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

[Curryong]

^ Might I remind you though that Charles added his portion of fuel to the fire by doing the June 1994 TV interview with Jonathon Dimbleby. He didn't have to do that and he didn't have to sit there and 'out' Camilla.

That also had unintended consequences, if we are talking regret following precipitate actions. Camilla's father confronted him, causing, according to reports I've read, Charles to burst into tears. After Andrew PB was called 'Mr Simpson' by other males at Ascot he was no doubt extremely annoyed and embarrassed, however much he'd condoned the affair. Charles's revelation ultimately set the ball rolling on the PB divorce, and as I wrote in another post Charles blamed others for 'making' him do the interview, including attacking his completely innocent Private Secretary Edward Adeane about it in front of others, when it had been entirely his own decision to partake in that interview and answer questions about his estrangement from his wife and his love life.

This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.

[amabel]

i dont see why you think it strange.  Of course she did not want to lose her position.  why would anyone? She was a good Princess of wales, I think that if she had not been so unhappy she would have been a good queen.  She felt that her marriage failure wasn't her fault, and that she was now in danger of being deprived of her status because she hadn't been able to make her marriage work -
I think at times she wanted a divorce to get out of the RF and be free and be able to find a partner she  could be with openly, but at times she flet that she would be happier iwht the half way house of a separation, and that way she'd still be part of the RF and be able to do her job as Princess which gave her satisfaction. But the problem was that she and Charles were engaging In other relationships, and the C  of E had said that it did'nt mind them being crowned if separated, provided they were NOT invovled in affairs and were prioritising hteir children
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 07:37:31 AM

^
This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.

I think that it is true certainly that charles was very foolish to do the Dimbleby interview involving questions about his private life. He could have said nothing, said that he would not discuss his marriage or his personal relationships  and it was wrong of him  to wimp out then and blame his secretary for pushing him to do the interview. 
But to be fair, Diana was the one who outed his affair with Camilla in the Mortotn book.. It wasn't said explicitly but everyone knew what was meant.. and Dimbley was a riposte to her doing the Book.
I think that Charles did by then want to marry Camilla, and felt that if the affair was now out in public, and he ad Diana were on the way towards a divorce, APB wanted a divorce anyway to Marry Rosemary Pitman.  He may have felt that if the affair was pretty well known anyway due tot eh Morton book and the taping of his Camillagate conversation, he might as well admit it and hoep that the public would accept that he wanted to marry her.  OK when it didn't go well, initially, he was, as I've said very wrong not to accept blame and to admit to himself that he had pushed the story out there too soon..an d it was his own decision..

[royalanthropologist]

Well if she did not want to lose her position then Morton and Panorama were very inexplicable  ways of going about it. They effectively signed her end in that marriage. I would not have expected Charles or the royal family to tolerate anything other than a final divorce after those forays. Diana was no longer a loyal member of the family but a fifth columnist. She was a present and imminent danger to the institution. The thing that puzzles me is how she complained about her lot but then did not want a way out when an opportunity presented itself. I would have thought that she would have jumped at the opportunity to divorce and rid herself of the man and family she hated so much???

[sandy]

i dont see why you think it strange.  Of course she did not want to lose her position.  why would anyone? She was a good Princess of wales, I think that if she had not been so unhappy she would have been a good queen.  She felt that her marriage failure wasn't her fault, and that she was now in danger of being deprived of her status because she hadn't been able to make her marriage work -
I think at times she wanted a divorce to get out of the RF and be free and be able to find a partner she  could be with openly, but at times she flet that she would be happier iwht the half way house of a separation, and that way she'd still be part of the RF and be able to do her job as Princess which gave her satisfaction. But the problem was that she and Charles were engaging In other relationships, and the C  of E had said that it did'nt mind them being crowned if separated, provided they were NOT invovled in affairs and were prioritising hteir children
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 07:37:31 AM

^
This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.

I think that it is true certainly that charles was very foolish to do the Dimbleby interview involving questions about his private life. He could have said nothing, said that he would not discuss his marriage or his personal relationships  and it was wrong of him  to wimp out then and blame his secretary for pushing him to do the interview. 
But to be fair, Diana was the one who outed his affair with Camilla in the Mortotn book.. It wasn't said explicitly but everyone knew what was meant.. and Dimbley was a riposte to her doing the Book.
I think that Charles did by then want to marry Camilla, and felt that if the affair was now out in public, and he ad Diana were on the way towards a divorce, APB wanted a divorce anyway to Marry Rosemary Pitman.  He may have felt that if the affair was pretty well known anyway due tot eh Morton book and the taping of his Camillagate conversation, he might as well admit it and hoep that the public would accept that he wanted to marry her.  OK when it didn't go well, initially, he was, as I've said very wrong not to accept blame and to admit to himself that he had pushed the story out there too soon..an d it was his own decision..

Charles was making it more and more clear he had contempt for her. So why would she want to live a lifetime with the man who obviously resented her.

No, Charles outed the affair. Charles' friends said Diana was wrong and he and Camilla were mere friends. The royals even gave credence to this welcoming Camilla and ANdrew into the royal enclosure. Morton never called her the mistress or lover of Charles.

Charles blabbed that she was his mistress. So if Diana was the one who outed them, then probably the divorce would have happened in 1992. It did not. THe immediate effect of Charles confessions was the PBs divorcing. No, Charles outed Camilla. Big time.

[Trudie]

As there have been accusations on another thread about Diana fans being selective the same can be said for Charles and Camilla fans. Who have a very selective memory as to the 1994 Dimbleby interview that occurred over a year before Panorama.

@royalanthropologist yes Diana did say the day of her divorce it was the saddest thing and it was Diana from childhood said she never wanted to be divorced yet it happened. It does make sense she was of two emotions one happy to be free of the restraints of her loveless marriage yet sad that it had to happen.

[FanDianaFancy]

Diana, PC  BOTH talking  to  these  reporters  did  not END the marriage. 
The  marriage  was over  in the late 1980's, right  after she , the broadmare, birthed the spare foul.
The final  part  was  not  her  talking to  Bashir  or him to  Dimbey. Long before  that , it  was over.


They  could  only fool  the media  for so long. TPTB  could only issue  generic  statements for  so long.

1990's,  PD  immense  popularity, interests, iconic figure and  PC  ,  his rank and title and  to  better long lenses  cameras  to  bold  paps and  so many  news and gossip/entertainment outlets  to  ahhhhh, that new thing called the INTERNET  was  coming, there was no way  for  PC and PD  to stay  legally  married  with  all press and media knowing they  were in separate households... separate  offices, separate  and never living together...only together  for  photo opts, things with the kids  and even keeping it together  for  BRF  duties became  more  a  chore, a forced chore. PD sitting at  TajMahal.    PD  glanced  back  instead of looking at  PC in the car. That famous photo.

PD  could have  stayed  quiet and holded up in KP, still,  it  was over.  No  media was fooled  or  could have been fooled.

I  posted up before  People magazine  cover stories  from the late 1980's. IT WAS OVER!!

I  know some of us do not like FACTS, but  check it  for yourself. I  might pull up those covers.

[royalanthropologist]

I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"?  I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"?  These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.

When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.

[FanDianaFancy]

eBay - Page Not Found(KGrHqNHJEgFButCzFv3BQc48JVNlw~~/s-l300.jpg

That  was   just  one from 1988.  I do  not care  nor have the time to search  up People magazines.  I cannot no longer from the site  of PM.  Anyone here can if he/she wants to. I posted  these  way  back, a few years  ago. I do  not have  to prove  the FACTS FACTS  , not  my opinion, but FACTS.
Late 1980's,  several cover stories  were out there and  including  outing Camilal  LONG BEFORFE  PD said  Camilla  or  Her True Story or Dimbley interview  or Bashir  interview  or Panorama interview  or she even knew  Dodi  or Hasnat or   .....
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 07:46:30 PM

I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"?  I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"?  These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.

When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.

Good grief, get a  grip  on reality!!!!!!  :lol:
If she were alive,  and PH and PW, TRUST me, do  not read  gossip stuff on line  like ohhhhhh, RIForum. I  hardly think, lil ole me  or  you could have  influenced, talked to Didi   and Charlie and Milla  and Andy and gave them advice.  LOL!!!! :teehee:
I do  not them. They  are not  my family  or friends.
YES, I and others here have used the terms, broadmare. 
Humor!!!
Ok, I will say she was simply  a breeder  for  HRH, PC to achieve  one of his most important goals and that was  having purebred  heirs.  Is that better  royalanthro?

Everyone, please help me think of better ways to  refer to PD  as  PC's  ummm....... LOL!!!!   
:partaay:
Books, yes, royal watchers  reporters,  thing like that get  back to them  ...indirectly, but  YES, they  have  a  thick skin, but then  again,  it  is  hurtful , no doubt, to a  point. PK,  Sophie, Sarah,  HRH, QEII, all of them  have to have thick skin and tune out  some  media things to a  point ...as  much as  possible...are insulated  by TPTB, friends,  etc.

Being talked about , not always  so nicely, comes with the territory  of being  a  public figure. Again,  there is  a dumb , meaningless , silly, gossip filled message board  , here  , the royal  could  care less about, do not read, do not know about, etc. Then there  are ohhh....Junor's  books.

Her most ardent supporters and fans  did not stop her  life or  make her life.  Really,  as if  fans  and  writers like Morton  even, made a  difference in her personal life.

Buh-bye.  I am  meeting Carole, Kate  and the  kids  at The Cheesecake Factory for lunch. >( :thumbsup:

[sandy]

https://www.google.com/search?q=junor+and+parker+bowles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqnKr15t7UAhWEaT4KHcG8BR4Q_AUIBygC&biw=1280&bih=864#imgdii=dWu7r58uh5HXeM:&imgrc=dpqgz58j2FyQKM:

Camilla and Junor are as thick as thieves
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 07:58:28 PM

I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"?  I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"?  These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.

When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.

Diana always said she loved he husband. He was the one who admitted to his biographer he married Diana preferring the other woman. So he beat the hasty retreat.

[FanDianaFancy]

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/504a206969bedd6346000025-1200/1987-the-press-picks-up-on-trouble-in-princess-dianas-faux-fairytale-marriage-to-prince-charles.jpg

1987 people magazine-USA
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 08:19:50 PM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/00/be/eb00bea78f6995994f12703547fb9f9d.jpg

[amabel]

Iwas to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.

I don't quite see how her supporters could have prevented her from finding happiness.  and I think it is possible that they did love each other at the beginning.. but Charles was always less in love than her and she was in love with a fantasy Charles.. but thy had warmer feelings for each other and had they had a bit more in common, been less stressed by a difficult public lifestyle, they might have made the marriage work.  but they didnt'.  Its no use blaming them for what they could not help.

[sandy]

Charles never loved Diana. Diana of course was awed by this older man courting her. She thought he loved her and she was "the one." How is that a fantasy. She did not fantasize about this, it actually happened. The man proposed to her.  Charles should have walked away when Camilla married another man. Grown ups do that. They could have made the work if Charles manned up and realized he could not have it all. Charles was in love with HIS concept of marriage and never even thought his "arrangement" would upset his first wife. It was all about him.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Im thinking what @royalanthropologist meant, and please let us know if im on the right track, is that the fans relentless interest in her drove the publicity machine to greater and greater heights, especially post morton, to where she had so much scrutiny over her life and suitors that only very a few rich men with the resources to provide security, privacy, etc. would be able to give her any kind of "normal" or "happy" life. But the personality traits that drove them to amass such a fortune, would likely make them not a very caring, sensitive, tactile person. A diamond encrusted rock and a hard place.

[royalanthropologist]

Eloquent and to the point. That is what I am saying or trying to say all along. Diana was a lot more than her failed marriage. She was a human being with so many complex facets. Reading some of the commentary about her, you would imagine that she spend all her life from 19 to 36 crying her heart out about Charles' abandonment.

There were happy moments in her life. I rather suspect that some of those happy moments were with Charles and because of Charles. She had a sense of humor. She had friends (even within the royal family) and interests. The relentless need to make her a martyr ended up crucifying her and ruining all her romantic relationships. Someone she genuinely liked like Khan was frightened away by the media interest. It was just overwhelming. I remember when she was in the Caribbean and people were literally pushing cameras in her face. She was nearly in tears because it was becoming physical. Who can live like that?

Now that she is dead, the desire to take revenge is denying Diana her rightful place as a matriarch of the royal family. A woman who should be at Frogmore is consigned to a pay-per-view island. The HRH title that was offered back as a conciliatory gesture was thrown away by Charles Spencer. The bitter speech at the funeral meant that instead of the Spencers and Windsors working together to give those children space to recover; the monarchy closed ranks and cut Charles Spencer off completely. A rededication service that ought to have been a state occasion has been turned into a private affair with no cameras. When will this bitterness end?

Instead of all the royal family (including Camilla) celebrating Diana, she is now an uncomfortable presence that they must avoid at all costs. Bitterness and the desire for revenge is a fruitless and thankless endeavor.

[amabel]

it was NOT offered back Royal.  why do you say these things? She shoud not be at Frogmore but if she sadly died, the right place for her is on a private island where her family and close friends can see her grave, not the public.  why would you want to "see her grave"?
Its not  a "pay per view" island.. it is part of Di's family estate, and perhaps the only place where her remains can lie in peace without trippers and press around.
as for the Spencers, yes the RF were not pleased with Charles S but I don't know of any sign that Diana's sisters who did provide the boys with a bit of motherly care, were kept away from them...
And Hasnat Khan wasn't just frightened off by the meida attention.. there were alos, as I'm sure you must know other reasons why he was reluctant to marry Diana.

[royalanthropologist]

@amabel. Here is an article highlighting the issues about HRH.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.htm

Also Charles Spencer had a prime opportunity to lay the foundation for the true reconciliation of two families that had lost someone so young and so important. Instead he went into a tantrum and spoilt it all. The royals were absolutely furious but exercised incredible discipline by not showing any emotions. The cheerleaders for such undignified displays like Holden felt he gave them a bloody nose. Yes he did...but at what cost. Later on, he was revealed to be a horrendous misogynist who made Prince Charles look like an absolute saint in his treatment of his wives and lovers.

Diana's sisters on the other hand showed how it should be done. There is no indication that anyone in the royal family has a single issue with them. They behaved like dignified and caring aunts, not some man child having a tantrum to show that it was him and only him who really cared about Diana.

[amabel]

well that link you just posted leads to "nothing"..and As I recall Curryong posted a link the other day stating that the RF had made ti clear that the HRH restoration offer had NOT been made...
I dot believe the offer was made, I think it might have been considered but I doubt if the queen would have gone ahead and made such an offer..

[royalanthropologist]

Here is another.  A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:

BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Thanks @royalanthropologist and for sure she did have many happy moments in her life, imagine the level of experiences and impact she had on the world because of being a member of the Royal Family, far beyond what she would have had as a wife to a city investment banker or some other Etonian or some such husband.

I agree the media interest ruined a lot of her relationships, and yes, as amabel says there were other reasons Khan backed away from her, stupid, foolish, prideful reasons imo. but im hardly an objective observer on that score.

I also remember that occurrence in the Caribbean, that plaintive "Pleeease" she cries out, breaks my heart whenever I hear it. Her lack of protection was an example of her being willful and rash vs being pragmatic. If the royals wanted to spy on her they bloody well could no matter what, she could have hired private security at Charles expense and would have added greatly to the quality of her life in her final 5 years, and also wouldnt have left her so vulnerable to ppl like the El Fayeds that she had to almost trade access to her and the resultant publicity in exchange for protection.

The funeral week made sure the Spencers and Windsors would be separated for a long time, in the 21st century idk how much matters of dynastic alliances will matter, but the House of Spencer will be on the wane for a few generations. I think a lot of the principal parties will have to die off before true reconciliation is possible.

As for her being interred in Frogmore, I can see where amabel might want to stand on royal tradition, esp where it comes to Diana, but like it or not, she was a one off special case. Had she died 5 or 10 years later, people probably wouldnt have mentioned it. Although given her family tradition and recent timing of the divorce when she passed, one can see why the Spencers wanted her buried with them.

While its technically true that you cant pay to access the oval, I think youre missing the point of what royalanthropolgist was trying to say, in that she is buried in what was for a few years almost a theme park atmosphere at Althorp vs the decorum of a royal internment. Although given her popularity, something like that would have to have been done, somewhere.

As for people wanting to see her grave, why do ppl visit graceland, etc. like it or not she meant an awful lot to many people and I cant blame them for wanting to pay respects to her. She was a daily occurrence in many peoples lives, voluntary or not, and her sudden absence did shock a lot of people.

[royalanthropologist]

I think many, many people have completely misread Diana by trying to imprint themselves on her.  There were subtleties even in her relationship with Charles that went beyond a cheating husband and an angry wife. When those horrendous Camillagate tapes came out, one of Diana's friends indicated that she was genuinely embarrassed for the duo. I know if I had been in those tapes, I would not have appeared in public for many years. It was easily the most excruciating thing in my memory. Had she been that "Single White Female" caricature that people want to paint her in, she would have used the opportunity to stick the boot in. Even in panorama, you can see the interviewer trying to push her that extra mile but she is reluctant to hit the hardest blows. This was not some sad, bitter, deranged woman. Just a person that was hurt, vented and then moved on with her life. Unfortunately at the time she seemed like moving on, death struck.

[sandy]

Charles had his share of anger. He did not understand why Diana complained about Camilla, after all he married Diana so what else did she want. He also was angry that Diana (a surprise to him) became very popular and endearing to the public. He was raised to be the center of attention so he just did not get it. Charles also should have had some reality checks in his upbringing. He was and is not the center of attention and he needed more empathy. If he truly had been empathetic he'd have seen how wrong it was for him to marry Diana when he did not love her. Diana never said she was embarrassed for C and C re: the tapes. She kept her mouth shut about it to the media. What she said in private is subject to speculation. She probably felt humiliated by it so why say anything? Diana never stopped being interested in charity work and causes no matter what happened in her private life.

Diana, PC  BOTH talking  to  these  reporters  did  not END the marriage. 
The  marriage  was over  in the late 1980's, right  after she , the broadmare, birthed the spare foul.
The final  part  was  not  her  talking to  Bashir  or him to  Dimbey. Long before  that , it  was over.


They  could  only fool  the media  for so long. TPTB  could only issue  generic  statements for  so long.

1990's,  PD  immense  popularity, interests, iconic figure and  PC  ,  his rank and title and  to  better long lenses  cameras  to  bold  paps and  so many  news and gossip/entertainment outlets  to  ahhhhh, that new thing called the INTERNET  was  coming, there was no way  for  PC and PD  to stay  legally  married  with  all press and media knowing they  were in separate households... separate  offices, separate  and never living together...only together  for  photo opts, things with the kids  and even keeping it together  for  BRF  duties became  more  a  chore, a forced chore. PD sitting at  TajMahal.    PD  glanced  back  instead of looking at  PC in the car. That famous photo.

PD  could have  stayed  quiet and holded up in KP, still,  it  was over.  No  media was fooled  or  could have been fooled.

I  posted up before  People magazine  cover stories  from the late 1980's. IT WAS OVER!!

I  know some of us do not like FACTS, but  check it  for yourself. I  might pull up those covers.

I agree. The marriage was over when CHarles got his heir and spare. Also not that he was never contacting Camilla since the marriage began with Diana.

Charles and DIana did keep up a facade of a marriage and still made joint appearances though Diana and Charles had more and more solo appearances and not as a couple
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:18:28 PM

Here is another.  A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:

BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997

Even though WIlliam and Harry were not "of age" they were not tots. I hope Uncle Charles talked to them at least about it. I doubt that he did.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:21:01 PM

@amabel. Here is an article highlighting the issues about HRH.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.htm

Also Charles Spencer had a prime opportunity to lay the foundation for the true reconciliation of two families that had lost someone so young and so important. Instead he went into a tantrum and spoilt it all. The royals were absolutely furious but exercised incredible discipline by not showing any emotions. The cheerleaders for such undignified displays like Holden felt he gave them a bloody nose. Yes he did...but at what cost. Later on, he was revealed to be a horrendous misogynist who made Prince Charles look like an absolute saint in his treatment of his wives and lovers.

Diana's sisters on the other hand showed how it should be done. There is no indication that anyone in the royal family has a single issue with them. They behaved like dignified and caring aunts, not some man child having a tantrum to show that it was him and only him who really cared about Diana.

Oh no. IMO Charles Spencer did not make Charles Windsor look like a saint. I think both were nasty in the way they treated their wives (Diana and Victoria and SPencer's second wife).  Charles Windsor IMO cannot pass judgment on Charles Spencer.

Spencer was raw with emotion at that service and spoke out. He did appear with the royals at the Fountain opening a few years later and the Windsors and Spencers were civil to each other.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:22:33 PM

Eloquent and to the point. That is what I am saying or trying to say all along. Diana was a lot more than her failed marriage. She was a human being with so many complex facets. Reading some of the commentary about her, you would imagine that she spend all her life from 19 to 36 crying her heart out about Charles' abandonment.

There were happy moments in her life. I rather suspect that some of those happy moments were with Charles and because of Charles. She had a sense of humor. She had friends (even within the royal family) and interests. The relentless need to make her a martyr ended up crucifying her and ruining all her romantic relationships. Someone she genuinely liked like Khan was frightened away by the media interest. It was just overwhelming. I remember when she was in the Caribbean and people were literally pushing cameras in her face. She was nearly in tears because it was becoming physical. Who can live like that?

Now that she is dead, the desire to take revenge is denying Diana her rightful place as a matriarch of the royal family. A woman who should be at Frogmore is consigned to a pay-per-view island. The HRH title that was offered back as a conciliatory gesture was thrown away by Charles Spencer. The bitter speech at the funeral meant that instead of the Spencers and Windsors working together to give those children space to recover; the monarchy closed ranks and cut Charles Spencer off completely. A rededication service that ought to have been a state occasion has been turned into a private affair with no cameras. When will this bitterness end?

Instead of all the royal family (including Camilla) celebrating Diana, she is now an uncomfortable presence that they must avoid at all costs. Bitterness and the desire for revenge is a fruitless and thankless endeavor.

Why on earth would Camilla celebrate Diana? She did not celebrate her when she was alive. I think Camilla would be branded a hypocrite. I don't see Diana as an "uncomfortable presence."

[royalanthropologist]

This comment has been removed by Moderator(SophieChloe) because it didn't abide by our community standards: User Conduct and Etiquette and Registration Agreement. Replies may also be deleted. 

.

[sandy]

[gmod]Edited as above [/gmod]
Now back on subject:

Charles had anger issues and his upbringing did not make him really great husband material for Diana. He just did not know how to look beyond his own ego. I think in a lot of ways Charles is a very confused person.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 08:03:58 PM

[amabel]

Here is another.  A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:

BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997

qwell I cant' remember where Curry posted the link to the alternative viewpoint but I would be more inclined to believe it than " a palace spokesman" saying that the queen offered it after the Charles Spencer eulogy. I'd have said that she would be in less of a mood to make any concession to Diana at that stage./

[sandy]

William said he would restore it when he is King (this reported by Diana and I believe it).