As if there could be new information.
Apparently that car was in a bad accident some time before. It was a redo and a rebuy.
Who knows? What?
Who kniows what?
The truth?
I love stick with Henri unk and pulled up. Dodo wanted to be more private and show D he could handle things. Really, he should have stayed at his house in ThecRitz, his fathers hotel. He did not need to drive her to his other house.
Henri was driving too fast. He wanted to outgun the paps. The paps on motorbike and the white Fiat were just hot on their route. D messed up too because she took no security her in her quest for privacy. TRyseJons was not security. Her security should have been a team with TRyse Jones in the car and him talking to one of her security in a lead car and one of her security driving a follow up car. Two cars for her with three bodyguards.
Yes that's the usual protocol, but the 2 bodyguards seem to feel that Dodi's father wouldn't pay for more secruty and that with Diana, who was attracting so much press attention, they could not do the job properly with only 2 of them. And Dodi messed up, constantly changing arrangments, not wanting te usual set up of 2 cars and so on and calling in Henri Paul who wasn't a trained driver and who was off duty, to do the driving at short notice.
If Mohammed Al Fayed had been there, no way would have Dodi left that hotel with Diana.
Why? he was the one who wouldn't get more bodyguards and who was keen on having the press know about his son's romance with Diana
He would have told his son to stay put so they could have left early in the morning. He probably was a whole lot better organizing staff than his son who was In control in Paris.
MAF cries a good game, if he cared at all about his son, let alone squiring around a high profile person like Diana, he would have had the level of security he uses when he travels, roughly about 4 times the security they had in terms of ppl and numbers of cars (8 vs 2) and likely doesnt travel in accident refurb'ed cars.
For a man that hoped Diana would get him into the good graces of British society, he handled it very carelessly, esp. given his sons drug habit and resultant indecisiveness, compounded by being spooked by the attention the press gave as a result of Diana. Being a hanger on in hollywood was no practice for the glare of the most famous woman on earth....with fatal results.
As for the show, im assuming it will detail the various problems it had that were "fixed" as that was not known back in 97.
MAF was not directing their every moment for them. I think it was Dodi that thought so much of himself that he tried to show Diana he could take care of everything & failed miserably. :mil3:
MAF is really a pretty appalling individual IMO. With all due respect to his terrible grief at his son Dodi dying in such a ghastly way, it's been deflect, deflect with him ever since the accident. Deflect any possible responsibility for the staff at the Ritz, for Henri Paul, for the car they were driving, for his son's actions that night. Instead throw it all on the BRF with mindless and baseless allegations and scuttlebut. Maybe somewhere there's a guilty conscience for some of what happened, I don't know, but MAF certainly hasn't done himself any good in the last twenty years.
His son was more reckless. Unless he ordered the police to stop Dodi from leaving the hotel, his hands were tied. He was pleading with Dodi to stay put.
If I were a relative of Diana I would be really upset not only at Dodi, but the slipshod way she was treated after the accident. I can't imagine not being disturbed over the time it took to get her to the hospital while she was bleeding to death. And the security guard should have made sure not to let the allegedly drunk driver get behind the wheel and also do a check to see if the seatbelts worked and car was safe. The car had been stolen and redeployed. No way would I have wanted a loved one getting into such a car.
I don't think the suspicions about the accident were exclusive to MAF.
For goodness sake, MAF had plenty of control over Dodi. He paid his bills, he told him to dietch Kelly Fisher and start courting Diana.. if he had wanted Diana and Dodi to be safe, he could have kept them in the hotel or insisted that they have heavy protection.
all the evidence seems to be that Dodi was rattled by the photographers following Diana, and did nto want them to be photographed..
He wasn't very bright, he annoyed his bodyguards by messing them around and changing arrangemnets and not telling them things. If MAF watned Diana safe, he must have known he should take charge.. but he wanted the romance to be known to the press and public... and he was too cheap to provide more guards
^ Charles pays for everything for his Sons but he does not micromanage their lives either. :epunch:
Quote from: amabel on December 19, 2017, 07:32:24 PM
For goodness sake, MAF had plenty of control over Dodi. He paid his bills, he told him to dietch Kelly Fisher and start courting Diana.. if he had wanted Diana and Dodi to be safe, he could have kept them in the hotel or insisted that they have heavy protection.
all the evidence seems to be that Dodi was rattled by the photographers following Diana, and did nto want them to be photographed..
He wasn't very bright, he annoyed his bodyguards by messing them around and changing arrangemnets and not telling them things. If MAF watned Diana safe, he must have known he should take charge.. but he wanted the romance to be known to the press and public... and he was too cheap to provide more guards
Not when they were in two different countries, obviously. If he had been there, no question Dodi would have stayed
Charles' parents could not stop him from bashing them to his biographer. There is so much a parent can do when the children get big
You know you guys are off course when you have me and amabel agreeing...on anything LOL. :lol: :teehee: :lol: MAH had Dodi under his thumb in the ways amabel mentioned. I think it was a case of he got rattled by the press attention, he wanted to show off in front of Diana, she had to reassure him when the paps were too much earlier in the day, so he likely felt emasculated, and as the day wore on and there were so many changes of plans, im sure he saw the frustration we see in the security cam on her face.
But the point is, had MAF had the proper security, there would have been a buffer for Dodi's inpulsiveness. Either they wouldnt have gone out back in that car, or theyd have had proper escort cars to keep the paps at bay, and the seatbelts would have been checked, and they could have used another car, MAF usually travels with 8.
Dodi may have been the spark, but without the oily rags of MAF's lack of security, nothing would have caught light, so to speak.
Also the BRF could have insisted on her security & the President of France could have insisted photographers not work after dark, but those things didn't happen either. MAF was not responsible for Diana's security.
Blaming him because he paid his Sons bills is like blaming Charles for Williams attitude toward the public. No one can control everything. :blameorchid:
And why were not exceptions made for Diana when it came to getting her to the hospital I get tired of the excuse that it was because that was the way France did things. Even if it helped kill her. If she had been anywhere else she would have been taken to the hospital by copter.
Exactly if she had been life lined she would of had a better chance. >(
Quote from: Kritter on December 20, 2017, 12:23:10 AM
Also the BRF could have insisted on her security & the President of France could have insisted photographers not work after dark, but those things didn't happen either. MAF was not responsible for Diana's security.
Blaming him because he paid his Sons bills is like blaming Charles for Williams attitude toward the public. No one can control everything. :blameorchid:
Diana was the one who refused to have BRF security.. she had to have PPOs with her when she had the boys, but she did not want to do so when she was on her own....
With all due respect to MAF, Diana was like a precious jewel to him. She was his possible passport to the highest echelons of British society and he really wanted to use her to that end. I would have thought that given her profile and status in the world, he could have done better with the security arrangements. His later ugly rants were just so that he could deflect and blame DOE for his miscalculations and basic incompetence in this affair.
Diana too made a terrible mistake declining royal protection. It was one of those foolhardy "I am doing my own thing" things that cost her dearly. Even a two-bit security firm would have known better than to put the mother of the future king of England in the back of a second hand write-off car driven by a drunk. It really something that Judge Judy would call "dumb".
Quote from: amabel on December 20, 2017, 11:57:48 AM
Diana was the one who refused to have BRF security.. she had to have PPOs with her when she had the boys, but she did not want to do so when she was on her own....
I guess you don't understand sarcasm. :sarcastic:
And the same argument applies that if Charles did not ditch her, she most likely would not have been in Paris that night.
Diana was wary about Charles' people reporting things and spying.
The mother of a future King of England should have kept the HRH and been assured of security protection by the royals no matter what. It was a stupid reckless move by the royals to cut her loose that way.
Charles shows his true feelings for his late ex by cooperating with people like Junor.
Yes, agree about MAH
@royalanthropologist & amabel, and to some of the others, he was responsible for her security, as she was his guest, and he had ulterior motives for her being around as RA mentioned, she had refused the PPO, and even if she was concerned about spying by the royals, she could have used private security firms, like Executive Outcomes,etc. and had Charles pay for it. If the royals wanted to spy on her, they bloody well could with or without a PPO there.
This was one of those times where once she made up her mind, she was very reticent to change it, even if it hurt her. It was the same thing where she would get advice from ppl and do the opposite.
She had a wonderful intuition and heart for peoples emotion, but it seems in matters related to herself, she didnt have as good an outcome, I often wonder if it was that she felt inadequate at times, those hours brooding alone at KP weren't always the best for her, and there were times when she needed to have her head have a bigger say than her heart...maybe she'd still be here :xmas4:
MAF was pushing his son to marry Diana. So he should have made sure Diana was safe and taken care of. He overestimated his son's "abilities".
The most basic thing is that the Queen should have let her keep the HRH at least for Will and Harry's sakes.
Diana was out and about and did not have time to brood IMO.
I would say if the medical care had not been the travesty it was in Paris France, she'd be with us today. Even heart specialist Dr. Christiaan Barnard said so.
@sandy. Diana was offered security by the queen no less and she declined. She is also on record as having volunteered to give up the HRH title and all her military appointments. All that Diana did unprompted as she sought to manipulate the queen and the family. Of course the queen was going to be angry and of course she was going to accept Diana's word that she wanted neither the HRH nor the royal protection.
It is nothing to do with W&H since they have never advised her or asked her to give up those things. It is her (by her own volition) who gave it up. If you tell lies to people about what you want and need, don't be surprised if they do exactly as you asked. Diana was a grown up 36 year old and quite capable of making her own mind up as to what she wanted. If she chose to lie about it, that was her business.
Since she was no longer representing the queen or married to the queen's heir, a number of things followed. Saying she feared "Charles people" is an insult to members of the armed forces/security people who have served the BRF for years. As if they have nothing better to do that spy on Charles' ex wife. There was zilch reason for Charles to be spying on her anyway. He had not taken any real interest in Diana's affairs since 1986 (she herself constantly said he ignored her all the time, going as far as inviting one of her current lovers to his parties; a clear sign that he did not care what she did). I doubt he would start ten years later, after they had been divorced.
This was not the BRF doing a "reckless stupid thing". It was Diana doing that in her paranoid state. Then she compounded it by associating with the likes of MAF and his son. It seems incredulous to me that the queen and BRF are doing exactly what Diana asked them to do...take way the HRH and security.
No she did not "volunteer" to do any such thing. She leaked divorce terms to the press but she never said "I don't want the HRH." If she had she would not have been concerned about it and moved on. William even said he'd restore it when he became King.
Charles has people who do report things for him. Diana changed the locks at KP lest Fawcett do some snooping.
The HRH should have been a given in the divorce settlement. No Diana did not "decline it."
Charles still cooperates with Junor and his friends still provide gossip for Junor. He can't let it go.
QuoteSaying she feared "Charles people" is an insult to members of the armed forces/security people who have served the BRF for years.
No it wasn't, you said it yourself "
people who have served the BRF for years". I wonder where their loyalties would lie. :hmm:
Well she did decline their services....her fault, not theirs.
@sandy. HRH is never a given. It is in the gift of the monarch. If you have a manipulative daughter in law pretending not to want it in order to force you to give it to her, you take it away. Logical way of thinking. Diana said she was mistreated by the royal family, even calling them "this f....n family". Perhaps the best way to let he be truly "free" of them was to allow her to live the life of a private citizen without the burdens of the "terrible" monarchy??
Diana was very paranoid but there is absolutely no reason for Charles to want to be involved in her life after 1996. He was reportedly delighted at the divorce and happy to be a "free man". Why would he want to keep following someone he wanted to get away from? Doesn't make sense.
QuoteDiana was very paranoid but there is absolutely no reason for Charles to want to be involved in her life after 1996.
Sure he would want to keep an eye on her because as long as she was living she had the ability to destroy both him & Camilla. :brightside:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 04:55:50 PM
Well she did decline their services....her fault, not theirs.
@sandy. HRH is never a given. It is in the gift of the monarch. If you have a manipulative daughter in law pretending not to want it in order to force you to give it to her, you take it away. Logical way of thinking. Diana said she was mistreated by the royal family, even calling them "this f....n family". Perhaps the best way to let he be truly "free" of them was to allow her to live the life of a private citizen without the burdens of the "terrible" monarchy??
Diana was very paranoid but there is absolutely no reason for Charles to want to be involved in her life after 1996. He was reportedly delighted at the divorce and happy to be a "free man". Why would he want to keep following someone he wanted to get away from? Doesn't make sense.
Well she has a manipulative daughter in law now. How do you think Camilla got in by being pleasant?
Diana never made that comment publicly it was on a tape. You do excuse the talk by Charles on the Camillagate tape because it was private, it was not exactly "proper" language.
Diana was not paranoid enough at first. She realized later how her "friends" (translation: Charles friends) were encouraging Charles and Camilla to sneak around on their spouses.
Diana should have gotten the HRH. That is a no brainer. IMO
Quote from: Kritter on December 20, 2017, 05:14:09 PM
Sure he would want to keep an eye on her because as long as she was living she had the ability to destroy both him & Camilla. :brightside:
How typical of Diana. Someone divorces you and you are still thinking about your capability of "destroying" them. How would she "destroy" them exactly? She had already washed all her dirty laundry and they had survived it. It was her who was destroying herself with her press intrigues. Instead of living her life, she was thinking of how to revenge on people who did not give a hoot about her. How sad is that?
As for the HRH; it was is not a "no brainer" because a decision has to be made based on the circumstances and the feelings of the queen. That was the queen's decision to make, not one for Diana's fans. It was her title and her household. Diana "leaked" details in which she specifically said she was no longer going to be an HRH. She then got her friends to lie to the press that the queen had taken it away. The queen's staff was so irritated that they released an unequivocal statement clearly saying that the decision to give up the title was "hers and hers alone". Ditto for the security. For whatever reasons, she claimed she did not want them and then her fans turn round complaining about the BRF for doing exactly what she asked them to do???
I would say C and C shot themselves in the foot.
Charles aired and washed his dirty laundry first in 1994 and even this year with his gal pal Penny Junor.
I see it as a no brainer even if you do not. I think Camilla fans approve of taking it away.
Diana never said she wanted the HRH taken away.
The decision was out of Diana's hands. She was not calling the shots about the title and it was not her decision. One report said Charles persuaded the QUeen to take it away.
Diana did not make the decision to lose her title. Ever. And the Queen never said Diana did.
Prince William Wanted to Return Diana's Title - The Duke of Cambridge Made a Vow to His Mom (http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/news/a44146/princess-diana-royal-title/)
So if as you say Diana wanted the title removed, why would she be upset when it was removed. A big contradiction.
I believe Charles was behind it.
This is what was said by the Palace spokesman at the time:
A palace spokesman said: ``This agreement recognises, on the one hand, that the princess took the style HRH on marriage and therefore would be expected to give it up on divorce. And, on the other hand, it recognises she remains in a unique position as the mother of Prince William"
It says nothing about it being Diana's decision to have it removed.
Charles does not give or take away titles until he is King. It is the queen. However, I suspect that Charles, QM, DOE and Charles all agreed that Diana must never again be allowed to trivialize the HRH title like she did with that leak. She was punished for the leak and I am surprised she expected any other another response after all she had done in Panorama and Morton.
You ask why Diana would be upset about the title. It is because she was trying to manipulate and finally got comeuppance for it. That was not the first time Diana said one thing and the later said the exact opposite. Just look at her panorama interview. Says she does not want a divorce and then does everything to bring about a divorce. It was typical of her and people who have not matured emotionally. They send out mixed messages all the time. You end up in a double bind with them. If you don't do what they asked for then they complain and they do the same if you do as they asked.
In any case, Diana said she had had such a hard time in the BRF. Wouldn't it be logical for her to completely disassociate herself from them? I mean really stop it all, no HRH or royal references and lead a quiet life away from her abusers? Of course she couldn't do that because it would mean no longer having press attention? It is her that chose to remain public and controversial. Had she gone about her holiday like normal people instead of calling in the press, we would be having a different conversation altogether.
As for C&C "shooting themselves in the foot", both were safely with their families in the privacy of their holiday homes at the exact moment Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris.
The public will call Charles "The tampon King" when he reigns since that is how most of them remember him. :windsor1:
I would argue that not all members of "the public". The ones who remember that criminally obtained and immorally distributed tape are of a certain age. By the time Charles becomes King, many of them will have other pressing matters to deal with than the spoils of a criminally obtained recording done some 30 years ago. People really do move on sometimes. They really do.
And of course Charles as a leader must accept that the world sometimes has crass people that refer to others as "tampons" for nothing more than the sake of malice. It is part of being in public life, knowing that you get gems and lowlifes in equal measure. Charles will survive it like he has survived all the other mud thrown at him.
That tape is now part of History whether Charles & his fans like it or not.
Just like squiggygate and the crank calls. But I am sure that natural reticence and basic consideration will deter many members of the public from calling Diana names as a consequence of the behavior she exhibited on those tape. Of course someone like Trump might just say it as it is but those are unusual people.
Besides both C&D have done a lot more than engage in embarrassing sex talk or make crank calls. I am sure there are many people who understand that and celebrate the good things they have done.
QuoteJust like squiggygate
Yes part of history.
Quotepublic from calling Diana names
Some in the public still call her names, you included & always will. Some won't because they understand what she was up against considering they have also been in abusive or had traumatic experiences.
QuoteOf course someone like Trump might just say it as it is but those are unusual people.
He says the things he does because he thinks he is living in a reality show.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 08:21:26 PM
I would argue that not all members of "the public". The ones who remember that criminally obtained and immorally distributed tape are of a certain age. By the time Charles becomes King, many of them will have other pressing matters to deal with than the spoils of a criminally obtained recording done some 30 years ago. People really do move on sometimes. They really do.
And of course Charles as a leader must accept that the world sometimes has crass people that refer to others as "tampons" for nothing more than the sake of malice. It is part of being in public life, knowing that you get gems and lowlifes in equal measure. Charles will survive it like he has survived all the other mud thrown at him.
[/quote
Charles biographers will refer to this during and after his lifetime.
Double post auto-merged: December 20, 2017, 11:16:19 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 08:40:39 PM
Just like squiggygate and the crank calls. But I am sure that natural reticence and basic consideration will deter many members of the public from calling Diana names as a consequence of the behavior she exhibited on those tape. Of course someone like Trump might just say it as it is but those are unusual people.
Besides both C&D have done a lot more than engage in embarrassing sex talk or make crank calls. I am sure there are many people who understand that and celebrate the good things they have done.
The "crank" calls were never recorded. And I wonder if Hoare worries that his calls to Diana were recorded. He put some calls in himself to Diana.
Charles and Camilla showed great selfishness in wishing an ambulance strike would never end (the strike cost human lives) so her pesky husband who was deployed in London during the strike, would not return and spoil their fun. Shows their mindset. This was recorded on the Camillagate tape.
@Kritter. I must address something you wrote because it was personal to me (you always ...get personal when the argument is getting away from you) You wrote:
"Some in the public still call her names, you included & always will."
That is an outright lie. I don't think I have ever called Diana names. I may describe her character in harsh terms but never "names" or gratuitous insults. In any case there is nothing I have said about Diana that comes close to the rather crass (IMO) terms you have used to describe Charles. Nothing at all.
When you speak of Diana in the terms you use that is calling her names. Generally I make fun of Charles & Camilla. Many of Charles's fans go on about Diana's mental problems in terms that indicate Diana was a mental case including you.
I never said I was an innocent or pretended to be but made an observation about what I read every day. Maybe I should have put it in parenthesis because I do not know that you personally will continue with your character Assasination of Diana
QuoteDiana that comes close to the rather crass (IMO) terms you have used to describe Charles.
Arguments do not get away from me because I generally just leave or ignore the conversation when it gets ridiculous & a repeat of statements already made. I will point out that you have done what you say your objection to my post was, I guess that makes us equal then doesn't it. I don't use crass terms to describe Charles. I do say things that you as a fan would not use but I guess that is a problem when people have differing opinions. One is not right or wrong when it comes to opinions only when it relates to facts (not propaganda but facts).
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 07:58:35 PM
Charles does not give or take away titles until he is King. It is the queen. However, I suspect that Charles, QM, DOE and Charles all agreed that Diana must never again be allowed to trivialize the HRH title like she did with that leak. She was punished for the leak and I am surprised she expected any other another response after all she had done in Panorama and Morton.
You ask why Diana would be upset about the title. It is because she was trying to manipulate and finally got comeuppance for it. That was not the first time Diana said one thing and the later said the exact opposite. Just look at her panorama interview. Says she does not want a divorce and then does everything to bring about a divorce. It was typical of her and people who have not matured emotionally. They send out mixed messages all the time. You end up in a double bind with them. If you don't do what they asked for then they complain and they do the same if you do as they asked.
In any case, Diana said she had had such a hard time in the BRF. Wouldn't it be logical for her to completely disassociate herself from them? I mean really stop it all, no HRH or royal references and lead a quiet life away from her abusers? Of course she couldn't do that because it would mean no longer having press attention? It is her that chose to remain public and controversial. Had she gone about her holiday like normal people instead of calling in the press, we would be having a different conversation altogether.
As for C&C "shooting themselves in the foot", both were safely with their families in the privacy of their holiday homes at the exact moment Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris.
Charles can talk. He would not order he would "persuade."
Charles did plenty of "trivializing" of his HRH. IMO.
Diana was not "punished" for the leak. The quote I had clearly said that upon divorce she was not entitled to keep the HRH and this from a Palace spokesperson. The Queen's spokesperson said hey we were going to give her the HRH but we are punishing her now and withholding it. That would sound really petty and small on the Queen's part. IMO.
ANd Charles trivialized his HRH by bashing his parents in 1994 a whole year before the Panorama interview.
Why on earth would Diana tell millions of viewers she wanted a divorce? Charles did not tell Dimbleby this in his interview or the book. Dimbleby was Charles' Morton.
Charles is typical of a man who never grew up, obsessed with how "mean" he was treated when he was a little boy.
Whatever his faults are, Charles is not the one that got rid of his security and entered a write off car with a drunken driver to engage in a high speed chase with the paparazzi. That was Diana's poor decision-making and it cost her her life.
^ A very simplified form of dismissal as if Diana knew all the things you listed & proceeded to go ahead anyway.
There are some that believe the royals set her up for Death so C&C could stop worrying. Is that the real reason Charles immediately flew to Paris instead of being a real Father & helping his Sons deal with their grief?
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 21, 2017, 12:48:05 AM
Whatever his faults are, Charles is not the one that got rid of his security and entered a write off car with a drunken driver to engage in a high speed chase with the paparazzi. That was Diana's poor decision-making and it cost her her life.
Diana did not say well I think I'll get in the car with a drunken driver and be involved in a high speed chase.
Why was it HER poor decision making. Before MAF was being blamed for the accident. So which is it?
The sole survivor does not remember a thing. I would like to know why as a security guard he let a "drunk" driver get behind the wheel and did not check to see if the seatbelts functioned. Of course he's off the hook because he can't remember a thing.
And of course Diana's "medical care" was so pathetic. Letting her sit bleeding for a while before even attempting to get her out of the car and taking a loonnnggg time getting her to a hospital passing two other hospitals on the way.
Her very first mistake was Morton and Panorama which made it untenable for her to remain Charles' wife, in theory and public at least. Then she compounded those mistakes by declining professional security due to her silly conspiracy theories. Then she called the press to her holiday...etc. Bad decision-making every step of the way and nothing to do with any member of the BRF. Of course her tunnel-vision fans always cheered her on thinking they were sticking it to the BRF and Charles. Instead they were helping her write her own tragic end.
Had she kept her mouth shut about her private life or alternatively arranged for proper security after her divorce, she would be ok. Ditto if she had not opted to try and rope herself into Camilla's 50th birthday party or manipulate Khan by using Dodi and the press.
QuoteOf course her tunnel-vision fans always cheered her on thinking they were sticking it to the BRF and Charles. Instead they were helping her write her own tragic end.
And now it is Diana's fans fault. xD I think Snoopy & Woodstock were in on it to. :hall3:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 21, 2017, 01:14:07 AM
Her very first mistake was Morton and Panorama which made it untenable for her to remain Charles' wife, in theory and public at least. Then she compounded those mistakes by declining professional security due to her silly conspiracy theories. Then she called the press to her holiday...etc. Bad decision-making every step of the way and nothing to do with any member of the BRF. Of course her tunnel-vision fans always cheered her on thinking they were sticking it to the BRF and Charles. Instead they were helping her write her own tragic end.
Had she kept her mouth shut about her private life or alternatively arranged for proper security after her divorce, she would be ok. Ditto if she had not opted to try and rope herself into Camilla's 50th birthday party or manipulate Khan by using Dodi and the press.
You keep on ignoring that Dimbleby book and interview. What a gem: Charles admitted he married Diana preferring the mistress; he said he would "keep on" seeing married Camilla, he trashed his parents, he blamed everybody else for his own shortcomings. And in the interview he outed his mistress forcing the divorce of the PBs.
If Charles kept his mouth shut and stopped whinging to his friends during his marriage to Diana and clung to the mistress, maybe he would have been a real man and had a marriage that worked. Charles started writing whining letters to his friends saying such things as "all she did was say yes to me" and they started bashing the wife and bringing mistress Camilla to safe houses to "comfort" Poor Poor Charles.
A real man would have stopped seeing the other woman who clearly had her own agenda.
Diana was sitting on a diving board, got her picture taken which wiped Grinning Camilla off the covers of newspapers. Dodi and Hasnet Khan were not near her.
Diana did not cause her own death. That is just a cruel thing to say about a human being. You keep saying it was an accident now you blame Diana for it all.
QuoteThat is just a cruel thing to say about a human being.
I have heard that sperm count is supposed to be considered worse. :lift:
What is ignored is that Diana had to contend with nasty stories leaked by Charles' buddies to "help" Charles when he whinged about Diana. The real "gem" was how Diana tossed out Harvey the dog because Charles liked him. In reality, Harvey the dog was incontinent and had to be confined to the kennels at Highgrove (which probably are better than studio apartments people live in) and Charles was never deprived of the dog. This was all pre Morton. ANd Camilla would call up the Sun Editor to give her side of the story. Funny how she knew all about what Charles did in her reports.
Camilla was just another gossip trying to promote Charles over the truth. :shame:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 08:21:26 PM
I would argue that not all members of "the public". The ones who remember that criminally obtained and immorally distributed tape are of a certain age. By the time Charles becomes King, many of them will have other pressing matters to deal with than the spoils of a criminally obtained recording done some 30 years ago. People really do move on sometimes. They really do.
And of course Charles as a leader must accept that the world sometimes has crass people that refer to others as "tampons" for nothing more than the sake of malice. It is part of being in public life, knowing that you get gems and lowlifes in equal measure. Charles will survive it like he has survived all the other mud thrown at him.
Well it just goes to show you that Charles is pretty crass himself as he was the one wanting to become the "Tampon" in the first place, so to be fair. Basically what you are saying Charles is a gem and lowlife himself. One never heard Diana speak in such crass terms even is squiggy
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 20, 2017, 04:18:32 PM
@sandy. Diana was offered security by the queen no less and she declined. She is also on record as having volunteered to give up the HRH title and all her military appointments. All that Diana did unprompted as she sought to manipulate the queen and the family. Of course the queen was going to be angry and of course she was going to accept Diana's word that she wanted neither the HRH nor the royal protection.
It is nothing to do with W&H since they have never advised her or asked her to give up those things. It is her (by her own volition) who gave it up. If you tell lies to people about what you want and need, don't be surprised if they do exactly as you asked. Diana was a grown up 36 year old and quite capable of making her own mind up as to what she wanted. If she chose to lie about it, that was her business.
SThi
THE HRH Is not the issue, but what is the issue is her protection, DIana was the one who insisted that she didnt' want police protection. Some time before her death she spoke to somone senior in the police and said to him that she still didn't want it, that she had not had PPOs for some time and had been quite OK going around London, without any PPOs and felt safe enough doing that. I'm sure the queen would have preferred her to have protection, and it was mandatory for her to have the ROyal PPos when she had Will and Harry with her. It was her choice that she wanted to be without PPOs when she was not with her children. So if she was the guest of MAF, a man who has always been security conscious, it was up to him to provide adequate bodyguards to make sure that his son's ladyfirend was safe.
The problem was Diana was the victim of poor decision making by Dodi that night not listening to MAF to stay put. I do have to agree had Diana retained her RPO's this would not have happened. Though correct me if I am wrong wasn't Sarah York' RPO removed unless her daughters were with her?.
I believe Sarah's RPO's were removed unless her daughters were with her. In future I think divorced wives and mother of senior royal children should automatically get to keep the security and it should be mandatory.
How can it be mandatory when Diana refused it? She did not want PPOs. She refused to have them, even when the Police cleary were worried about her being unprotecte
Anything can be made mandatory by the royal family if they see fit. IMO.
what they could force Dian to have PPOS every time she went out? If they had doen so, I'm sure people would be claiming that they were brutally forcing these people onto Diana.. who "just wanted to walk around London like a normal person"
Yes, to protect her as the mother of a future King.
I don't see how the BRF could have insisted on RPOs being around Diana on foreign territory/seas as when she was on MAF's yacht and in Paris. Of course VIPs are sometimes protected as a matter of course by foreign governments but Diana was in a bit of an ambiguous position.
I think Diana thought that MAF being so wealthy and influential could afford security. He needed it for himself and his family even if Diana did not show up. I think the divorce settlement should have provided (and insisted on) protection for the mother of a future King. Divorced or not, she still was William and Harry's mother.
Quote from: sandy on December 21, 2017, 02:15:23 PM
Yes, to protect her as the mother of a future King.
and how exactly would they force her to accept PPOS? put a guard on her apartment in KP and not let her go out unless she ahd the PPos with her? You may remember that Diana jumped out of a hotel room in Austria, one night, to sneak out and meet someone (presumably a lover) without her PPO knowing.
Double post auto-merged: December 21, 2017, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: Curryong on December 21, 2017, 02:15:45 PM
I don't see how the BRF could have insisted on RPOs being around Diana on foreign territory/seas as when she was on MAF's yacht and in Paris. Of course VIPs are sometimes protected as a matter of course by foreign governments but Diana was in a bit of an ambiguous position.
I would think that as MAF was known to be pretty jumpy about security for himself.. and had Bodyguards for Dodi, who was so unknown that it seems very unlikely that anyone would attack him, you'd expect that when he had a very important guest stayng with him/his son, he would ensure that there were enough guards to give Diana proper protection. But while 2 people were probably enough to guard Dodi... 2 clearly weren't enough to keep back a mad bunch of paparazzi.. and Dodi was clearly rattled by their being chased by them... But Dodi didn't even LET the poor men do their job properly but confused them by changing arrangments and keeping them short of information.
If MAF had really wanted to ensure Diana was safe and not bothered by the Press, surely he knowing how foolish and erratic his son was, he should have insisted on their having say 4 guards and that they were allowed to do their job.
I could see Diana's point in wanting to live a normal life post divorce however, The night in question or day for that matter was just an unexpected jaunt to Paris the French Government had no idea Diana was going to be in Paris that was just a whim for Dodi, the rest as I said was poor decision making on his part to impress Diana. Though with hindsight and in theory if William and Kate were ever to divorce I am sure it will be made mandatory Kate retains her RPO's to prevent another tragedy
if she complelety refused to have them, I can't see how they would impose them on her. However I think that if any other royal wife was divorced, she would be only too glad to retain PPOs if offered them...
Quote from: amabel on December 21, 2017, 07:11:18 PM
and how exactly would they force her to accept PPOS? put a guard on her apartment in KP and not let her go out unless she ahd the PPos with her? You may remember that Diana jumped out of a hotel room in Austria, one night, to sneak out and meet someone (presumably a lover) without her PPO knowing.
Double post auto-merged: December 21, 2017, 07:16:02 PM
I would think that as MAF was known to be pretty jumpy about security for himself.. and had Bodyguards for Dodi, who was so unknown that it seems very unlikely that anyone would attack him, you'd expect that when he had a very important guest stayng with him/his son, he would ensure that there were enough guards to give Diana proper protection. But while 2 people were probably enough to guard Dodi... 2 clearly weren't enough to keep back a mad bunch of paparazzi.. and Dodi was clearly rattled by their being chased by them... But Dodi didn't even LET the poor men do their job properly but confused them by changing arrangments and keeping them short of information.
If MAF had really wanted to ensure Diana was safe and not bothered by the Press, surely he knowing how foolish and erratic his son was, he should have insisted on their having say 4 guards and that they were allowed to do their job.
It is not proven that she jumped out to see a "lover." It was on a ski trip.
Keeping the RPOs would be mandatory and if the ex wife wanted to receive a settlement she'd have to agree to the terms.
@amabel and
@Curryong-Good points regarding Diana and her choice to refuse a RPO. She was an adult who was able to make her own decisions regarding her own personal safety at home and abroad. Living at KP she would have had some security as do all of the palace residents, but she appeared to be convinced that as long as she used common sense that she would be as safe as any other London resident. If she wanted to accept protection when abroad, that was her choice to do so as well.
In the end it appeared that she believed the security guard(s) offered by MAF were sufficient for her own safety. We all know how the story ends.
If the BRF and the government believes that the security situation requires full time protection for some members of the BRF and only part time for others, then it leads me to believe they've researched the situation and the likelihood that someone requires protection. It was offered to Diana and she declined it. The few divorced mothers/fathers of the BRF knew that their minor children may or may not require RPOs. At this point in time Louise and James do not have personal RPOs and their mother is only protected on her engagements. Should Sophie and Edward divorce while their children are minors, I don't know if they'd receive protection.
I think in future RPOs should be mandatory if an ex wants any sort of divorce settlement money.
Quote
I think in future RPOs should be mandatory if an ex wants any sort of divorce settlement money.
On the other hand the British government and the taxpayers might take issue with that requirement of a full time RPO for adults who will no longer associated as working members of the BRF. :shrug: The divorce settlement money comes from their spouse and his/her personal accounts. The RPO is paid for by the taxpayer. The BRF has already "slimmed" down security costs by reducing the number of full time RPOs assigned to the members of the family who are still married couples. Sophie Wessex, The Gloucesters and the Kents only have protection when they perform their engagements on behalf of their charities and the monarch. The York princesses no longer have RPOs but their own private security that their father pays for out of his pocket.
Hypothetically is the government and the taxpayers going to agree to provide Sophie, Countess of Wessex with a full time RPO if she's divorced from Prince Edward? Would they do the same for Katherine, Duchess of Kent or Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester especially if these adults decide that they no longer wish to have one?
I'm just not sure that you can force adults to accept taxpayer provided security if they do not want it. Now the minor children who have full time security: George, Charlotte, (baby Cambridge) and any of Harry's future children would be an entirely different story. They will have to retain their RPOs if it is deemed necessary for them to have one.
If Diana was set up by TPTB no amount of security would have stopped the accident from happening.
Yes, and how could security have prodded them getting her out of the car. There seemed to be an effort to keep her from the hospital as long as possible, just shameful. First she sat in the car unattended until finally she was removed then placed in an overly slow ambulance. Talk about negligence. Also the only survivor has amnesia and can't explain why as a security person he allegedly let a 'drunk' get behind the wheel.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 12:45:25 AM
Quote from: TLLK on December 21, 2017, 11:01:25 PM
On the other hand the British government and the taxpayers might take issue with that requirement of a full time RPO for adults who will no longer associated as working members of the BRF. :shrug: The divorce settlement money comes from their spouse and his/her personal accounts. The RPO is paid for by the taxpayer. The BRF has already "slimmed" down security costs by reducing the number of full time RPOs assigned to the members of the family who are still married couples. Sophie Wessex, The Gloucesters and the Kents only have protection when they perform their engagements on behalf of their charities and the monarch. The York princesses no longer have RPOs but their own private security that their father pays for out of his pocket.
Hypothetically is the government and the taxpayers going to agree to provide Sophie, Countess of Wessex with a full time RPO if she's divorced from Prince Edward? Would they do the same for Katherine, Duchess of Kent or Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester especially if these adults decide that they no longer wish to have one?
I'm just not sure that you can force adults to accept taxpayer provided security if they do not want it. Now the minor children who have full time security: George, Charlotte, (baby Cambridge) and any of Harry's future children would be an entirely different story. They will have to retain their RPOs if it is deemed necessary for them to have one.
As I said exceptions should certainly have been made for the mother of a future King. I would only apply this to senior royals not distant cousins or anything like that. Those way down in line of succession lead more "normal" lives and some have actual jobs outside the royal family.
QuoteAs I said exceptions should certainly have been made for the mother of a future King. I would only apply this to senior royals not distant cousins or anything like that
Now IMO that would be reasonable, but the government and the taxpayers might balk at the idea of the state being required security to a former member of the royal family especially if the person doesn't want it. If the former spouse has concerns about being "spied" upon by the RPOs like Diana did, then they might prefer to hire their own security and the taxpayers might require the royals to pay for it. :shrug: Now Sarah Ferguson might have been okay with being provided with a RPO and at the time of her divorce she had been considered a senior royal with her children being 5th and 6th in the line of succession. However the public was likely not in the mood to provide taxpayer supported security for her.
Interesting back and forth, so interesting to look at both sides, I remember Ken Wharf saying that had the Queen insisted on Diana having PPO's he feels shed have complied. But at the same time like
@TLLK and amabel said, shes free to make up her own mind, and she could have made the RF pay for private security, why she didnt do that, that parts almost as big a head scratcher as the whole Spencer family letting her walk into the whole thing to begin with.
Wharf also was the one who witnessed the mark in the snow where Diana jumped out of her window and she was seen coming in the hotel in the AM when it would have been impossible if she was still in her room, so short of a CCTV, I dont know what more "proof" ppl want?
As for Charles going to Paris, yes there might have been a small bit of him trying to be seen to be doing "the right thing" trying to erase the image(largely deserved) of uncaring spouse. However, I do believe that the vast majority of his motives were to do the right thing for the boys as they would want their mother to have a "family" burial and likely wouldnt fully comprehend at that time the complex ins and outs of planning the funeral, and frankly I think theyd have been shocked at HM and PP attitude towards the funeral arrangements they wanted (they likely know now, although theyre neck deep in the family, so idk what all they feel at liberty to disclose publicly).
Without (and i have to sit down cause im going to say something nice) Charles's actions, the funeral we all needed to honor her and try to heal from that awful week wouldnt have happened, and while I think he has much to answer for in the whole courtship and marriage, I was thankful that someone in the RF stuck up for what she deserved in death.
I know that some of the Diana side doesnt always agree with what
@royalanthropologist says, but the story of Diana is not black and white, and she does treat Diana and her fans much kinder than what she gets on the other end, calling her gender and other things into question really doesnt add to the discourse, or will likely be successful in persuading her to change her mind.
I wish Dianas life was perfect and she did nothing wrong, but thats not the truth, rather than that fact being a cause to panic and recriminate, I think it allows us to see her as a real person, and seeking to understand the reasons for those things makes her just as if not more lovable as underneath it all she was just a wounded girl trying to find peace and love, just like all of us are.
I think that seeing that and taking it into account when we campaign for Diana makes our argument much more effective than just verbally throwing sand in the other persons face. Id like to think that if there was a point I disagreed with RA on over D/C/C id be more effective in persuasion with my approach. Especially this time of year, just my 2 cents. :flower: :snowflake: :xmas15:
QuoteHowever, I do believe that the vast majority of his motives were to do the right thing for the boys as they would want their mother to have a "family" burial and likely wouldnt fully comprehend at that time the complex ins and outs of planning the funeral
Then why was his main interest "How will this affect Me & Camilla". Everything that happened after Diana's death (except trying to get her Sons to ignore their grief) was driven by the public.
Quote
I was thankful that someone in the RF stuck up for what she deserved in death.
She did not deserve to see her Sons used for a PR campaign at her funeral.
QuoteDiana side doesnt always agree with what @royalanthropologist
The truth does not take sides. Propaganda is the only thing that does
that.
Quote
calling her gender and other things into question really doesnt add to the discourse, or will likely be successful in persuading her to change her mind.
I have to assume that this is an attack on me & no one is trying to change anyone's mind we are just expressing our opinions. I am starting to wonder about your motives though. I ask about gender because we really don't know but a female does not generally take the side of an abuser.
QuoteRA on over D/C/C id be more effective in persuasion with my approach.
Once again we are expressing our opinions & can do it in our own way & do not have to follow your guidelines.
You have not only offended me with your post but pissed me off at the same time.
If RA is that thin skinned then maybe she should stop the diatribes about Diana & see that C&C were wrong & still continue trying to destroy her reputation through others.
Not everything Charles did that week was about his public image, he could have done what he usually does which is bend to Mommy's wishes, hes usually so afraid to go against his parents, it was a rare episode of him showing some backbone, even if it was because he had to look the boys in the face, he could have if he wanted to thrown up his hands and said the queen wont allow a full state like funeral.
As much as id like to sock him for how he treated Diana and all the times he made her cry with the awful things he said to her over the years, if one wants Diana to be treated fairly with her shortcomings, one also has to acknowledge the times when Charles does something decent. (I really dislike that I was made to defend Charles to explain that).
I agree she did not deserve for her sons to be used as human shields at the event to protect Charles sorry behind, but also when one uses their head, did the public have the right to tear him limb from limb? The heart might want to say yes, but the law and the head, says no.
Had charles not spoken up, shed have had a private funeral with no procession, no public TVs in hyde park and soundsystems, no WA service, etc. People would have been left a lot more confused and upset without having that event to vent our grief.
TBH theres plenty of propaganda that gets spouted on both sides.
Im not attacking you, im merely suggesting that the approach is not the most effective approach to try and get royalant. to see your way of thinking. The question of Diana and abuse is a very complicated issue. Theres plenty of neglect and what one would call "failure to thrive" or " duty of care" in respect to how Diana was provided company, and Charles companionship, as well as her instruction of royal roles, and the overwhelming stress of so many roles at once.
As far as physical, they both gave as good as they got, and often Diana was the instigator, once she could have killed Charles when she stunned him hitting him on the head with an ashtray during a row.
The later years as much as i hated hearing him say certain comments like telling her she looked ridiculous when she wore sexy undies for him, she also could be cutting to him as well saying hed never be king to him, etc. They both gave and got about the same, except for those early years, where one says neglect becomes abuse, ill leave to the professionals, but compared to the country as a whole, she was far better off that what one usually thinks of as abuse victims.
I dont want to speak for RA, but shes not saying C&C were right, shes merely describing some of the incidents and behaviors Diana had that drove Charles away, she actually likes Diana a lot and is more sympathetic to her cause than you might think, its just she can see the good and the bad in Diana, where some choose to ignore it.
Im not saying you "have" to follow "my" guidelines, I dont have guidelines. Im merely showing a way to make your case more effective in both having C&C people see Dianas side as well as being more able to refute the claims of people like Junor and other C&C fans. In general terms, people dont like being mocked, made fun of, etc. its usually better to try and, like steven covey says, if you want to be understood, first seek to understand.
If my post has offended and upset you so much, perhaps its not RA who has the thin skin, as neither outcome was my intent (but I did expect it, given previous convos here with people who share your point of view). :flower: :flower: :flower:
I already told you that I am not trying to convince anyone to change their mind & have an opinion the same as mine. I am just here to express my opinion & do not need your input on whether or not it suits your taste. I have never stated that Diana is perfect so get off your grand & glorious superior high horse & stop accusing people of things they have not done.
I think you can imagine what I think you should do with your opinion of me. :wellduh:
Quote from: Trudie on December 21, 2017, 11:20:35 AM
The problem was Diana was the victim of poor decision making by Dodi that night not listening to MAF to stay put. I do have to agree had Diana retained her RPO's this would not have happened. Though correct me if I am wrong wasn't Sarah York' RPO removed unless her daughters were with her?.
I agree with you. I am not sure Sarah lost hers but Sarah was in no way as high profile as Diana. Diana's life was becoming a tabloid caricature with people shoving cameras in her face and calling her names to get her to cry for a good photo. It really was a monumental mistake to get rid of RPO in such a situation.
I might "get" the issue about being spied on if there had been a motive e.g. if Charles had been a possessive husband but he was not. In fact his main fault was completely ignoring Diana, sometimes even when she provoked him to get a reaction. In such circumstances, I don't think POW would want to follow her around after the divorce.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 07:19:34 AM
Quote from: sandy on December 21, 2017, 02:10:28 PM
Anything can be made mandatory by the royal family if they see fit. IMO.
Not if they are dealing with a paranoid ex daughter in law who is known to "leak" to the press about how much the "men in grey suits" are making her life a nightmare. I can imagine the fuss Diana would make out of "I did not want their security but they insisted so that they could spy and hound me". It would open up yet another victim franchise, the last thing the BRF needed.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 07:26:55 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I didn't want to re-post your excellent post due to space issues but I want to say thanks and thanks again for being so eloquent and fair. The rude responses tell their own story. BTW I have a very thick skin that can take on gratuitous insults from people who are losing an argument.
If anyone suggests that you are anything but in Diana's corner, they are off the mark as far as I am concerned. You make a much more convincing case for Diana than those who have a tunnel vision about her. Nobody is perfect and certainly not Diana. It is ridiculous to suggest that she is beyond criticism because she did so many good things in her life.
The problem as I see it is that some people have become so involved in the Diana thing that they are now crying more than the bereaved. Any deviation from the story of the perfect victim princess attracts tantrums, threats to leave, emotional responses, outright abuse, vulgarity, please to be "nice", or "you are hurting the kids" defense or even pleas to keep quiet or leave the forum so that they can wallow in good news about Diana etc. I have come to expect that of them and I do not get surprised. You are a great Diana fan and many of us enjoy your contributions.
yes Sarah llost her PPOs except when she was with her dauighters. However they were living with her, most of the time, and they retained their PPOs till they finished their education, as I recall. But it was an indication of how the RF still treated Diana with greater respect than they did Sarah, but Diana rejected a lot of the things they offered her. She could have continued ot have royal protection officers who are generally reckoned to be very very good at their job, and with them, she would have been as safe as it is possible to be...
there was no way the RF coudl have FORCED Her to keep her PPOs. SHe eluded them even when they were looking after her, as Ken Wharfe attested. If they had tried to force her, Yes she problaby would have leaked ot the papers that they were forcig her to have these men to spy on her..adn make her life a misery.. And Im sure that some people would criticised the queen or Chalres for trying to insist that she had protection, even if their motive was to ensure that she was safe...
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 08:00:14 AM
Quote from: sandy on December 21, 2017, 10:11:22 PM
I think in future RPOs should be mandatory if an ex wants any sort of divorce settlement money.
oh boy how would that go down? if you want a divorce settlement (which is a legal entitlement) you have to accept RPOs whom you don't want?????
I can imagine how people would react to that.. Oh poor Diana she's been told that she can't get any money if she doesn't put up with RPOs whom she hates having around her. If they had done such a thing, well I don't believe they could, legally. A divorced wife is entitled to a reasonable settlement to provide for her..
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 08:04:40 AM
Quote from: TLLK on December 22, 2017, 01:12:36 AM
Now IMO that would be reasonable, but the government and the taxpayers might balk at the idea of the state being required security to a former member of the royal family especially if the person doesn't want it. If the former spouse has concerns about being "spied" upon by the RPOs like Diana did, then they might prefer to hire their own security and the taxpayers might require the royals to pay for it. :shrug: Now Sarah Ferguson might have been okay with being provided with a RPO and at the time of her divorce she had been considered a senior royal with her children being 5th and 6th in the line of succession. However the public was likely not in the mood to provide taxpayer supported security for her.
No, youre quite right that since it is public money that provides RPOs, not all "ex royal partnters" get it. its on a case by case basis. Even though Sarah was relatively high in the pecking order, she wasn't quite high enough to merit an automatic keeping her RPOs and she was so unpopular that the public would have balked at payng for them. Andrew I believe complained that his ex wife wasn't getting RPOs, and was told that other ex partners such as the husbands of Princesses, didn't get this..
If Diana didn't want RPOs, that was her choice.. and while the public would have paid for them if she wanted them, as she was reasonably popular, if she didn't, why should the public be asked to pay for staff whom she did not want and would probably try to sideline?
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: sandy on December 21, 2017, 09:27:39 PM
It is not proven that she jumped out to see a "lover." It was on a ski trip.
and why else would she do something like this?? it was incredibly stupid and risky. the only reasons she would have done it was either to meet a boyfriend or as some have suggested maybe to brief a journalist secretly.. I'd say the meeting a lover was more likely....
Royals can do what they want. If they wanted to make up a different post divorce stipulation they can.
How do you know why she jumped out a window? Why must it always be about a man? You make her sound promiscuous or something. Why would she risk hurting herself to see a man? I don't think that would have been necessary..
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 22, 2017, 07:11:50 AM
I agree with you. I am not sure Sarah lost hers but Sarah was in no way as high profile as Diana. Diana's life was becoming a tabloid caricature with people shoving cameras in her face and calling her names to get her to cry for a good photo. It really was a monumental mistake to get rid of RPO in such a situation.
I might "get" the issue about being spied on if there had been a motive e.g. if Charles had been a possessive husband but he was not. In fact his main fault was completely ignoring Diana, sometimes even when she provoked him to get a reaction. In such circumstances, I don't think POW would want to follow her around after the divorce.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 07:19:34 AM
Not if they are dealing with a paranoid ex daughter in law who is known to "leak" to the press about how much the "men in grey suits" are making her life a nightmare. I can imagine the fuss Diana would make out of "I did not want their security but they insisted so that they could spy and hound me". It would open up yet another victim franchise, the last thing the BRF needed.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 07:26:55 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I didn't want to re-post your excellent post due to space issues but I want to say thanks and thanks again for being so eloquent and fair. The rude responses tell their own story. BTW I have a very thick skin that can take on gratuitous insults from people who are losing an argument.
If anyone suggests that you are anything but in Diana's corner, they are off the mark as far as I am concerned. You make a much more convincing case for Diana than those who have a tunnel vision about her. Nobody is perfect and certainly not Diana. It is ridiculous to suggest that she is beyond criticism because she did so many good things in her life.
The problem as I see it is that some people have become so involved in the Diana thing that they are now crying more than the bereaved. Any deviation from the story of the perfect victim princess attracts tantrums, threats to leave, emotional responses, outright abuse, vulgarity, please to be "nice", or "you are hurting the kids" defense or even pleas to keep quiet or leave the forum so that they can wallow in good news about Diana etc. I have come to expect that of them and I do not get surprised. You are a great Diana fan and many of us enjoy your contributions.
I think many get involved in the Charles Thing.
The point is that Charles was not "interested" in what she did. But he had his friends leak stories about her for years. So naturally if his minion Fawcett "found" anything it would find its way to the press. C and C still consort with Junor and provide tittle tattle about the dead first wife to attempt to make themselves look good (does not work as far as I'm concerned).
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on December 22, 2017, 02:41:41 AM
Not everything Charles did that week was about his public image, he could have done what he usually does which is bend to Mommy's wishes, hes usually so afraid to go against his parents, it was a rare episode of him showing some backbone, even if it was because he had to look the boys in the face, he could have if he wanted to thrown up his hands and said the queen wont allow a full state like funeral.
As much as id like to sock him for how he treated Diana and all the times he made her cry with the awful things he said to her over the years, if one wants Diana to be treated fairly with her shortcomings, one also has to acknowledge the times when Charles does something decent. (I really dislike that I was made to defend Charles to explain that).
I agree she did not deserve for her sons to be used as human shields at the event to protect Charles sorry behind, but also when one uses their head, did the public have the right to tear him limb from limb? The heart might want to say yes, but the law and the head, says no.
Had charles not spoken up, shed have had a private funeral with no procession, no public TVs in hyde park and soundsystems, no WA service, etc. People would have been left a lot more confused and upset without having that event to vent our grief.
TBH theres plenty of propaganda that gets spouted on both sides.
Im not attacking you, im merely suggesting that the approach is not the most effective approach to try and get royalant. to see your way of thinking. The question of Diana and abuse is a very complicated issue. Theres plenty of neglect and what one would call "failure to thrive" or " duty of care" in respect to how Diana was provided company, and Charles companionship, as well as her instruction of royal roles, and the overwhelming stress of so many roles at once.
As far as physical, they both gave as good as they got, and often Diana was the instigator, once she could have killed Charles when she stunned him hitting him on the head with an ashtray during a row.
The later years as much as i hated hearing him say certain comments like telling her she looked ridiculous when she wore sexy undies for him, she also could be cutting to him as well saying hed never be king to him, etc. They both gave and got about the same, except for those early years, where one says neglect becomes abuse, ill leave to the professionals, but compared to the country as a whole, she was far better off that what one usually thinks of as abuse victims.
I dont want to speak for RA, but shes not saying C&C were right, shes merely describing some of the incidents and behaviors Diana had that drove Charles away, she actually likes Diana a lot and is more sympathetic to her cause than you might think, its just she can see the good and the bad in Diana, where some choose to ignore it.
Im not saying you "have" to follow "my" guidelines, I dont have guidelines. Im merely showing a way to make your case more effective in both having C&C people see Dianas side as well as being more able to refute the claims of people like Junor and other C&C fans. In general terms, people dont like being mocked, made fun of, etc. its usually better to try and, like steven covey says, if you want to be understood, first seek to understand.
If my post has offended and upset you so much, perhaps its not RA who has the thin skin, as neither outcome was my intent (but I did expect it, given previous convos here with people who share your point of view). :flower: :flower: :flower:
Diana did not bash Charles over the head with an ashtray. SOunds like the word according to Lady Campbell. The housekeeper said Charles threw objects in DIana's direction. Charles was seen aiming a blow at Diana as they got into a car and put her down. Honestly the man was no victim. ANd capable of a really nasty temper tantrum as his courtiers have observed.
If RA likes Diana I have seen little evidence of it. I have disagreed with her a lot about Diana.
Blaming Diana for "Driving people away" I think is a cop out. Charles went into the marriage and later he preferred Camilla when he married DIana. That about sizes up the marriage right there.
The Diana negligee story sounds very bogus. Supposedly it happened the night she confronted Camilla. It didn't. Diana went to a separate room furious at Charles and hardly in the mood to don a negligee.
So Charles did not drive Diana away by making lovey dovey calls the mistress on the honeymoon no less? And wearing the cufflinks (C and C intertwined) in front of the wife.
I don't know how Diana stood the man for ten years (pre separation).
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 12:51:41 PM
. But I think putting down others posters as "losing arguments," and saying that is not fitting in with the purpose of an opinion board is not the best attitude for posters =,
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 12:54:49 PM
I notice the source of the DIana/negligee and DIana violence stories came from Bedell Smith and Junor and after DIana is dead and can't defend herself anymore. These cheap shots come from CHarles minions who are vying for honors when he gets to be King. Those who take this as fact should consider the source of this DIana bashing. And Campbell did her share of this too. Shame on these writers.
@sandy. Charles never ever asked Diana to give up her security, ask the press to her holiday or even allow herself to be driven by a drunken person in a dodgy car. All those were her decisions and hers alone. Nobody else has any responsibility for those decisions because she was neither a child nor a person with mental disabilities. This was a 36-year old who had experience of public life. I also note that as she made all those mistakes, her ultra fans encouraged her along. "Go girl..stick it to the BRF"...until of course she met a sticky end. Then they backtrack and try to pretend that its the BRF's fault for not baby sitting Diana as she went from mistake to mistake, all the while complaining about how much it was a nightmare to be under the protection of the BRF.
Charles knows how to look after himself, his interests and the people he cares about. Sadly for Diana, she went out of his orbit and was no longer his responsibility. That is the effect of a divorce. While she was married to Charles and under his protection, nothing like what happened in Paris could have happened. She chose to leave that protection as an "independent woman" (of course being supported by Charles money). That was her call and it turned out to be a bad call. The "its all for the kids" defense only relates to W&H and they were all well protected on that day in Balmoral.
As for liking or not liking Diana, it is nobody's business. There is no requirement that to post on this forum you must like Diana or show evidence that you do or constantly justify your posts to the more ultra-Diana fans who want everyone to think like the way they do or ignore their OTT posts. You post something that is questionable and you will get a response. Simple as. I know they always end things with "I have a right to my opinion" as if anyone has ever challenged that right. Opinions are not facts and you can expect them to be fully challenged, particularly if they are based on the biased rumblings of an embittered ex wife and her sensationalist media coiterie.
Sandy, for goodness sake, the RF cannot force PPOS on someone who doesn't want them. What do you suggest? Keep Di prisoner in KP until she agreed to take PPOs everywhere she went? Set spies on her to ensure she was not eluding her officers?
this is nonsensical. if they did do that I can just imagine how Diana supporters would have claimed that they were monsters for forcing her to do something she didn't want to do, or making it a condition of her divorce or her having financial or other support.
And WHAT reason could there be for her jumping out of a window, evading Ken Wharfe other than she was going to do something that she dd not want him to know about or feared he would disapprove of. I cant imagine what it could possibly be other than to see a lover, or possibly brief a journalist.
That is why I find the "they should have insisted" argument so illogical. This was a woman who spent the best part of her adult life complaining about the men in grey suits and BRF. They would be mad to "insist" on giving her protection against her will. That is not even discounting the fact that by this point, neither the men in grey suits nor many members of the BRF did not like Diana's media antics and manipulations. Why would then invite her to go on yet another grievance tour by interfering in her security arrangements against her will? Ridiculous. :no:
QuoteAnd WHAT reason could there be for her jumping out of a window, evading Ken Wharfe other than she was going to do something that she dd not want him to know about or feared he would disapprove of. I cant imagine what it could possibly be other than to see a lover, or possibly brief a journalist.
Well since we do not know the reason for jumping out of a window, she could have just wanted some away time. After all she did not grow up having someone present & following her around constantly. She was a very young woman & she acted like a very young woman. To bad the BRF & her husband could not have been more accommodating to her needs. .sticky
The BRF went of their way to ignore Diana's affairs. Partly for a quiet life and also because there must have been some sympathy with regards to the failure of her marriage. It would have been unreasonable and hypocritical to insist that she remains chaste after Charles abandoned her. They did try to accommodate her to no avail. She threw it all back in their faces and wanted more and more attention until they could not take it any more. Now that "time away from security" proved to be fatal later on so perhaps she should have reconsidered her relationship with security agencies.
@ambel
QuoteSHe eluded them even when they were looking after her, as Ken Wharfe attested. If they had tried to force her, Yes she problaby would have leaked ot the papers that they were forcig her to have these men to spy on her..adn make her life a misery.. And Im sure that some people would criticised the queen or Chalres for trying to insist that she had protection, even if their motive was to ensure that she was safe...
-Yes I'd forgotten that there were other episodes of Diana disappearing without informing her RPOs. She was known to do this when she was at the Sandringham estate. This signals to me that she was sincere when she declined the offer of a RPO after the divorce. She was an adult who was capable of making her own decisions. :shrug:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 22, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
The BRF went of their way to ignore Diana's affairs. Partly for a quiet life and also because there must have been some sympathy with regards to the failure of her marriage. It would have been unreasonable and hypocritical to insist that she remains chaste after Charles abandoned her. They did try to accommodate her to no avail. She threw it all back in their faces and wanted more and more attention until they could not take it any more. Now that "time away from security" proved to be fatal later on so perhaps she should have reconsidered her relationship with security agencies.
The BRF could hardly afford to make her affairs known just as they ignored Princess Michaels affairs. Their way of thinking is it is best to present a united front and show a happy family for public consumption also if they exposed Diana Charles little dirty secret at the time Camilla would also have been exposed.
QuoteThat is why I find the "they should have insisted" argument so illogical. This was a woman who spent the best part of her adult life complaining about the men in grey suits and BRF. They would be mad to "insist" on giving her protection against her will
If this requirement of "no protection=no settlement money" had been in place, I believe that Diana and her attorneys would have launched a vigorous protest. She was accepted the fact that her children required RPOs but believed that she didn't need them.
Quote from: Trudie on December 22, 2017, 04:01:01 PM
The BRF could hardly afford to make her affairs known just as they ignored Princess Michaels affairs. Their way of thinking is it is best to present a united front and show a happy family for public consumption also if they exposed Diana Charles little dirty secret at the time Camilla would also have been exposed.
Very true. That is why if I had been her, I would just continue with my life discreetly and appear at state occasions when required. She did actually like the public role of being a princess so it was not as if that was a chore. After the events, she could go back to KP to her private life and none would raise a squeak. I understand PM was actually amused at some young men jumping out of the boot at KP. They understood that she had had a tough time in her marriage and needed companionship. Nobody was going to judge her for that.
Even after the divorce, she could have arranged her own security or even been a bit more picky about the journeys she went on and how she went e.g pre-visit security checks and ensuring that nobody in the press got a hint about her private holiday. Then we would not even be having this discussion.
Some women enjoy the humiliation of having a husband parade his mistress around as if she is his wife & some women are satisfied with their emotional abuse forever. Some women don't want a real husband but what they can get from a man because they are not capable of being their own person, making their own decisions, taking care of their own needs or just love playing the role of victim forever. That is what I see when I read about a female supporting a man like Charles.
Diana was not one of those lay down & roll over women. Big whoop. :sumo:
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 06:14:31 PM
Oh so I don;t seem gender bias I would also like to add that when I hear a man defending Charles I think he must be just like Charles or else he could not defend such behavior.
In the year of the woman we must all stand up for the inequality that says the man is always right & the woman deserved her treatment or must have done something to cause the man to treat her in such a way. :cool:
I would say that some women value their peace, comfort and health above making grand meaningless statements of "empowerment" whilst they are being maintained by their husbands' money. In any case, nothing Diana ever did advanced her cause in any meaningful way. All she did was to provide ammunition to her supporters (who would be in her corner anyway, although some encouraged her in her own self-destruction) and also to Charles' enemies who used her like a hammer against him. At no point did she ever make Charles love, consider or care for her as a result of her antics. He was completely indifferent to her efforts and later started to dislike her intensely for them. Her actions did not bring her any real happiness because all that it took was for a birthday party for Camilla to take her straight back to square one emotionally.
If anything, her stridency made Camilla not just a better option for Charles but one which he believed he had to take as a matter of principle. Her "outcries" and machinations ended up losing her support even within the BRF. To me that is a losing strategy. Women who think with their hearts usually end up the way that Diana did...angry, alone and abandoned or even worse. There was never going to be a "real husband" because Diana was not yet emotionally mature enough to sustain any kind of romantic relationship in the long run. She just could never let go of C&C, caught in this prism of watching what they did and trying to upstage them or alternatively get "revenge" on them. That is a very sad way to live, far sadder than pragmatic women like Queen Syliva and Sophia.
BTW...the year celebrates all women, not just those that are anti-men.
[gmod]What does most of the above have to do with the Mercedes that Princess Diana was driven in? [/gmod]
I think it actually does because of the actions that Diana took in her emotional state. A happy Princess or ex-wife of a prince would never have been in that car. For a start, it would never pass a routine security test.
I never knew one could be unhappy because they rode in a certain car instead of what a Limo. What a dodge. :faint:
Diana was not in an" emotional state "she was happy enjoying a summer romance/fling it was the unfortunate actions of Dodi and a bodyguard afraid to enforce the security he was paid to enforce for fear of losing his job that put her in that car.
^ Yes but if Diana had just learned to enjoy the abuse C&C were heaping on her daily she would have been protected. :happy20:
Quote from: TLLK on December 22, 2017, 03:24:56 PM
@ambel -Yes I'd forgotten that there were other episodes of Diana disappearing without informing her RPOs. She was known to do this when she was at the Sandringham estate. This signals to me that she was sincere when she declined the offer of a RPO after the divorce. She was an adult who was capable of making her own decisions. :shrug:
She talked to someone senior in teh Met Police some time in her last year or so, and told him that she had been walking around London, on her own, and unguarded for a year and hadn't come to any harm so she was defintely NOT wanting to have PPOS. SHe did soemtimes I think slip off in the UK, going out driving on her own, and they could hardly force her to have police protection when she was determined to elude it...
Quote from: Trudie on December 22, 2017, 08:34:06 PM
Diana was not in an" emotional state "she was happy enjoying a summer romance/fling it was the unfortunate actions of Dodi and a bodyguard afraid to enforce the security he was paid to enforce for fear of losing his job that put her in that car.
Why then did she phone up the press to tell them she was on holiday and pose for all those pictures? I am telling you that the moment those first pictures came out, my mum instantly knew it was coming to an end. If she was contented and happy in a summer romance, why did she feel the need to invite the press in order to "exhibit" the kiss? Why not have a nice quiet holiday in private? I think it is more likely she wanted to "wipe" someone off the front pages. Others say she was the silly school girl again trying to get Khan's attention. All of them are not the actions I would expect of a woman of her experience, age and position.
@Kritter. It is not about "enjoying abuse". It is about being a mature adult and accepting when a relationship has ended so that you can move on with your life. It is about not playing manipulative revenge games and putting your own security at risk. It is about not naively thinking you can control the press to give you good coverage.
How many Princesses & Princes had RPO's & still died for one reason or another? :loco:
W&K hid during the Paralympics & the press still found them. W&K hid while skiing in Courcheval & the press still found them. :hmm: According to some on here that means Kate alerted them to her whereabouts since we all know they do not have contacts around the world that report sightings of these royals.
Some find nothing wrong with abuse but Diana didn't like it & therein lies the problem she found a way to stop the abuse. A real bummer for Charles's fans I am sure. :Lothwen:
Quote from: Kritter on December 22, 2017, 08:22:19 PM
I never knew one could be unhappy because they rode in a certain car instead of what a Limo. What a dodge. :faint:
A happy/contended person does not turn down security for conspiracy theories without a single factual basis. Ditto for not inviting the press to share in your holiday, doing poses for them and then later on becoming very distressed because they have shown interest. I bet Diana was "not enjoying her summer romance" as they sped down that road chased by the paparazzi. Many famous people have holidays in private if they want to. For whatever reasons, she chose to have hers in public and it cost her.
Double post auto-merged: December 22, 2017, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Kritter on December 22, 2017, 09:18:36 PM
How many Princesses & Princes had RPO's & still died for one reason or another? :loco:
Definitely not the way Diana died. I can't think of any royal princess or former princess who faced Diana's end. It was unnecessary. Of course she was bound to die some day but this was a death that was entirely preventable with a few sensible precautions.
Was comprehension the problem? No one said anything about how Diana died. :happy17:
If she had had proper security, she would not have had an inexperienced driver, driving a car that he had no licence to drive having had a few drinks..and tyring to get away from a mob of photographers. One of Di's usual drivers in England said that she never liked being driven fast....
I think she was very stressed that night, with the press milling around, not enough security to keep control of the sitatuion, and Henri Paul obviously over excited by the whole thing, or told by Dodi to "drive fast and elude the photographers" driving too fast nad losing control of the car
@Kritter writes:
"Some find nothing wrong with abuse but Diana didn't like it & therein lies the problem she found a way to stop the abuse. A real bummer for Charles's fans I am sure. "
No, Charles fans never wanted her dead from a preventable accident. Some just wanted her to stop attacking him in the press and lead her own life...that's all. The divorce took care of all the remaining stuff that needed to be agreed. After that Charles had no real interest in her and she was free to do as she pleased. I any case, I do not believe that there was abuse. Charles left (not her) and she spent the next 10 years trying to get him back.
:badfrog!: Charles & Camilla
Quote from: Kritter on December 22, 2017, 09:28:02 PM
Was comprehension the problem? No one said anything about how Diana died. :happy17:
Ah...the gratuitous insult again. :no:Her death was preventable because she could have had competent RPO to help her if she had not foolishly turned them away.
So I see you have no answer to the question & are afraid or unable to admit it.
I have news for you dear, you & I will no longer have any conversations. I tried to be nice to you when I came on this forum but you wanted to play Diana diatribe nonsense then you along with DL were trying to bully me. I do not have to interact with anyone I don't want to & if you don't like my posts you should stop reading them since I do not read yours. We shall get along better that way.
:partaay:
The patronizing "dear" is uncalled for and so is the reference to MIL psychologists. There is nothing personal about this. Plus nobody is "bullying you". I will read what I want and respond as I want.
Look up in the sky :RAFWilliam:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 22, 2017, 07:23:25 PM
I think it actually does because of the actions that Diana took in her emotional state. A happy Princess or ex-wife of a prince would never have been in that car. For a start, it would never pass a routine security test.
[gmod]Well I don't . Please take your discussions to one of the other many threads. This thread is now closed. [/gmod]