REELZ tv show on Princess Diana's Mercedes

[Kritter]

Camilla was just another gossip trying to promote Charles over the truth.    :shame:

[Trudie]

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

[amabel]

@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.

[Trudie]

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?.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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

[sandy]

Anything can be made mandatory by the royal family if they see fit. IMO.

[amabel]

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"

[sandy]

Yes, to protect her as the mother of a future King.

[Curryong]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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

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. 

[Trudie]

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

[amabel]

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...

[sandy]

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.

[TLLK]

@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.

[sandy]

I think in future RPOs should be mandatory if an ex wants any sort of divorce settlement money.

[TLLK]

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.

[Kritter]

If Diana was set up by TPTB no amount of security would have stopped the accident from happening.

[sandy]

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

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.

[TLLK]

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

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.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

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:

[Kritter]

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

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.

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.

Diana side doesnt always agree with what @royalanthropologist

The truth does not take sides. Propaganda is the only thing that does
that.

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.

RA 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.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

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:

[Kritter]

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: