Princess Diana: Remembering Her 20 Years After Her Death
Princess Diana: Remembering Her 20 Years After Her Death - Us Weekly (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/princess-diana-remembering-her-20-years-after-her-death-w497932)
We have to respect to people's princess and queen's hearts Princess Diana who died on August 31,1997 at 36 years old if she would alive today she will be 56 years old between London and Paris to respect Diana's memory.. SO please no negative talk on Princess Diana's or i will informed to Administer or moderator please respect to her sons Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry on lose mom's death..
Double post auto-merged: August 16, 2017, 04:58:36 PM
https://postimg.org/image/jak0y5873/
An interesting article on the recent media coverage and on how Diana's impact changed the royal family.
The 'Princess Diana story': why everyone has their own version (http://theconversation.com/the-princess-diana-story-why-everyone-has-their-own-version-82224)
Minute-by-minute series of the week Diana died | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4804170/Minute-minute-series-week-Diana-died.html)
Im of two minds on posting it, its very tough to read at parts, especially Dianas condition at the scene, and of course this part made me ever so cross....
Prince Charles is on the phone to his spokesman, Mark Bolland, in London. He wants to know the latest news on Diana's condition. 'I always thought that Diana would come back to me, needing to be cared for,' the Prince says.
He had 16 years to care for her, now it was too bloody late!! What was he thinking, was it guilt?
Here was someone who has demonstrated over decades hes incapable of caring for anyone but himself, and finally, after it all...call me sir, whatever in love means, theyre only cheering because its me, all she ever did was say yes to me, i wish i had two wives, is that going to reappear later, more shopping?, oh god its a boy, you look ridiculous, etc. etc. etc....now he finally gets it????
I want to believe for the boys sake and for Dianas ideals about loving him that there was some shred of humanity in there, but his behaviour after the fact belies it. I think he may have thought that because it would make him look good and rehabilitate his image, being the dutiful nurse to injured Diana, and how dare she have the temerity to go and die on him!
Hopefully for one clip of a second, he finally realized how wonderful it could be to care for her, he let so much time and opportunity slip through his fingers, not only missing out of that wonderful experience, but so typical of him, even though he didnt want to, he would make it almost impossible for anyone else to do it either. A much grander version of those three minute eggs they have to make and throw out and remake if hes not back from the hunt when hes at Balmoral.
Being given everything with no merit made him immune to the value of things big or small, he didnt see the value of that sweet girls heart....until it stopped beating. People wonder why people dont like him, thats why!!!
You would have to be made of stone not to feel a tinge of regret for someone who was once married to you and with whom you produced two children dying in such a violent and unexpected way. That does not mean that the married could have worked. It was a doomed arrangement. No matter how much people may have loved Diana and wanted Charles to love her the same: he didn't. You can't force these things. The heart wants what the heart wants. In the end, they couldn't even live together for appearances' sake. It was a bad relationship whose only source of mutual happiness were the children that resulted from it.
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....
'The heart wants what the heart wants', indeed. It's a shame that the emotionally obtuse Charles didn't take that particular maxim on board in 1980, and saved everyone, including his first wife, a lot of heartbreak.
but he didn't. He tired to Love Diana, but he found her hard to understand when they got married and she seemed very different to what she had been like when they were courting. What's the point of saying over and a gain that he SHOULD have fallen in love with her, or that he shoudlnt' have married her?
They were botht at fault.. but they were both victims of the particular situation that the RF was in at the time.
The RF were worreied about left wing governments, still worrying and bothered by the Abdication in 1936... and afraid that if they didn't show up as Good hardworking happily married and respecitable, they would lose their throne.
Diana was traumatised by her unhappy family background and she sought the security of a marriage that was both splendid in social terms and also in terms she hoped of being loving and "could not end in divorce." So she eagerly sought the marriage to Charles, and fooled herself into believing that she could fit In, that being the wife of the POW was what she wanted most in the world and she would be perfectly happy with the man, and the lifestyle, without realsing that it was not going to be easy.
Quote from: amabel on August 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....
:hehe:
Quote from: amabel on August 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....
While Diana is regarded by some here as the equivalent of the mad Mrs Rochester and a woman who planned the demise of the House of Windsor.
Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2017, 10:21:40 AM
Margaret Thatcher was in government in 1980, preceded by James Callaghan, Harold Wilson (reputedly the Queen's favourite Prime Minister) and before that, Ted Heath. Thatcher and Heath were Conservatives, Wilson was a Labour man but the reverse of a revolutionary, as was James Callaghan. So the BRF certainly weren't worried by 'Left Wing Governments' threatening the existence of the royal family by 1980. The idea that Jim Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher's cabinets were planning for a republic is frankly ludicrous.
The Abdication had been over forty years before and never came into contention during Charles's search for a wife. Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip understood Charles nor were they close. They seem to have regarded him as indecisive and wishy washy (hence the Queen's supposed remark to Diana when her daughter in law came to her for help 'Oh Charles! He's hopeless!')
There was never any pushing by Charles parents to persuade him into marriage nor were they proactive in trying to get him married off. The only person who did that was Lord Mountbatten who favoured his granddaughter as a bride. (Charles was quite prepared to marry her too, in spite of there not being any love there either.)
So this myth that's grown up among Charles adherents that he felt he had to marry certainly wasn't because of external pressures. (Charles chose to regard Prince Philip's letter as an ultimatum when it wasn't.) He himself was the one who became anxious and he was the one who forced himself to propose.
Have you forgotten the 3 day week? and the general feelng of decline in the 70s. THe RF felt they were safe if they did their job respectably, they were nervous that if a scandal got out of hand, or they were seen as lazy, or not reasonably popular with the public, they might at least have their income and influence such as it was curtailed.
I don't believe the Abdication was ever forgotten.. its one reason why the queen wont abdicate, because it is a dirty word to them.
and It was time for Charles to marry. he was over 30, he was fairly well liked but he was at an age where the public had seen him being in te Navy, then sporty and action man, and starting his work as POW..and the next step was to settle down and provide a Princess and some children. The newspapers had spent years in the 70s chasing young women who might become his bride.. and if he waited much longer he was going to be a much older husband of a 20 year old.
I can't believe that the queen and Philip were such indifferent parents that they didn't want their son safely married off and being popular providing offspring. They may not have become involved in the search for a bride, but they were IMO certainly hoping he would get settled down fairly soon. and the "Charles' he's hopeless" remark hardly gibes with the queen being a reasonably affectiotnate mother.
She clelary didn't like to interfere and then realise eventualy that she HAD to interfere.. but I can't believe that her only remark about the possibility of a scandal was "Oh Charles is hopeless"
Yes, I remember those days, and the 'I'm backing Britain' drive and the 3 day week, even though after Heath I was mostly in Australia for several years. However, in my experience, in those days anyway, if times were bad economically people became annoyed with the government and politicians in general, not with the royal family. Few people would have blamed the Queen for economic decline if there were politicians available to have a go at. Even in the 1980s it was a lot more deferential towards the Royal family than it is today and Mrs Thatcher was very deferential.
IMO the real danger for the Royal family came years later with the Blair govt. That contained several open republicans, (as was Cherie Blair,) who were contemptuous of the RF, and several of Blair's aides and advisers were determined to clip the wings of the BRF economically and in other ways as much as possible.
I certainly don't believe the throne was in danger of toppling in the late 1970s and therefore that impacted on Charles being forced into marriage. If the royals were that terrified they would hardly have had a full State wedding for Charles, which cost a packet, and then a huge semi state one for Andrew a few years later.
There's tons of evidence that Philip regarded his son as weak and indecisive in those years (and before) and said so to him, and in the hearing of others. The Queen seems to have been more or less in agreement, and also criticised his lifestyle for years.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 19, 2017, 07:13:07 AM
You would have to be made of stone not to feel a tinge of regret for someone who was once married to you and with whom you produced two children dying in such a violent and unexpected way. That does not mean that the married could have worked. It was a doomed arrangement. No matter how much people may have loved Diana and wanted Charles to love her the same: he didn't. You can't force these things. The heart wants what the heart wants. In the end, they couldn't even live together for appearances' sake. It was a bad relationship whose only source of mutual happiness were the children that resulted from it.
I'm not suggesting that the marriage would have worked
@royalanthropologist , and of course there are differences of interests, etc., my issue is with the fact that after years of being apart, and with so much indifference, lack of care, and downright attacking her self esteem, at the one time when it was too late, he chooses to have a change of heart?
And what if what he wanted came to pass, was he going to drop everything and play nurse to her, he cant even get his own shirts for gods sake! What was he thinking? Was he going to drop Camilla? Was he going to re-marry her?
No, he was thinking here's a way I can get some of the blame off of me, and look like a decent chap for once regarding Diana.
Quote from: amabel on August 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....
Idk about babies, but he claims to be descended from Vlad the Impaler, but he IS a monster when it comes to his heart being so stoneclad and inaccessible to Diana, except for a brief moment when it was easy to do and was something that wouldnt happen. It was a day late and a dollar short.....
Quote from: Curryong on August 19, 2017, 08:45:30 AM
While Diana is regarded by some here as the equivalent of the mad Mrs Rochester and a woman who planned the demise of the House of Windsor.
Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2017, 10:21:40 AM
Margaret Thatcher was in government in 1980, preceded by James Callaghan, Harold Wilson (reputedly the Queen's favourite Prime Minister) and before that, Ted Heath. Thatcher and Heath were Conservatives, Wilson was a Labour man but the reverse of a revolutionary, as was James Callaghan. So the BRF certainly weren't worried by 'Left Wing Governments' threatening the existence of the royal family by 1980. The idea that Jim Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher's cabinets were planning for a republic is frankly ludicrous.
The Abdication had been over forty years before and never came into contention during Charles's search for a wife. Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip understood Charles nor were they close. They seem to have regarded him as indecisive and wishy washy (hence the Queen's supposed remark to Diana when her daughter in law came to her for help 'Oh Charles! He's hopeless!')
There was never any pushing by Charles parents to persuade him into marriage nor were they proactive in trying to get him married off. The only person who did that was Lord Mountbatten who favoured his granddaughter as a bride. (Charles was quite prepared to marry her too, in spite of there not being any love there either.)
So this myth that's grown up among Charles adherents that he felt he had to marry certainly wasn't because of external pressures. (Charles chose to regard Prince Philip's letter as an ultimatum when it wasn't.) He himself was the one who became anxious and he was the one who forced himself to propose.
Well said
^The Queen herself was quite friendly with 'Maggie' T in her 20/30 years...
Was she?
I always thought that the Queen's favourites among her PMs were more homely, comfy sort of people, like the pipe smoking Harold Wilson, or people she admired, like Churchill. There have been rumours over the years that she didn't particularly like the slickness of Tony Blair (or the barely concealed disdain of Cherie) and that she didn't strike any sort of bond with Mrs Thatcher because (a) Mrs Thatcher was very brisk and all business, especially when visiting Balmoral on what is supposed to be a country break, and (b) she was inclined to self aggrandisement as a person, though correctly respectful of the Queen.
Well the letter is there
@Curryong. Marry her or dump her. That from a hectoring and bullying father is the equivalent of an intrusive instruction on a son's romantic life, a son who is 32 and has his own household. It was not just DOE but also the media with their constant publications of what a good match she was.
Charles should have said no but he didn't. He is not the first person to say yes when he meant no. He is not the first person to marry someone he did not really love and then later divorcing her. This is not some life changing crisis that people try to make out it was. Diana was quite young at the time of the estrangement. She could have easily found another relationship or even asked for a divorce but she didn't. She wanted Charles to love her and some of her fans hate him for not loving her. But like I said, you can't force these things.
Curiously all the men who admired and said loved Diana did not rescue her. They could have proposed to her and whisked her away from her nightmare. They didn't. Love is not some kind of switch you put on because someone is photogenic and is well-liked by members of the public.
Anthony Holden (who obsessively hates Charles for some reason) once remarked "What kind of a man throws away such a pearl". I then later realized that Holden was divorced...hypocrisy comes to mind. That is the kind of silliness that this debate has sometimes descended to. We instruct and expect people to love those we think they ought to love. Then we hold them to standards that virtually no other human being is held to.
I also rather suspect that the public Diana was very different from the private one. It is pretty much a given that being in closed quarters to her was not a walk in the park (I know someone is going to say that Charles is not easy too but the big difference is that Charles has found someone that suits him and his lifestyle. He has never complained that Diana should have loved him better or that she ruined his life).
The tragedy of Diana is the inability to deal with rejection in a mature way. To her the idea that there was a man who was not interested in her as a woman was just intolerable. She never quite recovered from that. Other people do and have happy second marriages without constantly complaining about the woes of the first or the terrible things their first spouse did to them. Frankly speaking, if a date was constantly telling me about how bad their first wife was; I would not take it any further. It shows me that person has unresolved issues that are likely to affect any future relationships.
It was not easy for Diana to "ask for a divorce" as you know. the queen took a very long time before she oked it..a nd once int eh marriage, ti was not possible for either Charles or Diana to get out of it, without a lot of trouble and trauma. That's why they should both have tired to make sure they were sure that they had a good start for marriage and that they could make it work. But they didn't. Neither of them really I think took enough care bout making sure. But having made the mistake, and having tried to adjust to each other and failing, I think that charles was willing to keep the marriage going, and see Camilla in private. He thought that with J Hewitt to keep her company, Diana would accept that the marriage had to last, though I think that he too wanted out of it..
I think that Diana did have trouble with relationships.. She was fragile emotionally and IMO after a bad marriage she needed a lot of care and therapy to get her to a stage wehre maybe she could find a man and settle down into a good second marriage or find fulfilment in a life without getting married. But by then she had spent all her adult life in an unnatural environment, she was scarred and though she did look for help, I don't think she was looking, mostly in the right places. She probably should have taken a year off from her life, and had some in depth therapy.. and left the public arena.. Instead of pushing herselfto go on with her work and trying to "have a normal life" when she was stressed out and scarred.
but I think she was at times wilful and didn't want to see a therapist who might challenge her, and went to see various therapists who were not qualified and weren't really much help
I actually do understand how the silly rules on divorce trapped two people who could no longer live in the same house together.
My point was rather about healing and moving on from a bad relationship. Diana never got to that stage. It was always an attempt to upstage Charles or to explain how much she suffered in the marriage. Right up to the last few days of her life, she was still haunted by her failed marriage.
The transcripts for the inquest really do bring out a lot of stuff that was not known about her emotional state. She had been devastated by Camilla's 50th birthday and told her therapist that the diamond necklace that Charles had given to Camilla was like a dagger in her heart. She then wrote a letter about what Charles had put her through and how she thought he was planning to kill her to marry Tiggy. When in Bosnia she told someone who had a family member involved in an accident that her own accident happened in 1981. Diana never ever got over the relationship with Charles. She had not healed and continued to have an unhealthy interest in his love life.
Pierce Morgan (a Mirror Journalist) describes how Diana deliberately invited the press to her holiday with Dodi in order to upstage Camilla. A person who has healed does not do that. They enjoy their holiday or whatever pastime they are having. Diana's life was punctuated by a series of media scoops designed to upstage her husband, long after he had lost all interest in her. It was a very sad way to live after separation and divorce.
I disagree. Diana was moving on. She was interested in carving out a new role for herself. She did not just sit home depressed. She was quite visible. The letter about Charles was earlier than 1997 and not at the time of the party. Diana was vacationing at the time of the party. She seemed quite chipper in the photos with her sons. Tiggy was really out of the picture in 1997 and there was a documentary about Camilla that Summer and Charles was commencing the PR campaign for Camilla. From all that was written, what bothered Diana was the split with Hasnet Khan. I doubt she could have cared less about Charles. She even was thinking about a possible marriage to Hasnet before then. This is all on record. Charles was not worth the effort for her by then.
Diana was not with Dodi during the Camilla party. So it was only her photo not hers and Dodi's. The photos with Dodi came later.
I think Diana lost interest in her ex husband. I think she fell genuinely in love with Hasnet. Diana had moved on.Diana was reportedly cordial with Charles when they met up that year involving an event for Prince William. There are pictures to show it.
I don't recall any such quote about the "dagger in her heart" over the necklace. Her therapist never disclosed any such quote nor would he.
Diana was done with Charles by then.
The transcripts of the court hearings say so. Diana's friends say so. The journalists she consorted with say so. Even her own words say so. Somehow I believe that it can't be that so many different people say the same thing. Diana never got over the divorce. She was always bitter and acting in irrational ways because of it.
Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2017, 07:47:55 AM
It was not easy for Diana to "ask for a divorce" as you know. the queen took a very long time before she oked it..a nd once int eh marriage, ti was not possible for either Charles or Diana to get out of it, without a lot of trouble and trauma. That's why they should both have tired to make sure they were sure that they had a good start for marriage and that they could make it work. But they didn't. Neither of them really I think took enough care bout making sure. But having made the mistake, and having tried to adjust to each other and failing, I think that charles was willing to keep the marriage going, and see Camilla in private. He thought that with J Hewitt to keep her company, Diana would accept that the marriage had to last, though I think that he too wanted out of it..
I think that Diana did have trouble with relationships.. She was fragile emotionally and IMO after a bad marriage she needed a lot of care and therapy to get her to a stage wehre maybe she could find a man and settle down into a good second marriage or find fulfilment in a life without getting married. But by then she had spent all her adult life in an unnatural environment, she was scarred and though she did look for help, I don't think she was looking, mostly in the right places. She probably should have taken a year off from her life, and had some in depth therapy.. and left the public arena.. Instead of pushing herselfto go on with her work and trying to "have a normal life" when she was stressed out and scarred.
but I think she was at times wilful and didn't want to see a therapist who might challenge her, and went to see various therapists who were not qualified and weren't really much help
They had the separation in 1992. I do think the Queen was hoping they could just lead separate lives and not divorce.
Diana could not really have a "relationship" that would go anywhere while she was married to Prince Charles. She saw what happened to her mother when she 'bolted' and lost custody of her children. Diana was only divorced for one year before she died so I don't think judgments about her "ability" to have relationships can be judged. She died at 36 not at 96.
I doubt Diana would have rushed into a second marriage. She also was carving out a new role for herself re: charities and causes.
It goes further back then the early years of the marriage. Charles wanted to marry Diana hoping to "learn to love her." That is not the way to go into any marriage, in that half hearted way. He should have broken things off and not married her under those conditions. I think HE was the one who had trouble with relationships. What sort of person goes into a marriage that way, just for expediency's sake to have heirs. I found it ridiculous that Smith compares C and D to Elizabeth and Bertie. Elizabeth wanted to be sure and Bertie loved her so they married already in love. There was no doubt nor did either say they "hoped" to fall in love with their partners.
Double post auto-merged: August 20, 2017, 07:45:18 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 07:39:23 PM
The transcripts of the court hearings say so. Diana's friends say so. The journalists she consorted with say so. Even her own words say so. Somehow I believe that it can't be that so many different people say the same thing. Diana never got over the divorce. She was always bitter and acting in irrational ways because of it.
It was hearsay. Diana never publicly said anything about that party. But she had a lot to say about Camilla before then. So it is clear that she was not thrilled with it, but she still moved on with her life. She was no Miss Havisham pining for Charles wearing the tattered wedding gown.
She was still young and vital and moving on.
Of course she got over the divorce. She was divorced for a year and during that time had a serious relationship with Dr. Khan. They loved each other. She certainly did not display the "symptoms" of pining for Charles.
Just about all sources say she was trying to reach Hasnet not Charles, with the photos with Dodi. She was by herself not with Dodi during the party Charles threw for Camilla.
Charles has absolutely no problem with his second marriage. He is a man transformed. I do not buy the idea that because his relationship with Diana failed, he could not have a normal marriage with someone. He has been with Camilla practically since 1984. Not a quip about breakups, tantrums or exposes.
We also learn that this was "an arranged marriage" courtesy of Diana herself speaking to Michael George. Not everybody marries for love. People marry for many, many reasons including dynastic ones particularly if they are royal. The whole fantasy of a fairy tale was the public deceiving itself. Even Diana knew from the one go that this was not about "everlasting love".
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 05:13:35 AM
Well the letter is there @Curryong. Marry her or dump her. That from a hectoring and bullying father is the equivalent of an intrusive instruction on a son's romantic life, a son who is 32 and has his own household. It was not just DOE but also the media with their constant publications of what a good match she was.
Charles should have said no but he didn't. He is not the first person to say yes when he meant no. He is not the first person to marry someone he did not really love and then later divorcing her. This is not some life changing crisis that people try to make out it was. Diana was quite young at the time of the estrangement. She could have easily found another relationship or even asked for a divorce but she didn't. She wanted Charles to love her and some of her fans hate him for not loving her. But like I said, you can't force these things.
Curiously all the men who admired and said loved Diana did not rescue her. They could have proposed to her and whisked her away from her nightmare. They didn't. Love is not some kind of switch you put on because someone is photogenic and is well-liked by members of the public.
Anthony Holden (who obsessively hates Charles for some reason) once remarked "What kind of a man throws away such a pearl". I then later realized that Holden was divorced...hypocrisy comes to mind. That is the kind of silliness that this debate has sometimes descended to. We instruct and expect people to love those we think they ought to love. Then we hold them to standards that virtually no other human being is held to.
I also rather suspect that the public Diana was very different from the private one. It is pretty much a given that being in closed quarters to her was not a walk in the park (I know someone is going to say that Charles is not easy too but the big difference is that Charles has found someone that suits him and his lifestyle. He has never complained that Diana should have loved him better or that she ruined his life).
The tragedy of Diana is the inability to deal with rejection in a mature way. To her the idea that there was a man who was not interested in her as a woman was just intolerable. She never quite recovered from that. Other people do and have happy second marriages without constantly complaining about the woes of the first or the terrible things their first spouse did to them. Frankly speaking, if a date was constantly telling me about how bad their first wife was; I would not take it any further. It shows me that person has unresolved issues that are likely to affect any future relationships.
Charles did not have to listen to his father. He was 32. He needed heirs and he had been turned down by at least two other prospects. Camilla encouraged the match by hosting Charles and Diana at the home she shared with APB and their children. One option his father had was to drop Diana if he could not commit. That does not sound like forcing to me.
The thing is Charles had no business marrying Diana if he did not love her. IF he wanted a marriage, he should have stopped contacting Camilla. Charles could not have it both ways. Why is Diana singled out as being the "problem." Charles could not accept that Camilla married someone else and resumed the relationship with her when she married another man and the youngest was still practically a baby. A mature man Moves On. and I mean Moves On.
Divorce was not an easy thing for Charles and/or Diana to get back then. Which is why I am wondering why Charles went into the marriage not loving Diana.
"Just about all sources say she was trying to reach Hasnet not Charles, with the photos with Dodi. She was by herself not with Dodi during the party Charles threw for Camilla."
No that is not true. The sources actually say she wanted to send a message to C&C. Richard Kay who is acknowledged as Diana's mouthpiece actually said the same thing. Pierce Morgan said as much. At inquest, that too was raised. Someone advised her not to watch a documentary about C&C to commemorate Camilla's 50th birthday but she could not resist. Diana was not over the divorce. She remained bitter and acted out because of it.
Richard Kay is not a mind reader. He has no clue why Diana did that. I think Diana took the reasons with her to her grave. Why would she want to send a message to her divorced husband? IT was a bit late in the day for that and Diana had been seeing Hasnet since 1995.
Diana watching the documentary was logical. She wanted to see how the Camilla campaign was progressing. It shows she was not in any denial about it. Diana did not act "bitter." She moved on with her life, she even sold the gowns she wore as a royal for Charity. So she did not look at her gowns in the closet and think well this is the gown I wore when Charles and I went this place, and so on. She moved on. She certainly did not seem "bitter" or another Miss Havisham who refused to move on. She did move on.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 08:29:37 AM
I actually do understand how the silly rules on divorce trapped two people who could no longer live in the same house together.
My
The
.
well its pretty obvious isn't it? They were not supposed to divorce. If their marriage was unhappy as other royal marriages had been at times, they were supposed to make the best of it.. As the queen is reputed to have said "Ken Palace isn't exactly bijou". I doubt if she really said that, but the fact is that it isn't unknown for royal and aristocratic couples to stay together for practical reasons, and for their children and lead largely separate lives. THey had plenty of space to spend time apart and should IMO have been able to be poltte to each other for the sake of the children, but I dot think they managed it that well.
I think that it DID hurt Diana that Charles had moved on though, because she still cared for him and still felt hurt that her marriage had failed.. and she hadn't had much luck in finding a new man who could give her a home and a life that she had longed for. but it wasn't going to be easy if you were married to the future King to find someone who had the wealth and rank to offer something similar and the confidence not to be intimidated by Diana's status.
So of course she still was hurt and still watnted to upstage him. Camilla was looking like she would be in line to marry Charles and take over the position that Diana had made such a success of. so IMO it is understandable that Diana was still hoping to outdo her on the public stage, to go on with her charity work and still be a draw in the press.
She was only a divorcee for one year before she died. I don't think any judgments about her finding someone can be made under the circumstances. Charles even had to wait 8 years after Diana died to get married due to a variety of circumstances including his grandmother not wanting a C and C wedding in her lifetime. At one point he said publicly he would not marry again.
It was still up in the air back then re: Camilla and Charles.
Diana was light years ahead of Camilla re: charity back then. Camilla was not known for doing charity work in 1997, she was only taking first steps back then with Mark Bolland guiding her. I don't think Diana felt threatened by Camilla in that regard. I think she would have done splendidly continuing her charity work had she lived. I think Diana wanted to try to surpass what she did not Camilla.
Diana did not actually need to remarry to have a successful life. She had two devoted sons and would have been a wonderful grandmother.
Camilla didn't have to do charity work to "beat Diana", she was going to outflank Diana if she married Charles. and the 50th birthday party was a clear sign that Chas was hoping to marry her in time.
And as you know Diana did indeed do some good work but her charity work in that last year or so was fitful. If she wanted to remain a well known figure, and not fade into obscurity, she would have to be seen in public and preferably be seen doing more tan having sunshine holidays.
People were getting fed up with the War of the Waleses, and with the whole Diana thing..and the Dodi holidays werenet helping. A lot of people felt she should not accept hospitality form the Fayeds and while some people were pleased to see her out with a man she could date in public others were feeling that Dodi was nothing but a spoiled extravagant empty headed playboy, who wasn't the sort of partner she should be with. Particularly because he was the son of a controversial and nouveau riche man like MAF.
So for the sake of keeping up a positon as a famous and admirable philanthropist I think that Di would have had to step up her game and be seen in the papers doing charity work, keeping on her interest in landmines and other charities and working rather than taking too many holidays.
Not necessarily. Diana probably still would have been as popular as ever. Camilla had no royal children. Diana would always be involved in royal events involving her sons with Prince Charles. Charles still had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla. Since the Queen Mum lived until 2002, Charles at the very least would not be able to marry her in 2003. There was also the Burrell trial which delayed matters. Diana's work was "fitful" because she was regrouping. She did more in that one year than many would do in ten. How many people can claim that in one year, they got a humanitarian award, called attention to landmines, sold iconic gowns and made much money for charity. Diana did much in that last year, she did not sit back doing her nails and living on her settlement. She also was discussing with Tony Blair about a role she might play in future (re: charities). Who are the "lot of people"? Diana was friendly with Al Fayed for years because he was a friend of her father's. Raine also worked at Harrod's for Al Fayed and Diana had made up with Raine by then. It was not as if Diana just randomly approached Al Fayed. Diana gave no sign that she would want to marry him.She had told her friend Monckton she was not ready to remarry.
Diana only had one year of life after the divorce so no conclusions can be made. But I do think she would have stepped up. Diana did not take 'too many holidays." She had a holiday with Rosa Monckton and two with the Fayeds (one with William and Harry). Her trip re: Landmines was nothing to sneeze at.
QuoteWhat's the point of saying over and a gain that he SHOULD have fallen in love with her, or that he shoudlnt' have married her?
They were botht at fault.. but they were both victims of the particular situation that the RF was in at the time.
:goodpost:
@amabel
The situation could easily happen again. Charles IMO was more at fault because he later admitted he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. Smith in her book about Charles writes that Charles "hoped" to fall in love with Diana. He's more to blame, he should not have subjected Diana to marriage when he knew he did not love her. He needed heirs and thought of himself only and thought Diana would just fall into line.
Subjected her to marriage?? Anyone wodl thnk that she had hated him and he made her marry him and become Princess of Wales etc.
She wanted to marry him.
And I don't know what you mean by the situation could happen again? That soemone royal is not able to just marry anyone they choose? Well that's always going to be the case, they are not as free as the rest of us.
But Wiliam and other young royals have now been allowed and indeed encouraged to have long live in relationships with the people they love...So they have as good a chance of getting tot know their future partner and getting used to them, before they commit, as most of us have.
So It is not likely that another young prince will be pushed into a "suitable marriage" in the same way.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: sandy on August 21, 2017, 12:08:54 AM
Not necessarily. Diana probably still would have been as popular as ever. Camilla had no royal children. Diana would always be involved in royal events involving her sons with Prince Charles. Charles still had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla. Since the Queen Mum lived until 2002, Charles at the very least would not be able to marry her in 2003. There was also the Burrell trial which delayed matters. Diana's work was "fitful" because she was regrouping. She did more in that one year than many would do in ten. How many people can claim that in one year, they got a humanitarian award, called attention to landmines, sold iconic gowns and made much money for charity. Diana did much in that last year, she did not sit back doing her nails and living on her settlement. She also was discussing with Tony Blair about a role she might play in future (re: charities). Who are the "lot of people"?
As I've repeteadly said, Diana was attracting a lot more bad press in the last year or 2. And some of it was due to her affair with Dodi. Didn't matter wether she was going to marry him or not. Many people felt that she should not accept his father's hospitality so publicly, and be seen taking 3 holidays in a month or 2 with this controversial man.
No, she thought Charles loved her and she was besotted with him. She did not "hate" him and he did not "hate" her, he just did not love her and as Smith wrote "hoped to learn to love her." what was more absurd is that Smith compared them to Elizabeth and Bertie. The two did indeed love each other when they married. It just took Elizabeth some time to decide if she wanted royal life. But he did not have to "learn" to love her, he already did and she loved him. With Charles it was a matter of expediency, he needed heirs, Diana was suitable and she said yes to his proposal. Not a great way to marry anybody.
Charles theoretically could have married Camilla. He wanted to continue sowing wild oats and said to his biographer he felt himself "too young" to marry. Nobody stopped him from pursuing Camilla as a wife, he decided not to. And if he felt not "ready" to marry he could have told Camilla to wait for him and they had a future together.
This situation could indeed happen again. If someone has the same attitude as Charles had. It could happen.
It is a myth that Charles was "forbidden" to marry Camilla Shand. He could not have been bothered to pursue her.
William could have had the same attitude. William was not "forbidden' to marry Kate Middleton. At some point though, he did break up with her but decided to get back together. Kate also was not a married woman when William pursued her. Charles went back to Camilla after she married another man and had two young children with him. Different situation entirely. Kate and William were free and had no ex spouses when they married.
Charles was not "pushed" and at 32, he was not a baby. He just does not want to take responsibility for any decision he makes. A big flaw of his
Charles subjected Diana to a situation where there was another woman around and he preferred this other woman.
Diana was involved with Dodi for a few weeks. She did not elope to Vegas with him. She was free and she was dating. I don't recall her getting heavily criticized. She was admired for her Landmine work and the charity auction.
QuoteIm of two minds on posting it, its very tough to read at parts, especially Diana's condition at the scene
Yes the article runs through the timeline leading up to the accident and then goes into some specific detail regarding the injuries and condition of the car's occupants. However I did gain a better understanding of how difficult it was for the rescuers to free and then treat the injured. Having read the article and the timeline I am convinced that the the rescuers did follow protocol and made the best decisions for their patients that they could given the gravity and severity of the situation.
@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.
Its not a myth Sandy. Charles could not have married Camilla AT THAT TIME. And yes Diana was getting more criticism in the papers in the last few years, as I've said a hundred times but I know you refuse to accept that.
I have no idea what you are on about William for, as he was in a completely different situation to Charles..
If he'd fallen in love with a married or divorced woman, there might be some possibility that there would be a problem with their marrying, so then there might be some similarity, but he hasn't. So I don't know what you are on about....
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 07:53:17 AM
Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.
well I'm sure that if Charles had said nothing of an emotional nature about Diana when she died or just when she was severlely injured we'd be hearing "Oh how heartless he is, even in an extreme situation he couldn't say anything kindly to indicate that he cared a little for her...."
No I did not say that. I said that even if he was not 'Ready' to marry there was still no reason for him not to tell her to wait for him when he returned from navy duty and they could discuss their future. He didn't. William said he was not ready to get married but that said, apparently he indicated to Kate they had a future together and they did not go their separate ways. They had an understanding (and more so after they made up in 2007). No Diana was not getting "more criticism"--of course the Charles people like Penny Junor and Charles' friends would criticize her. But I think Charles and Camilla were getting more criticism than Diana at the time. Charles had to hire a spin doctor (before Diana died) so there seemed to be some concern on his part about their unpopularity.
I think WIlliam and Kate are a very obvious comparison. They had an understanding. And she waited for him. Charles did not tell Camilla Shand to wait for him. I think there are obvious comparisons even if you don't. William did not just shrug, I am not ready to marry I'm moving on, so long Kate. He didn't. Kate did not up and marry someone else because Will told her obviously there was a future for them. Camilla up and married her long time boyfriend because Charles gave no indication to her of any sort of future. If he really loved her he would have moved heaven and earth.
I don't think Diana would have accepted Charles' "help". Diana did not even want the man at her father's funeral. She would have had the best healthcare without Charles help.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
Yes the article runs through the timeline leading up to the accident and then goes into some specific detail regarding the injuries and condition of the car's occupants. However I did gain a better understanding of how difficult it was for the rescuers to free and then treat the injured. Having read the article and the timeline I am convinced that the the rescuers did follow protocol and made the best decisions for their patients that they could given the gravity and severity of the situation.
@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.
If I had a loved one treated the way Diana was after the accident, I would have sued for malpractice. The answer is always that's how "they" do it. Well how "they did it" killed Diana because time was of the essence and she was bleeding to death. They bypassed two hospitals on the way. ANd DIana was allowed to stay in that car for an unnecessarily long time before they even started removing her from it.
Some writers say that if Reagan after he was shot had been placed in a slow ambulance he would have died from his injuries before he even got to the hospital.
The treatment was very slipshod.
@sandy says "If he really loved her he would have moved heaven and earth."
But he has moved heaven and earth. Have you read the latest polls? The man is as unpopular as they come (Camilla even more so if the polls are to be believed) but Camilla is still his wife. I am sure if he had dumped Camilla after 1997, the pro-Diana people would have cheered him to the heavens but he refused and has refused to budge. Camilla is here to stay. Charles had defied everybody to ensure she is "non-negotiable". If that is not love, then I do not know what is. In any case you only have to compare how Charles is now and how he was when married to Diana to know that he did not love Diana but definitely loves Camilla.
No he did not. He made her his married mistress instead of marrying her way back when. He did not tell her to wait for him way back when so she married Andrew Parker Bowles.
He could not have dumped Camilla, he named her publicly and her father told him "well what are you going to do about her now?" He also forced the divorce of the PBs.
Charles just had to have his cake and eat it too. If he really loved Camilla, he would not have been involved with so many other women and married someone else.
If he did not love Diana, he had no business marrying her.
But the thing is
@sandy : mistresses, lovers, Diana etc are all in the past... at the end of the day it is Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor. All the others he forsook. Diana in particular he forsook at a heavy price to his reputation (the recent polls speak for themselves).
His grandmother, mother and even father were opposed at one point. A large (and very vocal) part of the nation was opposed but he still insisted that he was going to stay with her. And of course, Charles is very happy with his new wife. No more complaints from him on that score. This is no longer a case of "whatever love means".
I also repeat: people marry for many, many reasons...not just love. In this case it was for dynastic reasons, not an unheard of concept in royal families. I would also add that Diana had no business accepting a proposal from a man whom she had doubts about and a marriage that she seemed to have entered with trepidation.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:32:22 PM
btw this statement is not necessarily true :"He could not have dumped Camilla"
Charles can and has dumped mistresses before, completely and with a brutal finality. Kanga is a prime example: so it is not as if it was "marry Camilla or else...". He decided that Camilla was the woman for him and he was going to marry her regardless of whatever anyone thought or felt.
I wouldn't take too much notice of these polls. I think that the anniversary and the dredigng up of the various stories of how awful Charles was, has brought out people who already dislike him, or people who don't know much about him, and they may criticise him. however the vast majority of the population treat him ad the rest of the RF with vague indifferent tolerance. They're not going to be rioting in the streets when the time comes for him to be King.. and they will IMo accept Camilla being queen in the same way. Some people will never forgive him but no one is liked by everyone.
True about the polls (although on another thread) and I think that is how Charles takes it. This is not a competition for who's most liked, although some people would desperately like it to be that way. I sincerely hope the press do not harm the father-son relationship with their constant comparisons and search for signs that W&H are isolating Charles.
I think William is closer to his in laws now.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 21, 2017, 02:24:43 PM
But the thing is @sandy : mistresses, lovers, Diana etc are all in the past... at the end of the day it is Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor. All the others he forsook. Diana in particular he forsook at a heavy price to his reputation (the recent polls speak for themselves).
His grandmother, mother and even father were opposed at one point. A large (and very vocal) part of the nation was opposed but he still insisted that he was going to stay with her. And of course, Charles is very happy with his new wife. No more complaints from him on that score. This is no longer a case of "whatever love means".
I also repeat: people marry for many, many reasons...not just love. In this case it was for dynastic reasons, not an unheard of concept in royal families. I would also add that Diana had no business accepting a proposal from a man whom she had doubts about and a marriage that she seemed to have entered with trepidation.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:32:22 PM
btw this statement is not necessarily true :"He could not have dumped Camilla"
Charles can and has dumped mistresses before, completely and with a brutal finality. Kanga is a prime example: so it is not as if it was "marry Camilla or else...". He decided that Camilla was the woman for him and he was going to marry her regardless of whatever anyone thought or felt.
Not Camilla. Charles named her publicly. He did something unprecedented he publicly named the married mistress and forced a divorce of the PBs (senior royals never did that before--Ernest Simpson took the blame for the divorce when he and Wallis parted ways--The King never named Wallis until she was a divorcee). He never said publicly I am having an affair with Wallis Simpson. But he did give up the throne for Wallis and wanted to marry her.
Charles naming Camilla caused a backlash. APB never complained until Charles outed her then got the divorce. Her father confronted Charles asking "what are you going to do about her now?" At that point he could not drop her without more of a backlash from her family and so on. He never outed any of the other mistresses. Just Camilla.
The only one truly opposed was the QUeen Mother. Margaret did not approve but she had no say in the matter. Both of them died in 2002.
If Charles thought Camilla the "woman for him" he would have told her to wait for him all those years ago. Once she married another man (and his friend) she should have been off limits so Charles could move on with his life.
QuoteThey bypassed two hospitals on the way
Yes the ambulance did pass two hospitals because they were not designated as place that could provide care for them aka "trauma centers" in 1997. They took Diana to the hospital that had the team that was trained and skilled in working with severely injured people such as victims of severe car accidents. Had they been routed to the place that didn't have the team that was capable of handling and left the patients there, then yes you would have had a case for malpractice.
@TLLK. Many of the conspiracy theories stem from the fact that Diana's death in a way made things much, much simpler for the royal family. They would no longer have a struggle over parental rights and could bring up the children as they wanted. All the money paid out in alimony would return to the Windsor family via the children so there was no financial loss on their part. Besides Charles was free to marry whenever he wanted. Some people have found it neigh impossible to believe that someone as glamorous as Diana could be killed in an accident in a second hand car. It is a tawdry tale but one that stems from very poor judgement all through that fateful holiday.
As for
@sandy regarding Charles. Camilla did not enter a happy marriage. It was full of rows, tantrums and mental illness. This was not a case of a sweet couple that were broken up by a wicked mistress. Anyway it is all moot point now. Diana is dead and Charles married Camilla. We are just bickering over spilled milk.
William and Harry have the settlement they did not have to return it to their father. So it did not return to the "family" but to Diana and Charles' two sons. Diana willed it to them.
Charles had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla he could not rush into any marriage: he hired Bolland, his grandmother did not want a wedding in her lifetime and there was the Burrell trial.
Camilla was in it from the get go. She caused the rows and the bulimia (not "mental illness"). She came between a husband and a wife. DIana said the rows were over Camilla. Charles should have stopped contacting her. She did undermine Diana and yes, I think she coveted what Diana had. I don't think she's a particularly nice person. Too bad Diana had to be in her orbit.
The facts and fictions of Diana's death | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/07/monarchy.diana)
An article summarizing the inquest into the accident in 1997.The facts and fictions of Diana's death | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/07/monarchy.diana)
If you are uncomfortable reading the details of Diana's injuries, I'd strongly suggest that you skip reading the top half of the first article. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/14/monarchy.davidbatty- More regarding the details of the accident.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 08:41:39 PM
Finally the authors of the book Death of A Princess have rescinded their criticism of the SAMU system after reviewing the medical records.
QuoteIn the 1998 book, "Death of a Princess," Time magazine reporters Thomas Sancton and Scott MacLeod were critical of the French system, arguing that Diana could have been saved in a hospital operating room. SAMU was so upset with the indictment, according to the authors, that they threatened to sue.
But Sancton and MacLeod later rescinded their theory, based on evaluations of the medical records, in a 2004 Vanity Fair piece on the British inquest into Diana's death.
"I have actually revised my conclusions based on a fascinating series of interviews with a trauma specialist in Houston," Sancton wrote in an e-mail to ABCNews.com. "The bottom line is, whatever the merits or demerits of the French emergency medical system, poor Diana was a goner from the beginning because of the particular nature of her deceleration injury."
Defenders of the French system say that major road accidents like Diana's represent only about 12 percent of all emergency calls. Most are falls, domestic accidents, cardiac arrests and neurological problems.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 08:43:00 PM
Princess Diana's Death: Anniversary Brings French Health Care Into Focus - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/story?id=8437560)
Once again
@sandy. The last name of W&H is Mountbatten-Windsor. They are part of the family. It is of no lose to the Windsors if they get that money because they would have gotten it anyway when the Queen and Charles died. From their point of view, the kids got their inheritance early. Had Diana lived, she could have willed it to anyone she liked including her new spouse and other children but all that did not happen.
Again whether he married her 8 years or two years is of no consequence. She is now his wife. Wishing and hoping that he is somehow unhappy is not going to make it so. Charles has stated time and time again that he is content with his new marriage. Camilla has stated the same. It is a very different scenario from when he was married to Diana.
Nobody can make your marriage fail unless you help them to do so. The so called "she came between a man and his wife" is a typical excuse of people who do not want to face the fact that their marriage is dead. They prefer to blame an outsider instead of facing the weaknesses in their own relationship. The mistress merely completes the process that started long time ago.
C&D were doomed. It was going nowhere. The best they could hope for was an accommodation in which each led their own private lives and only met for state occasions. Charles would have tolerated that but Diana wanted him to be actively involved with her. Charles was not a child being forced to go after Camilla. He just one day decided that he could no longer live with Diana and left. Bickering over the embers of that dead marriage is a pointless exercise in my view.
It is their money, inherited from their mother. No matter what their last name is.
Diana had money of her own and had inherited a trust fund before she married into the royal family. Her theoretical husband may have had money of his own to will to their hypothetical children.
The marriage fell apart because Charles would not give up Camilla. His mistake was taking her on as mistress after she married another man (he did the same thing with Dale Tryon). They were doomed because as Charles later admitted he did not love Diana. That would doom any marriage as would the presence of another woman.
Charles was not exactly civil to Diana and put her down in public. Why would she fight to have someone like that around? After a while she had given up on him. Charles stomping away from the marriage without any sort of marriage counseling was really foolish of him and makes him look immature.
He did get to have his cake and eat it too. Charles should not have married Diana if he did not love her. He appeared to lack basic common sense. I think he thought the marriage would just fall into place without any effort. It didn't.
All moot point (did not go for counselling, gave up on the marriage, etc). Does not change a thing. He decided to leave and finalized it with a divorce. Could have, would have, should have...not going to change a thing. It ended.
As for the inheritance, it is completely irrelevant whether Diana was sitting on a fortune from the Spencers or was going to marry a billionaire. To the Windsors, their only interest in her will would be whether the money remained in the family or was otherwise given away to other people. All the alimony from the divorce went straight back to the Windsor children and therefore remained in the family as well as being intact.
In other words, Charles lost nothing financially in that divorce. All that happened was that his kids got a portion of their inheritance earlier and they would have gotten it anyway when he died. It was just another of those circumstances that seemed convenient for the Windsors; hence the conspiracy theories.
They never wished Diana dead but her death made things less complicated for them in the long run.
Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:46 PM
Yes the ambulance did pass two hospitals because they were not designated as place that could provide care for them aka "trauma centers" in 1997. They took Diana to the hospital that had the team that was trained and skilled in working with severely injured people such as victims of severe car accidents. Had they been routed to the place that didn't have the team that was capable of handling and left the patients there, then yes you would have had a case for malpractice.
A team could always have traveled to another hospital. Diana was doomed because she did not get to the hospital on time while bleeding to death. Sometimes "procedures" set up do not work.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 11:21:43 PM
It is strange that Charles just stomped off without getting an outside party to counsel both of them. Maybe he felt above what "mere mortals" did to try to save a marriage. The Queen decided they should divorce, she was the one who made the first move, not Charles.
The settlement did not get handed back to Charles, it went to her sons William and Harry in the will. The sons did not give the money to their father, they kept it.
Charles did not get the money back. His sons money was not willed to him. He was not her widower. The money was not willed to them by Charles but by their mother. Charles did not get the money back so he could not will it back to them. It was DIana's property after Charles settled the money on her.
Nobody's death makes things less complicated. If the Windsors thought that way, they are as cold blooded as reptiles.
Not all the people who remained married
@sandy are madly in love and do not have mistresses/lovers. There are countless examples of women who have remained married to princes even today regardless of mistresses (e.g. Queen Sophia and Queen Syliva). Those women just made a decision that their marriage was more important than fighting over the mistress. Like I have often said, people marry for many reasons and stay married for many reasons. Just because some people cannot live with one another does not mean that they are a standard of what a marriage is.
People may complain until the cows come home but there is not a thing that was going to make Charles fall in love with Diana. She tried it all and it all failed, miserably sometimes like that lingerie incident showed. If Diana had been compliant, discrete and took lovers on the side without all the press interviews, she would probably be the princess of wales today. The issues started when she reacted and acted up in the home, making it impossible for them to live together.
There is always a price to pay for each decision we take and the price for Diana's reprisals was that Charles left the home for good. Her reasons for reacting are understandable but so are his. He just could not live with someone when they were fighting constantly. Nobody can tolerate that. I tell warring couples in my sessions: "If you decide to fight the problems by making each other miserable, do not be surprised when the divorce papers land on the doorstep". In this relationship Diana wanted to remain married more than Charles, so it was her that was hurt most in the end when he left.
When he left, she took it up a notch with her books, interviews and recordings. That is when the queen decided to put an end to the farce and Charles was absolutely in agreement with her. He wrote to Diana telling he he wanted a divorce and actually petitioned for it. The suggestion that Charles was coerced into divorce has absolutely no factual basis. He later told friends that he was looking forward to the day "he would be free". She on the other hand called it "the saddest day of my life".
I also find your notion of Charles not inheriting an estate from his sons quite strange. Charles is considerably wealthier than Diana was. The divorce settlement in its entirety is no more than what he spends on himself every year. Why would he want to inherit from his sons when logic suggests that he would die before them???
Diana's death opened up many paths and resolved many potential problems that could have occurred when she was alive. That is why the conspiracy theorist questioned her death...nothing to do with the royal family or their coldness as you call it.
Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
Yes the article runs through the timeline leading up to the accident and then goes into some specific detail regarding the injuries and condition of the car's occupants. However I did gain a better understanding of how difficult it was for the rescuers to free and then treat the injured. Having read the article and the timeline I am convinced that the the rescuers did follow protocol and made the best decisions for their patients that they could given the gravity and severity of the situation.
@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.
I hear what youre saying
@TLLK and I probably didnt express myself correctly, while it was not likely to be a marital reconciliation, but it was an extremely out of character thing to say, given his temperament and past actions, and it implied a level or care and devotion that would be required thats galling to hear, considering their past.
It would be like if you neglected and abused a dog for years and everyone knows all you ever wanted was to be rid of the dog, but it gets loose one day and hit by a car, and they you say to someone how you hoped the dog would come back to you, that you just wanted to nurse it back to health....what would someone think or say to that kind of person????
While im sure for the boys mostly and maybe for himself hed want to be seen to be as helpful as possible, she had the resources to have top notch care, there might have been a few connections that Charles might have access to that she didnt, but she would be able to provide for 99.9 percent of her rehab, had she survived.
It may have been careless choice of words in the moment (hes done that before) but it implies a level of tender caring and compassion that seems pretty galling IMO, as it appears that finally in death, when its too late, hes seen her, at least a little bit, like many of us have, someone that makes you want to drop everything to care for her.... but its a hot button issue with me, so im willing to admit the heart may be overruling the head here.
As for the medical care, there was an interesting news item in google news about one of the first witnesses had a lot of unkind thing to say about the medical care, especially the time to respond and the delay getting her out of the car, etc.
As you guys know im pretty comfortable with the esoteric, but I also hold the doc/book Story of a Princess in very high regard, so if they are rethinking the issue, its something ill look at for sure, but im not sold one way or the other yet.
Very good info on your posts TLLK :goodpost:
Let's not forget that Charles made the remark about feeling Diana would always come back to him and need his care to Mark Bolland, a man who has Machiavelli as a middle name.
There were no other witnesses to this supposedly compassionate remark and it was made to a man who dedicated himself night and day to rehabilitating Charles and Camilla's reputation, and one who spent years in Charles's service.
For myself, if this statement of intent had been made to a couple of people whose word could be trusted, I'd accept it. From Bolland? No.
QuoteA team could always have traveled to another hospital. Diana was doomed because she did not get to the hospital on time while bleeding to death. Sometimes "procedures" set up do not work.
@sandy-Hospitals do not work in this manner. Not all physicians, nurses and technicians are able to work in other hospitals in which they are not employed. Diana was transported to the closest hospital that
specialized in treating trauma victims meaning that they also had the necessary equipment to best treat patients who were gravely injured.
She died because she had injuries that were too devastating for them to save her. :(
It seems so, if she was having heart attacks in the ambulance, which could have killed her.
Quote from: TLLK on August 22, 2017, 05:33:21 AM
@sandy-Hospitals do not work in this manner. Not all physicians, nurses and technicians are able to work in other hospitals in which they are not employed. Diana was transported to the closest hospital that specialized in treating trauma victims meaning that they also had the necessary equipment to best treat patients who were gravely injured.
She died because she had injuries that were too devastating for them to save her. :(
She did not get the help she needed. I still found it disgraceful at the amount of time she got to the hospital no matter what they "could" and "could not do." Caring for someone should not be that strict that they "could not" of course they could.
ANd letting her sit in that car before any attempts were made to get her out was just sloppy treatment.
There was a window of opportunity to save her and they messed up. Big time. Dr. Barnard the renowned heart specialist said she could have been saved if there were not that delay.
Double post auto-merged: August 22, 2017, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 22, 2017, 04:07:45 AM
Not all the people who remained married @sandy are madly in love and do not have mistresses/lovers. There are countless examples of women who have remained married to princes even today regardless of mistresses (e.g. Queen Sophia and Queen Syliva). Those women just made a decision that their marriage was more important than fighting over the mistress. Like I have often said, people marry for many reasons and stay married for many reasons. Just because some people cannot live with one another does not mean that they are a standard of what a marriage is.
People may complain until the cows come home but there is not a thing that was going to make Charles fall in love with Diana. She tried it all and it all failed, miserably sometimes like that lingerie incident showed. If Diana had been compliant, discrete and took lovers on the side without all the press interviews, she would probably be the princess of wales today. The issues started when she reacted and acted up in the home, making it impossible for them to live together.
There is always a price to pay for each decision we take and the price for Diana's reprisals was that Charles left the home for good. Her reasons for reacting are understandable but so are his. He just could not live with someone when they were fighting constantly. Nobody can tolerate that. I tell warring couples in my sessions: "If you decide to fight the problems by making each other miserable, do not be surprised when the divorce papers land on the doorstep". In this relationship Diana wanted to remain married more than Charles, so it was her that was hurt most in the end when he left.
When he left, she took it up a notch with her books, interviews and recordings. That is when the queen decided to put an end to the farce and Charles was absolutely in agreement with her. He wrote to Diana telling he he wanted a divorce and actually petitioned for it. The suggestion that Charles was coerced into divorce has absolutely no factual basis. He later told friends that he was looking forward to the day "he would be free". She on the other hand called it "the saddest day of my life".
I also find your notion of Charles not inheriting an estate from his sons quite strange. Charles is considerably wealthier than Diana was. The divorce settlement in its entirety is no more than what he spends on himself every year. Why would he want to inherit from his sons when logic suggests that he would die before them???
Diana's death opened up many paths and resolved many potential problems that could have occurred when she was alive. That is why the conspiracy theorist questioned her death...nothing to do with the royal family or their coldness as you call it.
There should not have been a mistress around. Period. IT was the late 20th century not the 1600s. There would have been no fights over mistresses if Charles had not set up a "competition" between the wife and mistress.
Charles should not have married Diana if he did not love her. He was wishy washy about an important life decision. ANd just thought of HIS needs not considering hers.
The Queen wrote a letter to both of them suggesting divorce. This is a matter of public record. Charles did not initiate it.
The lingerie incident may not be true. From how Diana described that night she was very hurt and not in the mood for love.
CHarles never spelled out the terms of marriage. Had he done this before he proposed Diana could have left the scene.
Charles tried and failed. Diana went into the marriage in good faith.
Why would Diana want to stay in a dead end situation. Suppose she had met someone she wanted to marry. She couldn't. Charles was also increasingly contemptuous of her even in public. Who needs that? Charles is not worth the trouble.
Charles had to borrow money from his mother to help pay Diana. SO the money was not all Charles' in the first place. The money became Diana's when she received it from Charles and her sons' when they collected their inheritance. IT's immaterial what Charles has, the money belongs to their sons now.
Double post auto-merged: August 22, 2017, 10:13:11 AM
Story about Diana's treatment:
Diana's life could have been saved says doctor | UK | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10321/Diana-s-life-could-have-been-saved-says-doctor)
Double post auto-merged: August 22, 2017, 10:20:08 AM
What Charles "said" to his friends may be hearsay. Divorce is supposed to be a sad event and he had some blame for it to put it mildly. If he said that, Shame on him. It certainly proves my point that the royals are cold if Charles actually said that.
Check the thread out. I was refuting your comment that the "family" got Diana's money "back." And I said the boys got it back not the royal family family. That was what I said. I did not comment on Charles own income or anything else. . DIana had the money and left it to her children who are not the whole family. If Charles was as wealthy as you say, how come he had to borrow from his mother to pay the settlement?
Really
@sandy? You believe the POW really had to borrow money to pay a divorce settlement of $30 million? That was a ruse to ensure that Diana could never touch the Duchy of Cornwall. They focused solely on the money that he declared as his personal asset, 101 rule when dealing with a messy divorce. Put it all in a corporation and cry poverty...happens all the time. Certainly Charles found the money to buy Camilla a home and install security in it when he wanted. This was just a way of ensuring that Diana got as little as possible in the settlement and could not touch the Duchy.
It seems that everything that shows Diana in a less than flattering situation is written off as "hearsay" and everything that shows her in a good light or Charles in a bad light must be factual. You are aware that everything Diana said about Charles is "hearsay", aren't you?
Charles said he was happy to be a free man because the marriage had become a nightmare for him. They were not getting a long and hurting each other. He was relieved it was all over. That is why he said that. I doubt he was devastated or sad about the divorce. His view of that marriage was very different from Diana's.
That's nonsense. Diana could not "touch the Duchy" because it is a crown asset.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 22, 2017, 12:20:31 PM
Really @sandy? You believe the POW really had to borrow money to pay a divorce settlement of $30 million? That was a ruse to ensure that Diana could never touch the Duchy of Cornwall. They focused solely on the money that he declared as his personal asset, 101 rule when dealing with a messy divorce. Put it all in a corporation and cry poverty...happens all the time. Certainly Charles found the money to buy Camilla a home and install security in it when he wanted. This was just a way of ensuring that Diana got as little as possible in the settlement and could not touch the Duchy.
It seems that everything that shows Diana in a less than flattering situation is written off as "hearsay" and everything that shows her in a good light or Charles in a bad light must be factual. You are aware that everything Diana said about Charles is "hearsay", aren't you?
Charles said he was happy to be a free man because the marriage had become a nightmare for him. They were not getting a long and hurting each other. He was relieved it was all over. That is why he said that. I doubt he was devastated or sad about the divorce. His view of that marriage was very different from Diana's.
Charles did have to borrow some of the money. That is a fact. The Duchy was not in question nor even remotely on the table during the divorce settlement.
Diana 'took Charles to cleaners' in divorce, says his banker - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1467785/Diana-took-Charles-to-cleaners-in-divorce-says-his-banker.html)
There are things that Charles and DIana said directly. There are things they did not. Charles never told a biographer or anyone publicly he was "happy" that he got the divorce. I think the royals should be credited with some discretion. I doubt Charles would have said that. In all honesty it is not anything he should be proud of if he indeed said it.
IT is a moot point because Charles and Diana were in effect leading separate lives since the end of 1992.
It was a nightmare for Diana too. She was quoted as saying re: the marriage "my life is torture."
What amabel says leads into why he had to borrow from the Queen, while it was a crown asset and thus Diana couldnt get half of it (imagine what thats worth today) im guessing theres also laws on how much of it Charles can liquidate for personal reasons, the press tried to make the borrowing sound like Charles was broke, it was just that the lump sum was a temporary blow to his monthly cash flow.
Like most upper families they have the bulk of assets either tied up in trust, or otherwise kept as far from the divorce lawyers as possible. Also the duchys profitability has grown considerably since the separation/divorce, which Diana wouldnt have got to partake in as far as Charles annual income.
Its why I say she got shafted in the divorce, compared to if they were ordinary people.
Also heres the link i was talking about re the witness to the accident:
Lawyer who saw Diana's death crash breaks 20-year silence to claim "other forces" were behind accident - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lawyer-who-saw-dianas-death-11022110)
It could have been worse, she could have been made to sign a pre nup.
In any case, I think the terms of the marriage should have been spelled out before the proposal.
She didn't "get shafted" in the divorce.. (and As I'm sure Sandy knows quite well pre-nups were not avaialabe in the UK at the time she was married.. )
She got a good settlement considering that she was leaving the RF, and that she had done things that the RF consider pretty terrible, I think she was quite lucky. Fergie didn't do half as well
It was only a hypothetical statement.
I think Diana had things done to her that were pretty terrible. The main thing Charles marrying her when he knew he preferred someone else. He should have cut ties with her if he could not truly commit to her.
Quote from: amabel on August 22, 2017, 09:18:05 AM
It seems so, if she was having heart attacks in the ambulance, which could have killed her.
Yes
@amabelaccording to this article-https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/07/monarchy.diana Diana went into cardiac arrest three times. The first time was after she was removed from the ambulance and suffered a steep drop in her blood pressure and the ambulance's physician realized she was suffering from internal bleeding. Diana was then stabilized and the driver was ordered to drive slowly as any jostling or bump could trigger another bleed. Just yards away from the hospital entrance, she went into cardiac arrest a second time and the team had to work to stabilize her. The last event occurred on the operating table.
When the hospital's top cardiac surgeon opened Diana up he found the following:
QuoteAt the Pitie-Salpetriere hospital, she was operated on by Professor Alain Pavie, the president of the French college of cardiovascular surgeons. He discovered huge internal injuries, including a tear the width of a man's fist in her superior pulmonary vein where it entered the heart.
Pavie said he had never seen a patient survive such an injury. Diana was pronounced dead inside two hours.
Professor Thomas Treasure, the president of the European Association for Thoracic Surgery, queried some details of the treatment, but conceded to the inquest there was a "very low likelihood" that she could have lived.
How could there have been a better outcome for the driver and passengers?
QuoteHad the car not been travelling at 65mph in a 31mph area, had it glanced against the pillar instead of hitting it head-on, or had it bounced off the side wall instead, the shock of the crash would have been less shattering and the occupants of the car might have survived.
Had any of them been wearing seatbelts, they might have stood a better chance.
Also thank you for sharing this information:
QuoteShe didn't "get shafted" in the divorce.. (and As I'm sure Sandy knows quite well pre-nups were not avaialabe in the UK at the time she was married..
However I would imagine that they are standard operating procedure now for anyone marrying into any royal family.
I am glad one change that was made that of the fiancée of a senior royal not having to live in a royal residence up until the wedding day. Kate got to stay with her family and was not moved into a residence for months. She I think appreciated having her family around. She also spent time with her family when her babies were young and she had some help from her mother.
^^^I believe that the BRF allowed Sarah and Sophie to both live with their fiances after their engagements and Sophie had more access to her family than any of the brides/grooms that came before her. I believe that the BRF dropped the "illusion" of the young woman living apart from their fiance when it was shared that Diana had been living at BP for most of the time and not with the QM.
Quote from: sandy on August 22, 2017, 08:09:24 PM
I am glad one change that was made that of the fiancée of a senior royal not having to live in a royal residence up until the wedding day. Kate got to stay with her family and was not moved into a residence for months. She I think appreciated having her family around. She also spent time with her family when her babies were young and she had some help from her mother.
taht's rather amusing because I can remember a lot of people attacking Kate for being so close to her mother and for "having help with her mum" with the babies...#
Quote from: TLLK on August 22, 2017, 08:26:51 PM
^^^I believe that the BRF allowed Sarah and Sophie to both live with their fiances after their engagements and Sophie had more access to her family than any of the brides/grooms that came before her. I believe that the BRF dropped the "illusion" of the young woman living apart from their fiance when it was shared that Diana had been living at BP for most of the time and not with the QM.
Sarah had just broken up with Paddy McNally (she was living with him) when she started dating Andrew. She was more or less on her own and working. She had really wanted to settle down with McNally but he did not want to remarry. Sophie spent more time with her family.
Diana felt very isolated at BP and Charles was away on a major tour during the engagement. She stayed with her mother and stepfather in Australia before her engagement was announced and later her mother went to London to assist her with wedding plans.
I've been thinking about Diana every day and feeling sad of course that she was taken so suddenly and so young.
This is a little article from Sky News about the new doco in which William and Harry talk about their mother's death, the French paps, and how their father and grandmother tried to protect them at Balmoral.
Harry: Paparazzi chased Princess Diana then photographed her dying (http://news.sky.com/story/harry-paparazzi-chased-princess-diana-then-photographed-her-dying-11001159)
Harry and William Open Up About the Moment They Learned of Diana's Death — as They Defend Their Father
Prince Harry Defends Prince Charles's Response to Diana's Death (http://people.com/royals/prince-harry-says-his-father-prince-charles-did-his-best-after-dianas-death-he-was-there-for-us/)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:34:07 AM
Prince William Blasts the Photographers Who Hounded His Mom: They Were 'A Pack of Dogs'
Prince William Blasts Photographers Who Followed Diana (http://people.com/royals/prince-william-blasts-the-photographers-who-followed-his-mom-as-a-pack-of-dogs/)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:37:30 AM
Princes William and Harry have given their 'final word' on mum Princess Diana
Princes William and Harry give 'final word' on Princess Diana (http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017082241805/princes-william-harry-final-word-diana/)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:41:11 AM
Moment our father told us our mother was dead: Prince William and Harry reveal their reaction to being given the news in remarkably candid TV documentary about the turmoil of the days after Diana's death
Prince William and Harry reveal reaction to Diana's death | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814266/Prince-William-Harry-reveal-reaction-Diana-s-death.html)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:52:59 AM
'I used my fringe as a safety blanket': Prince William reveals he 'hid from thousands of mourners behind his hair' as he walked behind the coffin at Diana's funeral
Prince William 'hid behind hair' at Diana's funeral | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814100/Prince-William-hid-hair-Diana-s-funeral.html)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:59:36 AM
'It was an act of desperation': Prince William reveals he 'understands' why his mother chose Panorama interview to discuss her marriage problems
Prince William 'understands' why Diana went on Panorama | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814584/Prince-William-understands-Diana-went-Panorama.html)
that what Diana told interviews and she says "Charles been see Camilla mostly and Diana wouldn't approved and she told interviews says three marriages"
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:01:24 AM
Diana's sister says Princess was 'religious about seatbelts' and she is 'haunted' by unanswered questions over her sibling's death in car crash
Diana's sister says she was 'religious about seatbelts' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814632/Diana-s-sister-says-religious-seatbelts.html)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
Prince Harry 'very glad' to walk behind Diana's coffin
Prince Harry 'very glad' to walk behind Diana's coffin - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41017659)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:13:29 AM
'You didn't even know her': Prince William on his confusion over public grief for Diana
'You didn't even know her': Prince William on his confusion over public grief for Diana (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/didnt-even-know-prince-william-confusion-public-grief-diana/)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:16:09 AM
Harry slams dying Diana pictures
Harry slams dying Diana pictures (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/europe/2017/08/23/harry-slams-dying-diana-pictures.html)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:17:10 AM
Prince William: Queen shielded us from public grief after Diana's death
Prince William: Queen shielded us from public grief after Diana's death | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/23/prince-william-queen-shielded-us-from-public-grief-after-dianas-death)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:20:36 AM
Princes Harry and William talk about impact of losing mother ? video | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/aug/23/princes-harry-and-william-talk-about-impact-of-losing-mother-video)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:22:52 AM
Tony Blair praises the Queen for her reaction following Diana's death
Diana's funeral: Tony Blair praises Royal Family's reaction | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/844606/diana-funeral-tony-blair-praises-royals-reaction)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:24:57 AM
Charles 'was there for us' when Diana died, Prince Harry says
Charles 'was there for us' when Diana died, Prince Harry says - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-23/william-and-harry-on-their-mothers-death/)
Did they make these documentaries all at once? I thought the HBO special was the main one.
Quote from: sandy on August 23, 2017, 05:30:14 AM
Did they make these documentaries all at once? I thought the HBO special was the main one.
NBC will aired 7 days of Princess Diana on September 1 I can't wait for that after her 20th death anniversary of her death August 31
Quote from: sandy on August 23, 2017, 05:30:14 AM
Did they make these documentaries all at once? I thought the HBO special was the main one.
https://
twitter.com/RoyalReporter/st...49026322366465
Richard PalmerVerified account @RoyalReporter 5h5 hours ago
More
For those asking, I'm told all three sets of William and Harry interviews - ITV, BBC, and Newsweek - were done around the same time in March
Theroyalfamily.wcgc on Twitter: "#DukeandDuchessofCambridge and #PrinceHarry will visit the White Garden to pay tribute to #Diana , at Kensington (https://twitter.com/lovecambridges_/status/900352020787281921)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:18:05 PM
Majesty/Joe Little on Twitter: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry are to visit the White Garden at Kensington Palace on 30 August: (https://twitter.com/majestymagazine/status/900130715576049664)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 04:19:06 PM
Gert's Royals on Twitter: "New engagment: August 30th William, Kate & Harry will visit the White Garden at Kensington Palace which was inspired by (https://twitter.com/gertsroyals/status/900158207909384192)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:02:35 PM
'Why didn't she wear a seatbelt?' Diana's sister haunted by unanswered question over death
Princess Diana death: Sarah McCorquodale raises questions over crash | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/844968/Princess-Diana-death-crash-Sarah-McCorquodale-Dodi-Fayed-Trevor-Rees-Jones-Royal-Family)
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2017, 05:04:23 PM
William and Harry to mark their mother's death and then hope to move on
William and Harry to mark their mother's death and then hope to move on - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-23/william-and-harry-to-mark-their-mothers-death/)
Double post auto-merged: August 24, 2017, 04:04:37 AM
Royals and Spencers at war over the prayers, the route extended by two miles and gardeners tidying the M1: Minute by minute, how preparations were made for Diana's funeral
How preparations were made for Diana's funeral | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4817944/How-preparations-Diana-s-funeral.html)