Not even Diana's thigh-high skirt made up for her being such an airhead: Withering verdict of LORD BELL, Lady Thatcher's favourite ad man | Daily (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775701/Not-Diana-s-thigh-high-skirt-airhead-Withering-verdict-LORD-BELL-Lady-Thatcher-s-favourite-ad-man.html)
Quote
the time I met Diana, Princess of Wales in 1993, she'd already built herself a career as a tragic figure, working at it with public relations people and sharp lawyers.
My friend Gordon Reece, one of Margaret Thatcher's closest advisers, was completely infatuated with her — she turned him into a puppy dog — and wanted to become her publicist. But I never had much time for Diana myself.
The problem was that she fancied the privileges of being the Princess of Wales, but not the sacrifices and responsibilities.
Substitute Princess of Wales for Duchess of Cambridge, in the part in bold, and you have a great argument.
The Duchess of Cambridge isn't the Princess of Wales yet, she doesn't have the privilege that entails that title and position.
She's under the dispensation of what Charles approves (and the Queen via SG), the actual POW, handler of the Dutchy of C.
She has all the privileges of a future Queen, which doesn't she have? What she doesn't have is the ability/capacity/desire (take your pick) to work. All members of the brf are under the "dispensation" of the Queen. No difference, except in her nearly permanent state of idleness.
The article was about Diana when I read it. :hmm:
Cindy
Very interesting, he certainly wasn't a fan:
QuoteThe four of us waited downstairs for Diana's car to arrive. Then she made her entrance from above, in big heels and a short skirt. The gentlemen tried to be polite and not look upwards as she tottered down the stairs.
She was very tall — with very long legs — and very vain. I thought she looked like a horse.
As Diana was sitting down, she took one of the cushions from the sofa and held it on her lap, feigning coyness, pretending that she didn't want a Sharon Stone moment. But then, why oh why had she dressed like that in the first place?
That was her way: a kind of provocative false modesty, which I found rather unattractive because it was so choreographed — like the way she tilted her head and looked up through her eyelashes.
I barely spoke all night, which I think she found disagreeable, in the way that women who are almost invariably fawned over react badly when they find it's not happening.
Frankly, I couldn't make myself interested in her banal air-headedness. Most of the evening she just talked about herself and her clothes and things that had little relevance to any of us there.
Quote from: cinrit on October 01, 2014, 10:52:46 AM
The article was about Diana when I read it. :hmm:
Cindy
http://sarcasm.link/en/s/879b78.png
:P
Cindy
Well maybe those who put out scathing things about the dead princess should be instructed to "move on."
Quote from: wannable on October 01, 2014, 10:17:46 AM
The Duchess of Cambridge isn't the Princess of Wales yet, she doesn't have the privilege that entails that title and position.
She's under the dispensation of what Charles approves (and the Queen via SG), the actual POW, handler of the Dutchy of C.
:goodpost:
The Duchess of Cambridge isn't even a grown up yet, judging by her speeches and work history. She shouldn't be only under the dispensation of Charles and the Queen, her husband has money of his own and should pay for her upkeep.
Quote from: Canuck on October 01, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
Very interesting, he certainly wasn't a fan:
QuoteThe four of us waited downstairs for Diana's car to arrive. Then she made her entrance from above, in big heels and a short skirt. The gentlemen tried to be polite and not look upwards as she tottered down the stairs.
She was very tall — with very long legs — and very vain. I thought she looked like a horse.
As Diana was sitting down, she took one of the cushions from the sofa and held it on her lap, feigning coyness, pretending that she didn't want a Sharon Stone moment. But then, why oh why had she dressed like that in the first place?
That was her way: a kind of provocative false modesty, which I found rather unattractive because it was so choreographed — like the way she tilted her head and looked up through her eyelashes.
I barely spoke all night, which I think she found disagreeable, in the way that women who are almost invariably fawned over react badly when they find it's not happening.
Frankly, I couldn't make myself interested in her banal air-headedness. Most of the evening she just talked about herself and her clothes and things that had little relevance to any of us there.
Imagine if he is married. I pity the wife. He sounds very sexist. What a pompous prat.
And how cowardly to take on a dead woman. A real gentleman. Not.
Kate's unweighted skirts makes Diana's fashions look positively Victorian.
^^^Money that he's likely been advised to invest and save for a rainy day or advent of the second republic.
If the senior royals have determined that it is best for the Duchy to pay for the expenses of the PoW, DoC, Cambridges and Prince Harry then that has to be a much better alternative than the tax payers having to increase the Sovereign's Grant. Until someone other than the Duchess of Kent chooses to retire from full time royal duties there will be a substantial number of royals to fund so they can undertake their engagements on HM's behalf.
Diana has been and will likely continue to be a topic of discussion among historians for years to come. Even Queen Victoria still receives press such as new theories about a marriage to John Brown.
Well making cutting remarks about a dead woman whose sons are still very much alive is really tacky. I don't know why it is defended. I guess maybe he's hoping for honours from Charles and Camilla.
The John Brown stories came much much later. After Victoria's children were long dead and buried.
Why is this old fossil being defended for making nasty comments about a dead woman? I don't get it. He sounds very sexist at the very least.
I wonder about the DM. It seems every other week it's Let's Bash Diana Day.
I don't think every negative comment about Diana every random person makes is somehow aimed at getting honours from Charles. :orchid:
Lord Bell worked for politicians, not the Royal family. The piece discusses his opinions of a lot of famous people he knew at the time, not just Diana. Frankly, he doesn't sound like a particularly nice man, but that's neither here nor there. It's still interesting to read what government officials thought of different people back then -- obviously it's just their opinions, not gospel truth, but interesting all the same.
I do think that getting honors from Charles as a hope cannot be eliminated as a possibility other than he is a bitter old man who dislikes women.
Or maybe he just didn't like Diana. Not everyone who met her did.
Sounds like a man actually. They rarely like to hear about clothes and the stuff girls talk about. That's why all girls need good girlfriends lol
Quote from: Canuck on October 01, 2014, 06:08:07 PM
Or maybe he just didn't like Diana. Not everyone who met her did.
Well it sells more books to trash a dead famous person than trashing someone who was not famous. I think not everybody likes Bell either.
I'm sure many people don't like Bell. I'm not much of a fan myself. But he has his opinions, just like everyone else.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 01, 2014, 06:08:14 PM
Sounds like a man actually. They rarely like to hear about clothes and the stuff girls talk about. That's why all girls need good girlfriends lol
:hug: :banana: :goodpost:
Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 07:41:58 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 01, 2014, 05:59:50 PM
I don't think every negative comment about Diana every random person makes is somehow aimed at getting honours from Charles. :orchid:
Lord Bell worked for politicians, not the Royal family. The piece discusses his opinions of a lot of famous people he knew at the time, not just Diana. Frankly, he doesn't sound like a particularly nice man, but that's neither here nor there. It's still interesting to read what government officials thought of different people back then -- obviously it's just their opinions, not gospel truth, but interesting all the same.
It's one of the first opinion pieces from someone that wasn't working for the BRF but had the opportunity to observe them from his position working for the PM.
Would he dare criticize Charles? No way It's only people who can't defend themselves, are dead, or in no positions of power. Bell is a fake.
Well his very first piece in this series for the Daily Mail a few days ago involved scathing criticism of David Cameron and Ed Miliband, among others. Both of whom are very obviously not dead, powerless, or unable to defend themselves. And he goes after Charles Saatchi in today's piece.
I'm not saying he's right in any of his criticism of any of these people. But I think it's pretty clearly just him speaking his mind on a whole range of people. He just didn't like Diana, no conspiracy needed.
Yes, his piece on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Carey, wasn't exactly flattering!
Well he does not go after Prince Charles.
Cameron probably does not pay any attention to the old fool.
Nice for Charles that he didn't like Diana. Camilla must be just delighted.
Somehow I really don't think Charles and Camilla sit around at home looking up every random bit of criticism of Diana so they can delight in it. Not everyone's lives revolve around Diana.
This is all speculation. Nobody knows for sure. It certainly does not hurt them with writers tossing stones at Diana in print. The DM giving excerpts from these books is not low profile. C and C would have to notice it. And the Daily Mail certainly uses superlatives for Camilla. Interesting that they publish Diana slamming articles and write flattering articles about Camilla. Maybe some Charles people own shares in the DM. Wouldn't surprise me.
Or maybe the people running the Daily Mail are among the majority of the population that report in polls having a favorable view of Camilla? You are entitled to your negative opinion of her, obviously, but that doesn't mean that all or even most other people share it.
I despise the Canadian Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean most Canadians agree with me. When newspapers write positive things about him I don't assume it's a conspiracy or that a personal friend of his owns the paper. It just means someone who disagrees with me is expressing their opinion.
What polls? None are definitive unless every single person is questioned. It is all speculation. It is fair to say that some adore her, some loathe her, some don't care. Proportions of reactions subject to speculation.
You cannot state as a fact about "most" people not sharing negative opinions. It is all speculation. I do notice negative comments about her in articles. Not everybody thinks her charming.
Quote from: sandy on October 02, 2014, 01:31:36 AM
What polls? None are definitive unless every single person is questioned. It is all speculation.
That isn't how polls work. There is never, ever an opinion poll that asks every single person their opinion. Nor is it necessary to do so. Using statistical methods and random samples of the population, a poll can tell you within a margin of error (usually a few percentage points) what the results for the entire population would be.
That's not controversial. This has been studied and tested and works on proven methods. If you refuse to accept opinion polls of any kind, that's a very strange and anti-science and -math position to take.
But you obviously don't think all polls are useless, because I've seen you on many occasions refer to polls that say Diana was popular, Charles was disliked, etc. Which leads me to conclude that you only reject polls when public opinion doesn't agree with your opinions.
:goodpost: I don't always agree with the outcome of an opinion poll, but I wouldn't discount their use all together.
Quote from: sandy on October 01, 2014, 01:44:02 PM
Well maybe those who put out scathing things about the dead princess should be instructed to "move on."
Really.
Really what is the point ? While anyone can have an opinion, FACTS cannot be disputed.
Was she an airhead?
He said so and so she was an airhead TO HIM . Fine. That can be debatable or not.
It is like Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.
Some people think she was a Plain Jane. Rail thin. No shape.
Some people think she was very pretty.
Some people think Camilla , DofRotweillers , is a very beautiful woman.
Camilla thought PD was a ridicuolus creature. That was her opinion of PD
PD thought Camilla was a Roteweiller, which I find insulting because Rotties are cute, brave, smart, strong.
That is my opinion of Rottweillers. My friends' Rottie is like this. Your friend's Rottie is not like this.
That might not be your OPINION of Rotweillers.
FACTS vs. OPINIONS.
This statement by him is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. It is NOT A FACT.
"The problem was that she fancied the privileges of being the Princess of Wales, but not the sacrifices and responsibilities."
It is his opinion, but it is not true even though it is HIS OPINION because there ARE FACTS To JUSTIFY it as NOT TRUE. YES, He can have his opinion. We all can, HOWEVER there are FACTS for somethings to PROVE the opposite.
I think QEII is not that old.
To me, she is not that old. Define old.
How can you nsay I am wrong?
Well, someone living pass 80 is not young. It is closer to 100. Average life span of person?
I have my opoinion, but there are FACTS to not support my opinion.
W think's if you have any kind of cancer, no matter what kind or how big or or how small, age of person , etc. just diet and exercise, fruits, drinkm lots of fruit juices, homeopathic things are best. That IS HIS OPINION. HE can have HIS OPINION.
However, you have PROOF that these things do not cure cancer or help someone live ...
K THINKS childhood immunizations are not good for children and they cause Autism.
That is K's OPINION.
HOWEVER, you have PROOF, FACTS to the contrary.
H THINKS women who choose to work outside of the home while raising a family will have unloved kids, juvenile deliquients, ill fed kids, etc. That IS HIS OPINION. HOWEVER, you have FACTS to proove the difference.
It is FACT that PD :
married PC was born of the nobility
had PW early on in her marriage
worked while pregnant in her BRF duties
always performed her BRF duties with a smile, grace
was personable with her subjects and the public worldwide, took on projects
was welcomed by other R and Govt. officials
was a good mother to HER sons
did not falter uner the public pressure in her professional role
took lessons for speech
took lessons a speech in Welsh
took lessons eye contact in speaking
a full yrly. diary/schedule of working dates, places, meetings, tours, etc.
no pics of her top (breast) and bottom (behind).
Really?!?!??!?!?! Come on. I GET IT!! It is understandable to slam a dead woman to sing the praies of the living -PC and CPB or to slam a dead woman to passive agressive sing the praises of PC and CPB and to make sure to get in good with them and be at court.
The rank and file, nobility, those on the edge wanting to be at court in Merry Ole England has not changed since the times of QEI, King Henry 8th, and beyond. 600 or years ago and 2014, same thing!!! Same years. I get it!
I understand.
I agree with sandy. Shouldn't some people move on slamming adead woman. DEAD!!!! Talk about a bully to pick on a DEAD WOMAN.
I get it though! Like I said, it is purely personal.
To get closer to the Crown is to get closer to God for these people.
The traditions and customs of GB and the BRF and the nobility, gentry, others on the fringe down to the subjects love affair to the BRF-Monarcy and to who in the BRF is in power.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on October 02, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
It is FACT that PD :
married PC was born of the nobility
had PW early on in her marriage
worked while pregnant in her BRF duties
always performed her BRF duties with a smile, grace
was personable with her subjects and the public worldwide, took on projects
was welcomed by other R and Govt. officials
was a good mother to HER sons
did not falter uner the public pressure in her professional role
took lessons for speech
took lessons a speech in Welsh
took lessons eye contact in speaking
a full yrly. diary/schedule of working dates, places, meetings, tours, etc.
no pics of her top (breast) and bottom (behind).
I don't agree that all of these things are facts. Diana "did not falter under the public pressure" is certainly what I would call an opinion; it's a subjective judgment, not an objective fact (and one that a lot of people would disagree with). Whether Diana was a good mother -- similarly, that's an opinion. Some people will think she was, some people will think she was not.
what a wicked man - well - wicked sense of observation -
interesting story about Al Fayed - the conspiracy types will make some hay out of that
as for his remarks about Diana - she is a historic figure and like all historic figures she is fair game for compliments and criticisms - her status to some as secular saint does not get her an exemption - public figures living and dead - especially dead - will be given the measure of history. Consider the stuff said about Louis Mountbatten. Oh yes - James Whitaker in his book claimed he had told Diana to cultivate the head down eyes up look she did so often after seeing some pics of her in that pose early after the marriage - he said he told her it was utterly disarming.
Canuck, I am so sorry. You are right. I am sorry to say such about your mother.
I did not know she was your mother. Your brothers seem to love their mother and have seemed to have been pleased with her as ya'll mother.
Seems to me, the people who can determine if she was a good mother would be her three children You and your two brothers. You do not think she was. Your brothers think she was.
Did she abuse you? Was abd to to youy in any way?
Please , do tell.
LOL.
Ok, like I said. It is not debatable, but PD worked. She worked well in her role. She had a good public life in her role while. She at least did THAT right and got THAT right. As for subjective fact, well,then whether QEII, PAnne, PC works a lot, has a full diarys of chartiies is really just a matter of opinion. LOL!!!
Come on! The FACTS as in schedules/dairys, being a patron of oragainzations for PD during her years, PC QEII, PAnne, are that they all work in their BRF duties, public lives.
Honestly, my opinion here, and I said it before but I do not think she had a very happy childhood, marriage,or private life aside from her sons.
cate, I GET it and so true about historic figures... I am not and do not want to debate with us for the 1000th time CPB -PC and PD. PC=PD said it all. They said FACTS about their lives then, esp. PD.
Really, what is there left for these authors to say? She said all of the "good, juicy stuff."
She did not know she was going to die, but it is good that she said it all!!!
cate, historic figures ...well, not quite. In reference to these PD stories, ever notice that there ARE NO STORIES about slamming CPB or PC? They are alive and living. Livng Monarchs.
None of these authors and writers of fiction and opinion , people with a weird obssession with slaming a dead woman will not dare write anything about CPB or PC.
Do you wonder why that is?
Let me give you some answers.
Lawsuits brought forth by the lving.
Respect for the Power which is CPB and PC, future Q and K of E.
Angling some dinner invites, tickets for something, interviews, some kind of in, favor with PC and CPB.
it ois very interesting.
Now, cate, if Saint Queen CPB were to die tomorrow, yeah, I think the books would come out the air, LOL!!! Same for Saint King PC.
FanDianaFancy, you'll notice that I didn't say Diana was or was not a good mother. I'm not pretending I have some insider knowledge and my opinion is more valid than anyone else's. I'm just saying that whether Diana was a good mother IS an opinion -- yours, mine, and everyone else's.
I honestly don't understand how that's controversial. I'm NOT SAYING she was or wasn't a good mother. I'm saying that is the kind of statement that isn't objectively provable. Facts are things like X person attended Y event on this date. Opinions are things like X person did a great job at Y event or X person was charming and personable at Y event.
Ok. I understand . No , you Canuck did not say if PD was or was not a good mother to HER sons.
This author did say or imply this .
Soooooo......in other words.....
PW and PH do not know what they hell they are talking in interviews over the years. They should have no opinion about PD. What They have said about her is only an OPINION.
PD was an awful, evil, crazy, psycho , bi-polar, lazy, neglectful mother to them just like Arbitar and this author says so.
These authors ought to know.
IT IS A FACT that PD was like this because Arbitar and Bell said so or implied and they ought to know. LOL!!!!
Like I keep saying, I am not going to deabte with US here on PC-PD-and CPB again for the 1000th time. I am done with that.
I choose to debate about these authors. Their writings. What gives with their slamming of a long, dead woman? Why?
Why are their no slams of PC and CPB in their books? Oh add PennyJunior 's books about PH in which she goes after PD. The book was suppose to be all about him, but his mother is slammed. CPB, no. PC, no.
They do not write unflattering things, true things but not nice, about the living who are powerful. These authors want some favor. NO, PC and CPB have no control over these nuts. PC adn CPB are busy living the life of the P and P, K and Q to be.
I'm confused -- unless we're reading different articles, Lord Bell doesn't say anything about whether Diana was a good mother. And on the whole, the excerpts from Arbiter's book are at least as critical of Charles as they are of Diana (who he called a devoted mother, by the way, and repeatedly praised for how good she was with Will and Harry).
Yes, there have been some books critical of Diana in recent years. But before that there were a LOT of books critical of Charles. One side of the story gets told, and once that's been milked dry others in the press turn around and tell the other side of the story.
It doesn't mean the authors are just trying to get honours. It's not unique to Diana. It's just how the world works. People have different opinions and when one side has its say, the other side wants to tell how it sees things differently.
I love it !!! The man certainly kept it real ... this I suspect was the REAL Di her adoring public didn't get to see ...
Eri, I know you love him!! LOL!!! Yep, he kept it real. I have not ever heard of PD being a an airhead or slammed for her short skirts. Her adoring public thougb never saw her boobs nor behind. If the airhead , Disneyland princess as he says was this way behind closed doors, well, GOOD!!!
She manged to put on some clothes and cover her privates in public and was able to make decent speeches, be articulate, eye contact, knowledgable of her subject, etc. for the cameras. LOL!!!!
OH, you don't say, she wore short skirts. What a crime and a shame. She was an airhead too. You guys, I think the law should have been repassed and called the PD Law and she should have been sent to the Tower of London to await her trial and inevitable beheading. Yeah. LOL!!!
I am not knocking you , Eri, but this new book.
Canuck, I cannot keep track of the new books and threads and yes, the mothering aspect of her was in the other thread , other book.
No, I did not rea deither book and will not. Not that interested.
I did not Arbitar praised ehr for her life as a mother.
I read she told PH to shut up and I read some of our posts there sort of leading to how awful that was.
YES, in the 1980's, 1990's until a few years after her death ,mif that long, there were books, comments from authors about PC.
All that has ceased. NONE!! None of him. None of CPB. None of the lvijg who are still writing their story as in their lives.
It is open season on a long dead woman who cannot finish her story . Digging for every little thing she said in private. How she sat in private. Wore . ANYTHING!!!! She has no power. No voice and no voice from anyone, soooo go for it!!
NO, you did not say she was not a good mother. I said she was and give her credit, authors, for that at least. Some FACTS-she worked her role in public and did well. She was a good mother.
Those are FACTS.
PROOF-fFACTS -Her dairy of yearly work dates, patrons,comments from those of her cahrities, causes, etc. Her sons picking up some of her charities, causes, etc.
PROOF- FACTS PH and PW should know whether or not if she was a good mother to them since they are her only children. Theynought to to know rather than Arbitar, Bell, Junor, etc. I did not know PD also birthed Junor, Bell, Arbitar. She never mentioned them and so, I guess they do feel slighted since she made an obvious difference with them to PW and PH. LOL!!!!
You are right Canuck that the authors wrote all on one subject of BRF, the money maker of the time,and then after the public is saturated with too much of that subject, they would write about the next. This was the way it used to be.
The appers would praise PD and later to reverse in favor of PC. Again. Viceversa. Praise PC and slam PD. I get it how it used to be.
PC and CPB are living and were living then. No books about them. Why?
They are alive. They are the POWER. Side with the Monarchy, Power, Crown.
It seems so medievel, but these people it seems still want a place at court. To be at court, inside, invties, interviews etc...there is something they are trying to get . So slam a longtime dead woman. No one is there to defend her.
I get it!!!
I have also said before many times, wait or it ...it is coming.
The books saying that PW and PH were so young when their mother died, and CPB was really longer in their lives than PD was. It is Queen Camilla who made a lasting imapct on their lvies and brought a full family to the young princes with her children. it was a change , but a wlecomed on for the young princes in stability, calmess of HRH, Queen Camilla, and it why the princes married the women they did. All a true and honest reflection of HRH Queen Camilla's imprint in their lives and her asute mothering skills on the princes. It is really due to her for their upbringing. She did well with her two children and helepd guide PC .
New book coming you guys...The Other Mother.
Quote from: Eri on October 02, 2014, 07:37:48 AM
I love it !!! The man certainly kept it real ... this I suspect was the REAL Di her adoring public didn't get to see ...
No big surprises there Eri. Another book for your library.
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 05:58:45 AM
I'm confused -- unless we're reading different articles, Lord Bell doesn't say anything about whether Diana was a good mother. And on the whole, the excerpts from Arbiter's book are at least as critical of Charles as they are of Diana (who he called a devoted mother, by the way, and repeatedly praised for how good she was with Will and Harry).
Yes, there have been some books critical of Diana in recent years. But before that there were a LOT of books critical of Charles. One side of the story gets told, and once that's been milked dry others in the press turn around and tell the other side of the story.
It doesn't mean the authors are just trying to get honours. It's not unique to Diana. It's just how the world works. People have different opinions and when one side has its say, the other side wants to tell how it sees things differently.
Charles is alive and has a PR team. That is well documented. And people want to curry favor with a future King. No use trying to curry favor with a dead woman. It is not as simple as that. Charles is holding all the cards.
I never saw a LOT of books critical of Charles. And even before Diana passed on. Charles himself authorized the most unflattering book: The Prince of Wales by Dimbleby. Ironically. It made him look like a petulant whinger.
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: cate1949 on October 02, 2014, 04:39:13 AM
what a wicked man - well - wicked sense of observation -
interesting story about Al Fayed - the conspiracy types will make some hay out of that
as for his remarks about Diana - she is a historic figure and like all historic figures she is fair game for compliments and criticisms - her status to some as secular saint does not get her an exemption - public figures living and dead - especially dead - will be given the measure of history. Consider the stuff said about Louis Mountbatten. Oh yes - James Whitaker in his book claimed he had told Diana to cultivate the head down eyes up look she did so often after seeing some pics of her in that pose early after the marriage - he said he told her it was utterly disarming.
Diana made up the look by herself. Even in the earliest photographs. It was not exactly Whitaker's idea.
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 01:51:21 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:25:16 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on October 02, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
It is FACT that PD :
married PC was born of the nobility
had PW early on in her marriage
worked while pregnant in her BRF duties
always performed her BRF duties with a smile, grace
was personable with her subjects and the public worldwide, took on projects
was welcomed by other R and Govt. officials
was a good mother to HER sons
did not falter uner the public pressure in her professional role
took lessons for speech
took lessons a speech in Welsh
took lessons eye contact in speaking
a full yrly. diary/schedule of working dates, places, meetings, tours, etc.
no pics of her top (breast) and bottom (behind).
I don't agree that all of these things are facts. Diana "did not falter under the public pressure" is certainly what I would call an opinion; it's a subjective judgment, not an objective fact (and one that a lot of people would disagree with). Whether Diana was a good mother -- similarly, that's an opinion. Some people will think she was, some people will think she was not.
Are any of us Diana's children? I did not t hink so. Only William and Harry can make the call and I have only heard positive things said about their mother (from W and H).
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 01:44:57 AM
Quote from: sandy on October 02, 2014, 01:31:36 AM
What polls? None are definitive unless every single person is questioned. It is all speculation.
That isn't how polls work. There is never, ever an opinion poll that asks every single person their opinion. Nor is it necessary to do so. Using statistical methods and random samples of the population, a poll can tell you within a margin of error (usually a few percentage points) what the results for the entire population would be.
That's not controversial. This has been studied and tested and works on proven methods. If you refuse to accept opinion polls of any kind, that's a very strange and anti-science and -math position to take.
But you obviously don't think all polls are useless, because I've seen you on many occasions refer to polls that say Diana was popular, Charles was disliked, etc. Which leads me to conclude that you only reject polls when public opinion doesn't agree with your opinions.
In this case it would have to be a definitive poll. It is not known who is polled, what age groups, etc. Younger generations may not even care about an elderly woman who is Duchess of Cornwall and just say yes she is popular.
All I know is I see lots of negative comments about Camilla but I suppose they don't mean anything.
There is such a thing as the census surveys which are the most definitive questionnaires. I think Charles PR people's method is to inform the populace without proof that people are warming up to Camilla. And some buy into this.
QuoteIn this case it would have to be a definitive poll. It is not known who is polled, what age groups, etc. Younger generations may not even care about an elderly woman who is Duchess of Cornwall and just say yes she is popular.
All I know is I see lots of negative comments about Camilla but I suppose they don't mean anything.
There is such a thing as the census surveys which are the most definitive questionnaires. I think Charles PR people's method is to inform the populace without proof that people are warming up to Camilla. And some buy into this.
Yes, there is such a thing as a census that involves talking to every single person. That happens once every ten years in the UK and is done primarily to collect demographic data (race, age, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin, language usage, etc.). Census surveys do not ask questions like "do you approve of this public figure" -- the work is too expensive and burdensome for things like that, and happens too infrequently to really be of much use.
Regular polls, using a sample of the population and statistical methods, are used for those types of opinion questions. Not just about the monarchy, but about politicians, which way people plan to vote, how they feel about social issues of the day (whether the country should go to war, whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, etc.). Depending on the methodology, polls can be more or less reliable. But a number of very reputable firms have done a lot of polling on Camilla over the years. We have clear data as to how the population thinks.
Of course that doesn't mean that every single person loves Camilla -- the polls themselves say that (obviously if 60% of people liked her, that would mean there is still 40% that don't like her). No one disputes that some people don't like her, and that some of those people post negative comments online. But to figure out how MANY people don't like her, polls are infinitely more reliable than counting up the comments made on these forums or on online newspapers (which is a very small, non-random sample of the population, with the same people tending to comment over and over).
Here, for example, is an Ipsos MORI poll (a very reputable firm that does a lot of political polling) from 1999: Ipsos MORI | Poll | Attitudes towards Camilla Parker Bowles (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1908) It showed that the population was about evenly split as to whether Charles and Camilla should marry and that 76% did not want her to become Queen. It also showed that more than half of people approved of Camilla's behavior after Diana's death, and that 65% thought Charles and Camilla should continue their relationship.
And here's a YouGov poll (again, a very reputable general polling firm) from earlier this year: Camilla can become 'Queen', say public (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/10/Camilla-can-become-Queen/) It shows that 53% now support Camilla becoming Queen, with 32% saying she should have a lesser title when Charles takes the throne. As expected, those who are older are more opposed to Camilla being Queen, and women are also slightly more opposed than men.
You're not required to agree with the majority's opinion in those polls -- I certainly don't agree with a lot of things my fellow citizens think! But there's a difference between disagreeing with the opinions, and disagreeing that the opinions exist. They do.
These polls vary. And I don't think people can go by these surveys. I think the Charles PR method is to merely state that people are warming up to her and some buy this without any polls.
Besides which the polls are pointless, however many people agree or disagree about her being Queen Consort. she is set to be Queen Consort anyway. So what's the use of the polls in any case. If it were 60 for against do you honestly think Charles will try to diminish her title? No way.
I agree that even if the majority of the public were against it, Camilla would likely become Queen when Charles becomes King.
But that's a totally separate question from whether the majority of the public is in fact against it. There have been some polls going either way, but in general the trend has been toward more people being fine with it. Charles may have worked to sway public opinion (as would be expected), but that doesn't mean he's inventing poll results that don't exist.
I don't believe that most people give Cam 2 thoguths, nowadays. And I'd say the majority re in favour or at least not against her becoming queen when the queen goes...
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:25:16 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on October 02, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
It
I don't agree that all of these things are facts. Diana "did not falter under the public pressure" is certainly what I would call an opinion; it's a subjective judgment, not an objective fact (and one that a lot of people would disagree with). Whether Diana was a good mother -- similarly, that's an opinion. Some people will think she was, some people will think she was not.
I think that she was a good mother certainly, hardly perfect but a good one. however I think she did very often falter under public pressure. Who wouldn't? She was openly tearful a couple of times on public engagements...In her early days she had to be coaxed out of the car on the Wales tour.. She did work during her pregnancy but she took time off afterwards and wasn't seen in public often for a while. S he turned up after the queen at a Remembrance Day service IIRC.
Nobody saw Diana being coaxed out of the car except Charles and those assigned to them for the tour. The coaxing out of the car happened One Time. When she got out she instantly went out and did extremely well and the public took to her. She teared up during the stress of the approaching divorce. Who can blame her?
So Diana for 99 percent of the time did extremely well and was popular. Too popular after a while as far as Charles was concerned.
Quote from: amabel on October 02, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
I don't believe that most people give Cam 2 thoguths, nowadays. And I'd say the majority re in favour or at least not against her becoming queen when the queen goes...
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:25:16 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on October 02, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
It
I don't agree that all of these things are facts. Diana "did not falter under the public pressure" is certainly what I would call an opinion; it's a subjective judgment, not an objective fact (and one that a lot of people would disagree with). Whether Diana was a good mother -- similarly, that's an opinion. Some people will think she was, some people will think she was not.
I think that she was a good mother certainly, hardly perfect but a good one. however I think she did very often falter under public pressure. Who wouldn't? She was openly tearful a couple of times on public engagements...In her early days she had to be coaxed out of the car on the Wales tour.. She did work during her pregnancy but she took time off afterwards and wasn't seen in public often for a while. S he turned up after the queen at a Remembrance Day service IIRC.
Diana did have difficulty coping with the pressure prior to and after the wedding. Plus after the honeymoon she was newly pregnant and that brings a host of hormone induced tears.
True. hardly surprising because the amount of attention she had was far more than the average new royal brirde. and she coped pretty well but it would be nonsense to say that she never cracked a bit.
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 08:20:22 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 12:57:10 AM
Somehow I really don't think Charles and Camilla sit around at home looking up every random bit of criticism of Diana so they can delight in it. Not everyone's lives revolve around Diana.
are you kidding? They probably put it out there!!! :). I'm sure they don't think about Diana much.. as a couple. Charles probalby thinks about her at times.....
Quote from: TLLK on October 02, 2014, 07:44:05 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 02, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
I don't believe that most people give Cam 2 thoguths, nowadays. And I'd say the majority re in favour or at least not against her becoming queen when the queen goes...
Double post auto-merged: October 02, 2014, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:25:16 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on October 02, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
It
I don't agree that all of these things are facts. Diana "did not falter under the public pressure" is certainly what I would call an opinion; it's a subjective judgment, not an objective fact (and one that a lot of people would disagree with). Whether Diana was a good mother -- similarly, that's an opinion. Some people will think she was, some people will think she was not.
I think that she was a good mother certainly, hardly perfect but a good one. however I think she did very often falter under public pressure. Who wouldn't? She was openly tearful a couple of times on public engagements...In her early days she had to be coaxed out of the car on the Wales tour.. She did work during her pregnancy but she took time off afterwards and wasn't seen in public often for a while. S he turned up after the queen at a Remembrance Day service IIRC.
Diana did have difficulty coping with the pressure prior to and after the wedding. Plus after the honeymoon she was newly pregnant and that brings a host of hormone induced tears.
Which did not prevent her excelling at her earliest royal duties. The tears were not shed during the tours when she was pregnant with William. I recall photos of her standing out in the rain and cold greeting people in Wales in Fall 1981.
I don't get why some are getting so angry at this guy ... Di was a self obsessed , vain woman with little to no formal education he tolled no lies ...
That's your take on it. Not surprised.
I think this man name dropping the dead Diana (and trashing her to try to score points) is the lowest of the low. A cranky old man who probably yells at children playing in his neighborhood.
And yet Diana is slammed.
It's just his opinion of her. No one is going to dislike Diana based on someone else's opinion.
Cindy
^ Exactly !!! Whoever likes Di will like her , whoever doesn't won't what this man says makes 0 difference ...
Quote from: Canuck on October 01, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
Very interesting, he certainly wasn't a fan:
QuoteThe four of us waited downstairs for Diana's car to arrive. Then she made her entrance from above, in big heels and a short skirt. The gentlemen tried to be polite and not look upwards as she tottered down the stairs.
She was very tall — with very long legs — and very vain. I thought she looked like a horse.
As Diana was sitting down, she took one of the cushions from the sofa and held it on her lap, feigning coyness, pretending that she didn't want a Sharon Stone moment. But then, why oh why had she dressed like that in the first place?
That was her way: a kind of provocative false modesty, which I found rather unattractive because it was so choreographed — like the way she tilted her head and looked up through her eyelashes.
I barely spoke all night, which I think she found disagreeable, in the way that women who are almost invariably fawned over react badly when they find it's not happening.
Frankly, I couldn't make myself interested in her banal air-headedness. Most of the evening she just talked about herself and her clothes and things that had little relevance to any of us there.
That was one thing I found irritating the fake modesty and shyness. Looking back she played the media like idiots and did a lot of damage. I was a fan at one point but listening to what she said in the Bashier interview and the fake shyness not my favourite, I did Charles a mis service falling for the media hype.
You don't know if she was fake or not. Nobody here is a mind reader.
I think she was played by Charles and Camilla. And Camilla and Charles did indeed play the media leaking stories via Charles' friends and Camlla herself going to the Sun Editor. I see these two are getting their wings and halos from their fans.
Charles wanted a fertile woman to get heirs. If she were so odious why did your hero choose her? And he knew the family. Why would "sophisticated" Icough cough) older man court a teenage girl--because she provided the womb and eggs and had no experience like Camilla and came from a blue blooded family. He got what he wanted from her and got the mistress too. Selfish man.
What Charles told Dimbleby was obnoxious yet Diana is trashed.
I find free passes given to C and C very irritating.
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2014, 05:34:13 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 03, 2014, 02:02:54 PM
It's just his opinion of her. No one is going to dislike Diana based on someone else's opinion.
Cindy
Well some here are applauding the old man. It is just a gratuitous slap at Diana to try to get the old fossil's books sold.
Quote from: sandy on October 03, 2014, 05:32:57 PM
You don't know if she was fake or not. Nobody here is a mind reader.
I think she was played by Charles and Camilla.
PaulaB is just as entitled to her opinion as you are to yours.
I am disagreeing with her. So I am not allowed now?
I see it as giving C and C free passes.
It goes both ways I am entitled to my opinion just as much PaulaB is.
Quote from: sandy on October 03, 2014, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 03, 2014, 02:02:54 PM
It's just his opinion of her. No one is going to dislike Diana based on someone else's opinion.
Cindy
Well some here are applauding the old man. It is just a gratuitous slap at Diana to try to get the old fossil's books sold.
But if they agree with him, their minds were probably already made up; unlikely that he persuaded them in four or five paragraphs. Just as it's okay for you to call him an old fossil and a cranky old man because that's your opinion of him, he has a right to state his opinion of others, as well.
Cindy
Everybody has a right to name drop to try to sell books. Which is what this guy is doing. It shows how little he has done for himself that he has to name drop.
Quote from: Canuck on October 03, 2014, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 03, 2014, 05:32:57 PM
You don't know if she was fake or not. Nobody here is a mind reader.
I think she was played by Charles and Camilla.
PaulaB is just as entitled to her opinion as you are to yours.
Quote from: sandy on October 03, 2014, 05:57:42 PM
I am disagreeing with her. So I am not allowed now?
I see it as giving C and C free passes.
It goes both ways I am entitled to my opinion just as much PaulaB is.
[mod]We are all entitled to our opinions! Come on...We are all grown-ups :love6: [/mod]
Quote from: Eri on October 03, 2014, 08:40:47 AM
I don't get why some are getting so angry at this guy ... Di was a self obsessed , vain woman with little to no formal education he tolled no lies ...
she did not have "little to no formal education". She had an average education, albeit I don't think she did very well at school... but its hardly as if she never went to school. She was not IMO particularly vain, she was a good looking girl and naturally did her best to make the best of her looks because she was a public figure.. She was much more of a dresser up than Camilla ever would be. But I would not call her particularly self obsessed either. S he was selfish at times as we all are.. she Had problems that made life difficult for her.. and there were times when she was very caught up with them but she was warm hearted and outreaching.
I too agree that Diana did have a formal education but didn't perform well. As for her looks, she had good bone structure and a slim figure that she learned to dress to her advantage. The Diana from the early 1980's quickly learned what flattered her shape and coloring. As for the claim that she was vain I'll go with she was certainly conscious of appearance and knew that it would be commented upon constantly.
I know she didn't do well at school, but she did have the usual education for a girl of her class, she went to school. She sat for her O levels etc. as for vanity, yes I think she was conscious of her looks.. after all, she was always being billed as "beautiful but not that clever" so of course she was going to be conscious of the thing that made the photographers love and follow her and take pics that got her into the papers. She was conscious too that the people hoped to see her looking pretty and well dressed and charming unlike Anne who never made the best of herself.. I think that's a reason why she developed bulimia because she was conscious that she'd be notice ad her looks and slim figure etc would be commented on.. "Is DI a bit chubby looking this week" etc nonsense, so she got anxious about keeping thin and beautiful. And yes she was flirtatious, why not? She was a beautiful girl, she attracted men, I don't blame her for playing up to that to an extent. This guy sounds like a nasty misogynist who doesn't like attractive women, and while I don't say that Di was very clever I don't think she was a complete airhead either...
Diana developed bulimia because of stress. Bulimia is brought on by stress. She also had a sister with an eating disorder, it could have been genetic.