Was it hard for Princess Diana to find happiness?
Princess Diana, In Search of Happiness - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrFjWFVbBu8)
:bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday:
Diana found happiness because she was the mother of two boys who loved her very much. It is too bad she died young and did not get to see her grandchildren.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on May 01, 2017, 10:52:31 PM
Was it hard for Princess Diana to find happiness?
Princess Diana, In Search of Happiness - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrFjWFVbBu8)
:bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday: :bday:
Yes unfortunately for Diana I do believe that it was difficult for her to find happiness in her personal life. Apart from her sons she often had turbulent relationships with her parents, step-mother, siblings and friends/staff. It's unfortunate that she never had the opportunity to mend fences with those that had tried to support her throughout the years.
Diana had loyal friends which she kept. She dropped the ones who claimed to be her friends but provided safe houses for Charles and Camilla. Her most loyal friends were: Lucia Flecha De La Lima, Elsa Bowker, Caroline Bartholomew and Rosa Monckton. Diana also made up with her step mother after JOhn Spencer died. So it is not true that she had a turbulent relationship with Raine Spencer for the last few years of her life. She was on good terms with her father when he died. Her mother gave an indiscreet interview about the divorce settlement which led to the rift with Diana. I would not summarize Diana's life that way leaving out the people she was friends with and dismissing her relationships as 'turbulent.'
It is well documented that Diana had trouble keeping friends, let alone members of staff. Unless you were totally supportive of her agenda (even if it meant damage to herself); you were thrown out. Even wen you were supportive, she could throw you out on a whim.
There are countless stories of how she would suddenly change mobile phone numbers to get rid of a set of friends she no longer needed. Morton was another she unceremoniously dropped despite the fact that he had taken the flak for her authorship of the Morton book and had stood by her side when many thought she was going off the rails.
The relationship with the other Spencers (save her sisters) was fraught with difficulties. Her brother described her as being manipulative and mentally ill. Her grandmother called her an actress. Her mother called her names that are not repeatable in a decent forum such as thIS. That does not speak to me of somehow that has healthy relationships.
I question the notion that the love of her children somehow compensated for Diana's chaotic love life. If that had been the case then there would have been no reason to call Hoare or even date Hewitt. The love of children is very different from the love of a spouse. It is false courage to claim that you do not need any love but that of your children, particularly when you are in the middle of a battle to ensure you remain married to your estranged husband.
Moreover to make such claims puts a burden on children which is not sustainable. They are not your spouse or parent and you should not expect them to take on those responsibilities. William in particular was used as a shoulder to cry on, very wrong in my opinion.
She did not have trouble keeping loyal friends. She "threw out" people who provided safe houses for C and C. You don't like her very much and think the worst.
Diana did not "go off the rails." Junor and other sycophantic friends told the media "she did."
Oh now her brother is someone you like (you have trashed him so many times) because he had a fight with Diana and called her names. she had words with him. after he promised her a place to stay at Althorp (a cottage) and then pulled the rug out from under him. I suppose you think she should have called him "brother dear" and simpered lest he call her mentally ill.
Charles and Camilla freeze out people right and left. Charles would not even see the crippled dying Kanga, a woman he called his "best good friend." Of course you think that very wise of Charles to be rude like that.
I can't wait to see another Earl Spencer thread where you don't have a halo on him. You only have that when you recollect what he said to Diana. He was and is no saint.
So you think dating or seeing people makes a woman love their children less? It's a different sort of love. She loved her children and they loved her. She was loved no matter how you try to demonize her.
There was no "burden" on them. So a mother who loves her children puts burdens on them? Tell that to zillions of mothers in the world today. You exaggerate how William was "used" by Diana. Think of the way Daddy Dearest used William to promote Camilla. According to a documentary and reliable sources William did not appreciate being "used by Dear Old Dad. It was very very very wrong in my opinion.
Her grandmother was the grandmother from hell. And the mother from hell. She was pushing Diana as a bride for Charles and when the wind changes she started trashing her own granddaughter. She testified against her own daughter. I guess you admire people like that so suit yourself.
Her mother was the one who called her names. And you blame Diana for it!? Oh please.
@sandy you actually presume a little too much in knowing what I like or do not like about Diana. Just because someone is not looking at her with rose-tinted glasses does not mean they did not like or appreciate her legacy. It is this over-the-top desire to own and control everything about Diana's legacy that is making people like me rebel. I hate Groupthink
You seem to have this dichotomy of perspectives. People are either good or bad. You either like or hate something. There is nothing in between. Let me give you a few examples:
1. Nowhere have I hinted that I like Charles Spencer. If you bothered to read my posts, you would know that I despise the guy for his hypocrisy in criticizing the royal family as well as his arrogance. My reference to him was to show that even Diana's own family was point out the difficulties she was having maintain relationships with people. This was someone who was allegedly in her corner (judging by that ridiculous speech and even more ridiculous clapping at the funeral).
2. Making crank calls to a married man and then trying to deny it until the police find you out is considered to be "going off the rails" by pretty much most people. It is not normal or healthy behavior. If it was, Diana would not have wanted to hide what had happened.
3. You seem to be determined to rope Charles and Camilla into everything that went wrong with Diana's life. They were never the center of her universe and clearly could not control what she did or said. Exhibit A (see above point). Neither Charles nor Camilla asked or encouraged Diana to make those crank calls. None of them encouraged her to drop friends and families at a whim. This thread is about Diana's relationships, not about those of Charles or Camilla. Mentioning that Charles and Camilla freeze out people is just a red herring, designed to sidetrack my argument. Not falling for it.
4. Charles had no obligation to Kanga. It is ridiculous to even suggest so. This is all part of the Diana delusion fantasy that somehow Charles was responsible for the health of an ex-girlfriend. It is a nonsense and it would not be expected of anyone.
5. I am not demonizing Diana. That is hyperbole. I am merely debating the facts and opinions as they were presented. Not accepting a halo view of her is not demonizing her. Neither is criticizing her. Diana is a historical figure and there will be many shades of opinion about her...whether you like it or not.
6. "So you think dating or seeing people makes a woman love their children less?". Absolute rubbish. I said no such thing nor implied it. I explained that being loved by your children or loving them does not mean that someone does not want a romantic life. Diana clearly loved her children and they loved her back but she still wanted and needed a romantic life. That is why she dated. You seem to get caught up in these ridiculous circular arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Nevertheless I will not stop challenging them, no matter how hard it appears to be.
I said earlier on another thread that the problem with some Diana fans is that they continue her trait of lacking self-introspection. Your post here is a classic example. Just because I point out that a number of people in Diana's own immediate family highlighted her difficulties in maintaining personal relationships, you rush off into a tangent of blaming others for Diana's own actions. You insinuate that it is all the fault of her grandmother, mother and brother "from hell". Alternatively it is the fault of Charles, the royal family and anyone that ever associated with Diana. It is never her fault but the fault of others. Lack of introspection and a bit of delusion...IMO of course
She was a human being but I see you are being very critical even siding with her brother (whom you don't like either) against her and taking what he said about her without seeing what led up to their tiff. They did make up by the way. You seem to like him when it comes to him saying that bad stuff about Diana. He certainly did not act like she was "mentally ill" during that speech of his at her funeral. So this bad stuff he said was because they had a fight. People say things they don't mean when they fight.
Her grandmother turned against her own daughter and her granddaughter. If you think that is OK, that is your choice. I find it horrible behavior. She was the grandmother from hell and I stand by that opinion. She was nice about Diana until the wind changed. She was a staunch royalist.
Charles had no obligation but he acted like a jerk to Kanga, to put it bluntly. A phone call to a dying woman is not a bad thing to do. She was once one of his best friends.
It is not normal or healthy behavior for Charles to have slept with his friends wives. I find it perverse.
There you go again (to quote a great American President): This is NOT (I repeat NOT) about Charles' ability to maintain relationships. It is about Diana's ability or inability to maintain relationships. You are deflecting and sidetracking but I am not buying. If you want to open a thread about Charles' relationships, I am more than happy to contribute my opinion but this is no such thread. It is about Diana and nobody else.
Also note this Self-introspection and reality check:
You say "Charles had no obligation but he acted like a jerk to Kanga, to put it bluntly...She was once one of his best friends."
Diana froze out Sarah Ferguson, someone that was once her pal and "partner in crime" within the royal household. All because she wrote how Diana gave her Verrucas. Somehow I think that was a very mild book when compared with what Diana did in Morton and Panorama. Freezing Sarah out was a classic case of hypocrisy.
Other friends did not even know why they had been frozen out. One moment Diana was calling them for up to 14 hours a day (a record) and the next they were nothing. No call, no contact, no explanation... That is not normal.
A mother (even closer in terms of familial relationships) was frozen out too...never to be spoken to again. Frances Kidd did allegedly say nasty, so justified on some level on that particular occasion. However that does not detract from the overall impression that Diana had issues with relationships. It is pointless to claim otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming.
As for me liking Charles Spencer...All I can say that you are reading a different post or a different language. I have never suggested such a thing.
I am just making a comparison that Diana was not the only one to drop people as friends. And there are tons of people who don't stay with their original friends. But this is pointed out for some reason as a "terrible" flaw with Diana and trying to prove there is "something wrong" with her.
Sarah did a lot of things to Diana. She had that hen party where they dressed as policewomen and Diana took the heat for it. She did many things like that. And making the plantar wart comment about Diana's feet was just tacky. So Diana should not have taken offense? She had every right to do so. I don't see it as hypocrisy, Diana had every right to do this regardless of Morton and so on. So why don't you blame Sarah for the plantar wart comment. Oh that's right...
Diana did not call people and speak for 14 hours. For instance she would have to eat and use the bathroom now wouldn't she? She would ring them up at night and talk and they did not have to stay on the phone. Maybe they liked Diana (hard as it may for you to believe).
Frances berated Diana over the phone and used racial slurs against Hasnet. So Diana was supposed to not be offended by that. Frances was no angel to Diana but of course since it is Diana, it is easy to see who you blame. Frances also blabbed about the divorce settlement without Diana's permission (and it got published in Hello Magazine).
There is No Overwhelming evidence. Diana had loyal friends and this is very well documented. It is also well documented that Diana's former friends provided safe houses to Charles and Camilla and made indiscreet comments to the media about Diana.
Lady Diana was happy when she became engaged to Prince Charles. The thought of being a spectacular bride hopefully gave her some happiness. I am glad that she chose David and Elizabeth to make her wedding dress. Diana seemed to be happy with them.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 02, 2017, 01:42:14 PM
@sandy you actually presume a little too much in knowing what I like or do not like about Diana. Just because someone is not looking at her with rose-tinted glasses does not mean they did not like or appreciate her legacy. It is this over-the-top desire to own and control everything about Diana's legacy that is making people like me rebel. I hate Groupthink
You seem to have this dichotomy of perspectives. People are either good or bad. You either like or hate something. There is nothing in between. Let me give you a few examples:
1. Nowhere have I hinted that I like Charles Spencer. If you bothered to read my posts, you would know that I despise the guy for his hypocrisy in criticizing the royal family as well as his arrogance. My reference to him was to show that even Diana's own family was point out the difficulties she was having maintain relationships with people. This was someone who was allegedly in her corner (judging by that ridiculous speech and even more ridiculous clapping at the funeral).
2. Making crank calls to a married man and then trying to deny it until the police find you out is considered to be "going off the rails" by pretty much most people. It is not normal or healthy behavior. If it was, Diana would not have wanted to hide what had happened.
3. You seem to be determined to rope Charles and Camilla into everything that went wrong with Diana's life. They were never the center of her universe and clearly could not control what she did or said. Exhibit A (see above point). Neither Charles nor Camilla asked or encouraged Diana to make those crank calls. None of them encouraged her to drop friends and families at a whim. This thread is about Diana's relationships, not about those of Charles or Camilla. Mentioning that Charles and Camilla freeze out people is just a red herring, designed to sidetrack my argument. Not falling for it.
4. Charles had no obligation to Kanga. It is ridiculous to even suggest so. This is all part of the Diana delusion fantasy that somehow Charles was responsible for the health of an ex-girlfriend. It is a nonsense and it would not be expected of anyone.
5. I am not demonizing Diana. That is hyperbole. I am merely debating the facts and opinions as they were presented. Not accepting a halo view of her is not demonizing her. Neither is criticizing her. Diana is a historical figure and there will be many shades of opinion about her...whether you like it or not.
6. "So you think dating or seeing people makes a woman love their children less?". Absolute rubbish. I said no such thing nor implied it. I explained that being loved by your children or loving them does not mean that someone does not want a romantic life. Diana clearly loved her children and they loved her back but she still wanted and needed a romantic life. That is why she dated. You seem to get caught up in these ridiculous circular arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Nevertheless I will not stop challenging them, no matter how hard it appears to be.
I said earlier on another thread that the problem with some Diana fans is that they continue her trait of lacking self-introspection. Your post here is a classic example. Just because I point out that a number of people in Diana's own immediate family highlighted her difficulties in maintaining personal relationships, you rush off into a tangent of blaming others for Diana's own actions. You insinuate that it is all the fault of her grandmother, mother and brother "from hell". Alternatively it is the fault of Charles, the royal family and anyone that ever associated with Diana. It is never her fault but the fault of others. Lack of introspection and a bit of delusion...IMO of course
It takes two to make relationships. Diana did not live in a vacuum. She came from a family where people did not always get along....obviously. A few examples:
While Diana was mending fences with Raine (something positive about her that you don't mention), her brother packed Raine's things in a plastic bag and evicted her soon after her father's death. Diana OTOH made friends with Raine and the two got along for the rest of Diana's life (about 4 1/2 years). Charming guy that earl Spencer
Lady Fermoy wanted "grand marriages" for her Spencer grandchildren so testified against her own daughter Frances so John Spencer got custody. Lady Fermoy a royalist wanted her grandchildren to be close to the royals at Sandringham and her grandchildren not to be in London with their mother. She was eager that Diana marry into the royal family and even accompanied Diana on her first date with Charles (as escort). Once the wind changed, Fermoy was bashing Diana and playing up to the royals and Charles. She was a real phony. And you sniff at my putting her down. But to each her own I suppose.
And using the word "delusion" about my posts is getting personal since I am entitled to my opinion and to disagree with you.
You OTOH make it sound like the ones who were involved in quarrels with Diana were perfect angels and Diana had to have "something wrong" with her to disagree with them.
You excuse Hoare for his pursuit of Diana when he was a close friend of the PRince of Wales. Where was his loyalty to your Charles? He pursued Diana, DIana was not some bunny boiler (which you would have loved her to be). And the Hoares are still together.
Diana was angry at her brother because he pulled the rug out from under her refusing her the Althorp cottage after it was promised to her. You just look at Diana and want to trash her and not view the reasons why she was angry at her brother. You distort the episode to suit your spin on Diana.
No I don't have a dichotomy of perspectives. I don't "hate" so again, stop throwing around that word in respect to me Please do not ascribe motives. Again, try to stop getting personal just because I disagree with your take on Diana.
You don't have to "fall for anything." I am illustrating that your Charles and Camilla (who were in diana's orbit) had their own issues. If Charles had ditched Camilla, Diana would not have gotten involved IMO with other men. You excuse Sarah Ferguson's straying because she was "lonely" but don't cut Diana any slack. She could have joined a convent at age 23 or remained celibate (perhaps that would have made you like Diana better. Of course chareles and Camilla had a lot to do with Diana.
I still insist. This is not about Charles, Camilla or Hoare. I will not address those issues because they are not relevant to the discussion. It is a thread about Diana and her alleged difficulty in maintaining relationships.
Her reproachment with Rainer is something to be admired. At least she seemed to realize that mistreating a step mum who was devoted to her father and credited with restoring the fortunes of their family home is very bad manners.
But that does not detract from the fact that Diana's relationships with people were always fraught with drama. On and off and on again. It happens to everyone to some extent but hers was pretty unusual for someone who was otherwise very popular with the public.
I do not ascribe motives to others, get personal, misinterpret messages and then suddenly become a victims of an attack once people respond to me in kind. That is someone else completely...not me. It is a false accusation which I refute. I know this pattern because I have seen it before: someone disagrees, another says they are being attacked and then the mods come in to rescue the victim. I am not playing that game any more.
Once again, Diana did not live in a vacuum. It takes two people to make a disagreement.
Raine was not popular with the Spencer children, especially Charles. Diana was the only one of them to make peace with her. But you still can't give her credit. Accusing her of "mistreating her." She did not die estranged from Raine. Actually Raine and John had money problems and sold off some valuable treasures at Althorp which angered the Spencer children especially John's heir, Charles. No, she did not "restored the fortunes of the family home." Quite the opposite.
Earl Spencer stepmother sold of Althorp's heirlooms - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/6728162/Earl-Spencer-stepmother-sold-of-Althorps-heirlooms.html)
Well you do say I "hate" which I don't. You are not the victim of any attack. I am talking about the topic at large. I do take exception to your use of the word "deluded" about my posts which I do object to.
You had written:
"Alternatively it is the fault of Charles, the royal family and anyone that ever associated with Diana. It is never her fault but the fault of others. Lack of introspection and a bit of delusion...IMO of course"
I accept that you disagree but your talking about "lack of introspection and a bit of delusion" is above and beyond the purpose of the board, it gets into sniping. I would like to request politely that this not be continued.
I am critiquing the point of view not the person. It has never been about the person with me...never. I am arguing against the message which I disagree with. Maybe "delusional" and "lack of self-introspection" are harsh terms but I could not find a better way to describe what I was seeing.
It is hard to distinguish this in your posts. But even saying an opinion is deluded is getting personal. There is no need to use "harsh terms" if you disagree. It derails the conversation
I apologize for using harsh terms
@sandy to describe some of your messages.
Thank you.
And I am jumping in the fray.
Royalanthro, you have every right to post and like and be fans of Chares and Camilla You do not like PD. Fine.
You cannot make up your opinions as facts. Eri does not like MM . Fine. Nothing abut MM is good point in Eri's opinion. Fine. You and Eri are very biased and like to use opinions as facts.
Sorry Eri for using you as a example here.
FACT FACTS and I am a fan of PD's.
Pardon me for repeating for the 100th time......
1----PD was happy and good as a mother to her sons. It was a good relationship and she left them with that mother's love, , and caring traits and BRF duties with time and effort and knowledge of causes which they have presented, esp. PH, in their work.
She was proud of her boys and did well in being their mother first and foremost in the short time they had all had together.
I KNOW you have disputed this FACT and you will comeback and correct me.
2-----PD's work gave her happiness and a self of purpose, self-esteem , mature, and more. She did well in public speaking, knowing her causes and not just show up in a pretty dress.
3-----PD was not mentally ill. Mentally ill means , yes, deranged, under mood alternating drugs, needing 5150 hold, having mental illness such as multiple personalities, schizophrenia, under a psychiatrist ' care,etc.
YES, she was immature, depressed, lonely and alone when off stage behind KP walls.
4---PD ended some friendships when they were no longer good for her: betrayal, publically speaking about her private life, etc.
Very normal for someone as iconic as she was and in her type of world or having media interests, etc. Ex. It is widely said that Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis had a small , very close circle. Sometimes, some people at the next level, but still friends, had to be let go after betrayal. Staff too. The White Nanny-Maude Shaw. Google it.
Sad that some of these people, few, but very iconic, very different, in order to have a private life, they have to be so, so guarded with staff, friends....sad.
5----PD's world, then , now, 500 + years ago, you stay as close as you can to the Sovereign/Monarch/KingQueen if you have to betray your mother, father, son, daughter, sibling, dog, horse, Jesus Christ , yeah, him too (KingHenry8th reign) in order to stay at court, in favor, then you do. Fermoy, PD's grannie, could have written the book of siding for grace and favor and protecting ones ' place at court.
PD's mother was in/out of her life her whole life and was removed from the children early on in their lives. They never formed a Kate-Carole relationship.
6---PD was happy for the few god things in her life-sons, clothes, causes, few close , long lasted friends who never betrayed her. That was it. Not too much.
7-----PD. Beautiful. Young. Sexy, but fresh, girlish looking in the face well in her 30's. Shapely. Smart. Good personality. Rich beyond rich. Healthy. What else , she had it all. With all that ,she never had a man to love her, a male companion to love her and be with her as a partner to enjoy life in dinners/travel/parties/friends/events like normal people do, sexual partner without just having to do the duty as in work(PCharles) . She never had this. PC-it was work related, a job, BRF duty for him. Hewitt the cad. Dodi the boy. Hasnat of late nights, sneaked in KP..etc.
Sad. Sad real life behind the place walls...died just when she was really maturing, making peace with her life...etc. She was in search of happiness at the end of her life.
Sad ending.
Diana wasn't guarded with staff or friends. She talked too freely to many of them and then would get scared and retreat and often break off a friendly relationship...
I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other. It was amazing how many people were told about the nitty gritty of her problems. They then relished discussing the troubles of her life as if to say: "Oh poor thing. She has been messed up, hasn't she??"
I think her biggest mistake was trusting Charles' friends who pretended to be her friends.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 07:36:19 AM
Diana wasn't guarded with staff or friends. She talked too freely to many of them and then would get scared and retreat and often break off a friendly relationship...
Diana knew who her true friends were
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 07:46:20 AM
I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other. It was amazing how many people were told about the nitty gritty of her problems. They then relished discussing the troubles of her life as if to say: "Oh poor thing. She has been messed up, hasn't she??"
I agree that this was an issue for Diana especially in the worst years of the WotW. She began sharing her very private moments with people like ie: Peter Settelen who were more than happy to exploit this information once she'd died. Also confiding in your child is IMO not the wisest move. On the other hand she was pushing away family members and long time friends like her former flatmates especially if she didn't care for their responses during their conversations. Not all of them were on Charles' side, but at times gave her responses that she didn't want to hear. (Yes this is something that she and her ex-husband had in common.)
You are quite right TLLK. Charles and Diana had similar personality flaws when it came to needing encouragement and also not wanting to hear critical advice. They could not complement each other in that respect and it did contribute to their dysfunction as couple.
As for Sandy. Your statement is wrong and without any factual basis:
"I think her biggest mistake was trusting Charles' friends who pretended to be her friends"
At no point in Diana's narrative or that given by her allies did she ever say she trusted any of Charles' friends. She was on the warpath with them from the word go and tried very hard to separate the Highgrove set from Charles. It was when she wanted them gone that they retaliated by freezing her out of their social events.
Once again you want to make this about Charles when we are having a pleasant discussion about Diana's life...arrgh :notamused: Yes, you do have freedom of speech to express your opinions but it would be nice if you would desist from trolling us for once.
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 07:46:20 AM
I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other. It was amazing how many people were told about the nitty gritty of her problems. They then relished discussing the troubles of her life as if to say: "Oh poor thing. She has been messed up, hasn't she??"
I agree that this was an issue for Diana especially in the worst years of the WotW. She began sharing her very private moments with people like ie: Peter Settelen who were more than happy to exploit this information once she'd died. Also confiding in your child is IMO not the wisest move. On the other hand she was pushing away family members and long time friends like her former flatmates especially if she didn't care for their responses during their conversations. Not all of them were on Charles' side, but at times gave her responses that she didn't want to hear. (Yes this is something that she and her ex-husband had in common.)
I don't know about the other flatmates but one of them Caroline Bartholomew was her loyal friend to the end. They stayed friends through Diana's death. This is a fact.
Diana did not 'Overconfide' in William that's a myth. And WIlliam loves his mother and talks about her. So obviously William did not natter on about Diana's "wrongdoings". Diana in interviews said she told William and Harry that she and Papa loved each other but could not live together anymore.
Diana had no clue she would die young. Down the road she may have gotten a court order and sealed up the tapes so nobody could use them. But at least she got the denial in that she and Manakee did not have sex. It did shut down Ingrid Seward who backtracked against this charge against Diana and said she and Manakee did not have sex. And this is a fact.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 02:40:36 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:27:07 PM
You are quite right TLLK. Charles and Diana had similar personality flaws when it came to needing encouragement and also not wanting to hear critical advice. They could not complement each other in that respect and it did contribute to their dysfunction as couple.
As for Sandy. Your statement is wrong and without any factual basis:
"I think her biggest mistake was trusting Charles' friends who pretended to be her friends"
At no point in Diana's narrative or that given by her allies did she ever say she trusted any of Charles' friends. She was on the warpath with them from the word go and tried very hard to separate the Highgrove set from Charles. It was when she wanted them gone that they retaliated by freezing her out of their social events.
Once again you want to make this about Charles when we are having a pleasant discussion about Diana's life...arrgh :notamused: Yes, you do have freedom of speech to express your opinions but it would be nice if you would desist from trolling us for once.
It has a factual basis. These friends of Charles provided safe houses for Charles and Camilla. They acted like they were both Charles AND Diana's friends when they were really just CHarles' friend. There are letters out there that indicate that Charles friends put down Diana. Mrs Van Cutsem for one lent them safe houses.
At the beginning of the marriage, Diana got along famously with them. In fact, there are quotes from Charles friends saying good things about DIana early on (check out the Bradford book). So you think she should not have been upset with them for aiding and abetting the C and C affair? If she were a robot maybe she would not have been upset.
No I am not trolling. I find that a rude thing for you to say. You just can't help tossing out insults. I am asking politely for you to stop.
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
QuoteYou are quite right TLLK. Charles and Diana had similar personality flaws when it came to needing encouragement and also not wanting to hear critical advice. They could not complement each other in that respect and it did contribute to their dysfunction as couple.
Neither of them had/has a great deal of self-confidence IMHO so it was difficult for them to trust their own instincts and decisions. Both were prone to freezing out those who were actually being true friends by confronting them when it was obvious they were making poor choices and exhibiting troubling behavior.
I don't know of Charles falling out with friends, as such. maybe with advisers if they didn't' agree with him, or with other socialites that he mixes wtih but wouldn't consider close friends. However I don't think any of us like to be told we are in the wrong or what to do, even when people ask for advice, they don't usually take it unless it gibes with what they really want to do.
I think because they get sycophantic praise at times, senior royals like Charles have some arrogance and criticism is jarring. It's not as if Charles has to earn a living like the common folk and must get used to criticism at work.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
HOnestly, I don't get your rambling post. These were not personal friends of Charles like the Van Cutsem's so your "logic" does not hold water. These were Journalists not personal friends. In case you did not get my post, I was talking about Personal Friends not Media People who are earning a living writing about royals. So no you did not get it right. Why not ask what the post meant before you go in for sarcasm. It might have saved you the need to reach for a glass of something strong.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
C'mon
@royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party. :partaay:
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 01:43:52 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party. :partaay:
I brought snacks LOL :hall5:
Quote from: sandy on May 06, 2017, 09:00:49 PM
I think because they get sycophantic praise at times, senior royals like Charles have some arrogance and criticism is jarring. It's not as if Charles has to earn a living like the common folk and must get used to criticism at work.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
HOnestly, I don't get your rambling post. These were not personal friends of Charles like the Van Cutsem's so your "logic" does not hold water. These were Journalists not personal friends. In case you did not get my post, I was talking about Personal Friends not Media People who are earning a living writing about royals. So no you did not get it right. Why not ask what the post meant before you go in for sarcasm. It might have saved you the need to reach for a glass of something strong.
YOu were saying as I understand that it that Diana was foolish to believe that charles' friends were her friends. But she didn't paritucularly trust his friends. As I was saying the peole she "over confided in" were media people like Morton and Bashir, and to an extent Peter Settlen who was just hired by her. THey are the people she over trusted not Charles friends.
I did not say she "over trusted" Charles friends. She thought they were her friends This is hair splitting. You are talking about journalists who were not "friends" of Diana. So you are over analyzing and again trying to be a D.A> LIghten up.
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 01:43:52 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party. :partaay:
What party?
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on May 07, 2017, 05:11:17 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 01:43:52 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party. :partaay:
I brought snacks LOL :hall5:
Your pal royalanthropologist's premise is wrong. Diana was not "friends" with reporters. She saw these people only a few times. Settelen was a hired speech coach not a personal friends. CHarles and "Diana's pals" were his friends not reporters or speech coasts.
I suggest you split up some apples and oranges with your new best buds. Maybe at the party one of you can have figure it out. :lol:
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:39:31 AM
speech coaches (correction)
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on May 07, 2017, 05:11:17 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 01:43:52 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Ok Sandy. I get it now. Martin Bashir, Andrew Morton, Peter Settelen etc. were all really Charles friends who were pretending to be Diana's friends as well. Apologies for my mistake. Gosh I do need a glass of something very strong :hehe:
C'mon @royalanthropologist you're a bit late to the party. :partaay:
I brought snacks LOL :hall5:
Is this the high school clique? this is getting totally ridiculous now IMO it has gotten to the bully Sandy phase. IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability. Diana authorized her true story then after the separation he decided to capitalize on again in Diana her new life which she was not happy about then once dead he could tell the world and capitalize further. Bashir had his own agenda this did not make either of them Charles friends. Settleton he was content to sit on the tapes again until she died then hey lets cash in.
Diana did freeze alot of people out who started to take advantage of the friendship Diana offered but normal people do this not just royals. Diana being a young naive girl when she married at first did misplace her trust but as she matured and fully understood her position she gained a more mistrustful position of anyone wanting to befriend her.
I wish to categorically say that I am not bullying anyone. As far as I am concerned, this forum is for sharing diverse views. Ironically
@Trudie, you have just repeated the very same thing that caused us all this angst. I wrote:
"I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other."
You in turn wrote:
"IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability."
Somehow my initial post became controversial because I did not include a missive about Charles friends. It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.
@Duch_Luver_4ever has had to put up with really appalling responses; all because of daring to express a different opinion. Even providing ample proof failed to elicit any acknowledgement or expression of regret. When you reach that point, it is better to see the funny side of life.
My philosophy is: "if you are continuously conflicting with so many people who do not have any previous reason to dislike you...then perhaps it is something that you are doing which is causing it".
QuoteIt does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.
Yes it does get exhausting that the lady's own words are not accepted as being factual anymore. I'm tired of fighting over every little sentence and have chosen to involve myself in other threads. And if that includes a few hypothetical adult beverages :partaay: with posters who are also ready to take a break, then everyone is welcome. Duch has brought the snacks so join us if you are ready to take a break from the in-fighting
@Trudie and
@sandy.
^ No thank you I am past the high school stage.
Very well then, just know that I'm done with the infighting and would welcome anyone who is ready to do the same.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 07, 2017, 08:36:27 PM
I wish to categorically say that I am not bullying anyone. As far as I am concerned, this forum is for sharing diverse views. Ironically @Trudie, you have just repeated the very same thing that caused us all this angst. I wrote:
"I always thought Diana's biggest mistake as a royal wife was trusting people too much and being willing to discuss her issues with them. When you are a high profile person, you can bet your last dollar that anything you say will be quoted back and misinterpreted at one point or the other."
You in turn wrote:
"IMO Bashir and Morton were little known journalists until Diana misplaced her trust in them then sensationalized and capitalized on her in her vulnerability."
Somehow my initial post became controversial because I did not include a missive about Charles friends. It does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.
@Duch_Luver_4ever has had to put up with really appalling responses; all because of daring to express a different opinion. Even providing ample proof failed to elicit any acknowledgement or expression of regret. When you reach that point, it is better to see the funny side of life.
My philosophy is: "if you are continuously conflicting with so many people who do not have any previous reason to dislike you...then perhaps it is something that you are doing which is causing it".
I would like to point out this is a problem with every high profile person. They need to distinguish the real friends from the false ones. And these same people try to make money off their knowing a "famous" person.
My issue was you brought in media people not "friends" of Diana to give a comparison then you and your pals had a "party." Over what? A true comparison would be:
Charles friends: the Van Cutsems, Nicholas Soames, the Romseys, and I would add Michael Fawcett, the employee/friend of Charles. They IMO pretended to like Diana but were loyal to Charles, though Mrs Van Cutsem had a falling out with Camilla.
Diana's friends (loyal to her): Elsa Bowker, Lucia Flecha de la Lima, Caroline Bartholomew, Rosa Monckton
Double post auto-merged: May 07, 2017, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 08:44:00 PM
QuoteIt does get exhausting when Diana's own words are doubted. That's all. I just decided to move on from that . We've had too many incidents that follow this pattern. I just checked out because I am not really interested in distressing someone and distressing myself about things which do not really matter.
Yes it does get exhausting that the lady's own words are not accepted as being factual anymore. I'm tired of fighting over every little sentence and have chosen to involve myself in other threads. And if that includes a few hypothetical adult beverages :partaay: with posters who are also ready to take a break, then everyone is welcome. Duch has brought the snacks so join us if you are ready to take a break from the in-fighting @Trudie and @sandy.
I'd like to point out I was not the one who had a "party" to taunt another poster.
Most of the "quotes" attributed to Diana were from Lady Colin Campbell and Tina Brown.
Just like any high profile person, Diana was bound to be exploited. It was unwise to be so unguarded about sharing her problems. The journalists wanted a story and after getting their story; they watched from the sidelines as the house crash and burned. Diana had some gurus and fortune tellers that were just feeding her lots of nonsense. One was disparagingly referred to as some sort of stepmother figure; seemingly friendly but systematically showing Diana in a very bad light.
Paul Burrell wrote probably one of the worst books about Diana. It made her look like a right loon. People were wondering how could a servant be privy to so much private information about his boss. I think an employee once wrote that Diana had a favorite sex toy she traveled with. Really, that is beyond the boundaries of friendship or being an employee.
Even Morton presented a woman who was bitter, lonely and mentally disturbed. That is not what Diana intended and came to resent how she was being presented. Panorama was a disaster in terms of Diana's fortunes but it gave the BBC the scoop they wanted as well as the chance to poke fun at the monarchy which many staff members hate to this very day. Diana should have realized that there were much bigger things that getting her piece out or getting revenge on Charles. Instead she became fodder for a cunning press.
You also have to be wary of amateur marriage counselors when you are having marital problems. Some of them may not have very good intentions, as Diana soon learnt. That is why when some of us were getting married, our mothers warned us never to divulge the internal problems of our marriages to third parties unless were completely certain they were worthy of our trust.
This is quite weird, but when I went into work today I spoke to a co-worker about the doco on Diana that was coming up featuring her sons and their memories of her, just a couple of throw away remarks.
One of the other workers, a retired policeman from Wales, just sat listening to the conversation and then piped up 'I met her you know!' It turned out that he had been one of the policemen who had guarded Charles and Diana during their first visit to Australia when the crowds went mad for her. At the end of a long day Diana had gone over to thank the police and noticed Tony's Welsh accent. She asked him where he was from in Wales and discussed the area with him.
The next morning she came over again and as she was passing him she said, with a lovely smile, 'Hello Tony!' His inspector was behind him and asked him in surprise how Diana knew him. Tony joked that they had been to school together!
That's just a little anecdote, but it says something about the effect Diana had on people. Over thirty four years and this man can still remember her smile, her eyes and hair, her interest in what he was saying, her charm and her remembering his name. It was the same visit in which I saw her, on an evening excursion but of course never got to speak to her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 08, 2017, 06:37:58 AM
Just like any high profile person, Diana was bound to be exploited. It was unwise to be so unguarded about sharing her problems. The journalists wanted a story and after getting their story; they watched from the sidelines as the house crash and burned. Diana had some gurus and fortune tellers that were just feeding her lots of nonsense. One was disparagingly referred to as some sort of stepmother figure; seemingly friendly but systematically showing Diana in a very bad light.
Paul Burrell wrote probably one of the worst books about Diana. It made her look like a right loon. People were wondering how could a servant be privy to so much private information about his boss. I think an employee once wrote that Diana had a favorite sex toy she traveled with. Really, that is beyond the boundaries of friendship or being an employee.
Even Morton presented a woman who was bitter, lonely and mentally disturbed. That is not what Diana intended and came to resent how she was being presented. Panorama was a disaster in terms of Diana's fortunes but it gave the BBC the scoop they wanted as well as the chance to poke fun at the monarchy which many staff members hate to this very day. Diana should have realized that there were much bigger things that getting her piece out or getting revenge on Charles. Instead she became fodder for a cunning press.
You also have to be wary of amateur marriage counselors when you are having marital problems. Some of them may not have very good intentions, as Diana soon learnt. That is why when some of us were getting married, our mothers warned us never to divulge the internal problems of our marriages to third parties unless were completely certain they were worthy of our trust.
Diana and Charles did not go to marriage counselors. HE sought advice from his friends which was a bad idea. They wanted to score points with a future King and were not objective.
Dimbleby's book and interview re: showed Charles to be a peevish, egotistic, jealous grievance collector. he showed a lot more bitterness than Diana. Grousing about his parents and his schooling and so on.
Morton got Diana's "side out there" and was a riposte to the stories leaked by Charles friends.
Burrell made Charles seem a whole lot worse. Diana did not look like a "loon."
Charles had his own mentors and gurus. Diana had to talk him out of having Armand Hammer (who was a very controversial person) being godfather to Prince William.
Charles is alive and can get his vengeance on Diana by cooperating with Sally Smith, who has the knives out for Diana. I think Charles is a very bitter individual.
QuoteThat's just a little anecdote, but it says something about the effect Diana had on people. Over thirty four years and this man can still remember her smile, her eyes and hair, her interest in what he was saying, her charm and her remembering his name. It was the same visit in which I saw her, on an evening excursion but of course never got to speak to her.
What a lovely story
@Curryong and thanks for sharing it. I agree that she certainly had a charisma that was so remarkable.
While happiness in her own personal life was difficult to find, she was able to brighten the lives of many that she met.
Agreed
@TLLK and
@Curryong a lovely story, and im glad you got to see her, as even the best camera dimmed her brightness by half.
I think thats her best legacy, all those little, but important details, that stay with a person for all their lives, its not curing cancer or stopping a war, but its still a vital thing people need in their lives, and she was able to do that for tens of thousands, while also trying to make the world healthier and more peaceful.
lookie there...1,000 posts, and a nice subject to do it on
Congratulations Duch_ on reaching your 1,000th post. :thumbsup: And a lot more to come we hope!
IMO Diana would never have had to search for happiness if the one person she had fallen in love with had totally returned those feelings. The Queen fell in love with PP at the age of 13 and here she is at the age of 91 happy and still in love with the same man because he totally returned his love to her.
Congratulations on the milestone. What a great topic to hit them. I have been away so I am posting on my smartphone. :goodpost: :happy17:
Ah, i figured you were away, your presence was missed :consoling1:
Princess Diana had celebrity status. She was a wonderful person. Why does happiness not come to such a lovely lady?
Short answer. Diana WAS wonderful but she was also flawed, as well as being married to the wrong man for her.
Diana died at a young age and a time when she was just regrouping and moving on after the divorce. She was in a no-win situation in her marriage with Charles as it became clear he married her only to get heirs and love had nothing to do with it. Plus the other woman was still in touch with Charles.
Would Lady Diana have paid attention if someone had expressed to her that she was about to wed the wrong man?
I think it would have if Diana had known the truth about Charles and Camilla from the beginning. Diana wanted to call off the wedding but was told "Too late Duch your face is on the tea towels". That was the night of the pre wedding ball when Charles spent all his time dancing with Camilla.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on June 14, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
Would Lady Diana have paid attention if someone had expressed to her that she was about to wed the wrong man?
At twenty, very little dating experience and ready to walk down the aisle, I don't think so. She really wanted to marry Charles and believed the fairytale despite having some misgivings like Charles did about their compatibility. However if she'd had a few boyfriends and a little more life experience, then yes I do believe that she might have listened to someone who she trusted.
I'm with TLLK here. Diana was so incredibly young and very much in love, as she saw it, with Charles. The Barbara Cartland-style romantic mist sustained her for much of the time during the engagement fighting, I suppose, with increasing doubts about Charles and about what she was about to take on. I really do wish that Frances had been in London during the early courtship period.
I'm not lumping it all on Frances, but she knew her daughter was a 19 year old romantic in love with love, she herself had endured a very unhappy marriage, having been married off young to a man twelve years her senior, with whom she had had little in common. She too had felt trapped in the Norfolk rural scene. She had more in common with Diana than she realised. It's a pity she didn't say to her 'Don't follow my path, however brilliant this marriage is. Get to know Prince Charles first'.
As many of us have said before on Royal forums, if Charles and Diana had dated for over a year before an engagement Charles might have decided to put his big boy pants on, made up his mind, and not married Diana.
and then everyone would have jumped on him for not marrying the lovely charming Lady Diana.
They would have married, because boht of them wanted to marry - for different reasons.
@amabel I have to agree with you on this. Charles put pressure on himself by saying he would marry at thirty and time to find a suitable bride to provide the heirs had run out. It could have been anyone as long as she was protestant, a virgin and an aristocrat. Diana however wanted to have children and a secure marriage where there could be no divorce. As Charles was the one man at the time who could never divorce she assumed that he would be in love with the person he married.
I didn't know which Diana thread this should go in. If it's wrong can it be moved? However, these photos show I young Diana in the early 1980's accompanying a shoot with Charles and other members of the BRF, including Princess Margaret's children. She looks very bright and chirpy on this private occasion and thoroughly enjoying herself. The photos are newly discovered (in a drawer of a housekeeper's house who used to work at Highgrove apparently.)
Princess Diana is seen on a shoot in candid photos | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4610256/Princess-Diana-seen-shoot-candid-photos.html)
It looks like the Fall after she had WIlliam. She looks thinner in the photos and had longer hair.
I agree with
@sandy on the timing of the photo. Also Lady Sarah looks a bit older than she did in July of 1981 so it is likely in the late summer or early fall of 1982.
Quote from: TLLK on June 14, 2017, 01:33:04 AM
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on June 14, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
Would Lady Diana have paid attention if someone had expressed to her that she was about to wed the wrong man?
At twenty, very little dating experience and ready to walk down the aisle, I don't think so. She really wanted to marry Charles and believed the fairytale despite having some misgivings like Charles did about their compatibility. However if she'd had a few boyfriends and a little more life experience, then yes I do believe that she might have listened to someone who she trusted.
She did have boyfriends, TLLK, but I think that regardless, it would have happened. Not if she was say 25 or so.. but given the way things were, that she was yong, naïve, uneducated, eager to marry.. and he was at the age that he was eager to get married.. I think it would have happened, even if they had dated for longer etc etc.
Double post auto-merged: June 17, 2017, 06:11:21 AM
Quote from: Trudie on June 14, 2017, 08:56:26 PM
@amabel I have to agree with you on this. Charles put pressure on himself by saying he would marry at thirty and time to find a suitable bride to provide the heirs had run out. It could have been anyone as long as she was protestant, a virgin and an aristocrat. Diana however wanted to have children and a secure marriage where there could be no divorce. As Charles was the one man at the time who could never divorce she assumed that he would be in love with the person he married.
it wasn't that he put pressure on himself.. He was over 30 and given that he had to marry a certain type of girl, inexperienced, well bred, Protestant, with some courtly connextions, if he waited much longer there would be an even bigger age gap between him and his fiancée. And I'm sure the press would have cirticised him over that, the RF were eager for him to be settled.. it was time for him to marry, setltle to provide heirs and do full time royal work.. and generally follow his expected dutiful path.
And Diana was clearly eager to marry.. She said that she saw herself marryng someone in the public eye.. I think she later said that she meant a diplomat or something like that but the POW was the best match any girl like her could get. And yes she was "in love" with him, in an immature hero worshipping way.. and she wanted a stable loving home for herself and her children. She also wanted I think to outshine her sisters who had not made such grand marriages, even if they had more O levels...She was undoubtedly in love but she didn't know C very well and blinded herself to the fact that she and he didn't have that much in common..
No I don't think she wanted to "outshine" her sisters. I think she liked that her father was proud of her (and was very pleased she was marrying Charles). His walk down the aisle with her was said to be the happiest day of his life. She could not "outshine" her sisters anyway since they had happy marriages.