Princess Diana recorded her bulimia anguish after Prince Charles \\\\\\\'Chubby\\\\\\\"

[sara8150]

Princess Diana Recorded Her Bulimia Anguish After Prince Charles Called Her 'a Bit Chubby'
Princess Diana Recorded Her Bulimia Anguish After Prince Charles Called Her 'a Bit Chubby'
Double post auto-merged: June 10, 2017, 06:09:56 AM

How Diana secretly recorded hours of tapes pouring out her despair over her imploding marriage to Charles: Soul-baring audio reveals her bulimia began when Prince told her she was 'a bit chubby'
How Diana secretly recorded hours of tapes | Daily Mail Online
Double post auto-merged: June 10, 2017, 06:13:11 AM

Princess Diana secretly recorded herself describing despair at the state of her marriage to Prince Charles, biographer reveals
Princess Diana secretly recorded herself describing despair at the state of her marriage to Prince Charles, biographer reveals
Double post auto-merged: June 10, 2017, 06:16:43 AM

Diana 'heard Charles tell Camilla I will always love you BEFORE they were married'
Diana 'heard Charles tell Camilla I will always love you BEFORE they were married' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

[royalanthropologist]

Election went against you, what do you do as DM? Why, slap on a rehashed story about Diana. I give Diana a pass on this because she was going through a tough time. She could not have considered the potential damage caused by sharing your innermost thoughts with a journalist and reporter. As for Morton, the man is fast becoming a Paul Burrel. There comes a time when someone deserves to RIP. Twenty years is too long to still be harping on about old events.

[Curryong]

Twenty years isn't too long if you're hoping to make some more money out of Diana's life and death, and I'm talking about the DM as well as Burrell, Morton, Wharfe and co.!

[amabel]

why do people read this then?  the papers wouldn't print it, unless they felt someone was going to read it. 

[dianab]

Diana was a icon.

Jackie O and Marilyn also had/have their private/intimate lives written in details in several bios (including very recent books).

I'm glad for Diana (and whoever woman in a sad and hopeless situation like her. in her case she was trapped in a awful 'Victorian arrangement') she did this book and Panorama interview.

She wanted her life back and she went after it. I respect her for that. Many women who felt trapped in their unhappy lives/marriages can relate to her.

[royalanthropologist]

@dianab. I rather doubt that a true friend would share the intimate details of a privately obtained recording and share it in the public bearing in mind that Diana is now not only a mother but a grand mother (in absentia). Does the need to self-justify personal grievances supersede the thoughts and feelings of Diana's descendants? Whose marriage is picked on and dissected in such minute details? I think it is time that people celebrated the wonderful things that Diana achieved and did rather than trying to portray her as a perpetual victim.

As for the comments on DM, I seriously give up :notamused:. What kind of person gets satisfaction from a comment such as this: "Diana should move on and maybe date John Lennon", paraphrased of course. Is there some kind of moderation on that rag? I mean really, how sick can you get.

This the 20th anniversary of her untimely death and I think that the discussions should tend more towards celebrating her life as a historical figure and come up with a permanent reminder of who she was and what she stood for. I for one would welcome a good discussion about the statute and ideas for the artists or even the charities that she championed which have gone out of the public eye.  The constant reference to the unhappiness in her marriage is a tad depressing.

[amabel]

Diana was a icon.

I'm She wanted her life back and she went after it. I respect her for that. Many women who felt trapped in their unhappy lives/marriages can relate to her.

She wanted her life back so she gave up her security, got involved with someone who messed up his bodyguards so that they could not protect her....??

[TLLK]

why do people read this then?  the papers wouldn't print it, unless they felt someone was going to read it. 

Read through the comments and you will see the same dozen or so posters bickering about every Diana/Charles/Camilla article. DM realizes it has a goldmine with these articles so they're going to keep on posting them.

[royalanthropologist]

It is amazing to think that many people do not realize that Diana actually liked being Princess of Wales and would have preferred to remain married to Charles if hers and his actions had not made that arrangement untenable. Between 1986 (the time Charles left the marital bed) and 1992; Diana could do pretty much anything she pleased. She could take lovers without any complaint from the palace. She had a good income, the prestige of her position and her children.

She was not some "princes in the tower" figure whose life had been taken away.  If she wanted the paparazzi away, she just had to take on the sheltered existence of other members of the family. All had dealt with intrusive press but Diana thrived on that intrusive press as her weapon of choice against her husband. She was very successful in using the press but was consumed when the press asked for their pound of flesh. In my view she revealed too much to too many people.   To this day, the likes of Morton are still getting their pound of flesh.

Some Diana fans fervently hope that these revelations unnerve and disturb C&C. I rather doubt that happens. As I said earlier, Charles has taken to completely ignoring the press so as not to trouble himself with them. If he wants a message sent out, he commissions a press officer or alternatively gets a friend to do the deed.

Camilla is completely protected by the Clarence House corps. She is unlikely to read anything that is unpleasant to her. The hostile letters sent are politely rebuffed with stock answers, written by a lady in waiting. The DM comments section is unlikely to have any relevance to her life.

Even Diana herself is beyond being hurt by any revelations. It is her sons and grand children that suffer. They have to constantly read about recriminations and rehashed stories about their parents' life. How would anyone feel if people were continuously writing about how bad their father was and how put upon their mum was. It is just hurtful and completely unnecessary.

Diana's chief complaint was that her husband had abandoned her: first emotionally and now physically. He was just not there and was leading an entirely separate life. Diana found it hard to conceive that her husband completely and irreversibly preferred Camilla to her.  In the heat of that rejection, she started a campaign of upstaging him. This is something that she knew he hated right from the time he was annoyed by her popularity. So she used it to get back at him and even tried to start a campaign to pressurize him into abdicating. At first Charles ignored her but later on he started spinning against her. She in turn hoped to expose him as a very bad person.

Dimbley was a very painful experience for Diana. Here was her husband saying in no uncertain terms that he had never loved her and did not want to be married to her, in public. For someone who was suffering from abandonment issues right from childhood, that was a life blow. She wanted to take revenge or have the last word. Martin Bashir and Morton saw the opportunity and got her to talk. Unfortunately her talking meant that the previous arrangement was no longer tenable even though Diana wanted it to continue (i.e. indicating that she did not want a divorce).

Morton and Panorama were very damaging to Diana. One can trace her demise to those two press forays because without them, she would be free to do as she pleased with the proviso that she did not interfere with or engage with her husband. Indeed Charles had shown no indication that she could not be crowned his queen, even after they were separated. It was Panorama that finally pushed him to the edge and he decided that she had to go. Diana did not do those media interviews because she wanted to get married and was not being allowed to get married. Nobody denied her access to the children, even when she was having an affair. on the contrary, she had it all but Charles' love.   I for one, I am very glad that the queen put her foot down when Diana wanted to go on one of her more foolhardy tangents of going about with the princes sans the body guards. I can only imagine the horror if Harry and William had been in that car as opposed to being ensconced at Balmoral.

Diana never requested a divorce and was denied it. On the contrary, it was her that wanted to remain married to Charles despite the fact that he had abandoned her and made it clear that he had no intention of ever rekindling the relationship again. When the divorce came; it was forced on her. She tried to put a brave face on things by hyping the settlement. This was no ground breaking settlement. Diana had been a wealthy woman in her own right and even when separated from Charles; there was no question of lacking any material things. I fail to see how $30 million could ever compensate a person for being divorced from the Prince of Wales and losing any right to be Queen of England.

This rehash by Morton is desperate and tasteless. It tells us nothing new and does not move Diana's agenda any further. Instead of celebrating her life, many are just focusing on how badly she was treated and how Karma might one day miraculously turn on those who allegedly made her life miserable. All done in the name of gratuitous controversy.

[amabel]

well that's what I meant, TLLK.  Tthere is still a group of people who are (As far as I can see) mostly violently Pro Diana and Anti Charles and Camilla.  (they are often vehemently pro Harry as well).
And they do problaby come out of the woodwork every time her name is mentioned and start attacking Ch and Cam and defending poor Di and claiming that she was so cruelly treated. So, as you say, as long as they are around, newspapers will run articles about her and attract attention from these people.. I suppose there may come a time when they are not going to be there any more..or do finally get tired of the "same old same old"...
Double post auto-merged: June 10, 2017, 08:20:32 PM

. Nobody denied her access to the children, even when she was having an affair. on the contrary, she had it all but Charles' love.   I for one, I am very glad that the queen put her foot down when Diana wanted to go on one of her more foolhardy tangents of going about with the princes sans the body guards. I can only imagine the horror if Harry and William had been in that car as opposed to being ensconced at Balmoral.

Diana never requested a divorce and was denied it. On the contrary, it was her that wanted to remain married to Charles despite the fact that he had abandoned her and made it clear

She would have been refused a divorce, had she asked for one prior to the last year or 2 of her marriage.  The queen only gave in and allowed a divorce when it was really clear that the 2 of them remaining married, and sniping at each other was much wrose for the monarchy than a divorce which would give the RF the opportunity to muzzle Di with confidentiality agreements.
and I don't believe she ever requested that the boys should not have PPOS when they were with her.  Please , again i'll ask where did you get that information? I don't believe she would have ever asked for such a thing because she knew it woud be impossible...

[royalanthropologist]

@amabel. I think it was Ken Warfe who reported that Diana had wanted to take the children on holiday at the time she had refused royal protection. The queen sent an order down that under no circumstance were William and Harry to ever be without bodyguards. I don't for a second think that Diana wanted to harm her beloved children in any way...but the implication was that they would be travelling with her sans the palace protection. That could be dangerous.

I also question whether Diana really wanted to divorce Charles. It seems to me that she didn't. Her ideal situation would have been Charles abandoning Camilla and returning.  I base my conclusions on the fact that after the divorce, none of her relationships were really at the proposal stage of a potential marriage. Khan had broken it off and Dodi was just in the the get-to-know-you phase. She said as much in panorama that she did not want a divorce. That would mean that the idea of wanting a divorce and not getting it would not be applicable here.

[dianab]

This transcripts become public in 1997/8.  They're HISTORICAL content

[amabel]

Thanks, Im very surprised because I'm sure that Diana would have been well aware that there would be no questioin of the Queen allowing the boys to not have their PPOs..and that she could not do anyting to intervene in that.  so she would hardly ask for something that wouldn't be granted.
I think she did want a divorce earlier on.. but in the late 80s, she and Charles both believed that if thehy had told the queen they wanted to end the marriage it woudl be firmly refused.

I think that when her affair with JH ended, she was alone, and depressed and felt that she wanted out of the marriage, so that she was free to find another man, and be openly with him.. rather than having to have a furtive affair with someone. 
But that as her marriage unravelled, she got more nervous on the idea of a divorce.  She began to realise that it might push her right out of "Society" and a public role..
she had spent almost literally ALL her adult life inside the Royal family and she began to realise that "Living outside it" would be scary.  So she began to dibbile and haver and not be sure whether she would be better remaining technically married to Charles, and having some kind of role as Princess Mother to her son or if she wanted to get right out and be free.

The C of E had said that it would be OK with Charles and Di beign separated and being crowned King and Queen provided there were no affairs, but Diana must have realised that there were going to be affairs on botht sides and that if she wanted to remain technically married, she was going to have to be ultra discreet. 
SO I think she went back and forth ion what she wanted to do, and couldn't make up her mind.  I think she was also hurt by the fact that Charles had admitted his affair with Camila and had all but said that he had never really cared for her, Diana.. I think that she was still  a bit emotionally fixated on him, and that interview really pained her..  She was a beautful young woman, admired by many men - and her husband was admitting he preferred a plain older woman to her..

[dianab]

@amabel. I think it was Ken Warfe who reported that Diana had wanted to take the children on holiday at the time she had refused royal protection. The queen sent an order down that under no circumstance were William and Harry to ever be without bodyguards. I don't for a second think that Diana wanted to harm her beloved children in any way...but the implication was that they would be travelling with her sans the palace protection. That could be dangerous.

I also question whether Diana really wanted to divorce Charles. It seems to me that she didn't. Her ideal situation would have been Charles abandoning Camilla and returning.  I base my conclusions on the fact that after the divorce, none of her relationships were really at the proposal stage of a potential marriage. Khan had broken it off and Dodi was just in the the get-to-know-you phase. She said as much in panorama that she did not want a divorce. That would mean that the idea of wanting a divorce and not getting it would not be applicable here.

Diana left Hasnat Khan. He's said it several times. He said he was aware of how Diana was tired of his resistence to be seen publicly with her. He even said as he had stayed with her at KP before her and the boys left for St Tropez. Charles himself also never talked openly about the divorce with Dimbleby, but as soon as Camilla was divorced he was seen publicly with her. I've always read it was inconvenient as for Charles as Diana to be talking publicly about a divorce.

[royalanthropologist]

Thanks for correcting me @dianab. I was under the impression that it was Khan that actually ended the relationship because he did not want the drama of it all. I have to say that I would be a tad miffed if my boyfriend said they could date me but did not want to be seen publicly with me. It added to Diana's feeling that she was under siege and could not have a meaningful private life.

You are quite right that divorce was considered a no-no for senior royals but the queen was aware that Margaret, Anne and Andrew were actual or potential divorces. I once heard the queen telling a women's institute that divorce was the "scourge of today".  This was recorded way back in the 1950s. How ironic that acrimonious divorce was to haunt her family for decades. Her mother's jewels adorn a divorcee and her heir is a divorcee. Goes to show that stigma and judgmental-ism can come back to haunt you.

[Curryong]

^ To be fair to the Queen though, when she spoke to the WI about 'the scourge of divorce' she would have been speaking to an audience who thoroughly agreed with those sentiments. 1950's Britain was a very conservative and conventional country. Probably 95% of the adult population at that time would have expressed similar sentiments at one time or another.

Social attitudes on a dozen subjects --- homosexuality, euthanasia, women working outside the home, obedience towards one's parents and authority in general, and divorce ---have done a 45 degree turn in the decades since. Nowadays divorce rates in Britain are at about 50% and the BRF's sad record is only a bit higher than that figure.

[royalanthropologist]

You are quite right @Curryong. I too was being a bit too judgmental. I would not want anyone to hear my granny's views on a range of things including racism, immigration and homosexuality. They are just too outrageous to express so the queen was of her time.

[amabel]

^ To be fair to the Queen though, when she spoke to the WI about 'the scourge of divorce' she would have been speaking to an audience who thoroughly agreed with those sentiments. 1950's Britain was a very conservative and conventional country. Probably 95% of the adult population at that time would have expressed similar sentiments at one time or another.

So she is wrorng in saying that divorce is a bad thing??  And somehow then its her fault that her children ended up divorced.

[Curryong]

^ No, not at all, amabel. I don't think there are too many people who at any time would say that divorce was a good thing. I was just replying to royal's post before mine, in which she stated that perhaps the Queen's remarks in the 1950s to the Women's Institute about the 'scourge' of divorce has haunted her years later because her children had divorced.

I then pointed out that social views had changed a great deal in the decades since, among them towards divorce, and that some socially conservative views expressed today wouldn't be greeted with almost unanimous  agreement, which they almost certainly were then.

No-one doubts the Queen's Christian values and strict moral code. Indeed I believe she is admired for it, but I think many social views held 60 years ago have changed. I certainly don't believe anyone holds the Queen to account for her children's divorces, merely that society today has a very high divorce rate and I suppose the BRF reflects that, but writ large because of the ever present glare of publicity and constant speculation about their private lives.

[amabel]

^ No, not at all, amabel. I don't think there are too many people who at any time would say that divorce was a good thing. I was just replying to royal's post before mine, in which she stated that perhaps the Queen's remarks in the 1950s to the Women's Institute about the 'scourge' of divorce has haunted her years later because her children had divorced.
.

No-one doubts

No Cury I'm sorr that I put that in the wrong place.  I know you were pointing out that the queen's speech was in line with the general conservative way of thinking of the 1950s.  ANd Divorce IS a bad thing, as  a conservative Christan I'm sure the queen's never varied form believing that..But I think she problaby felt that the charles/Diana marriage ahd been a terrible dreadful mistake and that if they could not make the best of it, divorce was the only way out.
I must dash but will return!

[sandy]

Thanks, Im very surprised because I'm sure that Diana would have been well aware that there would be no questioin of the Queen allowing the boys to not have their PPOs..and that she could not do anyting to intervene in that.  so she would hardly ask for something that wouldn't be granted.
I think she did want a divorce earlier on.. but in the late 80s, she and Charles both believed that if thehy had told the queen they wanted to end the marriage it woudl be firmly refused.

I think that when her affair with JH ended, she was alone, and depressed and felt that she wanted out of the marriage, so that she was free to find another man, and be openly with him.. rather than having to have a furtive affair with someone. 
But that as her marriage unravelled, she got more nervous on the idea of a divorce.  She began to realise that it might push her right out of "Society" and a public role..
she had spent almost literally ALL her adult life inside the Royal family and she began to realise that "Living outside it" would be scary.  So she began to dibbile and haver and not be sure whether she would be better remaining technically married to Charles, and having some kind of role as Princess Mother to her son or if she wanted to get right out and be free.

The C of E had said that it would be OK with Charles and Di beign separated and being crowned King and Queen provided there were no affairs, but Diana must have realised that there were going to be affairs on botht sides and that if she wanted to remain technically married, she was going to have to be ultra discreet. 
SO I think she went back and forth ion what she wanted to do, and couldn't make up her mind.  I think she was also hurt by the fact that Charles had admitted his affair with Camila and had all but said that he had never really cared for her, Diana.. I think that she was still  a bit emotionally fixated on him, and that interview really pained her..  She was a beautful young woman, admired by many men - and her husband was admitting he preferred a plain older woman to her..

I think Charles had hurt her too much for her wanting him back.  She was ready to move on. But she wanted to make sure she could get the shared custody of William and Harry.