I don't see admiring Diana for her very many good qualities and for the admirable causes she promoted, as being 'partisan'.
Nor would I.
Nothing of the kind was said.
Since this is referencing something I characterized, I will give the context. The word 'partisan' was used in reference to those who view Diana as in the right and Hewitt in the wrong for doing exactly the same thing. The view was being expressed that Hewitt did not have the 'right' to talk about his own life in a memoir-kind of way, but Diana did have the 'right' to say and intimate all manner of things about Charles and the BRF (and possibly negatively impact the BRF in so doing) in her memoir-type book (though admittedly not actually a 'memoir') and interviews in general. This is partisan.
It doesn't mean that I or others who stick up for her are blind to her faults or vices (and goodness knows THEY'VE certainly been discussed ad nauseum on these threads.)
Understood. However, please note the distinction made, that when Diana cannot err in situations where others are very much penalized, that is partisan.
On the other hand, many of those who dislike Diana can barely find a good word to say about her, and when they do it's in a most begrudging way. She was a human being, like any other. Yes, she had terrible insecurities but she also touched thousands of lives in a good way.
Very general. Not sure who the 'many of those' are. Impossible to figure out what you are referencing. So I'll pass on this comment.
As for James Hewitt. I wouldn't care if he talked about Diana until Kingdom come, all over the world. It's the doing so for money (a lot of money in his case) that I object to. It's the trying to sell her letters for millions in the US (a move that didn't succeed) the appearance on a TV show where Hewitt pretended to be hypnotised and in so doing stated an earlier date for when they'd met (bringing forth the whole 'Hewitt is Harry's father' debate once more.) In a way the woman who once loved him and whom he loved turned into a cash cow for him again and again. That's why I regard him as rather a grub.
Money, power, fame - would you equate all these? Would you say that someone who sells someone out for money is a grub? You would because you have said so. How about power and fame? Would you say that someone who sells someone out for power and fame a grub? Because that's what Diana did with Charles (and the BRF). If anyone was 'cashing in' on her proximity to royalty it was Diana. I could hardly believe it when I read it, but she went so far as to denigrate Charles' ability to satisfy her. I'd call that grubby.
Is Hewitt incapable of spinning lies or being deceitful? Why are his memoirs to be regarded as truth personified? He was and is just as anxious to spin his side of the tale as Diana ever was about hers.
He doesn't actually spin that much. I've read one of his books and he is actually very circumspect regarding Diana. Not one salacious detail.
Several posters do like emphasising the damage etc that Diana caused but don't seem to be able to acknowledge that the woman also had many good points, or that she ever did a thing right, so much so that there was criticism on another thread of the way she and her children ate supper sometimes in front of the TV!
Ooops! This is me.
Questioning a chef's statement about Diana
always sitting in front of the telly having supper on trays with her children is not a criticism of Diana. I was questioning the veracity of the article, or the chef. Why should we believe this chef? It sounded more like an urban legend he was repeating than actual facts.
I've read the 'Housekeeper's Diary' in which Mrs Barry indicates that Diana (in the later days at Highgrove before the separation) often purposely kept the two boys with her in the evening (with supper on trays in front of the telly) in order to deny Charles the evening sit-down meal with his family. That's the only eye-witness account I've read about trays in front of the telly, and the motivation was a bit sad.
He is similar to Fergie in that way, but I don't dislike her, either. They are both people who think it's OK to make money from opportunities they have as a result of their intimate relationships. They are taking advantage of opportunities they had because of their connections, as most of us do one way or the other.
In that 'they' I would include Diana.
Diana did not stop playing her 'royal card' (because she had married Charles and produced the heir) for one second of her life after she married. She milked it every day. She expected consideration.
What a different story it all would have been had she spent some of her settlement money on the purchase of a lovely estate somewhere that she loved, and retired from the public scene since she could not conduct her public duties as the Princess of Wales next to the Prince of Wales. Far more impressive had she done that rather than calling in photo-ops to the press for her lover's tryst on a boat.
