Yes, I'm back on these threads again, but I have no plans to make this into a habit and I'm not here to offend the (now) small, but vocal Diana fans.
Osipi and Curryong (whom I have great respect for as posters here) wrote something in the Duke and Duchess of the Windsor thread, which I choose to answer here.
As I'm right smack dab in the middle of reading "King Edward VIII" by Philip Ziegler, a comment the author made is still very fresh in my mind.
The first grouping of pictures of David are from his birth up to around 21 years old. The very first photo is one of him at a toddler and the author remarked that it is "perhaps one of the rare photos where he is pictured looking uncomplicatedly cheerful" and described the rest as being characteristically wistful.
This may sound strange but if I were to compare David with any other British royal from what I've gleaned from the book so far, I would have to say that personality wise, he actually was, in ways, similar to Diana, Princess of Wales.
His fitness was a big concern for him. He exercised and pushed his body to keep fit and ate very little. When things bothered him, they bothered him to a great depth. They both were very concerned with the welfare of the people and as far as service during World War I, I even see Harry in David's thoughts. When David loved, he loved with every inch of himself to the point of obsession. There's other places that related between David and Diana and I found it uncanny. Its the way these people were and its neither good or bad but just the way they were.
I'm only up to the point in the book where he's just met Freda Dudley Ward and have lots yet to read.
Osipi, you're one of my favourite posters here, but how it is possible to say that she cared about people after all the bad things we have heard about her, her behavior towards the Queen, the way she treated some of her staffers and her manipulation is just beyond my comprehension.
And when it comes to her charity work: Others in the royal family worked for the weak in society long before Diana came into the picture, and we know for a fact (as I also think Osipi has written in these threads before, when she was more critical of Diana) that she (Diana) did much of what she did to increase her popularity when she received bad press coverage.
Excellent, Osipi. I hope you're enjoying it. I have it on my Kindle having read a library copy years ago. I think Ziegler does a very good job, only rivalled perhaps by Frances Donaldson's biography of Edward, and often refer back to it when the subject of the Duke comes up.
He was certainly a very complex character, restless and without inner resources really, apart from his gardening and sporting activities. He was extraordinarily self-pitying (his letter to Freda Dudley Ward when he was on Empire Tours in his twenties are just maudlin) and constantly felt hard done by. He, like Diana, was immensely popular, almost worshipped. Hard to imagine now.
This is just wrong, yes, she became very popular after she married Charles (as everyone would had been in the 80s), but she turned into a divisive and controversial person who really damaged the monarchy before she died.
I also want to say that Harry (William from 2010-2013) is much more popular than what Diana was. And compared to the popularity and love the Queen has had through these 65 years of service to her peoples, Diana's (popularity) becomes nothing in comparedment.
Edit: And when it comes to Diana's most hysterical fans (which Osipi is not a part of), Denville is, at least, willing to admit that Diana also had bad sides.