Different Facets of Diana

[Moonmaiden23]

Good grief NGalitzine, you seem to believe that people need convincing that Diana was not perfect. Everyone who can read knows the truth about her by now.

She manipulated a lot of her press.She did bad things, but also some very good ones. She was not Eva Braun or even close.

My question is why-15 years after her death and permanent removal from the scene-are people still so filled with rancor toward this dead, quite harmless woman??

She. is. dead. Charles will be King, and Camilla will be Queen. Isn't that enough??

If she was indeed "mad" as Deborah Devonshire believes, that is even more cause for compassion and not censure imo.

 

[Nico]

Lady Pamela crossed the Rubicon and said out loud,deliberately or not, what some people were thinking quietly, including let's face it, inside the BRF.
Is it surprising ? Not really. This thread is called "different facets of Diana" so we all know that there was a public Diana, tender and compassionate, and a private one, let's say more complicated.Nothing new here.
I'm more disturbed by the unfortunate timing of this interview. Why now ?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Of course you are right Nico. I should have looked at the title of the thread before making my comments.

But it is worth pointing out that the Mountbattens and the Devonshires were as far into the "Charles camp" during the War of the Wales as it was possible to be. Of course they will have nothing good to say about Diana.

They represent the Establishment to the nth power.

When she refused to accept the age old tradition of looking the other way while her husband took a favorite mistress, when she rejected the stiff upper lip and went public with her miseries and her tantrums...worse yet when the press and public actually sided with her, she BROKE THE CODE and she could not ever be forgiven.

 

[Ish]

The interview was done as an attempt to promote Lady Pamela's autobiography, Daughter of An Empire. As such it's very likely that both she and her sister entered into it not expecting to discuss Diana.

The article is 3 pages long on the VF website, and the Diana bit occurs at the end after the interviewer "floated" Diana's name. It says that " she initially offers a couple of positive remarks, then lowers the boom," which to me indicates that she was pressed into saying anything about Diana.

Even then the comments themselves aren't nearly as bad as people are making them out to be. The entire thing is this:

When I float the name of the late Princess of Wales by Lady Pamela, she initially offers a couple of positive remarks, then lowers the boom: “She had enormous charisma, she was beautiful, she was very good at empathy with the general crowd … and she had no feeling at all for her husband or his family. Quite the reverse!
“She was really spiteful, really unkind to him—and, my God, he’s a man who needs support and encouragement. [The marriage] absolutely destroyed him. He looked grey and ghost-like. Now of course he’s blossomed again.
“She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert.
She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star.
“But one memoir is enough!” says Lady Pamela, ending the interview and dashing any hopes of a sequel. Alas!

To me the whole thing can be summed up as this; Lady Pamela complimented Diana for her charisma, beauty, and empathy, then pointed out that Diana was spiteful towards Charles and the BRF, and lied about the way she was treated by the BRF, then finishes by essentially saying that Diana was too immature (at the time) for her role.


The book itself has nothing to do with Diana - it ends well before Diana entered the scene - so there was really no need to bring up Diana in the first place. Lady Pamela very likely made her comments because she was pushed into answering certain questions, but we're not shown the questions themselves, so we don't really know all of the context of it. What we do know is that she's not saying anything any different from what has been said for a good long while.


The full article can be seen here: Royal In-Law: Princess Diana Favored “Disco-ing” to Married Life; Charles Has “Blossomed Again” With Camilla | Vanity Fair

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thanks Ish, for the recap!

Do you know what strikes me? Diana's friend Carolyn Bartholomew used almost the exact same phrase to describe Diana in the marriage...."she was ashen, she was grey" or something.

What a mess.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Thank you for posting the actual VF article.What a difference from what the DM prints.
Really, what she said is just like what a mother-in-law's friend would say. She was commenting mostly on Diana's behavior at the beginning of the marriage when she was just 20. An older woman would easily critique a young woman who later complained about being "ill-treated". Of course, her family was in the Charles camp, I've read it all before, about her parents too. No need for me to buy that book.

 

[Warren]

Time to calm it down guys.

If someone who knew Diana gives their reminisces, memories and thoughts, or relates specific incidents as they recall them, that's of interest. The fuller and more rounded picture of every historical figure and person of significance is built up from many sources. It doesn't stop with the person's death or on a nominated anniversary date. In Diana's case it will continue to be built up even after the deaths of everyone alive who knew, had contact with or was influenced by her. Private diaries, memoirs, letters and other documents will surface for many decades to come and they will all form part of the historical record. They can't be filtered into "good" and "bad" and accepted or rejected on that basis, they are what they are.

Lady Pamela's insights and the Duchess of Devonshire's opinions have validity because they are personal experiences - which none of us have had - but neither will be definitive in the long-term view of who and what the late Diana, Princess of Wales was. Instead their recorded personal perspectives will form very small parts of the overall mosaic and in the scheme of things, nothing to get upset or defensive about.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

After reading the entire article--thank you, Ish--it is very obvious that it was the interviewer who brought up Diana's name. I appreciate that some people are very concerned about Harry and William's feelings, but one of the reasons people are so interested in Diana's life is because she opened the door (and several windows).

Diana spoke to the media on a regular basis and cooperated with one book and one television interview, in which she violated the privacy of her husband, Camilla, William, Harry and other members of the royal family. At best, some, if not many, of her allegations are subject to another interpretation. Other allegations, such as her attacks on Tiggy, have been proven to be outright lies. It's tragic that Diana died, but it is not fair to the people she hurt to argue that Diana's death precludes people who support the royal family from trying to set the record straight.

 

[Dman]

Everybody knows that Diana spoke to the media. We've already established that point.

I think the comments were unfair because its made to sound like Diana acted alone and everyone else's bad behavior was nothing to get bent out of shape about. Very easy to talk about a person who's no longer here to defend herself.

History will show that Diana, Charles and Camilla behaved badly and helped bring a great deal of controversy to the imperfect royal institution. No matter how others try to re-write history.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

This is a forum to discuss the different facets of Diana, not the wrongs done by other people. The issue is whether people can continue to discuss Diana's behavior now that she is deceased. Obviously, Diana can't defend herself, but some posters seem to think that the people Diana slandered should not be able to defend themselves either.

How would some of these posters feel if they were close to Charles, Tiggy, Camilla, etc..., and had to repeatedly hear things they know for a fact are completely false? Diana chose to go to the media. We now know that many of the things she said were false, but many people still believe it. Paraphrasing Dman's signature: The truth is always fair.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I doubt very much, you can hire the Mountbatten-Sisters or Debo Devonshire *lol*
.

 

[Osipi]

Diana was not compatible with the marriage that she entered. At the time there wasn't a "Princess of Wales for Dummies" manual available nor a "Royal Marriage Dos and Don'ts". She jumped into the marriage with high expectations and faith that it would work. It took living the marriage to find out that they were really not that compatible. One doesn't know how two chemicals are going to react together unless someone actually mixes them up and sometimes there's an explosion.
.

 

[Frelinghighness]

If you read the VF article, or know the kind of upbringing these women had, her remarks seem perfectly normal to me.
Her parents were very intense and workaholics. In fact, her mother died at 58 truly working herself to death for refugees after WWII. Pamela even admits that she was simply expected to achieve in a high level manner at age 17, in India.
Naturally, Diana, who came from a famously broken home had been coddled in the typical English aristocratic way of the time and was totally unprepared for the responsibility of her role as POW. Pamela's own children were also quite coddled. So her view of the softer generation that followed, seems normal.
Does she blame Charles? In my view, she implies that he was a bit needy himself and needed a lot of support.

 

[ladongas]

Just because you can say it doesn't mean you have to

Yes, the Mountbattens worked hard, but they had plenty of time for pleasure, too, as they left the rearing of their children to others, and of course, none of them had to work to make money. As to whether Diana was coddled, she was witness to an ugly marriage break-up that apparently included adultery and domestic violence.

So, whether what these old ladies say is true, or slanted, or outright false, they didn't have to say it as long as there are people alive to be hurt by it (Diana's sons). Some elderly people think they're entitled to be as rude and unkind as they want simply because they have survived a long time.

I'll go so far as to say that that attitude is one of the symptoms of senility and assume that's what afflicts these two old biddies. I'd like to think that a 'refined' 'well-bred' person would keep her/his mouth shut unless they were too addled to have a filter.
.

 

[Nice Nofret]

The Duchess of Devonshire remarks are written in a letter to her Sister - it's NOT a public remark she made in an interview - so how is she bribed in to writing what she did? She couldn't know then, that there would be a book in which her letters would be published.

I had quite outspoken old birds in my family too, and very aristocratic. Not allways comfortable to live with, as the truth is not alwas palatable to ones ears.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...I'll go so far as to say that that attitude is one of the symptoms of senility and assume that's what afflicts these two old biddies...

Sorry, ladongas, I don't think Lady Pamela is the one who needs a filter here. Lady Pamela gave her opinion in response to a question. You don't agree with her opinion, which is fine. But I think it is terribly rude and extremely unkind to imply that she is senile and call her a 'biddy.'

She is a member of Charles's family. She witnessed some events first hand. She took Charles's side in the divorce. She stated her opinion about Diana when asked, she also indicated that Charles was 'needy.'

There are many posters on this board who have taken Diana's side, which is also fine. But some, even though they never met her or met shook her hand once, attack Charles on a regular basis. Many repeat claims that are highly questionable or have been proven false.

These same posters complain when one of Charles's supporters defend him. They claim that their outrage is about protecting William and Harry but they were (and are) fine with Diana's public attacks on Charles when William and Harry were children.
.

 

[roseroyal]

If you read the VF article, or know the kind of upbringing these women had, her remarks seem perfectly normal to me...

Yes, I can understand the remarks made in the sense of Pamela grew up in a time of stiff upper lips, and when things such as Morton books and Panorama interviews were inconceivable , and it was duty, duty, duty. But I still disagree with her.
No, she does not blame Charles one bit. She puts all the blame on Diana. And IMO, that is unfair.

 

[Nico]

This lady is perfectly entitled to her opinion. Of course she broke the golden rule of the "never explain never complain" but Diana herself was not really fan of this rule anyway.
I would say fair game. For better and worse.
To call her "senile" would be the biggest laugh of the year if it was not the most pathetical excuse seen here for a while.
She's defending a loved one. What did you expect ? Just bring some Diana's "friends", her hagiographer Richard Kay and co , to counterbalance these comments, far too pro-Charles for some taste, and everything will be fine again...

 

[Ish]

What I find ridiculous and rather hypocritical is how people are attacking Lady Pamela for giving her opinion, when they themselves are simply giving their opinion. To say that you disagree with Lady Pamela is one thing, likewise to say that you don't think it was appropriate for her to speak at all (although this is a two sided argument; people who knew the couple and support Charles often seem to be attacked more for speaking than those who support Diana. If a Diana supporter is allowed to vocalize a negative view of Charles, then a Charles supporter should be allowed to vocalize a negative view of Diana).

To attack Lady Pamela's character for speaking (in answer to unknown questions) and call into question her mental fitness on the grounds that she is publicly saying something negative about someone - because, after all if you don't have something positive to say don't say anything at all - is hypocritical because you yourself are attacking someone in a public manner, even if the Internet allows you to be anonymous.
.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

People should stop whorship Diana, Princess of Wales, and to demonize people who have knew her, people who knew the real Diana, not the angelical figure that media threw on us.

Personally, I believe on every word Lady Pamela Hicks has said.
.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

No balanced person worships Diana, or believes that she was an angel.

And no fair, reasonably intelligent person who has read the volumes of pro-con material believes her to be a diabolical figure whose contribution to Britain was purely negative.

Why must it be either/or...why must it be black and white?
.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No balanced person worships Diana, or believes that she was an angel.

I agree - but I also know that there are many unbalanced people out there because there are many who do worship her and believe that she was an angel.

And no fair person who has read the volumes of pro-con material believes her to be a diabolical figure whose contribution to Britain was purely negative.

Why must it be either/or...why must it be black and white?

I agree - it doesn't have to be black and white.

She did some good - she did some bad.

Personally I believe she did more harm than good because she believed her own publicity rather than realise who she had married and what that meant.

There is nothing in the Lady Pamela Hicks comments that weren't reported in the early 80s by the way - that Diana refused to listen to those who were appointed to help her, that she refused to read the books with some guidance etc - reported in 1981 - before the wedding mind you.

 

[Osipi]

After rereading the article in VF yet again, I didn't see anywhere where it was stated that Charles was never at fault at all. She bluntly stated the effects of some of the behavior of Diana had on Charles. TBH, I think once the marriage was on its downward spiral, these ladies probably didn't see too much of Diana but could see the effects on Charles. They've stated their opinion of Diana when asked. Nothing wrong with that.

Claim bluntness on old age? I don't think so. If anything, perhaps the bluntness of opinion is a family trait? Puts me in mind of a certain 92 year old that is well renowned for his bluntness and "gaffes".

 

[Ish]

No balanced person worships Diana, or believes that she was an angel...

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here.

I do think some balanced people hold Diana in a very high esteem - perhaps not worship, but still up there. I also think that some intelligent people do so as well.

I don't believe that people who are informed on the matter and have read the materials presenting both the Charles and the Diana sides see things as a black/white. However, I don't believe that the majority of people who have an opinion on this matter - regardless of how intelligent or balanced they are - have read materials from both sides prior to forming an opinion (or at all). There are some well balanced and intelligent people out there who have closed minds and aren't willing to change their opinions on the matter - and I mean in reference to both the Diana and Charles supporters.

That said, I do really agree with you. Diana was not this evil, diabolical figure whose contribution was purely negative. She also wasn't a saint whose contribution was purely positive. Some of what she contributed was negative, some of what she contributed was positive. The same can be said of Charles.
.

 

[NGalitzine]

Regarding the Duchess of Devonshire, we should perhaps clear up a few facts.

The 2 letters I copied are from a book published awhile ago. The book has exerpts of about 5% of the more than 20,000 letters the 6 sisters wrote to each other, and has nothing to do with Diana other than she was amongst the many people that the 6 sisters met and wrote to each other about including others such as Hitler, Churchill, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, President Kennedy, Harold MacMillian and Aly Khan as well as the Queen, the Queen Mother and other members of the BRF. They are pretty frank in their comments about everyone so Diana was not singled out. The Duchess merely made a comment to her sister about her personal experience with someone she actually knew.

I doubt when they were writing to each other they ever thought that an editor would want to compile their letters into book form. The Duchess certainly was not paid for expressing her views in her letter to her sister, nor were her letters part of some palace organized campaign to discredit the late princess.
.

 

[Grandma828]

This column is a good example of people deciding things without considering all angles. Most of the time, it seems as if they do not understand what they read. How awful to go through life with such narrow vision. Nothing is ever all good or all bad.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, the Mountbattens worked hard, but they had plenty of time for pleasure, too, as they left the rearing of their children to others, and of course, none of them had to work to make money.

Just because somebody leaves the rearing of the children to others (most accomplished men) and don't need to earn money, doesn't negate the fact that they may work very hard and accomplish a lot, like the Mountbattens. I'm so tired of this attitude.
HM left the child rearing to others and doesn't need to earn her living, but who could dispute that she doesn't and hasn't worked hard?
Unfortunately, just the "juicy" bits about the Mountbattens' early years, roaring 20's style is generally reported. Read a biography on either of them, I think you'd be surprised, and be able to take their daughter's remarks in a better context.
Also, I agree with a former poster that these remarks were heard in the 80's and another poster that her remark about charles' neediness was a bit of a swipe at him.

 

[sthreats]

If that was the context in which Her Ladyship was quoted then yes, you are correct Ish, and I agree with you.

The DM and VF have chosen to play up those particular remarks because of the attention they are bound to receive.

You are right. The title of the VF article ends with 'flourished under Camilla ' but Camilla's name is not in the article.

I think these sisters speak their mind no matter what. Lady Patricia was interviewed by Brandeth for his book in 2006. When asked why P. Charles didn't marry Camilla when they were young she said ' it wouldn't have worked anyway she was a subject and one doesn't marry one's subjects.'
I found that very snobby and offensive but this is who they are.

Many older people think the failure of a marriage is mainly the woman's fault. And they clearly think they are superior to others. So of course in their view P. Diana should have been forever grateful and pliable. Also I haven't read anything that positive from the sisters about P. Charles.

I don't think this is something for everyone here to get upset with each other about.

 

[Ish]

I think these sisters speak their mind no matter what. Lady Patricia was interviewed by Brandeth for his book in 2006. When asked why P. Charles didn't marry Camilla when they were young she said ' it wouldn't have worked anyway she was a subject and one doesn't marry one's subjects.'
I found that very snobby and offensive but this is who they are.

Did she actually say that?

Now I want to know her opinion on Sarah, Mark, Tim, Sophie, and Catherine...

 

[Dman]

Diana & Charles had their ups and downs and both did things without thinking sometimes. Their were a lot of hurt and pain on both sides. Although the events are pretty ancient now, I hold both Diana & Charles and Camilla accountable for the mess in the early 90's.