Different Facets of Diana

[ghost_night554]

Ya, I know what you mean, even the idea of the BRF wanting her dead, I still can't grasp that idea, hello she was the mother of the future king, didn't she realize that why would they want the mother of the future king killed like it doesn't make sense to me, but like you said we don't live in the Royal fish bowl.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Ya, I know what you mean, even the idea of the BRF wanting her dead, I still can't grasp that idea, hello she was the mother of the future king, didn't she realize that why would they want the mother of the future king killed like it doesn't make sense to me, but like you said we don't live in the Royal fish bowl.

Hm, I don't think she was able to have a pragmatic look at her own existence anymore. She had experienced that she was loved by so many who never have met her but despised by some who knew her, so she had learned the hard truth that charisma has two sides to it. It attracts people's strong emotions towards you but those can be both positive and negative emotions and most of them are self-serving for the person who feels them. What she might have grasped was that what she wanted was adoration and love, she wanted surely to be the subject, the partner in strong relationships, not the object of other people's projections caused by her charisma.

So with these healers she probably felt like the subject, the center. They used their abilities to do something for her, she probably thought, and didn't see how she was used by them.

OTOH realising the strong emotions she could fire up in other people, she must have felt that it's dangerous to touch people so deeply. Stalkers come to mind, terrorists looking for a symbol to kill, or simply people who adored her and felt rebuked, so could become vicious. She must have experienced that her "touch" did not only open the door for positive feelings and it's easy to get afraid if you don't have in addition the inner feeling of a "mission" to help you cope with that. Religious or political leaders have both: charisma and a mission, a belief to guide them, so they can cope with the effects of their gift and use it to their advantage. Diana had no mission, only charisma and that frightened her. IMHO, of course.

 

[Penny Royalty]

I on the other hand think Diana did have charisma Jo. She was loved by many, but the truth is she earned the public's trust. That in a nutshell speaks volumes. Diana was kind and may we say charming. I know her placement as the future Queen of England alone put her on a pedestal that may have given her the limelight that led to a phenomena, but it was her guts, her humanity and iron will that captured us and made us look upon her life so intricately and interestingly. I miss this woman as I do other iconic heroes who stood up and prevailed for the benefit of all and are gone; John Lennon for example. I don't mean to chastise you Jo. I think even though you may be well informed, it contrasts something that many of us took for granted, that is, that Diana was a beautiful Princess. Maybe it's me that's wrong somehow as you are very informed from what I gather and may know otherwise, but she was a phenomena as I grew up. I will always love her for being spirited and kind inclined. Kudos to her.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I on the other hand think Diana did have charisma Jo. She was loved by many, but the truth is she earned the public's trust. That in a nutshell speaks volumes. Diana was kind and may we say charming. I know her placement as the future Queen of England alone put her on a pedestal that may have given her the limelight that led to a phenomena, but it was her guts, her humanity and iron will that captured us and made us look upon her life so intricately and interestingly. I miss this woman as I do other iconic heroes who stood up and prevailed for the benefit of all and are gone; John Lennon for example. I don't mean to chastise you Jo. I think even though you may be well informed, it contrasts something that many of us took for granted, that is, that Diana was a beautiful Princess. Maybe it's me that's wrong somehow as you are very informed from what I gather and may know otherwise, but she was a phenomena as I grew up. I will always love her for being spirited and kind inclined. Kudos to her.

But I did say that she had charisma, I only argued that she couldn't cope with it. I think that was her real problem: she was spontanous, empathic and feeling - and that's why all went so terribly wrong. If she had been one of those "tough cookies" like most successful celebrities are, she would not have suffered so much and had been able to control the situation she was in. Courts are places where the Machiavellian temperament always felt at home but Diana was no conscious Machiavelli. She was IMHO reigned mostly by her guts feelings and so made mistake after mistake. Same with Charles, IMHO - so both were ruled by the circumstances, pushed and changed. From "jolly good girl" she changed to a star with diva allures pushed by people's fanatical reactions to her. They saw some kind of deity in her and over the years she began feeling like one. But to be a deity and to reign supreme you can't afford to have inner insecurities and be emotional. You need control and understanding of the people around you and of your image. Otherwise you'll end like her. Divorced and reduced to the "love" of the likes of Dodi-latin-lover-types.

 

[Penny Royalty]

I don't think Charles would have chosen Diana for marriage and she agreed, had they both known the tentative environment as heirs to the British throne would be something they could not handle and aspire in. In the involvement to the heirs of the throne I'm sure their are speculations and expectations that make the members knowing of what is proper and genuine royal conduct. In that sense, to me, existing royals are brave and in all their being they must exhibit candor that makes them gutsy, whimsical, sensitive, loyal, and mostly honor bound.
To me the environment filled with the various circumstances, cultures and many intricacies calls upon those remaining members to make decisions that are good or bad, correct or wrong. In that sense I can only speculate with the information I have now of Princess Diana and that is of my recollections upon growing up and frequented through the media of the British reign in the making. I have as of yet to read much about royals other than what I find here so I may one day find otherwise in concerns to Diana, but I favor to think not. I will always look admiringly at Diana for she and Charles roused the world's community with their philanthropic endeavors.
Personally I will be grateful and grateful that I got to witness events and news by myself growing up in the US. Not meaning to say that you have no validity or that your postings are not backed by factual knowledge. But it sounds like you describe someone I learned to love in a way that contradicts the person we speak of. Maybe I need to venture into books by those close to Diana. And I will at some point. Thanks for responding Jo. Not bashing on you.

 

[Skydragon]

but it was her guts, her humanity and iron will that captured us and made us look upon her life so intricately and interestingly.

Diana 'captured' some people's interest because she portrayed the victim, purely and simply. Some fell in love with the glamour of her being a princess.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Maybe I need to venture into books by those close to Diana. And I will at some point. Thanks for responding Jo. Not bashing on you.

Maybe you could start on reading the protocolls of the inquest into Diana's death as you can read here a lot of statements of people who shared the last days of her life with her and tell about it under oath, so are threatened with prosecution in case of lying.

You can find the protocols here:
Inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed: Hearing transcripts

 

[Duchess]

charisma is a wonderful thing to have if you know how to use it but did diana have charisma or did she just have people wanting to be associated with her because of her celebrity? yes...the public adored her but it doesn't take charisma for that.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Diana 'captured' some people's interest because she portrayed the victim, purely and simply. Some fell in love with the glamour of her being a princess.

Yes, you're right but I remember I was really shocked and sad the morning news of her death broke because I had thought she had finally found a way to make positive use of her celebrity at the landmine campaign.

Of course I had never bought into her being a victim, I rather pitied Charles for having been saddled with such a wife and could well understand from early on why he turned to Camilla - they just were too different, I thought and that Diana should have shown more understanding and souverainity on dealing with this fact instead of starting the War of the Waleses out of possesiveness and hurt feeling.

But it really took me a lot of further reading to form my opinion of today that while Charles had wronged her as well as she had wronged him, she surely was the more vindictive in her reaction and that while they both were somewhat victims of the circumstances, there was much more negative energy speaking from what she did than from what Charles did in terms of taking action. Charles suffered, maybe not silently enough, but Diana revenged herself which Charles IMHO didn't. He didn't retaliate apart from disconnecting himself from her as much as possible and of course their envirnment took sides but I have yet to see prove that Charles purposefully tried to destroy her position actively while there is enough proof around that she did exactly that.

But still I think that her death was a lost for the humanitarian causes she might have championed.

 

[MARG]

I believe that Diana was a style icon and fashion houses loved her. Not for her daily press whinging and whining about the cost of her designer clothes. She just smiled that "Shy Di" smile and literally slayed them in the aisles.

The Inquest into her death finally exposed the face behind the photos. And, it is not surprising that most of us were blown away by who and what she really was, what she was doing and what she was saying. In short, if we are honest, we didn't even recognise the person discussed at that Inquest.

Her whole persona was an outward "act". Behind the facade we learned that she was paranoid, (MI5 wanted to kill her, the ubiquitous "grey men" where trying to undermine her, etc) narcisistic, manipulative and vindictive.

I think that she was a complex personality and, if she had been anyone but the Princess of Wales, she would have received the therapy she so desperately needed.

I believe hat she thought that she was the centre of the universe and everyone orbited around her. And, while I have no doubt that she adored her sons, it does not make her treatment of them any the less thoughtless.

Most surprising of all is the exposed relationship between Charles and his sons which is all the more extrodinary since Diana had spend a lot of time promoting the image of Charles as a remote and somewhat uncaring father. She emphasised that she and she alone gave them the love they needed.

So intrenched was that image of a the BRF as cold, distant and disfunctional, that noone was very surprised at Earl Spencer's eulogy being more of a rant against the Windsors and their fitness to raise Diana's children, and emphasising that her family would continue to ensure that they wer loved.

Time has given the lie to many misconceptions surrounding Diana's life and death, and I think shorting out the truth from the lies is no easy task.

 

[ysbel]

Not meaning to say that you have no validity or that your postings are not backed by factual knowledge. But it sounds like you describe someone I learned to love in a way that contradicts the person we speak of. Maybe I need to venture into books by those close to Diana. And I will at some point. Thanks for responding Jo. Not bashing on you.

If we learn to love anyone in the public eye, it most probably comes from what we see of we are able to see through the media.

We saw that Diana did have a great empathy with the suffering of the common people she met in her public sphere and she seemed to feel at home there. At the same time, she is reported to have said that she had great difficulties feeling at home with the Royal Family. Its not unusual for a person to have different expectations of another person if they are a child dying of AIDS that you hold for 15 minutes and never see again versus a family that you live and work with day to day. Diana might not have had very high expectations of what to expect from the child in such a short time and a simple smile from the child probably was enough to make her glow and feel love. However, she most naturally would have had much greater expectations than a simple smile from the family and husband she lived with and work with everyday and she probably acted accordingly.

I think though its not unusual for a public person to act very differently in private than they do in public because they have different expectations of what they should get from a public encounter vs. a longterm private relationship. One can feel enriched and loved with less in a public encounter because it is so brief and one can experience the closest one can to unconditional love; the ability to love without expecting anything in return. I don't think Diana really expected much in return from her public encounters and that is why she was able to give love so freely. I believe that when we are able to give unconditional love, we reach our highest spiritual state and we can be inspirational to others. But humans aren't geared to give this unconditional love all the time.

So it never surprised me to hear that Diana's persona was very different in public and in private. She would have been very unusual indeed if she had been able to offer Charles and the Royal Family the same unconditional love without expecting anything in return over the years of her relationship with them that she gave out to the dying child. For the child who she wasn't going to see again and who was in pain, it was very easy for her to give this selfless love for a brief time.

I think the fact that people had very different experiences with her based on the situation was very normal and made her very human.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'd disagree that it was her glamour as a princess that I found attractive about Diana, personally. I simply found her to be a remarkable person, given her youth and lack of education and experience. Had I met someone on the street like her, I would have felt the same sort of attraction. She had gifts with people that were unusual. I know that she ended her life as a totally different person than the person we saw in 1981, but that doesn't mean that her public persona was totally an act. I believe that her kindness and interest in people was genuine, but it was overwhelmed by problems--both within herself and in her environment--that completely consumed her by the end.

 

[Skydragon]

The problem is that it wasn't just Charles and his family she fell out with. She fell out with just about everyone and when Diana fell out with you, apparently everyone knew it, she could be pretty vicious. The stories of her 'using' others, blaming others shouldn't be excused with the 'oh but she was ill', she was suffering, or the usual, but she did so much good. Yes she brought attention to some charities, (I don't mean that in disparaging way), yes, she brought attention to the fashion industry, but how does anyone excuse the way she treated people she knew. Those that love her, would probably not have given her a second look as a person or as a princess, if she hadn't found someone to groom her and change the way she looked. Diana's interest in those who were less fortunate than her, probably made her feel superior to them, something she could never feel in her blood family or the family she married in to.

 

[Elspeth]

Diana's interest in those who were less fortunate than her, probably made her feel superior to them, something she could never feel in her blood family or the family she married in to.

Enough people who saw her interacting with the less fortunate, including people who didn't especially like her, said that her compassion was obviously genuine to suggest that it probably was. I mean, things might be more complex than just that, but when you get all these reports that she really did connect with the less fortunate, there's probably something in it.

 

[Skydragon]

Enough people who saw her interacting with the less fortunate, including people who didn't especially like her, said that her compassion was obviously genuine to suggest that it probably was. I mean, things might be more complex than just that, but when you get all these reports that she really did connect with the less fortunate, there's probably something in it.

That is one of my major sticking points, , how can anyone after a 5 minute or less meeting, judge that the compassion was genuine? I am not trying to be contentious.

 

[sirhon11234]

Diana 'captured' some people's interest because she portrayed the victim, purely and simply. Some fell in love with the glamour of her being a princess.

I must admit that as a 7 year old boy Diana's beauty and glamour sparked my interest but it was her compassion and kindess that made me adore her. Yes Diana had two sides to her and as you said some people fell in love with the glamour and her being portrayed as the victim. But most definitely not all..

 

[Russophile]

I'm with Jo on this one, she had such potential that was cut short.
I was always in the Charles camp (in fact, I wrote as much in a letter to HRH over a decade ago) and felt he was mislabeled by Diana.
There was no doubt that Diana could have done so much more, she WANTED to do so much more, on her vacation with Dodi, I remember reading that she whizzed by the papp's and said something to the effect of "Just wait til you see what I do next!" Her attention of walking into a land mine and holding the children who had lost limbs from those land mines made me greatly respect her.
Hers was truly a great loss.

 

[Elspeth]

That is one of my major sticking points, , how can anyone after a 5 minute or less meeting, judge that the compassion was genuine? I am not trying to be contentious.

I was thinking about people who had worked with her at charities, who weren't necessarily smitten with her reputation or whatever, but who had a lot more than five minutes to judge her genuineness.

 

[Skydragon]

I was thinking about people who had worked with her at charities, who weren't necessarily smitten with her reputation or whatever, but who had a lot more than five minutes to judge her genuineness.

Ordinary workers would not have spent a great deal of time with her and many of them would perhaps feel so special that a princess, any princess had spent time with them, 5 minutes or not. Then you have the ones in charge who almost fall over themselves to be seen.

I think I was born an old cynic, whilst I can see the good in people, I can also see the bad. Some of which I can overlook but sometimes the bad just seems to be overwhelming and I can't understand why 'others' can ignore or excuse it. It is similar to saying a man tortured and murdered 5 children, but was a good father.

Yes Diana did a lot of good for a variety of charities, but also 'hurt' an awful lot of people in the process of staying in the limelight.

 

[MARG]

I think I understand exactly what you are saying. People tended to be "smitten" by her overall demeanor, the 'Shy Di" thing, but you are absolutely correct about people treating her with a reverence just short of sainthood on the strength of the briefest of meetings.

And, from that mindset, it is really easy to credit her with perfect traits. The perfect wife, perfect mother, perfect charity worker, etc. But that was not who she was. It was what she did!

The 'Perfect Princess" had more that a few very imperfect demons driving her.

 

[TheTruth]

Ordinary workers would not have spent a great deal of time with her and many of them would perhaps feel so special that a princess, any princess had spent time with them, 5 minutes or not. Then you have the ones in charge who almost fall over themselves to be seen.

I think I was born an old cynic, whilst I can see the good in people, I can also see the bad. Some of which I can overlook but sometimes the bad just seems to be overwhelming and I can't understand why 'others' can ignore or excuse it. It is similar to saying a man tortured and murdered 5 children, but was a good father.

Yes Diana did a lot of good for a variety of charities, but also 'hurt' an awful lot of people in the process of staying in the limelight.

We don't 'ignore' or 'excuse' her; and I don't like to summarize a personal opinion by saying 'others', making it sound like they are all blind, failing to see the bad side of Diana.
I don't think you can compare a child murderer with what wrong things Diana did. But whatever.
I don't believe anyone who is skeptical (to say the least) about Diana gets it. We aren't fascinated by the saint Diana (it's actually a very boring picture). We are fascinated by the phenomenon Diana; we don't care about if it's true she did this or that. We like the controversial impact she had. It's clearly not about sainthood or whatever useless worship of human being that couldn't, by definition, be perfect.

 

[Skydragon]

We don't 'ignore' or 'excuse' her; and I don't like to summarize a personal opinion by saying 'others', making it sound like they are all blind, failing to see the bad side of Diana.
I don't think you can compare a child murderer with what wrong things Diana did. But whatever.
I don't believe anyone who is skeptical (to say the least) about Diana gets it. We aren't fascinated by the saint Diana (it's actually a very boring picture). We are fascinated by the phenomenon Diana; we don't care about if it's true she did this or that. We like the controversial impact she had. It's clearly not about sainthood or whatever useless worship of human being that couldn't, by definition, be perfect.

But in this context you are one of the 'others', the same way that I am one of the 'others' to you. I don't see everyone who liked Diana as aliens, but they do all have a different view to me. It is a simple fact that many people totally ignore the bad Diana, always finding a reason for some of her appalling treatment of friends and staff. You have just said it yourself, "we don't care about if it's true she did this or that", to me that is wrong, you should care and that is what makes you to me, 'others'.

I am not comparing Diana to a mass murder, I am pointing out that those who say they don't care about the bad side of Diana, are the same as the man who recently said of a father who killed his 2 small children and then himself, that he was a really good father. He wasn't otherwise he wouldn't have murdered them!

 

[TheTruth]

I'm sorry but how can you judge me by saying you're one of the 'others'? And by saying 'we don't care about if it's true she did this or that', I wasn't only talking about the bad things she did; I was also talking about the right actions. Yes it's great that she supported charities but that's not what make her so special to me.

 

[Boris]

I am not comparing Diana to a mass murder, I am pointing out that those who say they don't care about the bad side of Diana, are the same as the man who recently said of a father who killed his 2 small children and then himself, that he was a really good father. He wasn't otherwise he wouldn't have murdered them!

Good Lord, this makes so little sense that your post unintentionally amounts to good entertainment!
Let's face it, you don't appear as cynical but as completely biased. Like so many firmly rooted in one of the two 'camps' in commenting this saga do - equally those who admire Diana and those who dislike Diana a tad too much.
There's nothing special about it. Obviously both attitudes stand in the way of an interesting debate rather too frequently.

 

[Skydragon]

I am not comparing Diana to a mass murder, I am pointing out that those who say they don't care about the bad side of Diana, are the same as the man who recently said of a father who killed his 2 small children and then himself, that he was a really good father. He wasn't otherwise he wouldn't have murdered them!

Good Lord, this makes so little sense that your post unintentionally amounts to good entertainment! Let's face it, you don't appear as cynical but as completely biased. Like so many firmly rooted in one of the two 'camps' in commenting this saga do - equally those who admire Diana and those who dislike Diana a tad too much.
There's nothing special about it. Obviously both attitudes stand in the way of an interesting debate rather too frequently.

Ahh, this is what happens when anyone tries to understand, what made Diana special to other people, they read a post and comment but miss the rest out and then with an attempted insult, turn it away from a debate and into an argument.

As I said, I am a cynic and whether you see it only as bias, is your problem not mine. Perhaps to you my comparison makes no sense, but it is the same thing. You cannot say in the same breath that someone who killed his children was a 'good father'. Still if this is the only entertainment you can find Boris, glad to have been of assistance.

 

[Skydragon]

I'm sorry but how can you judge me by saying you're one of the 'others'? And by saying 'we don't care about if it's true she did this or that', I wasn't only talking about the bad things she did; I was also talking about the right actions. Yes it's great that she supported charities but that's not what make her so special to me.

I don't believe that I even suggested I was judging you, your opinion is different to mine, that means we do not think the same, therefore to me you are one of the others, as simply as that. I am one of those 'other' people who like Camilla', I am sorry if you saw judgment where none was intended. You may not be as extreme as some of the other people who liked Diana and to you, they too would be others. I can't see a problem with that. How can someone be special when they know how she treated other people, (there's that word again). This special person pushed an elderly woman down the stairs, no matter that she later forgave her. She asked a younger pupil to send hate mail and then denied all involvement in doing so, does the fact that she became involved in charity work mean we should forgive and forget?
I am trying to understand how that works and I don't mean any disrespect to those that did like Diana, as you know I think you and people like sirhon are fine and dandy.

 

[TheTruth]

And you also said 'others' ignored and excused her faults. I'm sorry, I don't think I do. Explain me, who is talking about forgiveness? I don't see anyone mentioning he would disregard her bad side in favor of her good image. You seem to love going in the Diana threads, insisting on the different camps but that's specifically why people are tired of commenting in these threads; they know they'll be literally turned on because of this whole anger whether it's against Diana or Camilla.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think we agree that there are no pure saints around or if they are, they are likely to be overlooked by the public. Because to attract attention you need to be both: appearing good while you are inhabiting a position that needs to be defended at all costs. Even Mother Theresa is said to have been quite unpleasant at times when she ruled her order to her own specifications.

I found that once you love a person, you tend to become blind or at least willing to overlook the negative threads but of course there a re alot of people who don't love Diana. So they see and take into account what has been documented beyond any doubt about her "dark side". I just read Brandreth's "Charles & Camilla"-book and I was really shocked at how Diana's action led to worsen and damage Camilla's life. This is something rarely discussed when talking about Diana, but for me it is a proven fact that while she had good sides, she revenged herself without any qualms at Camilla, using her public position as a means to get the people to support her. And really, that can turn you off...

Diana never took the time IMHO to reflect on how her revenge would hurt others in the process. She didn't care for anyone but herself, not even for her children. Yes, I think she did a great job supporting charities, but she would never have gotten an invitation to dinner at my house!

 

[Skydragon]

And you also said 'others' ignored and excused her faults. I'm sorry, I don't think I do. Explain me, who is talking about forgiveness? I don't see anyone mentioning he would disregard her bad side in favor of her good image. You seem to love going in the Diana threads, insisting on the different camps but that's specifically why people are tired of commenting in these threads; they know they'll be literally turned on because of this whole anger whether it's against Diana or Camilla.

I did not say you ignored and excused her faults, but as you know some or others do. How can those who say they admired her good side disregard her bad side, it is an honest question? Why does it have to be different camps, that is not why I ask the questions that I do and I'm sorry that is what you think, I have not been angry with anyone or anything I have written here as far as I know, on the contrary, you seem angry with me.

I object to your accusation that I am the specific reason why people are tired of commenting in these threads.

 

[milla Ca]

I´m sure in a discussion about Diana there will be always ´the others ´ and ´the others´.
I had never a problem to be a member in one ´camp´ why should i ?

Isn´t it something normal to be bored by someone who can be fascinated by others ?

Or only to dislike someone who´s loved by others?

I always want to be tolerant for other opinions but i will not change mine ( in this case) and i don´t want to´leave my camp´, why shouldn´t i?