Reasons for disliking Diana?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

True. I guess bettina really hit the nail on the head when she said that we should not discuss Diana's faults here because she's not alive to defend herself. So I guess Diana deserves more slack than Charles for not being in a position to defend herself against the criticism.
:)

Well I know it was four pages ago but I read a very good reply to that very question that betina brought up. :)

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, I'm not sure how relevant it is that she's dead and can't defend herself because even if she was alive she'd be very unlikely to show up here and respond to critics. She also put her side of things out in the public domain for several years before her death, so it isn't as though we were unfamiliar with her side of things.

[branchg]

The problem was never with The Queen, who was actually one of Diana's strongest supporters, but with the Queen Mother and Prince Philip, who both later came to believe that Diana was destroying the monarchy and betrayed the Queen's trust. But, by all accounts, The Queen firmly stood her ground and insisted the Princess deserved support and understanding as the mother of a future king.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by branchg

The problem was never with The Queen, who was actually one of Diana's strongest supporters, but with the Queen Mother and Prince Philip, who both later came to believe that Diana was destroying the monarchy and betrayed the Queen's trust. But, by all accounts, The Queen firmly stood her ground and insisted the Princess deserved support and understanding as the mother of a future king.

You really think the relationship between Philip and Diana was as antagonistic as has been reported on? I suppose I may be more unwilling than many to believe Philip is a monster because I admire so many things about him and I truly want to believe the best of him, so I resist those reports that say he hated Diana and vice versa. I don't know about the Queen Mum. She is very enigmatic to me. I don't understand her at all. On the one hand, there's the domineering Queen Mother. On the other hand, there's the grandmother who coddled Prince Charles. So the reports about her conflict each other so much.

[branchg]

I never said Prince Philip was a monster nor do I believe he "hated" Diana. If anything, I think he tried very hard to be supportive of the Princess and, according to Burrell's book, he later came to see how her view of the situation was certainly valid as well.

I think the Queen Mother was very enthusiastic about Diana at first because she was, after all, very fond of Lady Fermoy and had great expectations for the marriage. When those expectations later turned out to be Victorian, rather than suitable to modern reality, she rapidly turned sour on the Princess. She blamed her for not keeping Charles happy, as if that were totally up to Diana to do, and had very little sympathy for Diana's problems and related behavior.

It is clear from many accounts, however, that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother later came to share the view that Diana was a great threat to the standing to the monarchy and greatly distrusted her media manipulations. By the time Panorama aired, they were both finished with her.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by branchg

I never said Prince Philip was a monster nor do I believe he "hated" Diana. If anything, I think he tried very hard to be supportive of the Princess and, according to Burrell's book, he later came to see how her view of the situation was certainly valid as well.

I think the Queen Mother was very enthusiastic about Diana at first because she was, after all, very fond of Lady Fermoy and had great expectations for the marriage. When those expectations later turned out to be Victorian, rather than suitable to modern reality, she rapidly turned sour on the Princess. She blamed her for not keeping Charles happy, as if that were totally up to Diana to do, and had very little sympathy for Diana's problems and related behavior.

It is clear from many accounts, however, that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother later came to share the view that Diana was a great threat to the standing to the monarchy and greatly distrusted her media manipulations. By the time Panorama aired, they were both finished with her.

All of those are very good points. I guess the Queen Mother was not anticipating Diana to have postnatal depression, bulimia or any emotional problems for that matter. A 19-year-old girl from a balanced and healthy background may have been able to slide into the royal family and adjust to public life with ease. I think Camilla certainly would've handled it better. By all accounts, Camilla seems to have been raised by loving parents and to have had lots of support in her life. Poor Diana. No one seems to have anticipated what being Princess of Wales all of a sudden would do to a girl whose self-esteem was non-existent to start off with. I think, in reference to this thread topic, most people like Diana, but sadly, she was her worst critic. No one was harder on Diana than Diana herself.
:(
I saw an old post of someone just now. I don't remember who said it, but the post said that Diana should have sought help for her emotional problems. Didn't she? She had many doctors. She had a psychiatrist (or two) and she saw an eating disorder specialist.
She did seek help, I believe. Professional help.

[love_cc]

Camilla has a much healthier character than Charles or Diana. Camilla keeps a good character at most times. She is important to Charles because she makes up the flaws in his character. That's why Charles wants to be with Camilla because he needs her optimism, understanding and stablity. Camilla can always calm his emotional swings and cheer him up.

I just felt sorry for Prince Charles and Diana. Both of them are badly affected by their miserable childhood and potential character flaws. Their personalities are huge challenges for them to live with each other. Charles needs a more matured and loving wife who can put him above everything even herself. That's what Camilla is about. Diana broke her slience about her marriage and it was no point of return for her with Charles in a marriage. Queen and Duke tried to see Charles's faults but Queen Mother wanted to protect Charles from any harm. That's a big difference. Actually, I think Camilla is too protective of Charles and Charles relies on her protection of emotional harms.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I guess the Queen Mother was not anticipating Diana to have postnatal depression, bulimia or any emotional problems for that matter. A 19-year-old girl from a balanced and healthy background may have been able to slide into the royal family and adjust to public life with ease.

You bring up a good point there CasiraghiTrio. I think a lot of Diana's hurts originally came from her childhood but its harder to blame your own family for your feelings of dejection than it is to blame a husband who is not caring.

The Royal Family was definitely not expecting Diana to have these problems and with Diana coming from the family she did, it amazes me that they weren't. A lot of Diana's behavior was very similar to the rest of her family - her parents had a public and nasty divorce, Sarah, who Charles had been dating, had been battling eating disorders, and the whole family was rather impulsive.

One doesn't have to look that far to see why Diana did the things she did; she learned it from her parents and older siblings.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by love_cc

Queen and Duke tried to see Charles's faults but Queen Mother wanted to protect Charles from any harm. That's a big difference.

So you think that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh (I'll try to get into the habit of using the correct titles!
being two very pragmatic people, took a practical, problem-solving approach, trying to figure out where both sides went wrong? While the Queen Mother took a more emotion-based approach and jumped to Charles' defense?
That is a very interesting possibility.

[una]

Originally Posted by branchg

It is clear from many accounts, however, that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother later came to share the view that Diana was a great threat to the standing to the monarchy and greatly distrusted her media manipulations. By the time Panorama aired, they were both finished with her.

The Queen had a duty to ensure the smooth succession of the crown to Diana's child. She had to keep a positive working relationship with her. If Diana had got the idea that the Queen had turned against her, think what she might have done. I think that is the difference between the Queen and her husband/mother. She didn't have the luxury of disliking Diana except in her most private self.

[Princejohnny25]

If Diana had got the idea that the Queen had turned against her, think what she might have done.

Thats another reason why people turned against her. She was vindictive and dangerous. You had to stay on her good side. But, I think Diana and the Queen had a genuine relationship after the divorce. Here is my conclusion from what I learned from the board. Diana had a tough childhood which lead to emotional instability. She was very dangerous and did stupid things that hurt the monarchy and her kids. She realized the mistake, finally divorced, and moved on with her life. Also, it may not be Diana herself that turns off many people, but some of her "fans" who use one side of Diana to hurt others. If everyone let her go to a peacefull rest than the everything would be fine.

[Incas]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

If everyone let her go to a peacefull rest than the everything would be fine.

It's a great sentiment, however, since some of the things she did had a nasty habit of lingering on. The things she may or maynot have given to Burrell and others contributed to his trial, and dragging Charles, William and Harry into it. The tape of alleged rape led to more unkind coverage of Charles. Not to mention her letters to Hewitt and allegation of harm to her car,etc, etc. Her behavior as a grown woman, is more appropriate coming from an impulsiving two year old who wanted different things from moment to moment, without any concept of consequence.

[CasiraghiTrio]

It's true Diana had an ugly side to her personality. She could be irrational. The Panorama interview was a very bad idea. That episode of her life was horrible. She should not have done that interview. Not only was it in poor taste and hurtful to those closest to her, but the interview itself was a disaster. Diana came across seeming like a crazy person! I don't say that to be mean because I adored her. She was a big-hearted woman, but I'm sorry, in that interview, she seemed like a crazy person!

Yes, Diana was at many times irrational and impulsive. Her son Harry takes after her in a sense.

Diana's first mistake was marrying Charles. Her second mistake was staying married to him for so long, hoping he would miraculously change or take pity on her or something. But I suppose even when she must have realized he would never change his heart or forget Camilla or whatever, she probably stayed because of the kids and she didn't want a divorce like her parents.
These are all glaring flaws, but nonetheless all of her mistakes were understandable. They could've happened to anyone.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

She should not have done that interview. Not only was it in poor taste and hurtful to those closest to her, but the interview itself was a disaster. Diana came across seeming like a crazy person!

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Idriel

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

Interesting that you say that, Idriel.

Andrew Morton, who I don't necessarily believe all the time, said that Diana was not unusually conniving - not because she was too honest to be cunning but because she never thought too far in advance.

He said her attitude at the time of the book was that her life was so horrible, things could not get worse and she had to do something, so she wanted the book published. Again with the interview, she wanted people to understand and sympathize with her hurt and she succeeded wildly but that apparently was as far as her thought processes went.

She apparently didn't think of the implications of some of her statements in the interview. When talking about James Hewitt, she mentioned that after Hewitt's book came out, William brought a box of chocolates to her and said, "Mummy, I think you've been hurt"

At that time, William was a teenager at Eton, an all boys British boarding school and undoubtedly the other boys must have teased him mercilessly about giving chocolate to his Mummy. Yet ironically Diana and Charles had insisted that their children go to Eton and not to Gordonstoun because Charles had been bullied so much by other boys at Gordonstoun.

So she was apparently concerned with other boys bullying her sons in school, but she apparently forgot that when she shared with the world her story about William giving chocolates to Mummy.

That's just one example but there are several.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Andrew Morton, who I don't necessarily believe all the time, said that Diana was not unusually conniving - not because she was too honest to be cunning but because she never thought too far in advance.

Yes I totally agree with that statement.
I think her lack her foresee was due to inexperience during her youth, then to the very complicated life she lead afterward. She had to much things going on to really have time to sit calmly and think about the consequences of her acts.
He main problem was that she needed the drama, and if it would not create by itself, she would provoke it and thus get involve with people and in situations she would later regret (those holidays with Dodi -the most boring man on earth by all accounts- are a classic example).

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Idriel

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

How different was my reaction at the time from yours! I watched it when it was live. I remember exactly where I was, in New York at some friends' apartment for holidays, don't remember the exact timeframe, Thanksgiving? and I remember thinking she seemed like she was sedated or on some other drugs!

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

How different was my reaction at the time from yours! I watched it when it was live. I remember exactly where I was, in New York at some friends' apartment for holidays, don't remember the exact timeframe, Thanksgiving? and I remember thinking she seemed like she was sedated or on some other drugs!

I think what Idriel meant was that the interview was very successful at selling the 'poor Diana' image with the media and with the general public.

I had mixed reactions from it. It seemed rehearsed. I expected more spontaneity from Diana. I was surprised that she denied any compatibility issues between herself and Charles and I was dumbstruck when she mentioned William bringing her the chocolates. I couldn't believe that as concerned as she was with sheltering her sons from too much publicity that she would divulge a mother-son confidence.

If she had acknowledged the compatibility issues though, it may have lessened the sympathy that she gained from the media and the public. Or maybe she just didn't see them herself.