The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #661  
Old 12-21-2007, 10:40 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Your post really hits the nail on the head. Charles always came across as tongue tied and so aware of not saying the wrong thing. I have always believed that Diana fell in love with The Prince of Wales and was shocked to find that along with the title, came the man who owned it.
Skydragon and Ysbel. She might had fall in love with the Prince of Wales and not the MAN. But when a mental sickness takes over - a person reacts to things in a way that is not their true personality. And whatever the reason for her bulemia(sp?) after that sickness came about she was not the jolly, young girl that Prince Charles was just starting to fall in love with. And on her part how could she (trust) love someone who says to a reporter "whatever loves means". It must have been hard for both of them.

What I think us Diana fans are saying is the relationship between them was never given a chance in my opinion mainly because of press intrusion and just plainly of all the tragic circumstances all coming together. It had a lot of problems on both sides from the beginning. And I think they both wanted it to work. Prince Charles said that his bride needed to be the right person for the job and Diana's own childhood nanny said that when she met Diana for the first time Diana told her outright that she would only married for love and not divorce. But to me, Diana could not deal with the pressure-bulemia started-and the fights began. It takes a very special man to deal with a wife with mental illness (unfortunely Charles didn't know what to do) and Diana not taking medicine and listening to shrinks until ten years in to the marriage was not soon enough. I think the letter that she gave Burrell about Tiggy shows to me that when Diana was under a lot of pressure, she saw things through mental illness and focus on Prince Charles personal woman relationships. But, to me it wasn't the intellect that help break down the relationship, because people can really marry opposites and still grown to love one another. My 26 year marriage is proof to me!!!

What going on with the inquest today?
__________________

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #662  
Old 12-21-2007, 02:57 PM
Picmajik's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 161
Smile all this fuss over cufflinks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
They probably were a pair of her fathers cufflinks, probably just one set of the many pairs he discarded over the years that Diana had kept. I think it was just something she wrote to make the gift sound significant to the recipient.

She has not suggested they were important to her and that is why I believe they were just a thank you gift, to someone she had enjoyed a fling with.
I agree--I think she just exaggerated their importance to make the recipient feel good about them. I wouldn't have that much attachment to a pair of cuff links unless they were a gift directly to me and engraved with my initials or something. If they had belonged to my daddy and I had fond memories of him wearing them on a regular basis that might be different but that doesn't strike me as being that kind of situation here. Most over the counter shirts aren't French-cuff style any longer anyway so cuff links wouldn't be in demand all that much anyway.
__________________

  #663  
Old 12-21-2007, 03:49 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
But she did love Charles, I think.... or at least she thought she loved him, or loved him in her own unhealthy way.
You've said what I've thought all along. I also believe she thought she loved him, at least at the beginning. I'm not privy to her thoughts or feelings, but I know that what one thinks is love at 19 isn't always what love turns out to be. I thought I was "in love" twice before I met and married my husband, and the relationship I had with him was far far different from what I had thought before. I'm sure Diana was not being dishonest about her feelings when she married, but I also suspect that years later when she met and loved other men with whom she had more in common and who were more compatible for her that she must have realised that what she imagined was love for Charles wasn't the kind to support a lifetime together.
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
  #664  
Old 12-21-2007, 04:26 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Quote shortened....

What going on with the inquest today?
We will have to agree to disagree on why she married Charles, but she was known to have pictures of him above her bed at school. Perhaps it is similar to falling 'in love' with a character in a film and then when you meet the actor/actress, you realise they are loud mouthed, ignorant twits!

The inquest is now adjorned until after the christmas and new year holidays.
  #665  
Old 12-22-2007, 03:48 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
But, to me it wasn't the intellect that help break down the relationship, because people can really marry opposites and still grown to love one another. My 26 year marriage is proof to me!!!
I'm glad you've found such a rewarding and lasting relationship, georgiea I didn't mean that the differences in intelligence caused the problem between Charles and Diana but more the differences in interests and the lack of motivation of trying to make things work by finding common areas of interest, values, and feelings which I am sure you and your husband did.

If Diana didn't want to try to find that common ground for whatever reason, then it does make it puzzling why she took the failure of the relationship so hard. I would think that if she had tried to find a sense of commonality with Charles and then if he had gone off with Camilla she would be more hurt for having tried and failed.

If she hadn't tried to form that type of relationship then it does seem her hurt was born of a possessiveness which is not the same as love and it is possible that this possessiveness drove her in the arms of Dodi and ultimately to her death. As Polly says, Diana lived a short and tragic life.

BTW, you are quite right about Hasnat Khan. Thanks for reminding me.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #666  
Old 12-22-2007, 07:34 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
There is a little more on her possessive nature in this article regarding Hasnat - A very tragic affair: The true story of Princess Diana and her heart surgeon lover | the Daily Mail -
However, by this stage, Diana's love was turning into obsession and he found himself almost never free of her attention.
When he increasingly refused to take her calls at the hospital, or didn't respond to those she made to his flat, she would despatch Paul Burrell at night to find him, carrying her letters.
As with Charles and then Hasnat, she probably never realised that neither man would be in a position (as with Charles) or willing (Hasnat) to 'devote' all their time and life to her.
  #667  
Old 12-22-2007, 09:03 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
As with Charles and then Hasnat, she probably never realised that neither man would be in a position (as with Charles) or willing (Hasnat) to 'devote' all their time and life to her.
That is probably why the relationship with Dodi would have worked. He could "devote" all of his time and life to her. She did said in her telephone calls to friends that she ever before felt so taken care.

I do enjoy on this forum that we can have different opionions and get alone. Everyone have a Happy Holiday!!
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #668  
Old 12-22-2007, 09:27 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly
As for Diana's belief that her husband wanted to marry Tiggy, I can only think that there was so much ill-will between the two that Diana became a touch paranoid. I remember, very clearly, reading that the difficulty was that Tiggy, quite inappropriately, constantly alluded to the young princes as 'my boys'. Indeed, so I believe, she was eventually asked to desist and to refer to them only as 'the princes' or 'their royal highnesses'. In this, I must say, I'm completely in sympathy with Diana. As I mother, I would be exceptionally peeved if anyone claimed proprietorship over my children. I wondered, too, at the time, why Tiggy felt so comfortable in being able to insinuate such familiarity.
I think its strange too but I have heard of caretakers in British society refer to the children they take care of as 'my children'. Winston Churchill's nanny was known to have done this after he was grown and you read in all the Agatha Christie novels where the governess is referring to her charges as 'my children' . I guess its considered a good thing if the nanny thinks so much of her charges to consider them her own.

However I think Diana's jealousy was more piqued by William's request that his parents let Tiggy to go to his graduation rather than themselves. That had to have hurt. Imagine putting so much time and effort into a loving relationship with your child only to hear that at an important event in his life, he wants his nanny. I can understand William's point of view too. It was not that he didnt' love his parents, but he was getting to the teenage years where he was easily embarassed and didn't want to stick out too much from the rest of the boys. Having both Charles and Diana there would have meant a press extravaganza of reporters snapping pictures and speculating about the state of Charles' and Diana's marriage which would have been uncomfortable for most of the boys in the school and especially William.

However, I can imagine how hurt his parents were when he told them he didn't want them to go. I read that even Charles thought that was a slap in the face.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #669  
Old 12-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I think its strange too but I have heard of caretakers in British society refer to the children they take care of as 'my children'.
It really is not that unusual, the nannies that take care of my grandchildren often refer to them as 'my little soldiers', or 'my wonderful little girl'. They immediately become the parents property when they are naughty of course, as in 'ma'am, your son did this'! Children and those around them know who mummy and daddy are.
  #670  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:32 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Sunday Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: Diana Inquest :: Medic insists Diana was not pregnant
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #671  
Old 12-31-2007, 06:33 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
HRH = Royal Protection?

I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?

Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.

Here's a general estimate at what that protection might have cost Diana:

Royal family protection costs police 18,000 hours - Press and Journal, The Aberdeen (UK) - HighBeam Research

I would estimate that 18,000 police officer hours worth of protection for trips to the Balmoral Estate between July and September for the royal family might translate to between a million or two pounds for Diana alone per year.

Since Diana was somewhat of a spendthrift, who could guess she might willingly pick up this huge tab? Even if she was willing, this would chew up her divorce settlement down to nothing within ~10 years. She might try and save face by saying she didnít want the royal protection anyway. After the divorce, the paparazzi got up close and personal -- who can forget Diana being driven to tears and hiding from them with her purse covering her head?

Although Diana may not have trusted the establishmentís security services, she was just as concerned about some crackpot wanting to make a name for himself by killing the Princess of Wales.

Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?
  #672  
Old 12-31-2007, 06:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Section 84: 12-12-07 Afternoon

Defense minister, Alan Clark, predicted Diana's death three weeks
before it happened in the following quote:

21 "... and still elusive, though occasionally one must
22 assume in the telescopic sight, is the ultimate trophy,
23 the most brightly plumaged of all, to accelerate and
24 then to be the first to capture the sudden death of
25 Diana, Princess of Wales in unexplained circumstances."


This quote was in The Spectator, Edited by Dominic Lawson, husband of Rosa Monckton (Diana's good "friend").

It seems that a tragic accident just waiting to happen wasn't that hard to envisage.
  #673  
Old 12-31-2007, 09:32 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?
It's easier to see the flaw of Diana's decision to dispense with royal protection in hindsight. However, as with any divorces woman, the chance of Diana listening to any of her former in-laws was never going to be far from zero. Many reports have discribed Diana as wealthy in her own right, from family bequeath or inheritance from her father's estate. Even if she only had the multimillion pound divorce settlement, she could have easily afford a minimum security team if she had really felt the need. At some point, every person must start assuming responsibility for his/her own wellbeing. At 35 when the divorce took place, it was pass shelf-date to put that responsibility onto others.
  #674  
Old 12-31-2007, 09:42 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?

Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.

Here's a general estimate at what that protection might have cost Diana:

Royal family protection costs police 18,000 hours - Press and Journal, The Aberdeen (UK) - HighBeam Research

I would estimate that 18,000 police officer hours worth of protection for trips to the Balmoral Estate between July and September for the royal family might translate to between a million or two pounds for Diana alone per year.

Since Diana was somewhat of a spendthrift, who could guess she might willingly pick up this huge tab? Even if she was willing, this would chew up her divorce settlement down to nothing within ~10 years. She might try and save face by saying she didnít want the royal protection anyway. After the divorce, the paparazzi got up close and personal -- who can forget Diana being driven to tears and hiding from them with her purse covering her head?

Although Diana may not have trusted the establishmentís security services, she was just as concerned about some crackpot wanting to make a name for himself by killing the Princess of Wales.

Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?
The article you reference doesn't contain a cost figure so its hard to figure out what the costs would have been.

Even if Diana didn't want to pay for royal security, that wouldn't have stopped her from getting her own private security if she had so desired which could be just as good or even better. But she went for two years after the divorce without any security whatsoever except for the Royal Security when William and Harry were with her and Dodi's security when she was with him.

A week or so before Diana's death, I read an article in the Evening Standard that Diana had not wanted Royal Security for her sons when they vacationed with her and Dodi however the Queen had stood firm and Diana allowed the security.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #675  
Old 12-31-2007, 11:49 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.
It may well have been. We don't know her thought processes, except that a lot of people have reported that she thought she was being spied on by the Establishment, and she might have been concerned that royal protection officers might have been gathering information which would be used after the divorce to try and withdraw her custody of her sons or something. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

Quote:
Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?
It may have been the precedent of the way Sarah lost her HRH on divorce.

Quote:
Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.
We don't know what the terms of continuing royal protection would have been; it's something that might emerge during the course of the inquest. However, I think the royal family would have been shooting itself in the foot in a big way if the terms of her divorce settlement had included some sort of prohibitive cost for continuing royal protection. That would almost certainly have leaked, and it would have made the royal family look very bad. If Diana was going to arrange for private protection officers, that would have cost money anyway.

I get the impression that the loss of the HRH was at least in part to do with the fact that the Queen didn't seem to want Diana to be in a position to represent her formally during foreign trips, since that seemed to be one of the conditions of the divorce. If Diana retained her HRH it would have made it harder for the Queen to insist on that.

Quote:
Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?
I don't remember people saying at the time that this was a potentially fatal error, just that they could understand why she might not want to be surrounded by protection officers in the pay of the royals but wondering what she was going to do in order to keep the paparazzi at bay without them.

The Queen didn't seem to be one to insist on things where her family was concerned unless she was really pushed to the limit about it. She might not have wanted yet another battle with Diana and just thought that after a short time without royal protection officers, Diana might have decided that it wasn't all that good an idea to be on her own and would have changed her mind, which would have sorted the problem out without any confrontation. We just don't know.
  #676  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
We don't know what the terms of continuing royal protection would have been; it's something that might emerge during the course of the inquest. However, I think the royal family would have been shooting itself in the foot in a big way if the terms of her divorce settlement had included some sort of prohibitive cost for continuing royal protection. That would almost certainly have leaked, and it would have made the royal family look very bad.
Sorry, it's taken me awhile to try and figure out what you meant. So you're saying that if it had cost too much money to protect Diana, the public would have resented it?

Does the public resent the cost to protect the current royal family?

Diana needed protection because she was the Princess of Wales -- that is a responsibility the palace shirked. I think anyone can see by the excessive media interest in Kate that it comes with the territory, and thus cannot be passed off as Diana's problem.

Another way to look at this, why do you think the US President and his wife need Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives, long after they have left the White House? It's common sense, eh?

I still have a sick feeling this was...............I guess I better stop there.

I'll bet you this kind of information will never come out in the inquest. Diana herself was probably too mortified to even think about it -- she just had this vague premonition she'd not live long.
  #677  
Old 01-04-2008, 11:50 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
I often thought the service people (hair, make-up, fashion, shopkeepers, restauranteurs, etc) surrounding Diana were capable of getting very private info regarding the Royal Family out of her and so I would just assume she would be under survelliance by government entities.

It deeply saddened me when she accepted Mr. Al-Fayed' invitation for a vacation simply because they shared the same enemies and it put her in an extremely vulnerable situation....in terms of personal safety. Not so much harm from the hands of the Royal Family but from very sinister forces who would/could cause damage so that both Al-Fayed and the Royal Family would be cast into a very dark place...
  #678  
Old 01-05-2008, 12:15 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Sorry, it's taken me awhile to try and figure out what you meant. So you're saying that if it had cost too much money to protect Diana, the public would have resented it?
No. I'm saying that I don't think your scenario is likely to be true because it would have backfired on the royal family.

Quote:
Diana needed protection because she was the Princess of Wales -- that is a responsibility the palace shirked. I think anyone can see by the excessive media interest in Kate that it comes with the territory, and thus cannot be passed off as Diana's problem.
Diana refused royal protection. It was offered to her. We don't know why she refused except that people close to her have said she didn't want to be spied on by police officers in the pay of the royal family. Nobody close to her said that the royal family required her to pay an impossible amount of money for royal protection in the hope that she'd have to refuse (and would then be vulnerable to an assassination attempt). Nobody close to her said that the royal family required her to pay an impossible amount of money for royal protection for whatever motive.

The point I was trying to make is that if the Queen wanted to appear to offer royal protection to Diana while actually making the terms of the offer so financially onerous that Diana had no real choice but to decline, that would have found its way into the press (and rightly so), and this "offer" would have backfired very badly on the royal family.

Quote:
I'll bet you this kind of information will never come out in the inquest. Diana herself was probably too mortified to even think about it -- she just had this vague premonition she'd not live long.
If it doesn't come out, then we won't know. However, since friends of Diana's have said she didn't want the royal protection officers, not that she was put in an impossible position as regards paying for them, I don't see why you'd be so sure they weren't telling the truth.
  #679  
Old 01-05-2008, 02:56 AM
ghost_night554's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,785
Oddly enough I couldn't fall back to sleep yesterday morning and I started questioning stuff I had been hearing from the inquest and I questtioned if any of the witnesses had been payed to make up a false story, very unlikely but I can see if this doesn't go Mr. Al-Fayed's way he could start coming out and saying that the Establishment payed the witnesses etc but surely they couldn't have found every single witness and payed them to change their story, unless they changed it after they originally went to the police..again very unlikely especially since 2 witnesses have come forward and said and even identified the driver. The other things I question is what if the fax (with the items Dodi wished to be purchased) and the receipt we're all made up now, I mean is there any proof that the dates on there were written back then and not now just so Mr. Al- Fayed can make sure the story goes his way for what reasons I don't kno, I mean it's VERY likely he's not lying about those 2 things we clearly have video of Dodi purchasing the ring but still..something I had been thinking about. And in answer to anyone's question no I'm not a conspracy theorists I just over analyze everything.
  #680  
Old 01-05-2008, 12:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
However, since friends of Diana's have said she didn't want the royal protection officers, not that she was put in an impossible position as regards paying for them, I don't see why you'd be so sure they weren't telling the truth.
Ok, I understand you now. I suspect Diana's friends weren't telling the truth because they didn't know the truth and Diana didn't tell them. Diana was no spendthrift. She took the financial settlement she got from Charles and doubled in the year or two between her divorce and death. Diana could spend a lot of money if it was someone else's, but not if it was her own. Somebody in the another thread remarked on how puzzled they were that Diana never bought or rented her own place -- probably because she was too cheap.

I suspect the queen offered Diana royal protection at a reasonable, not onerous cost, and Diana was too cheap to go for it. Naturally, Diana would not have told her friends the truth of this situation. Additionally it might have played into Diana's self-destructive drive.

What chills me about this is that the queen or her advisors would have with no question known about both her unwillingness to spend any of her own money on her protection and also about her self-destructive tendencies. Thus without the HRH giving her automatic Royal Protection, Diana became a sitting duck -- through her own pathological psychology which the Palace was more than willing to exploit.

Finally, if there is any doubt about what Diana really thought about the loss of the Royal Protection, take a look at these pictures, also click prev and next -- they tell the truth.

In Tears pictures from friends & fun photos on webshots
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, duke of edinburgh, inquest, mohamed al fayed, prince philip, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath wbenson Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 325 05-31-2012 08:33 PM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 237 06-15-2008 07:18 AM
The Chelsy Davy Thread 6: April-October 2007 Avalon Current Events Archive 212 10-07-2007 03:26 AM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 5: April-June 2007 sirhon11234 Current Events Archive 210 06-06-2007 03:03 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week poland state visit to norway prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mary style queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises