The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News & Questions Thread 8: June 2008- 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very sad to hear but hopefully Hollie and Diana have reunited.
 
Clapton described Diana as a 'manipulative and sick person'.

I will definitely read this book to see if he gives specifics and the timeline of their relationship.

The DM is assuming it started in 1992 but two of the photos appear to be from the 1980s.
 
Clapton described Diana as a 'manipulative and sick person'.

I will definitely read this book to see if he gives specifics and the timeline of their relationship.

The DM is assuming it started in 1992 but two of the photos appear to be from the 1980s.

The photos are from public events. Surely even those who did not like Diana must concede that its possible to meet someone in a formal situation and then years later begin an affair with them (if there was one). Those photos from the 80's are proof of nothing other than that Clapton played at events at which Diana was present.

Following your line of logic maybe Diana had affairs with everyone she met on a red carpet (I'm not being serious).
 
The stuff that people make up about this dead woman is sickening.
 
I can think of few more unappealing things than reading a book about Eric Clapton. The very mention that unsubstantiated "recollections" concerning Diana being included (as a way of selling the odd extra copy or two) convinces me it would be a waste of time and money.
 
I have my doubts that this is true. The source seems to be basing their information off the fact that Diana and Eric may have flirted a few times.

Clapton described Diana as a 'manipulative and sick person'.

I will definitely read this book to see if he gives specifics and the timeline of their relationship.

The DM is assuming it started in 1992 but two of the photos appear to be from the 1980s.

It seems the DM is getting the date from the book though. The author notes that this supposed relationship took place in 1993. Their source even states that, "they were both free agents".

If the author or book publisher had any knowledge that Eric and Diana had started a relationship while she was married, they would have used it as a selling point. The part about Diana seems more like a quick sentence or two in the book.
 
Last edited:
In 1993 Diana was still married - separated but still the wife of the heir to the throne.
 
I can think of few more unappealing things than reading a book about Eric Clapton. The very mention that unsubstantiated "recollections" concerning Diana being included (as a way of selling the odd extra copy or two) convinces me it would be a waste of time and money.

I am a huge fan of his music. But we are discussing a man who very publically pursued the wife of a friend for years, penning hit after hit howling at the moon about overwhelming undying love ("Laaayla...got me on my knees"!) only to dump her after she was unable to give him children.:bang:

I don't care to read about him casting aspersions on the character of a woman long dead who can no longer defend herself.


ETA: Sounds like Carla Bruni put him through an emotional Cuisinart...oh I do believe in karma!
 
Last edited:
The stuff that people make up about this dead woman is sickening.


And the people who delight in it is even worse. Unfortunately!
But there will always be these type of people


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I am a huge fan of his music. But we are discussing a man who very publically pursued the wife of a friend for years, penning hit after hit howling at the moon about overwhelming undying love ("Laaayla...got me on my knees"!) only to dump her after she was unable to give him children.:bang:

I don't care to read about him casting aspersions on the character of a woman long dead who can no longer defend herself.


ETA: Sounds like Carla Bruni put him through an emotional Cuisinart...oh I do believe in karma!

Totally agree...i love his music...the man not so much.

And I find it so hard to believe that in the years since her death...despite the many books and revelations....no one knew about this or wrote about it. I mean how could the likes of Sally Bedell Smith, Tina Brown, Andrew Morton, Lady Colin Campbell managed to miss this nugget. It's unbelievable.
 
It seems the DM is getting the date from the book though. The author notes that this supposed relationship took place in 1993. Their source even states that, "they were both free agents".

If the author or book publisher had any knowledge that Eric and Diana had started a relationship while she was married, they would have used it as a selling point. The part about Diana seems more like a quick sentence or two in the book.

The DM is assuming the affair took place after 1992 because of the comment 'they were both free agents'. The source could have considered 1988 as when 'both were free agents'.

That is why I would rather read the book myself rather than rely on the DM or someone elses interpretation of a book.

This is not Eric Clapton's autobiography. It is not even known if he contributed to the book.

I would like to read the book to see who, if any, are the named sources.
 
Seriously people need to find something else to write about. The woman has been dead for over a decade. Easy enough to make stuff up ...and afterall all the other incidents are old old news, sales must be dropping off.

Very bad taste.


LaRae
 
An author who writes a book about a rock star includes a few lines about Diana, a woman who was known to be flirtatious. Result: instant publicity, perhaps much more that would be given to this author otherwise.:cool:
 

Sick. :sick:
In Larry King's book- Diana the People's Princess, one of the people who gave tribute was EC's ex wife- saying she and Diana were good friends, and the official events they all attended were wonderful. I really don't think she would say that if something inappropriate had been going on.
And Diana's dead - who cares? Why can't we just remember the good?
What event was that 1992 photo taken at?
 
Thanks. Just to make sure I read correctly the 1992 BAFTAs?
 
Sick. :sick:
In Larry King's book- Diana the People's Princess, one of the people who gave tribute was EC's ex wife- saying she and Diana were good friends, and the official events they all attended were wonderful. I really don't think she would say that if something inappropriate had been going on.
And Diana's dead - who cares? Why can't we just remember the good?
What event was that 1992 photo taken at?

Diana wasn't a saint as some folks tried to make her out to be, but I feel some people have tried to take her memory and throw it in the garbage. It's just sad to to see and read, IMO.

"Why can't we just remember the good?" They most likely find it all too boring and less juicy.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that it was The BAFTAs, because I think that there would have been more coverage of her attending. However, I think that this address does have something to do with BAFTA, because the site I found talks about a screening room and reception rooms. (Correction: It's the BAFTA headquarters: http://www.bafta.org/195-piccadilly/explore-the-space/princess-anne-theatre) Perhaps she was there for a screening of a particular film that was up for an award, maybe? I don't know.:flowers:
195 Piccadilly, the home of BAFTA | Unique Venues of London

I also found a picture of the same event relating it to a Turning Point appearance. Was a film made for Turning Point, or a charity event for Turning Point held at 195 Piccadilly? It's a mystery. :)
 
Last edited:
It was probably something for TP for sure. They made films, and she would go.
@ Dman- And BTW, I'm not saying she was a saint. I'm saying remember the good.
 
Seriously people need to find something else to write about. The woman has been dead for over a decade. Easy enough to make stuff up ...and afterall all the other incidents are old old news, sales must be dropping off.

Very bad taste.


LaRae

This is suppose to be the 'ultimate' Eric Clapton biography.

The author wrote about all the women that Eric Clapton had relationships with. His source said Diana was one of them.

Diana was mentiioned in the biographer because a mutual friend of Diana and Eric Clapton told the author that Eric and Diana were involved.

Why do a biography and ignore part of his life because 'she's dead'?

:bang: Why is it when anything remotely negative about Diana people always say she is dead?

No one bothers to say Wallis and Edward are dead and cannot defend themselves.

The same for the Queen Mother.

Or Grace Kelly?

A biography of Grace Kelly cannot include any of the men she had relationships with prior to her marrying Prince Rainer.

And no biography of any of the actors she had relationships can include Grace Kelly because she is dead and died a tragic death and cannot defend herself.:ermm:

Why is Diana different?:bang:

And please not because she was 'young'? She lived. She married, had 2 kids, traveled the world, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

The problem for me personally is the sensationalism that in generated upon such little information where the facts cannot fully be verified. I would have no problem whatsoever if Diana and Eric Clapton had a relationship, a fling or simply just coffee and cake at Starbucks - it really is no big deal. But it does get rather fussing when something so insignificant is used to try and sell a new book as if no other elements of Mr Clapton's life is worth mentioning and one should buy the book for the sake of a single paragraph or two.
 
That was well said Jacknch. I think the other problem with discussing Diana is that we tend to reduce her to either saint or sinner and get angry at people who don't agree with our view. Like everyone she was both beautiful and flawed. Complex and compelling, and not always in either an all good or bad way.

Repeating our opinion over and over is neither complex or compelling. It's can seem boring or shrill to the reader. While the Forums are here for our entertainment and learning sometimes it's worth remembering that posts that add new insight to a discussion are the ones most valued.

Perhaps we just need to accept that Diane haters will always hate and Diane lovers will forever love. There is no changing anyone's mind in this Forum.

And yes, I know this post veers toward the preachy and boring. Apologies for that.
 
I really don't think this is about hate and love for Diana, I think this is about people who have dragged Diana's name through the mud over the years, and have made her into the royal harlot of the House of Windsor. That lady didn't have the time to carry out the many affairs people have linked her to. Diana was a very busy woman during her official years. She also wasn't an easy woman either. Since her death, people have come up with all kinds of rumors about Diana, and a great deal of them aren't true. Unfortunately, a great deal of the rumors have stuck and people very easily believe them.

I guess some people will go on to believe the rumor that Diana's own father-in-law (Philip) also tried to sleep with her. It's said that she turned him down and that he wasn't happy about it.

Why continue to do this to this woman who's no longer here to defend herself? People have gone on to contribute her name to all kinds of rumors. It's nasty, wrong and very distasteful.

The worst thing one can do is spit on the dead.
 
I agree completely with your statement Dman but you can't deny there's some kind of double standard regarding Charles, Camilla and Diana. The first two are often maligned, with some pretty harsh words, and of course Diana is now frozen in time and seen by many as untouchable. But as you said many times before they all made mistakes and i don't think it's "spitting on the dead" to say that the late Princess of Wales, by her acts and very own personnality, had her share of responsabily in the failure of her marriage (and i'm not talking about rumors but facts like squidgygate, the Morton Book, James Hewiit...). That said, i agree with you on the fact that the kind of useless, tasteless and utterly provocative "information" seen above is just plain wrong and doesn't help to a better undestanding of Diana as a human being, with her qualities and failures.
 
Yes, Diana made her mistakes and I don't see her as untouchable, but to make up rumors that she had an affair with every Tom, Dick and Harry is very much wrong, offensive and very much unfair. To me, that is spitting on the dead. It's also a slap in William and Harry's face.

Yes, Diana played her part in bringing down her own marriage. No one disputes that.
It's sad to see and read people using her as a dead piece of meat.

Royal Commentator, Victoria Arbiter very often points out that there are tons of false rumors about Diana that have stuck over the years, but it's nearly impossible to debunk them all. Her words are very much true. I think people have mistreated the dead Diana much worse than they did when she was alive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My problem is that it's so hard to really know which rumours are true and which are not. A rule of thumb, I suppose, is to go by what those close to her heard from Diana and observed themselves. The issue, as I see it, with the Eric Clapton story is that it went from a flirtation in public to a full-blown affair (at least in some people's eyes) because one friend of Clapton's said something very indefinite about their meetings in a restaurant. It seems to be a case of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" turning into a documented case.:ermm: It's overkill.


Yes, Diana made her mistakes and I don't see her as untouchable, but to make up rumors that she had an affair with every Tom, Dick and Harry is very much wrong, offensive and very much unfair. To me, that is spitting on the dead. It's also a slap in William and Harry's face.
 
I agree with what you say some people just love to write horrible things about her but love William and Harry !! Would they say the same things about her face to face with her sons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom