The Late Princess Diana news thread 4: September 2006 - April 2007

[Lily97]

I believe "the situation" was that Camilla always had Charles heart and was his only true love even if he was faithful to Diana for the first 5 years. Just my opinion of course. What a way to start a marriage!

Lily

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Lily97

I believe "the situation" was that Camilla always had Charles heart and was his only true love even if he was faithful to Diana for the first 5 years. Just my opinion of course.

You really ought to read some of the other accounts, like this one, although not perfect, it does try to show there was another side to the sorry tale, as written by people who actually 'saw it'.


"We have had the Princess's side as told to Andrew Morton. Millions of people all over the world are judging the Prince of Wales by that book. I believe there has been a grave injustice. All I am trying to do is present an alternative picture, as witnessed by people who were there from the very beginning to the end." It is Junor's contention that there was "no villain" of the piece. Diana was a vulnerable girl with a serious personality problem who married "because she wanted to be looked after and to become the centre of Charles's attention".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...%2Ftljun9.html

How we got to this I don't know, when all I was trying to say is the article everyone is referring to, is by an American, who was not part of the society he is pretending to know so much about!

His article is just horse manure. IMO.

[Lily97]

Skydragon, all I was doing was stating that I thought there was a situation whereas you stated there wasn't one. I have read many different views on the subject (as my poor bookcase will prove) but you cannot deny that Charles and Camilla had vast affection for each other when Charles married. That was the only point I was trying to make and for me that is a situation. We do agree on one thing, Diana was vunerable. As to the article, I think you have valid point.

Lily

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Lily97

you cannot deny that Charles and Camilla had vast affection for each other when Charles married. That was the only point I was trying to make and for me that is a situation. We do agree on one thing, Diana was vunerable. As to the article, I think you have valid point.

Lily

I believe that it is possible to remain friends with your ex boy/girlfriends and 'love' them, but, not be 'in love' with them. Coming from the social circle they all did, it was a certainty that they would continue to bump into one another.

I think with Diana's troubled family life and insecurity, any marriage was a disaster waiting to happen.

Like many men and women, they go into married life with unrealistic expectations, IMO.

[Avalon]

Remember that this is a thread for the news for late Diana, Princess of Wales.
This is neither a thread for comparison of Charles/Camilla/Diana, nor a thread to find out who was right and who was wrong.

Thank you for co-operation.

[Panther2000]

Originally Posted by rosana

I admire Diana for the courage she had to rebel against the situation she lived from the very moment she married.What else could she do? keep quiet as her husband and his mistres wanted, but she was not that kind of woman. I liked the article very much,good portrait of the Princess and the society she lived.

Yeah I agree with you on that.
But she seemed to grow stronger after the marriage(eventhough for a short period of time). She really came into her own.

I love it how Diana thread in her fourm seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Panther2000

I love it how Diana thread in her forum seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

I don't think its bashing Diana per se-just a defense of the Queen and the British Royal Family from the apparent insult they received in that article that praised Diana.

Quiet, dull, old-fashioned and sexless as the article described is an incredibly insulting way to speak of the influence of the British Royal Family in the country in the decades and centuries before Diana. Its also pretty dismissive to suggest that the royal family was meaningless before Diana.

It would be great if people could praise Diana without insulting the Royal Family but that doesn't happen often.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by ysbel

It would be great if people could praise Diana without insulting the Royal Family but that doesn't happen often.

And visa versa on occasion. It does, of course, go both ways

I just think it unfortuante that so often they are played against each other from various factions outside the 'know'.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

And visa versa on occasion. It does, of course, go both ways

I just think it unfortuante that so often they are played against each other from various factions outside the 'know'.

Especially considering that they themselves were working together to overcome the animosity of the past when Diana died. Seems to me that, if the major players were willing to forgive and move on, the public should, too.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by sassie

Especially considering that they themselves were working together to overcome the animosity of the past when Diana died. Seems to me that, if the major players were willing to forgive and move on, the public should, too.

Definitly, sassie

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Panther2000

I love it how Diana thread in her fourm seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

This is just one thread in a forum about all the royals, not a forum dedicated to just one woman, who died 9 years ago! An article was posted that was written by a non Brit, commenting on the British way of life and the British Royals, which IMO, was totally inaccurate.

If anyone were to post an article about the way the US did something, that was not based on facts, I would expect the article to be challenged. Hopefully by people that were actually there, at the time and had not just read about it!

Originally Posted by ysbel

Quiet, dull, old-fashioned and sexless as the article described is an incredibly insulting way to speak of the influence of the British Royal Family in the country in the decades and centuries before Diana.

That is the authors description of the British people before Diana! Possibly you had to be there to know just how laughable a statement it is! He clearly missed the revolution of the 60's in the UK!

[Skydragon]

Diana Crash Car: Owner Wants £1m

The owner of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, died is demanding it is returned to him - so he can sell it as a souvenir. Jean-Francois Musa says he believes he can get more than £1m for the wrecked Mercedes. Mr Musa owns the Etoile Limousine company which rented the car to Diana and Dodi Fayed in August 1997.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04122006/14...-wants-1m.html

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Diana Crash Car: Owner Wants £1m

The owner of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, died is demanding it is returned to him - so he can sell it as a souvenir. Jean-Francois Musa says he believes he can get more than £1m for the wrecked Mercedes. Mr Musa owns the Etoile Limousine company which rented the car to Diana and Dodi Fayed in August 1997.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04122006/14...-wants-1m.html

I'm not sure it would be his to sell-he must have filed an insurance claim on it, and if the insurance company paid him the full value of the car-I assume they did, because it was totaled-then they, in effect, bought the car.

I think this guy, by going public with this, is attempting to extort the money from Al Fayed in exchange for the car. He knows Mohammed has the money and will pay it.

Sad, very sad. The James Dean reference is also inaccurate. That car was purchased by a private party in 1958 for the cost of the scrap, and hasn't been seen since (I would guess that the buyer did the moral thing and had the car reduced for scrap.) Just because some museum offered $1 million for it if it is ever found isn't the same thing. One can't actually buy what isn't for sale.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

I'm not sure it would be his to sell-he must have filed an insurance claim on it, and if the insurance company paid him the full value of the car-I assume they did, because it was totaled-then they, in effect, bought the car.

I think this guy, by going public with this, is attempting to extort the money from Al Fayed in exchange for the car. He knows Mohammed has the money and will pay it.

You are right, if he received an insurance payout, then the car belongs to them. Has he though?

If the car is still the subject of a police investigation, they don't normally release the car to the insurers or owner, so in preparation of the release, he could be negotiating.

Sick as it seems to us, the car could be worth more as 'the wreck' than he had it insured for and if he didn't put in a claim, his NC would not be affected!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

You are right, if he received an insurance payout, then the car belongs to them. Has he though?

If the car is still the subject of a police investigation, they don't normally release the car to the insurers or owner, so in preparation of the release, he could be negotiating.

I have no way of knowing if he did or not, but I would assume that he did-since he owns a limousine company, that kind of claim would be standard business practice. Since the car itself was locked up in a police garage for an indefinite time, it would have been the only way, in 1997, for him to recoup his loss. He certainly had no way of knowing then whether the car would ever be released, and since he had lost the lease income from the car, filing a claim would seem only logical.

Now that the inquest is over and the findings are pending, the car has to be released to the owner. There isn't any other law enforcement agency that could claim they are beginning a new inquest and need the car as evidence.

Course, you are right, he could have been playing the odds and not filed a claim hinging on the prospect of selling the wreckage someday.

[sirhon11234]

But its so sick to sell a wreck car that was the cause of death for three people.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by sassie

I have no way of knowing if he did or not, but I would assume that he did-since he owns a limousine company, that kind of claim would be standard business practice. Since the car itself was locked up in a police garage for an indefinite time, it would have been the only way, in 1997, for him to recoup his loss. He certainly had no way of knowing then whether the car would ever be released, and since he had lost the lease income from the car, filing a claim would seem only logical.

Now that the inquest is over and the findings are pending, the car has to be released to the owner. There isn't any other law enforcement agency that could claim they are beginning a new inquest and need the car as evidence.

Course, you are right, he could have been playing the odds and not filed a claim hinging on the prospect of selling the wreckage someday.

It may be that he could settle the claim with the insurance company on the basis he kept the wreck. This could be done here a few years ago and as far as I know it's still the case. There's simply a reduction made in the payout figure for the value of the wreck as scrap metal.