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

[Elspeth]

Thanks for posting that, Sara; however, the news about Earl Spencer's latest relationship is being discussed in this thread.

[Skydragon]

Diana TV interview voted most memorable

The 1995 interview of Britain's princess Diana was voted the most memorable of all time, topping the 1977 post-Watergate talk with Richard Nixon, a survey of television viewers has found.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070122...a_070122150304

I find it quite sad that the winners are, Diana, Nixon and Watergate, George Best at his drunken worst, Michael Howard avoiding answering a particular question and the Sex Pistols' expletive-fuelled appearance on a BBC show.

[Skydragon]

Book claiming Di was 'psychotic' causes outrage

A new book claiming that Princess Diana may have been schizophrenic is in the eye of a storm.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070125/139/6bhzx.html

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Book claiming Di was 'psychotic' causes outrage

A new book claiming that Princess Diana may have been schizophrenic is in the eye of a storm.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070125/139/6bhzx.html

Didn't someone here on TRF had the idea that we need a book about "How Diana was kidnapped by Aliens?"

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Didn't someone here on TRF had the idea that we need a book about "How Diana was kidnapped by Aliens?"

Schizophrenic, paranoid, and delusional aliens, no less.

[sirhon11234]

That author is such a dog to write a book about Diana claiming that she was schizophrenic what garbage.

[princess olga]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Diana TV interview voted most memorable

The 1995 interview of Britain's princess Diana was voted the most memorable of all time, topping the 1977 post-Watergate talk with Richard Nixon, a survey of television viewers has found.

Diana TV interview voted most memorable - Yahoo! News

I find it quite sad that the winners are, Diana, Nixon and Watergate, George Best at his drunken worst, Michael Howard avoiding answering a particular question and the Sex Pistols' expletive-fuelled appearance on a BBC show.

Ugh that's sad indeed. I'd always been a sympathizer of Diana's UNTIL that ill-advised interview in which, to me, the lady came across as a narcisistic whino suffering from a clear case of utter paranoia.

And anyway, most memorable <of ALL TIME>??? I mean, these people were around in, let's say, 1946, too? And they are multi-lingual enough to judge each and every interview aired on tv across countries, peoples and languages? How on the planet can anyone do that!
'Of all time'. Please.

[sirhon11234]

What do you mean that Diana was a narcisist. I admit that Diana shouldn't have done that interview but she wanted to give her side of the story just as Charles did a year before.

[Elspeth]

I wonder what these doctors think they were doing, talking to a journalist about a patient. I mean, I know she's dead, but does that really give them the right to blab about her to the press?

[Madame Royale]

'If' Diana in any way suffered from a psychological disorder then I do say shame on those who have for years spoken ill of her in ways which would be a clear reflection upon any mental hurdle she faced.

Of course It doesn't Elspeth , but people will continue to go to lengths so as to claim "their" piece of what was, really, a tragic life. How pathetically sad in every possible way

My first ever angry face...hope I never feel the need to use that again!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

'If' Diana in any way suffered from a psychological disorder then I do say shame on those who have for years spoken ill of her in ways which would be a clear reflection upon any mental hurdle she faced.

Of course It doesn't Elspeth , but people will continue to go to lengths so as to claim "their" piece of what was, really, a tragic life. How pathetically sad in every possible way

My first ever angry face...hope I never feel the need to use that again!

Well, I think it's safe to say that Diana did suffer from psychological issues, such as low self esteem and a distorted sense of herself, hence her bulimia. But to say she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder isn't a call anyone should make, unless they were treating her directly in a doctor/patient relationship-which, obviously, this author was not. Of course, to be fair, it's impossible for any of us to judge that she didn't suffer from such disorders, since we never treated her, either. The fact that she managed to maintain such a composed professional role for an extended period of time, under intense scrutiny by press and public, raises doubt that she suffered from anything more than certain psychological quirks-something which can be applied to most people.

I doubt that this man, who was a 'friend of Prince Charles' was exposed to Diana's private self, and is making his judgement based on her public persona and the War of the Waleses, when neither Charles nor Diana acted all that rationally. How pathetic that he feels the need to make this claim at all, much less for money.

[Skydragon]

This chap claims he is a friend of Charles', whether he is or not is a different matter.

The article highlights some of the points taken from a 35 page chapter in a book, which the author claims are based on conversations with her doctors. One unnamed medic says he was summoned after the princess had "violent tantrums" and she once had to be "physically restrained" at Highgrove.

Although a Clarence House source branded the claims "deeply offensive and hurtful", they did not confirm or deny them.

[xtan]

the person who wrote the book says that he is a friend of prince charles? find it hard to believe. and did princes charles says otherwise? bet not. and he could have conversation withe diana's doctors? what happen to doc/patients confidentiality?

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

This chap claims he is a friend of Charles', whether he is or not is a different matter.

The article highlights some of the points taken from a 35 page chapter in a book, which the author claims are based on conversations with her doctors. One unnamed medic says he was summoned after the princess had "violent tantrums" and she once had to be "physically restrained" at Highgrove.

Although a Clarence House source branded the claims "deeply offensive and hurtful", they did not confirm or deny them.

Just because Clarence House did not confirm or deny it. It doesen't mean that its true.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

This chap claims he is a friend of Charles', whether he is or not is a different matter.

The article highlights some of the points taken from a 35 page chapter in a book, which the author claims are based on conversations with her doctors. One unnamed medic says he was summoned after the princess had "violent tantrums" and she once had to be "physically restrained" at Highgrove.

Although a Clarence House source branded the claims "deeply offensive and hurtful", they did not confirm or deny them.

"Claims" and "unnamed" being significant here. I can 'claim' to have spoken with the Princess' doctors, and unnamed sources, as well-very easy to do if I don't have to provide names or specifics.

Clarence House shouldn't confirm or deny them, since these are claims from unnamed doctors and unnamed medics, quoted by someone who may or may not be a friend of Prince Charles. They are much better off not addressing the whole issue any further than they already have.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

Clarence House shouldn't confirm or deny them, since these are claims from unnamed doctors and unnamed medics, quoted by someone who may or may not be a friend of Prince Charles. They are much better off not addressing the whole issue any further than they already have.

Precisely.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Book claiming Di was 'psychotic' causes outrage

A new book claiming that Princess Diana may have been schizophrenic is in the eye of a storm.

Book claiming Di was 'psychotic' causes outrage

Thanks for sharing Skydragon.

Books like these make me mad and want to get on my soapbox because I just can't stand how people can just bandy around words like schizophrenia about a person when its a very serious and debilitating disease. I've known families with members that suffered from severe mental illness and these illnesses are far different than most people think just by reading a newspaper or sensational book.

This author must not know anything about schizophrenia. People can't function with it and it is mostly incurable, getting progressively worse with time. I find it almost impossible for a public person such as Diana to have schizophrenia with no one figuring out till now.

Plus there is a genetic component to schizophrenia and no one else in Diana's family has exhibited anything like it. On the contrary, the two illnesses we know she did suffer from, the eating disorder and the tendency to self-harm, were both exhibited by other members of her family and they too have a genetic component. With that family history, it is fair to say that she may have exhibited the eating disorder and the tendency to self-harm even if she had never married Charles.

But schizophrenia? No.

[gfg02]

http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/1698/1/