When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

True but how do you explain bulimia and self-destruction if she seemed so selfish to you ? It takes alot to come to that and I don't think the problem started without an exterior factor.
Moreover, no one is vindictive or does such things that you describe very well by nature. Nobody is born to be this or that.

I once read an interesting article in a psychological magazine about anorexia and bulimia that the first always is caused by a mental illness (that is, there are misworkings in the brain, especially the concept of rewarding works differently) while bulimia can be acquired through your own doings. The article said that the psychological profile of the bulimia sufferers who were studied showed that at one point in their history most of them had a phase of "wanting it all but not getting enough". That could have been emotional need in the childhood or a combination of love for food and wish for a slim figure. That bulimia was a slowly developing disease with several steps, but that one came from the wish to get (oral) fulfillment without having to pay for it in the end.

I think Diana had that need as well: she wanted it all, IMHO and didn't want to pay the piper.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Its not really that surprising jcbcode99; Charles has turned the family estate into a tourist attraction after the Princess was buried on the island.

Charles Spencer may be guilty of other things but of exploiting Diana's memory he's not. The family estate, Althorp, was open to tourists by Diana's father in the 1970's as a way to make the estate pay. All Charles Spencer did was to provide a shrine as such for the Diana-ites, he refurnished the stable block to make the museum. All this cost money, he also shortened the amount of time the estate is actually open to tourists. Stately homes in the UK are generally open from April to October, prior to Diana's death Althorp was too. Now it's only open from July 1st Diana's birthday to August 30th.

There's been a steady downturn in visitors to the Diana exhibition as people loose interest in Diana, Althorp actually makes most of its money from corporate events. This is reflected in the official website, the home page only has a dot point mentioning the Diana exhibition and no picture of her, the rest of the information is on the estate and the corporate events.

Check it out Christmas Festivals, Hospitality, Corporate Events, Tourist Attractions

The reason why the Diana exhibition now tours ( it's currently in Sydney) is to pay for its maintenance and insurance at Althorp because it doesn't bring enough money just through entrance fees, so Charles is hardly exploiting Diana.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Even during the courtship phase, Charles was openly IN LOVE with Camilla and Diana was IN LOVE with being the Princess of Wales and someday QUEEN. Is there really any dispute about this?

I believe there is dispute over it. I for one don't believe that Charles was "in love" with Camilla when he decided to marry Diana. I think he knew he had a very good and reliable friend in Camilla and that is some sort of love but I don't think that this love made it irreversible that Charles and Diana's marriage broke down. I think if Diana had really been the nice and understanding girl she acted as during the courtship, then she would have understood that there are people who find and who need some dort of "family" in their friends and she would have embraced them just as Mary of Denmark did when she married Frederick.

Camilla appears to be a very motherly person, which makes for a great friend, Someone who is willing to listen and to learn. Just reread the Camillagate-transcripts: it is very sweet how interested she is in Charles' work and we know form the diary-incident that Charles loves it if someone is interested in his work and even hands out excerpts to friends from his diaries to friends who are interested.

And then there was Diana who was not interested, who started soon to upstage Charles and to try to destroy what had taken him years to achieve because he only had his birthright, but not an easy-going charme like Diana. Charles had worked hard to overcome the fact that he simply is not gifted as a public performer like some others, including Diana. And now there was this young girl who had appeared to be sweet, understanding and interested in the same things than he was and as soon as she was his wife she showed her real colours, which included the wish to destroy Charles' friendships and his public image. No wonder he was shocked.

Why does all the world think that only Diana was a victim? Aren't the queen and her heir not victims of the situation themselves? I think the queen would have preferred to be just HRH The Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark, living in the countryside and breeding horses while HRH The Prince Charles of Greece and Denmark would have enjoyed helping his father rmanaging the estate his mother brought into the marriage. I sincerely doubt that Lady Diana Spencer wuld have married said prince Charles of Greece for the bore she would have thought him to be.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Okay for the self-destruction but for the bulimia or anorexia there are many pictures that can confirm it as well as many people close to her. For the self mutilation, I agee that there are not hard proof.

There were rumours about the self-mutilation and then Diana confirmed in the Panorama interview that it was true. She may have been lying but it wasn't in her best self-interest to admit that she tried to hurt herself in an interview where she wanted to prove that she wasn't crazy. So her admission in an interview where it hardly would have done her good and her uncle's suicide showing a family history lead me to believe that she was telling the truth and that she did display self-mutilation.

Originally Posted by TheTruth

It seems that some of you believe that she was all bad and evil. She didn't kill anyone, did she ?

Well I'm sure that for every royal here that there is at least some people that can't stand them. A celebrity is going to generate different reactions from different members of the public depending on the background and values of the members of the public which will vary from individual to individual.

For some people, the light Diana gave to the children and sick people she met in her charity work was so strong and such a positive force, that it more than made up for any 'faults' she may have had. For others, the negative regarding her vindictivness and plotting against people close to her were so severe, that the image of a caring and loving Diana at the hospital or doing her charity work doesn't even begin to make up for the pain they think she caused. So with the same information and drawing the same conclusions, some people may think very well of Diana and others may think of her very horribly.

For myself, I think Diana was very troubled and she did hurt a lot of people. However, I think she was very much like other people of my generation who may have come from dysfunctional families and parents who cared more about their own problems than their children.

I think Diana like a lot of people my age were simultaneously ignored and over-indulged by their parents. I see many people who think the world owes them to let them do what they want because their parents let them do everything with no controls. However these same people are still looking for validation and acceptance from society because their parents didn't really pay attention to them and their needs. It is a dangerous combination of thinking you're not very important (because you were treated like an afterthought by your parents) and that you should be able to do anything you want (because your parents let you do anything you wanted so that you would get out of their hair) that causes people to do drastic things to prove that they are worthy.

Its true as skydragon said that not all people come from a dysfunctional home come out confused. However, enough people of my generation have shown Diana's tendencies to want it all that I don't think Diana was an aberration. Diana's older sister came out well but that was because she had a higher intelligence than the rest of the family and was able to continue her schooling.

I don't necessarily agree that Diana was a bad apple or there was something inheritly evil with her like a bad gene. It sounds too melodramatic like the mark of Cain. I think unfortunately she was a product of her generation and as with many other of her generation, I think that her story was a great tragedy for herself and those around her.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Okay for the self-destruction but for the bulimia or anorexia there are many pictures that can confirm it as well as many people close to her. For the self mutilation, I agee that there are not hard proof.

It seems that some of you believe that she was all bad and evil. She didn't kill anyone, did she ?

There are many pictures that show she lost weight, but this may have been through the use of diuretics and enemas. I looked for any valid statements to confirm the Bulimia and couldn't find one, so if you have a link, I would be grateful. One of the reasons I started to doubt the bulimia, is based on two recent incidents I have knowledge of - 1. A friends daughter who declared she was bulimic, but was never seen or heard vomiting. Yes she had weight swings but when hospitalised, there was no evidence (no damage to tooth enamel, cavities, throat, oesophogus, etc), one of the criteria is the eating larger portions frequently throughout the day (and vomiting), which they could see was not happening. She admitted she had 'invented' the illness to get the attention.
2. is someone I thought I knew well, who has been a vegetarian for years (or so I thought), who was caught stuffing pigs in blankets into her mouth, as if there was no tomorrow!

Originally Posted by Georgiea

I do believe the self mutilation was done on one of the long royal vacation, so we really would never have seen Princess Diana in bandages

If that is the case, where is there any evidence to say she did anything to herself, or is this just another unconfirmed rumour put about to perpetuate the 'poor little me' image?

To go back to TheTruth's comment, no I don't believe that she was all bad, just not as good as some (generic) seem to believe she was. There is an old nusery rhyme I am put in mind of.... "When she was good, she was very, very good and when she was bad she was horrid".

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

There were rumours about the self-mutilation and then Diana confirmed in the Panorama interview that it was true. She may have been lying but it wasn't in her best self-interest to admit that she tried to hurt herself in an interview where she wanted to prove that she wasn't crazy. So her admission in an interview where it hardly would have done her good and her uncle's suicide showing a family history lead me to believe that she was telling the truth and that she did display self-mutilation.

Her 'admission' was only to show how she had 'suffered', A 'hey, look at me, I am better now and can admit I had problems, which I achieved without help from those nasty royals". By portraying herself as a victim who had survived, she kept or gained the support of many people who saw themselves as victims. All IMO of course.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

There are many pictures that show she lost weight, but this may have been through the use of diuretics and enemas. I looked for any valid statements to confirm the Bulimia and couldn't find one, so if you have a link, I would be grateful. One of the reasons I started to doubt the bulimia, is based on two recent incidents I have knowledge of - 1. A friends daughter who declared she was bulimic, but was never seen or heard vomiting. Yes she had weight swings but when hospitalised, there was no evidence (no damage to tooth enamel, cavities, throat, oesophogus, etc), one of the criteria is the eating larger portions frequently throughout the day (and vomiting), which they could see was not happening. She admitted she had 'invented' the illness to get the attention.
2. is someone I thought I knew well, who has been a vegetarian for years (or so I thought), who was caught stuffing pigs in blankets into her mouth, as if there was no tomorrow!

If that is the case, where is there any evidence to say she did anything to herself, or is this just another unconfirmed rumour put about to perpetuate the 'poor little me' image?

To go back to TheTruth's comment, no I don't believe that she was all bad, just not as good as some (generic) seem to believe she was. There is an old nusery rhyme I am put in mind of.... "When she was good, she was very, very good and when she was bad she was horrid".

That's true Skydragon ; that's Diana : always to the extreme. For the bulimia, I'm sure of it because it's a fact that's been repeated over and over the years and in photos, she was sometimes painfully skinny and that couldn't be caused by diuretics and enemas. If she had taken that shape by using these products, she would have overdosed for sure ! Her weight was significant of her mental state. In Bradford's biography, Hewitt says himself that he knew when she had been sick. I usually don't trust him but he couldn't guess about it. Anyway, we will never be a 100% sure but IMO, she was ill.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

That's true Skydragon ; that's Diana : always to the extreme. For the bulimia, I'm sure of it because it's a fact that's been repeated over and over the years and in photos, she was sometimes painfully skinny and that couldn't be caused by diuretics and enemas. If she had taken that shape by using these products, she would have overdosed for sure ! Her weight was significant of her mental state. In Bradford's biography, Hewitt says himself that he knew when she had been sick. I usually don't trust him but he couldn't guess about it. Anyway, we will never be a 100% sure but IMO, she was ill.

Unfortunately, rumour becomes 'fact' if repeated often enough. I know people who's dress size can fluctuate between a UK 8 and a 14, within a very short time, depending on what they are doing and if they are worried about something. Weight fluctuations do not always equal bulimia or anorexia. Does Hewitt go into details, people are sick for many reasons, I had the same reaction after eating a prawn! Many women use diuretics or injected insulin for weight control over many, many years and as we know, it was fashionable to have enemas to lose weight and invigorate yourself (generic) in the 80's & 90's.

[Warren]

There's little point in arguing over the labelling since we don't have access to a doctor's certificate or medical report. At one stage (or some) it's obvious that Diana was painfully thin, so let's agree there was some sort of eating disorder, the precise nature of which we cannot verify.

[Chimene]

Being all over the place in speech is not cold and calculating, but very confused individual.

That's precisely my point. She was all over the place in her answers, and cold and calculating in her delivery, which goes against the idea that she was powerful. It was not a speech, and yes the answers were rehearsed.

And even ten years on she still is fascinating us and I think if she became Queen-what a BRF the world would have!!!

Not quite. For the most part, I think we are perplexed rather than fascinated, like I said in a previous post. As for her (maybe) be abilities as Queen, I would say she was incapable of seeing the bigger picture and think that far ahead. She was too interested in HERSELF.

[ysbel]

I don't think Diana was using the self-harm story as a sympathy getting device. She seemed too embarassed in the Panorama interview when she talked about it and seemed to want to get over the subject quickly. These rumours were around before the Morton book and I don't think the self-harm stories were the types of the scoops that she fed to Richard Kay in the early days of the marriage. Diana had to tow a very fine line between attracting sympathy for her problems and convincing people she wasn't crazy. That's why I think the whole interview looks so stiff and contrived.

As far as the bulimia is concerned, it is not as good an attention seeking advice as anorexia is. Its possible that Diana copied her older sister's behavior looking to gain sympathy and in copying the behavior she developed the disorder. Bulimia is not a physical chemical imbalance but rather a behavioral disorder and it can be learned.

[diamondBrg]

I have read a couple of different accounts regarding her eating disorder and the effect it had on her marriage. In both books it was reported that Diana would return to Prince Charles smelling of mouthwash and vomit. I personally find that VERY unattractive and unappealing and can certainly understand why HRH Prince Charles would as well and not want to be intimate with her.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I don't think Diana was using the self-harm story as a sympathy getting device. She seemed too embarassed in the Panorama interview when she talked about it and seemed to want to get over the subject quickly. These rumours were around before the Morton book and I don't think the self-harm stories were the types of the scoops that she fed to Richard Kay in the early days of the marriage. Diana had to tow a very fine line between attracting sympathy for her problems and convincing people she wasn't crazy. That's why I think the whole interview looks so stiff and contrived.

Perhaps the embarrassment was because she knew it was a story she had invented, that had threatened to engulf her! The same way the marriage breakdown was because there were three in the marriage, rather than four and all the other things that led to the breakdown, that were not mentioned.

Whilst I can accept she had some problems in her life, many predating Charles and after her marriage, I find it hard to accept that all the nastiness was due to this illness or that. She certainly wasn't suffering from Bulimia or self harming when she was introduced as Charles' proposed fiancee!