The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
View Poll Results: When did your opinion of Diana start to change and why?
Morton book (1990) 25 9.80%
War of the Waleses (starting 1990) 20 7.84%
Squidgygate (1992) 12 4.71%
Hewitt affair (1993) 17 6.67%
Charles' interview (1994) 5 1.96%
Panorama interview (1995) 43 16.86%
Phone calls to Oliver Hoare (1994) 14 5.49%
Dodi al-Fayed (1997) 23 9.02%
Other (please explain) 96 37.65%
Voters: 255. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Princess Diana was a nice, sweet English Rose when she was introduced as Charles' proposed fiancee, but living at BP changed her because of the pressure and Charles' not totally commited to her.
I doubt that. She was not a beggar's daughter from Clapham but grew up in a privileged home. Her father had been in Royal service, so as a young girl she must have known a abit about the way life at the RF was conducted. The Royals invited her often enough IMHO for her to get an adult impression of this life when she was a potential bride for Charles.

IMHo she deliberately decided to charm Charles and to put all potential problems under the carpet for as long as she was wooing him. She obvioulsy knew enough of his expectations to convince him that she was the right bride.

I seriously doubt that the story about Camilla selecting the innocent Diana as a "womb". While I believe there were a lot rather down to earth considerations on all sides (including Diana's and Charles' family), I think the main focus was the question if a marriage between Charles and Diana could work out and how?

Okay, probably all parties involved wore glasses too rosy-coloured but I guess noone on the RF's side could have imagined how vindictive Diana could be if she met with resistance. But how could that be if they were so careful? How could they not realise that Diana wanted the things to work out her way- so much that she ended as a loose cannon for the monarchy?

My only explanation is that Diana pretended to be a sweet English rose and was careful to hide her thorns and claws. She pretended to try to be friends with Charles' circle and she pretended to be able to adapt to the strictures of BP. But living the life of a sweet pretender when you have quite an ego yourself is tough. Especially when you experience early on that no good behaviour and no birthing of sons is going to change the way life is led by the RF. I believe she thought she could change and influence her and Charles' life once she was the wife of the heir. She probably didn't realise before her marriage that Charles liked his life as it was and was not willing to change it for her, that his parents thought their life was okay as it was.

And why not? I doubt Charles made any promises but looked for a girl who fitted his bill. If she had shown that she didn't fit the bill he would not have married her - and I think she knew that from the beginning but thought that the circumstance of their being married would give her leverage to force him to change. Or that he loved her enough to change. Stupid girl (says the mature wife). IMHO she woke up one morning early in their marriage and realised that his love was not so deep that he would change his lifestyle.

She didn't realise IMHO that he might feel betrayed, that she was not longer trustworthy in his eyes when it turned out that she had lied about enjoying his activities and the friendship of his circle.

IMHO she could still be alive and Charles' princess if she had accepted that he was not changing his lifestyle but would allow her to live her own life as long as she held up appearances. A lot of married couples live that way - especially if they have a reason to do it. But Diana wanted it all - or nothing. In the end she lost anything.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #242  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:45 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
georgiea, I hate to put you on the spot but do you really believe this?
Yes, I truly do believe this. I would not have written it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
The reason I am asking is that describing Diana's situation like this tends to paint her as a victim - a victim of others (Charles' uncaring) a victim of circumstances (the pressures of being a princess) and a victim of her biology (her mental illness) This type of belief has the victim mentality written all over it and it bespeaks of not accepting a person's responsibility. If Diana were psychotic with an illness like schizophrenia then I would say that her illness controlled her actions but she wasn't that sick.
There was a lot on Princess Diana plate those first few years as a princess. I think she is a victim because of those factors - young, immature, from a broken family, press intrusion, bulimia, pregnant, post-pregnant depression, new wife, new mother, spoiled, genes, a marriage that was convienent, and royal princess role. I do not think it was only her illness, but many, bad luck factors as stated above. She did not take responsiblity for her marriage until it was too late to save. I think if she would have not gotten pregnant so soon and helped herself with bulimia and gotten to know Prince Charles - well they might have a marraige of friendship or of convience now.

I can not accept that she was just a scheming, bad natured person that some people on this forum express.
__________________

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #243  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:07 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Yes, I truly do believe this. I would not have written it.



There was a lot on Princess Diana plate those first few years as a princess. I think she is a victim because of those factors - young, immature, from a broken family, press intrusion, bulimia, pregnant, post-pregnant depression, new wife, new mother, spoiled, genes, a marriage that was convienent, and royal princess role. I do not think it was only her illness, but many, bad luck factors as stated above. She did not take responsiblity for her marriage until it was too late to save. I think if she would have not gotten pregnant so soon and helped herself with bulimia and gotten to know Prince Charles - well they might have a marraige of friendship or of convience now.

I can not accept that she was just a scheming, bad natured person that some people on this forum express.
Thanks for your cordial response, georgiea; I was hoping you would not take things personally.

However may I pose to you another question? The Diana you describe is the 20 year old virgin that married Charles. Don't you think she was a bit different when she died at 37? Don't you think that its reasonable to expect a woman to achieve a deeper maturity at the age of 37 than she had at the age of 20 even if she had been horribly deceived at that young age?

If Diana had died at the age of 20 in a car wreck I would have agreed with you; she wouldn't have had time to make something of her life; but she died at 36 which up til a few years ago was considered almost middle aged and not young any more. If Diana realized right after the marriage how bad it was then she had 16 years to figure out what to do about it. In sixteen years, its not unreasonable to expect someone to come up with some more sensible options than the ones she pursued. Even with an emotional instability. I know a woman who had terrible anorexia and one failed marriage, a nonsupportive marriage and a bad economic outlook and by the age of 36 she had gotten her life to a better place than Diana had done.

The image of Diana that you paint is unfortunately not a clear and truthseeming image of the woman that died in that tunnel in Paris on the night of August 31, 1997.
__________________
"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
  #244  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:22 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
There was a lot on Princess Diana plate those first few years as a princess. I think she is a victim because of those factors - young, immature, from a broken family, press intrusion, bulimia, pregnant, post-pregnant depression, new wife, new mother, spoiled, genes, a marriage that was convienent, and royal princess role.
I can not accept that she was just a scheming, bad natured person that some people on this forum express.
Than anybody is a victim. I bet if you look close enough at some real nasty person's past, you can find all kind of things that have victimised them. Does that excuse all they do?

But noone is "just a" person. People are complex and in order to form an opinion about somebody you need to find criteria suitable to judge them.

For me the most important criteria is the choice people make when they get into troubles. Let's say: Diana married the prince believing in his love and his eagerness to make a life with her that both could enjoy. She found out this wasn't true.

What choice did she make at that point in her life? She decided that because she suffered, he and all others responsible for her situation should suffer, too. In doing so, she did not even stop when it came to her own children and their involvement. This is callous IMHO. A callous choice by a callous person.

What did Charles do? Looking unhappy and turning to another woman. Okay, he propably fueled Diana's rage through this behaviour. But he did not start the War of the Wales - that was Diana with her permanent upstaging and belittling him. It was Diana who opened the can of worms with her feeding Morton her side of the story.

Diana IMHO manoeuvered herself in a position where there was no going back and she did not count the bodies and souls she left behind. That was something based in her character and not in someone else's doing. We will never know what happened between princess Alexandra and prince Joachim of Denmark. Does that mean it wasn't as worse as what Diana experienced? Or does that only mean that Alexandra has a different character, a differetn way to deal with a crisis and a different way to care for her innocent children?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #245  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Princess Diana was a nice, sweet English Rose when she was introduced as Charles' proposed fiancee,......
On that we have no option but to disagree, as it is most definitely not the description I would use to describe her at that time or after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palantine View Post
......SNIPPED.....My only explanation is that Diana pretended to be a sweet English rose and was careful to hide her thorns and claws. She pretended to try to be friends with Charles' circle and she pretended to be able to adapt to the strictures of BP. But living the life of a sweet pretender when you have quite an ego yourself is tough. Especially when you experience early on that no good behaviour and no birthing of sons is going to change the way life is led by the RF. I believe she thought she could change and influence her and Charles' life once she was the wife of the heir. She probably didn't realise before her marriage that Charles liked his life as it was and was not willing to change it for her, that his parents thought their life was okay as it was.
Many women have 'believed' they can change a man or the way he lives, the divorce courts are full of them. We go back to the old gripe, that Diana thought everyone and thing should be altered to what she wanted. From not meeting up with his friends so often, not going to productions he enjoyed, insisting that his dog be rehomed, right down to not spending time in the country. Any marriage is built on give and take, without that the marriage had no chance. Demanding Charles give up his pursuits, his friends is as serious a crime as asking hubby to give up chocolate!
__________________
  #246  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:43 PM
Melania's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 102
I think Diana might have known her marriage with Charles was arranged because she later admitted that she had only met him nine times before their wedding day. Also, she admitted that on her wedding day she felt like a lamb being led to the slaughter (and, as a result, not like a woman marrying the man she loves on her wedding day.) Clearly, Diana understood her marriage was arranged to some degree. Even her grandmother was in on the arrangements being a lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother.

Surely someone, maybe her older sister who was once linked with Charles, communicated to her the idea that it might be an arranged marriage. Most people probably knew that Camilla Parker-Bowles was the lady in Charles’ life and could have told her. This makes you think, where did Diana’s obsession with having Charles’ love come from if she knew (she had to have known) that their relationship, to a large degree, was arranged? Even Charles’ famous response to questions on their love for each other, “Whatever love is,” should have been a clue for Diana. But being the spoiled child that she was, she was hell-bent on getting Charles to love her.

She wanted her cake and to eat it too. This shows a little bit about Diana’s spoiled nature.
__________________
  #247  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:45 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
But I can understand Diana's attitudes when she went into the marriage though. When I first starting hitting the gay scene at about 17, I met guys and if they didn't tick my exact idea of perfect then I wasn't willing to give them the time of day. Now I realise that people don't respond to a checklist and I actually don't like being measured against a list of demands either. Now, Charles was older than Diana and would already have realised that people aren't star crossed lovers and that relationships need work, that people aren't made in a "Husband/Wife 2000" machine and that there's some things you just put up with. Diana didn't learn that lesson until much later and I think that was unfortunate because had she been aware of it when she married, she would have had a happier time. I'm 20 now and when I meet guys, I don't greet them with a list of likes and dislikes. I think the relationship would have lasted longer had she learned that lesson before they married but then again, I don't know if I could stomach a marriage with 3 people in it. In a relationship where you know it's casual and open it's a little different but I wonder how much of that Diana was led to expect?
__________________
  #248  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:54 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
However may I pose to you another question? The Diana you describe is the 20 year old virgin that married Charles. Don't you think she was a bit different when she died at 36? Don't you think that its reasonable to expect a woman to achieve a deeper maturity at the age of 36 than she had at the age of 20 even if she had been horribly deceived at that young age?
Yes, if she gets out of the bad situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
The image of Diana that you paint is unfortunately not a clear and truthseeming image of the woman that died in that tunnel in Paris on the night of August 31, 1997.
Diana at 36 was a young woman who just got her independence and trying out her new found freedom. I believe she lived in a fish bowl until then, because she was afraid to lose her children and to damage them. The children were ready at 11 and 14 to have divorced parents. Also, I believe she wanted to see what happen to Fergie's divorce and how she could get more out of BRF with her own divorce.

If you live in a unhealthy environment for 15 years to me it would be hard to change your personality and actions, because you are in that intolerable situation. I do believe if she got out of the situation she would have healed her soul sooner. I still see her as a victim because of what she was up against being in that situation.

No one can really judge a person until they live in their shoes.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #249  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:11 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Diana at 36 was a young woman who just got her independence and trying out her new found freedom. I believe she lived in a fish bowl until then, because she was afraid to lose her children and to damage them. The children were ready at 11 and 14 to have divorced parents. Also, I believe she wanted to see what happen to Fergie's divorce and how she could get more out of BRF with her own divorce.
Thanks for your answer georgiea. I would agree with you except that I would say that Diana was a victim of her choice of actions in response to her situation rather than just her situation. I admit her situation wasn't good. If she had committed suicide while being pregnant with William I would have said that she had made a worse choice than just hanging around seeing what Sarah was going to get. If she had left earlier, like you I would say she would have made a healthier decision. But regardless of the choices she could have made, the life she led was a result partly of the choices that she actually did make.
__________________
"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
  #250  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
.................. I don't know if I could stomach a marriage with 3 people in it. In a relationship where you know it's casual and open it's a little different but I wonder how much of that Diana was led to expect?
I think you can judge by pictures of Diana and Camilla together that Diana knew what was going on and did not like it one little bit: These were pictues when the 2 of them showed up to watch Charles participate in some horse racing content. Diana appeared to be cringing away from Camilla in no uncertain form.

I think most of us would find it quite disturbing to have our fiance's mistress hanging around all the time even if this mistress, or maybe especially if this mistress was all warm and friendly and motherly. It must have been surreal for anyone not raised in a polygamous society.
__________________
  #251  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:37 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well yes. I'm assuming Diana did know what was going on but didn't she tell us that she'd always been aware of Camilla? But surely any Royal arranged marriage comes with the possibility of other partners and you prepare for that? Or rather, you should be prepared for that.
__________________
  #252  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:47 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Thanks for your answer georgiea. I would agree with you except that I would say that Diana was a victim of her choice of actions in response to her situation rather than just her situation. I admit her situation wasn't good. If she had committed suicide while being pregnant with William I would have said that she had made a worse choice than just hanging around seeing what Sarah was going to get. If she had left earlier, like you I would say she would have made a healthier decision. But regardless of the choices she could have made, the life she led was a result partly of the choices that she actually did make.
Well, the first victim of Diana was herself. Her personality always seemed to be cut in two. One day she would do that, the second she'd regret, etc. Her low self-esteem played a major role in her choices ; when you are insecure, you tend to hurry to take a decision, more often it comes up that it was the wrong one. It's already disturbing but even more when this person is as stubborn as Diana because, like her friends, you can try everything you want to make her change her decision, there's nothing to do. And that's how great mistakes are done, i.e. the Panorama Interview.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #253  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Anyway -- back semi-on-topic to how opinions of Diana changed, it's interesting to remember the content of some editions of the Sunday’s British Press that were already in circulation by the time word came early morning that Diana had died. Before her death, Diana was kind of a laughing stock with a lot of "dumb blond" jokes or mocking comments about how many hours she spent in the hair salon for each hour she spent hugging a sick kid.

The Sunday Mirror of August 31 1997 had an article about how the queen planned to let the Royal warrants for Harrods lapse because the Royal Family were furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 41, which they believed further undermined the Monarchy. This article also noted that MI6 had prepared a report on the Fayeds, which would be presented at an early September meeting of the Royal policy think-tank, The Way Ahead Group. A friend of the royal family was quoted: “Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds: at a dinner party, during a country shoot, and while on a visit to close friends in Germany. He’s been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy. Options must include exile...................

So a big change from before and after Diana's death has been that Prince Philip has nothing else to say on that subject anymore and the dumb blonde jokes have turned into Apologetic Tones of Deference or to Defensive Anger by the British Press.

Unfortunately it looks like we might have permanently missed the salacious details of part 2 of Squidgygate as the Enemy Camp hurled a retaliatory blow. This new one was from a different conversation with James Gilbey and was reported to be "hot, hot, hot -- full of sexual innuendo, and far more explicit than the one we all heard before.” Promises were made to follow up with more detail in that Sunday Edition of August 31, 1997 but nothing else has ever been heard.
__________________
  #254  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:10 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Unfortunately it looks like we might have permanently missed the salacious details of part 2 of Squidgygate as the Enemy Camp hurled a retaliatory blow. This new one was from a different conversation with James Gilbey and was reported to be "hot, hot, hot -- full of sexual innuendo, and far more explicit than the one we all heard before.”
My god, why can't they let people live ?! I remember very well Ken Lennox in the documentary The Witnesses in the tunnel. He was maybe the first paparazzi in London who received the crash pictures and he DID want to publish them (some of them even showed Diana and Dodi in the state you can imagine). Then, the news of her death gained the world and they finally realised how miserable they were. It shows really well how there need to be a tragic event for people to wake up. How could they even look at these pictures ?!
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #255  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:20 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
The Sunday Mirror of August 31 1997 had an article about how the queen planned to let the Royal warrants for Harrods lapse because the Royal Family were furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 41, which they believed further undermined the Monarchy. This article also noted that MI6 had prepared a report on the Fayeds, which would be presented at an early September meeting of the Royal policy think-tank, The Way Ahead Group. A friend of the royal family was quoted: “Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds: at a dinner party, during a country shoot, and while on a visit to close friends in Germany. He’s been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy. Options must include exile...................

So a big change from before and after Diana's death has been that Prince Philip has nothing else to say on that subject anymore and the dumb blonde jokes have turned into Apologetic Tones of Deference or to Defensive Anger by the British Press
I never knew this article came out. Well maybe Mr. al Fayed is right all these years about his conspiracy theories of the accident. I am glad he is getting this inquest.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #256  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:30 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
...., I don't know if I could stomach a marriage with 3 people in it. In a relationship where you know it's casual and open it's a little different but I wonder how much of that Diana was led to expect?
That's only if you buy into the 'there were three in the marriage' right from the start. Charles had lots of friendships with women in his circle at that time and they were, IMO, just friendships, long standing, at ease friendships.

The trouble with joining any long standing circle of friends, is I would imagine that the newcomer can't help but feel insecure and imagine all sorts of things being said or done. None of the group has spoken of the effort they made to welcome Diana, but I can't see them being anything other than friendly and welcoming, if not for Diana's sake, then for Charles'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
I think you can judge by pictures of Diana and Camilla together that Diana knew what was going on and did not like it one little bit: These were pictues when the 2 of them showed up to watch Charles participate in some horse racing content. Diana appeared to be cringing away from Camilla in no uncertain form.
Pictures as we know can be chosen to portray anything the editors want! The pictures I remember from the time, showed a Diana and Camilla laughing and joking at a polo match.
__________________
  #257  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:40 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
The Sunday Mirror of August 31 1997 had an article about how the queen planned to let the Royal warrants for Harrods lapse because the Royal Family were furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 41, which they believed further undermined the Monarchy. This article also noted that MI6 had prepared a report on the Fayeds, which would be presented at an early September meeting of the Royal policy think-tank, The Way Ahead Group. A friend of the royal family was quoted: “Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds: at a dinner party, during a country shoot, and while on a visit to close friends in Germany. He’s been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy. Options must include exile...................
Is there a link to any of this? If Philip or anybody had been talking of exile for Diana, I am certain the entire UK media would have picked up on it and it is certainly not something I recall reading, even in the early editions. The only early edition I saw that had comments past the 'yet another holiday', was The Guardian, which called Diana a woodentop and made comments about her needing to be watered.

If MI6 had prepared a dossier on the Fayeds, it would have been presented to the government, not a royal think tank.

Far from Diana's antics being seen as damaging to the monarchy, once the media had turned on her as it had begun to, she would have fallen far from grace in the UK publics eye, thus strengthening Charles position.
__________________
  #258  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,324
My Opinion of her changed when it came to light that shed carried on with other men the press blamed Charles but he seems more Victim than Villan. Diana was a great Humanatarian but also she seemed rather Manipulative
__________________
  #259  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Is there a link to any of this?
No internet link, but I did give you a reference to the hard copy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If MI6 had prepared a dossier on the Fayeds, it would have been presented to the government, not a royal think tank.
No doubt the MI6 follows all sorts of different rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Far from Diana's antics being seen as damaging to the monarchy, once the media had turned on her as it had begun to, she would have fallen far from grace in the UK publics eye, thus strengthening Charles position.
The British Press had been making fun of Diana for many years. They were just starting to come around to seeing her more as a great humanitarian -- she was on her way to becoming the next Mother Teresa of Calcutta, no I mean of the Middle East somewhere.
__________________
  #260  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Another stupid question here, can a person STILL be EXILED from the UK? Is that still possible?
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
andrew morton, diana princess of wales, dodi fayed, james hewitt, jonathan dimbleby, oliver hoare, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, squidgygate


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 Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
What would you change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 20 06-23-2010 06:31 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]