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
 
  #361  
Old 01-07-2008, 04:26 PM
cde cde is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Marina del rey, United States
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by carewandroscoe View Post
my opinion of princess diana has not changed. she is a direct descendant of john churchill, older sister arabella put out for buckingham, first duke of marleborough. diana spencer married beneath her social class.
Diana married beneath her social class? Really? Then why did the Spencer family want so desperately to marry into the RF? Something they wanted to do for a number of generations IIRC. Last time I looked a HRH Prince tops an Earl.
__________________

  #362  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:01 PM
andrew's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arad, Romania
Posts: 205
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rani View Post
Whatever her actions,Diana was used. She was used to obtain an heir and spare. She was used by her husband,who really didn't want anyone but Camilla. She was used by Camilla who wouldn't let go. The entire royal family knew what was going on,and willingly sacrificed a young woman. Her subsequent actions were to carve a place for herself,and eventually when she lost an unwinnable battle,an attempt to maintain her place in her children's lives and a useful role for herself.
We all loved Diana because she has made the Fairy tale seem like a whole. There was the Prince there was the beautifull girl, the wedding, the two nice children and a 'happily ever after' would have fit this enumeration.
Unfortunately we are not living in a Fairy-tale nor do the Royals. What happened to Charles, Diana and Camilla was rather 'common'. Life can create far more worse situations than theirs.
Was Diana a victim? Well, certainly she was, but doesn't everyone of us consider him/herself a victim? It's a matter of the point of view.
__________________

  #363  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:14 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by rani View Post
Whatever her actions,Diana was used.
Being used does not exonerate from all. We are all used for this and that, that's nothing special. Diana had her own agenda - she was pretty willing to produce an heir and spare. She was pretty willing to be a princess - the only thing she didn't want was to become part of a real family, wife to a real husband instead of the prince of her dreams. She used the RF, the media and the whole world as her playground and she lost the game in the end. That's pretty sad for some, I can understand that. But she was not an innocent bystander taken into a foul game, she was very much the player there. And only history will tell if she was not at the source of the foul game at all.

The Rf had a lot to loose if they only used Diana. being part of a family "firm" has much to do with take, that's right. But you have to give as much as you take. But for Diana, what she was given was never enough, it was simply never enough. No wonder Charles turned to somebody who prefered giving to taking!
__________________
'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.
  #364  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:26 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by rani View Post
Whatever her actions,Diana was used. She was used to obtain an heir and spare. She was used by her husband,who really didn't want anyone but Camilla. She was used by Camilla who wouldn't let go. The entire royal family knew what was going on,and willingly sacrificed a young woman. Her subsequent actions were to carve a place for herself,and eventually when she lost an unwinnable battle,an attempt to maintain her place in her children's lives and a useful role for herself.
I take it your opinion of Diana hasn't changed then. Your statement that Camilla wouldn't let go, is of course only your opinion!

Could it be that far from Diana being used, she was the one doing the using. After all she got fame and fortune out of the alliance.
  #365  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:26 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
No wonder Charles turned to somebody who prefered giving to taking!
That still doesen't excuse his affair with Camilla...
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #366  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:34 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
That still doesen't excuse his affair with Camilla...
Well, for me it was love, simply love. And I believe they tried to be as "good" as they could, but once you're entangled in a triangle with at least one vindictive partner there is not much to do to make it a clean operation. Charles and Camilla coped - somehow. Maybe they were not perfect but I believe that they did at least want to spare the kids.
__________________
'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.
  #367  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:41 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #368  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
This Diana/Camilla/Charles situation is just not that complicated to me. It is not the first nor will it be the last time this has happened, including in the Royal Family.

Diana, to put it bluntly, was STUPID. She thought she could have it all, that this Prince on a white horse would "save" her from her big, bad, uggies dragons of life, he did not.

For some reason that still escapes me, this common girl thought she could take on the Royal Family IN THE UNITED KINGDOM of all places and win, obviously that was a mistake in judgment.

Diana thought being the mother of a future King would insulate her, another stupid assumption on her part. No matter what else, SHE WAS STILL AN IN LAW, NOT BLOOD. The same could be said for the late Queen Mother and the living Prince Philip. They MARRIED into that family, they were not BORN into it, BIG DIFFERENCE.
  #369  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:47 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Being used does not exonerate from all. We are all used for this and that, that's nothing special. Diana had her own agenda - she was pretty willing to produce an heir and spare. She was pretty willing to be a princess - the only thing she didn't want was to become part of a real family, wife to a real husband instead of the prince of her dreams. She used the RF, the media and the whole world as her playground and she lost the game in the end. That's pretty sad for some, I can understand that. But she was not an innocent bystander taken into a foul game, she was very much the player there. And only history will tell if she was not at the source of the foul game at all.

The Rf had a lot to loose if they only used Diana. being part of a family "firm" has much to do with take, that's right. But you have to give as much as you take. But for Diana, what she was given was never enough, it was simply never enough. No wonder Charles turned to somebody who prefered giving to taking!
As I do agree with most of your post Jo, I don't think Diana was actually "refusing" to be part of the family. The fact that the RF isn't an "average" family was already a factor to Diana's sadness and unwillingness to integrate the RF, I mean by that that she should have been aware it wouldn't be the best cure to her search of comfort. Her own family was torn apart ; she should have looked for someone who would have time for her and willing to build something without any conditions.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #370  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
As I do agree with most of your post Jo, I don't think Diana was actually "refusing" to be part of the family. The fact that the RF isn't an "average" family was already a factor to Diana's sadness and unwillingness to integrate the RF, I mean by that that she should have been aware it wouldn't be the best cure to her search of comfort. Her own family was torn apart ; she should have looked for someone who would have time for her and willing to build something without any conditions.
Do you really believe there is such a thing, I assume you mean unconditional love? Most adults understand that outside love novels, there is no such thing, it is romantic nonsense.
  #371  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:51 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I take it your opinion of Diana hasn't changed then. Your statement that Camilla wouldn't let go, is of course only your opinion!

Could it be that far from Diana being used, she was the one doing the using. After all she got fame and fortune out of the alliance.
I agree but the fame and fortune will never give you happiness .
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #372  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:53 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Do you really believe there is such a thing, I assume you mean unconditional love? Most adults understand that outside love novels, there is no such thing, it is romantic nonsense.
No, what I meant was that she should have looked for someone who was like her : searching for the same thing.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #373  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?
I can't speak for Jo, but I condone their affair. And I condone Diana's affair with Hewitt, too.

I think it was clear by 1986 that the marriage was over in all but name and that the parties were both desperately unhappy in a way that is probably impossible for us to comprehend. The situation is addressed in some detail by Dimbleby in Chapter 20 of his biography of Charles. At page 394 he writes: "Given the pressures to which they were both subjected by the demands of public life, theirs would have been an exceptionally testing partnership even if they had been able to stumble towards true companionship. However, the Princess's persistent and intense distress combined with his bafflement and exhaustion to make that modest ambition, which they both shared, impossible to realise. Thus, by 1986, their marriage had begun slowly to disintegrate in what were, for both of them, the most excruciating circumstances. That handful of their friends who knew and understood felt only compassion and pity for their shared predicament."

In November 1986 Charles wrote to a friend, "Frequently I feel nowadays that I'm in a kind of cage, pacing up and down in it and longing to be free. How awful incompatibility is, and how dreadfully destructive it can be for the players in this extraordinary drama. It has all the ingredients of a Greek tragedy....I fear I'm going to need a bit of help every now and then for which I feel rather ashamed. All I want to do is to help other people..."

Any other couple would have been able to separate and divorce without the world watching, but these two both thought they were stuck in this Hell for life. They both needed something the other couldn't provide. They both needed friends, and lovers. Charles turned to his old friends whom he had expelled at Diana's behest, and Camilla too. Diana turned to Hewitt for friendship and love. I don't hold the fact of their affairs against either of them.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #374  
Old 01-07-2008, 07:22 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
I can't speak for Jo, but I condone their affair. And I condone Diana's affair with Hewitt, too.

I think it was clear by 1986 that the marriage was over in all but name and that the parties were both desperately unhappy in a way that is probably impossible for us to comprehend. The situation is addressed in some detail by Dimbleby in Chapter 20 of his biography of Charles. At page 394 he writes: "Given the pressures to which they were both subjected by the demands of public life, theirs would have been an exceptionally testing partnership even if they had been able to stumble towards true companionship. However, the Princess's persistent and intense distress combined with his bafflement and exhaustion to make that modest ambition, which they both shared, impossible to realise. Thus, by 1986, their marriage had begun slowly to disintegrate in what were, for both of them, the most excruciating circumstances. That handful of their friends who knew and understood felt only compassion and pity for their shared predicament."

In November 1986 Charles wrote to a friend, "Frequently I feel nowadays that I'm in a kind of cage, pacing up and down in it and longing to be free. How awful incompatibility is, and how dreadfully destructive it can be for the players in this extraordinary drama. It has all the ingredients of a Greek tragedy....I fear I'm going to need a bit of help every now and then for which I feel rather ashamed. All I want to do is to help other people..."

Any other couple would have been able to separate and divorce without the world watching, but these two both thought they were stuck in this Hell for life. They both needed something the other couldn't provide. They both needed friends, and lovers. Charles turned to his old friends whom he had expelled at Diana's behest, and Camilla too. Diana turned to Hewitt for friendship and love. I don't hold the fact of their affairs against either of them.
I understand both Charles and Diana had affairs but I don't condone it.

Coming from parents whose marriage also disintergraded and turned to other people for comfort, I witnessed first hand how affairs could make a marriage much more worse. After seeing the failures of my own parent's marriage, C&D's marriage and also the romantic relationships of my friends; I have realized that there is no point in staying in a relationship that cannot work.

Life is too short to stay in a troubled relationship, a year after the divorce Diana lost her life thats sad. She wasted 15 years of her life in that marriage.
I of course respect your opinion very much Roslyn.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #375  
Old 01-07-2008, 07:52 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person. Even if it's just a look at attractive boy in the newspaper or a little daydream about that guy in the supermarket, we just aren't monogamous as a species and the sooner society drops all these ridiculous constraints around relationships and just lets what will be, be, the sooner we'd all be alot happier.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #376  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:35 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
I understand both Charles and Diana had affairs but I don't condone it.

Coming from parents whose marriage also disintergraded and turned to other people for comfort, I witnessed first hand how affairs could make a marriage much more worse. After seeing the failures of my own parent's marriage, C&D's marriage and also the romantic relationships of my friends; I have realized that there is no point in staying in a relationship that cannot work.

Life is too short to stay in a troubled relationship, a year after the divorce Diana lost her life thats sad. She wasted 15 years of her life in that marriage.
I of course respect your opinion very much Roslyn.
And I respect yours.

My attitude to their affairs is based on their particular circumstances. They both thought they were trapped for life. I don't condone affairs generally.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #377  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:55 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person. Even if it's just a look at attractive boy in the newspaper or a little daydream about that guy in the supermarket, we just aren't monogamous as a species and the sooner society drops all these ridiculous constraints around relationships and just lets what will be, be, the sooner we'd all be alot happier.
Some of us certainly would , but are we really not designed to be monogamous? Surely the answer is on the internet.......

Yes it is! David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, has written a book about it with his wife, psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton: The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, published W. H. Freeman. The professor writes:

"Gorillas, despite their large bodies, have comparatively tiny testicles. Those of chimpanzees, by contrast, are immense. The reason for the difference seems clear: Gorilla males compete with their bodies, not their sperm. Once a dominant silverback male has achieved control over a harem of females, he is pretty much guaranteed to be the only male who copulates with them. Chimps, by contrast, experience a sexual free-for-all, with many different males often copulating in succession with the same adult female. As a result, male chimpanzees compete with their sperm, and they have evolved big testicles to produce large quantities of it. In most species, the ratio of testicle size to body size is a good predictor of how many sexual partners an animal is likely to have.

How, then, do human beings rate in this regard? The testicles of Homo sapiens are, relatively speaking, larger than those of gorillas but smaller than those of the champion chimpanzees. The most likely interpretation? Human beings are less certain of sexual monopoly than are gorillas, but are not as promiscuous as chimps. Another way of putting it: We are (somewhat) biologically primed to form mateships, but at the same time, adultery is no stranger in our evolutionary past."

Surprise, surprise!
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #378  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:07 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person.
At the very end of the day, human being aren't designed. We evolved. And according to Roslyn's research here, we evolved to be somewhat but not totally monogamous. Or somewhat but not totally promiscuous, depending on how you prefer to look at it.

However, there's a difference between biological and social evolution. Even though humans aren't necessarily monogamous naturally, and early humans in their small tribes would have had a somewhat different social structure from modern humans, the property and inheritance issues characteristic of more modern societies have meant that monogamy has been encouraged and in many cases enforced, even if it isn't a natural instinct. There are a lot of natural instincts which might have worked to advantage in prehistoric human societies but aren't acceptable in the complex and densely populated societies that exist now.
  #379  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
I must agree with you Elspeth. It depends on the people and their maturity. It also, depends on their egos. Some need their egos massaged by many, others know when they have a good thing. Some think they entitled, other know what loyalty and love mean. Totally depends on the relationship and the people.
  #380  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:39 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
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 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 08:09 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 05:29 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall's fashion e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week poland state visit to norway prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises