When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[georgiea]

Being essentially a high school drop out, Diana would have probably just lived sheltered, cushy life as the wife of a fellow aristocrat or nouveau riche social climber looking for blue-blooded connections.

I think if Diana, Princess of Wales did not marry Prince Charles she would have tried to marry Prince Andrew. She kept herself virginal for a reason.

Her whole family named her "Duch" because they teased her about Andrew. When Diana was growing up she played with Prince Andrew. Both her sisters marry aristocratic men, so hopefully she would have too.

But my opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales has never changed. She was human and she made mistakes, but she did much good too.

 

[ClassicRoyal]

I never knew just how alone she was

My opinion of Diana will always be that she was used by the Royal family for the heir. She wanted to much to be accepted and the public loved her, but she lived a lonely existence of exile within palace walls. She had played her part and was a bigger star than stodgy Charles. They should've given her the "royal treatment" and never let her go. Camilla will never take her place. It was a hard life for a young girl to put up with. She had no clue that her royal life would not be the fairy tale that nineteen year olds think are possible. I have always adored her, but never knew just how alone she was until I read the latest Paul Burrell book. It was mainly just her and him and secret meetings with Hasnat Khan. It was absolutely sad to hear how alone she was when she lay in state at KP. The Royal Family's treatment of Diana changed my opinion of them as being very unforgiving. Diana was what the epitome of being a royal should be - smiling, giving, loving, and understanding. The sad, ironic tragedy was that she was alone, yet the whole world stood still because of her loss. Frozen out by the royals, but not by those of us who love her still.

 

[Lovelydiana]

I was very young when Princess Diana died, I was only so I don't remeber her as a living person, I only remember when her funeral was on tv and I asked my dad what had happened and he told me. I instantly felt an immense sadness in my heart, and no other celebrity's death has ever affected me in that way. And then at around 11 years old I got a book about her from my friend who was moving away and ever since then I've been a Diana fan.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I have always adored her, but never knew just how alone she was until I read the latest Paul Burrell book. It was mainly just her and him and secret meetings with Hasnat Khan.

snip

Frozen out by the royals, but not by those of us who love her still.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that those who are alone are alone for a reason. Human beings tend to live in "flocks" and most of us manage to live that way because of the capability to forgive and forget, to compromise and to put the welfare of others before that of ourself. I wonder what you think about why Diana, who was so loved by so many people who did not know her personally but were acquainted with her image, was not able to find closeness with the people who knew her as a person, not a picture.

Reading the protocolls of the inquest into her death might help you to find an answer.

 

[mum]

My husband was posted to London and we arrived there during January 1981. (We stayed for 5 years and I loved every minute of it!). What a joy and surprise when Charles and Diana got engaged AND I WAS THERE!!! Still have the newspapers! Needless to say I became a huge Diana fan and thought that she was just perfect. By the time we left England (1986) it was clear that something was terribly wrong. Still I thought that she was being treated very unfairly by the RF and that she was being used. I wanted to believe that. Well, the Panorama interview did it for me as I realized then that no matter what, she distanced herself too far away from the RF to make any amends. It shattered my dreams and hopes for her and that made me very sad.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I found the second half of the Panorama more disturbing than the first part of it. There was a side of Diana coming through there that I'd never seen before; the less rational side of her was poking through. I also realized at that point that we'd misled by the Morton book, because up to the point of the interview there was no absolute proof that she had carried on extramarital affairs.

So my feelings toward her now are more nostalgia for the early years of her marriage, before she developed kind of a hard shell. I'm also sad that things couldn't have worked out differently.

 

[rmay286]

I definitely agree with this. The Panorama interview showed a very unattractive side of Diana, one that I think was better hidden or less developed before this.

I also agree with angelwngs that both Charles and Diana used the other. I don't really believe either of them intended to do so, or were aware of the fact, but I think they married for the wrong reasons and neither had much ability to maintain a healthy relationship: and as a result, the marriage fell apart pretty quickly. But I also agree with you, angelwngs, that Diana "played the game" well. Despite not being impressed with her as a role model, I have a bit of admiration for her ability to influence people. At its worst, it was deception and manipulation; at its best it was genuine compassion and personal magnetism.

When I do think about it, I guess I've come to see Diana's life as a kind of tragic waste (as far as any human life can be a "waste"). She wasted her own talents by choosing to focus instead on spite and self-promotion; and I think almost everyone in her life, at some point, used her (she was even born, supposedly, because Earl Spencer wanted a male heir and not out of any particular desire on the part of her parents to have more children). The royal family, including Charles, would rather have had a dutiful, emotionally stable princess than the real Diana; the media hounded her; and the public turned her into an idol. I really do believe that Diana (like every human being in the world) had many gifts, but I think even her good deeds are really outclipsed, in a way, by her trail of broken relationships and her tendency towards deception. I think if I had been on royalty forums while Diana was still alive I would have criticized her relentlessly...I know I didn't admire her at all at the time she died...but now, I feel sorry for how (relatively, despite William and Harry) pointless her life turned out to be, despite all the glitter and promise of the early 80s and her own capacity to be genuinely compassionate and unselfish.

 

[Royal Fan]

Dont remember 1 specific moment just over the years

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that one of the very good things that she did was draw attention to people who were sick, people who were without resources, people who had to live with landmines in their fields and streets. As active as the Royal Family has been in promoting various worthy agendas, no one can deny that Diana attracted media attention in a particular way; and that did shed light on the problems in many people's lives. There's no need to debate that she used the media, the media used her and that she manipulated the media to her own ends; the cameras and the microphones were there in Bosnia and Angola and hospital wards and hospices and leper wards, and we learned about things we otherwise wouldn't have known--only because Diana was there.

I definitely agree with this. The Panorama interview showed a very unattractive side of Diana, one that I think was better hidden or less developed before this.

I also agree with angelwngs that both Charles and Diana used the other. I don't really believe either of them intended to do so, or were aware of the fact, but I think they married for the wrong reasons and neither had much ability to maintain a healthy relationship: and as a result, the marriage fell apart pretty quickly. But I also agree with you, angelwngs, that Diana "played the game" well. Despite not being impressed with her as a role model, I have a bit of admiration for her ability to influence people. At its worst, it was deception and manipulation; at its best it was genuine compassion and personal magnetism.

When I do think about it, I guess I've come to see Diana's life as a kind of tragic waste (as far as any human life can be a "waste"). She wasted her own talents by choosing to focus instead on spite and self-promotion; and I think almost everyone in her life, at some point, used her (she was even born, supposedly, because Earl Spencer wanted a male heir and not out of any particular desire on the part of her parents to have more children). The royal family, including Charles, would rather have had a dutiful, emotionally stable princess than the real Diana; the media hounded her; and the public turned her into an idol. I really do believe that Diana (like every human being in the world) had many gifts, but I think even her good deeds are really outclipsed, in a way, by her trail of broken relationships and her tendency towards deception. I think if I had been on royalty forums while Diana was still alive I would have criticized her relentlessly...I know I didn't admire her at all at the time she died...but now, I feel sorry for how (relatively, despite William and Harry) pointless her life turned out to be, despite all the glitter and promise of the early 80s and her own capacity to be genuinely compassionate and unselfish.

 

[Grace Angel]

My opinion of her never changed. I grew up in the 1990s, and saw her as a fairytale Princess from an early age without completely understanding that the her life was much more complicated than that. But I did feel that she wouldn't live long even before she died- it just seemed hard to imagine her getting older when she was beauty, youth, and glamour, I guess. I really got interested in early 1995 when I saw a documentry on tv about her- not sure which one. But I really became interested in her after her death and have read pretty much everything about her. So the only change for me was that as I read more and more about her I realized the full complexity of her life, beyond my childhood idea of her as a fairytale Princess( I was 11 when she died).

 

[Lady Laura]

My opinion of Diana has never changed, she has always made me uncomfortable.
Her marriage to Prince Charles was so painfully ill matched in every way but especially emotionally and intellectualy. These are two people who were both emotionally starved, and needed much stronger partners than the other was. I never liked how fascinated she was, not only with the press, but with celebrities. I always think she would have been quite at home snobbing it up in New York or Hollywood having her picture plastered everywhere.
I feel she had no right trying to turn a nation against its future king, and she nearly succeeded.
But two things in particular really disgusted me. One was her very unroyal behaviour of calling members of the press to tell them where she would be, so that they could turn up and snatch pics of her "unexpectedly", while she then would turn around and complain about such attention.
The other is her pathetic dalliance with that loser Dodi...her taste in men was something to be desired, the thought of him gives me the creeps.

 

[Grace Angel]

Well, Prince Charles also did things that turned people against him. He had a very old fashioned concept of the British Monarchy, thought he could have a mistress and a wife, etc. But Diana did indeed blur the line between celebrity and royalty. Her dealings with the press as you note were a mistake. Dodi was indeed a poor choice, but I doubt it would have lasted. She mostly dated losers- remember James Hewitt? But Hasnat Khan was a good choice on her part.

 

[MARG]

Well, Prince Charles also did things that turned people against him. He had a very old fashioned concept of the British Monarchy, thought he could have a mistress and a wife, etc. . . . .

Not to turn this into another C.D.C. row, but the definition of a Mistress is that of a kept woman. Was she? We know they were lovers, as indeed we know Diana and Hewitt were lovers, but was he the male version of a Mistress? Were each of her lover's?

It's so easy to throw stones and blame the other side but essentially, in a marriage, you and you alone are responsible for your own actions, as indeed were Charles and Diana.

The notion that infidelity is the other partner's fault because they were unfaithful is about as valid as "He/she always makes me lose my temper and then I end up hurting her/him . . . . they made me do it!

Ugh! Adults are responsible for their own actions and there subsequent repercussions.

 

[Grace Angel]

What about that quote that you find in some books about Charles saying that his precedessors as Prince of Wales had mistresses so he expected he could too? I don't know the source (original) for this quote nor can I remember the exact wording of it. Diana and Charles certainly both had blame for the break up of their marriage though.. but this is kind of off topic for this thread, I guess.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't think it was anything that Charles actually said, just the normal invention or rumour, IMO.

 

[Roslyn]

I've always accepted he said it, but that he said it in the middle of an argument. I read an extract from Ken Wharfe's book where he described the way Charles & Diana would behave when they were having a fight: Diana would get all riled up and stomp about and Charles would be cool and in control and bait her. I can see him saying it in those circumstances.

 

[Skydragon]

Was it in Wharfes book or somewhere else Roslyn? I find it hard to believe that any man would be saying this, even in the heat of an argument.

 

[Grace Angel]

You can find it in several books, as I have read so many I'm not sure where it started. I first read it in the book about Princess Diana and fashion by Jackie Modlinger. But it has appeared in more serious books than that.

 

[Skydragon]

You can find it in several books, as I have read so many I'm not sure where it started.

I am sure you can, but many books as you know parrot one another and I wondered where it originated ie, where and when did it first appear.

 

[Lady Laura]

Yes, Hasnat Khan had some substance at least...Dodi was engaged to a model during his tryst with Diana...bleh!

 

[Roslyn]

Was it in Wharfes book or somewhere else Roslyn? I find it hard to believe that any man would be saying this, even in the heat of an argument.

I can. Arguments between spouses can bring out the very worst in otherwise sensitive, rational people. You are lucky to have not experienced that sort of thing.

I do not have a source for Charles actually saying the words about her seeming to want him to be the only PoW without a mistress. What I was talking about was an extract that reveals something of the dynamics of their relationship which led me to believe Charles could in fact have said those words. I finally found it. It is from Chapter 11 of Closely Guarded Secret, and appears about half way down the page linked below. Wharfe is talking about what went on when he was waiting with Diana and Charles to go to the state banquet for the King of Norway, in 1992 I think. Diana Continues To Fascinate - CBS News

I think the account of that incident shows the gulf between them, and also something of the dynamics of their relationship and the way they responded to each other. In isolation it probably doesn't mean much, but I think it does when you take into account the many statements that have been made about how they were not on the same wavelength and how Diana had a volatile temper and would get wound up and scream and rant irrationally.

Having read this account by Wharfe, I have no trouble believing that there was a pattern in which Diana had moods where she got more and more wound up and wouldn't let up or be influenced by reason. I can imagine Charles trying to remain calm but being worn down to the point where he was so exasperated he would either walk out or strike back with words he knew would have deadly effect. The Diana Wharfe was describing would certainly have driven me crazy.

 

[Mermaid1962]

So Wharfe wasn't within earshot when the statement in question was made?

the words about her seeming to want him to be the only PoW without a mistress. What I was talking about was an extract that reveals something of the dynamics of their relationship which led me to believe Charles could in fact have said those words. I finally found it. It is from Chapter 11 of Closely Guarded Secret, and appears about half way down the page linked below. Wharfe is talking about what went on when he was waiting with Diana and Charles to go to the state banquet for the King of Norway, in 1992 I think. Diana Continues To Fascinate - CBS News

 

[MissBojangles]

I am thirty years old, and have followed Diana since I was seven, in 1986. I first 'got into'Diana when the wedding of Andrew and Sarah was in the news, and as much as I found Fergie interesting, Diana caught my interest and that was it!

I have idolised her throughout my life, and will always support her memory, but I do acknowledge that she was a human being with real faults and didnt' always do the right thing.

I did sort of for a while feel a bit let down by Diana during her romance with Dodi Al Fayed. Not because of the man, but because of the attention seeking antics that she got up to that period (i.e making catty remarks about people etc). However, in the weeks before her death I pretty much got back to normal about my feelings for Diana.

The way I see her is that she wasn't a saint. Only a human being with some really superb qualities.

 

[wedmonds]

My opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales changed when I saw the 2006 film titled 'The Queen'. It took me into some insight on what it was like on the other side. And what the royals had to deal with putting up with this woman. I personally, do not think that she was the sweet innocent person that the papers tried to portray. I am not favoring Charles either. I am simply saying that she had her faults as well. Diana did some things to destroy that marriage by, nagging Charles all of the time, not trying to fit in with the other members of the royal family, and causing bad press for the royal family and embarrassment. The media simply does not understand what it was like for Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mother who tried there best to make sure that she didn't ruin the house of Windsor. May the Queen Mother rest in peace!

 

[sirhon11234]

The film wasn't 100% accurate.

 

[Grace Angel]

The film wasn't totally accurate as has been pointed out, but it's true that Diana had trouble fitting in with the RF. They were just different people, and I don't think you can blame the RF or Diana that they didn't mix well, they never would have, there were just too many differences.

 

[Duchess]

you do have to keep in mind that the movie was based on what was "thought" to have been going on within the royal family at the time...not actually what happened.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, that's true. I haven't seen the movie, and I'm not sure that I want to.

you do have to keep in mind that the movie was based on what was "thought" to have been going on within the royal family at the time...not actually what happened.

 

[Zonk]

I am a "fan" of Diana's and have never seen the movie for a variety of reasons...although I do own the DVD and I heard that Helen Mirren was fantastic in it. I simply have no desire to relive that moment..as it was very upsetting.

That being said, I am pretty comfortable knowing how the Queen operates and I am going to go with the assumption thta the movie is defiintely not 100% accurate. While Tony Blair might share his thoughts and memories of the events that transpired...the Queen is comfortable with a select group of people and they would never betray her trust. Its Hollywood's idea of the actual events.

In regards to Diana's relationship with Charles, James and Hasnat....I think she was truly looking to be loved. Its a shame that the marriage with Charles didn't work out...they were in love in the beginning but didn't love each other another to fight for their love or work it out.

 

[jcbcode99]

I think the age difference was one of the greatest undoing factors for Charles and Diana; she married him at such a young age; she went from being someone's daughter to someone's wife and had to create her identity under the watchful gaze of the media, her husband, and the Crown. That had to have been nerve-wracking. I have said, and will say again, that I do think she was a spoiled and spiteful child, and that she in many ways was still a child when she became the PoW and therefore, used childish tactics when trying to gain attention or get her way. I personally never believed the suicide attempt stories--I thought that was just more attention seeking on her part. Look at her life, her relationships, the way she would tip the press about her whereabouts--all attention seeking. Dont' get me wrong--I think she was a magnetic person, but I also think she was a manipulative person as well. I think that manipulation, childishness, and vindictive nature is what ultimately led Charles back to Camilla.
I do think, that around 34 she found herself and her purpose, and as a result, she found peace in her life; it is truly sad that she died so young.