When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[Mermaid1962]

That's why my opinion changed as well. I had given her the benefit of the doubt until she admitted the affair with Hewitt; then all the other stories seemed much more plausible. Then that all gave the lie to Her True Story's account that she was the victim of an adulterous husband and innocent of that kind of behaviour herself. The Panorama interview was really the turning point for me, but then other things started to fall into place as well.

My opinion changed when I realized how many lovers she had in her life.

 

[laura24]

My opinion changed when i knew about all her lovers. Even i could understand she wasn´t happy and she was looking for someone to love her, i couldent understand why she had lovers that where married.... Oliver Hoare, Will Carling.... she did to their wifes what Camilla was doing to her.. worst i think becouse she knew the suffering. Finally her romance with dodi didn´t help.

 

[Jaya]

helicopter?

My opinion of Diana changed soon after she kept harping about the paparazzi hounding her. It became a saga that could have been easily fixed. Well I just could not fathom why Jackie used a helicopter to get from the roofs of commercial buildings in Athens where she did a lot of shopping to the airport or anywhere else and Diana was stuck without a helicopter?
This went on for years on end and I was confounded how Diana could be so charismatic, caring compassionate and yet not have thought of this herself?She telephoned and hung up.[mistake]But Diana also did much good in the world by expressing whatever she had to give of herself to her calling. Even on the final night of her life I thought of Jackie and how she had always used a helicopter and I had seen her in Athens many times while the razzi were there waiting..zoom lenses and all. while Jackie would enter a helicopter at the top of the building and fly off. The razzi would be left behind. bye bye.And that is what I hoped for Diana too.Diana was neither damaged nor ill in any way I see.Diana was too self absorbed to realize she might have another choice as far as the razzi go and this kind of sensibility extended into other areas of her life without her realizingthe possible consequences..
You did not have to be Einstein to have figured this one out.Helicopter.

 

[Vicki J]

I went off her when she seemed to be encouraging the press and started to use them against Prince Charles. Its not nice to undermine a man without who she would have been a nobody. She didn't give a jot about the pain she caused their 2 sons with the book she wrote either.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I assume by Jackie you mean Jackie Kennedy Onassis?
Bearing in mind the BRF aren't as rich as Jackie was, to be seen flying around in a helicopter when she wasn't even a royal was a ridiculous idea.
What about when Diana had to travel from house to house?
If she used a helicopter as a car to press would have gone balistic at her.
The BRF are not celebrities, like Jackie O was.

I went off her when she seemed to be encouraging the press and started to use them against Prince Charles. Its not nice to undermine a man without who she would have been a nobody. She didn't give a jot about the pain she caused their 2 sons with the book she wrote either.

I agree with you, what she did to Charles using her popularity was awful. But yes her boys were probably hurt the most by the War of the Waleses.

 

[olga101]

My deeper insight into her life after learning about her attempts to find admiration, acceptance and "love" is how pathetic and what a waste of a life. That for possibly a selfish usurpation and maneuvering by a Country for an heir she might as she grew into a woman been an admirable human being. As we saw signs of it.

I see some good in her leaving these lovely young men who loved her and will carry on her well-intentioned and world-admired charity work.

And her spirit that knew, and however sought that she deserved some "love" and appreciation.

 

[Jaya]

I assume by Jackie you mean Jackie Kennedy Onassis?
Bearing in mind the BRF aren't as rich as Jackie was, to be seen flying around in a helicopter when she wasn't even a royal was a ridiculous idea.
What about when Diana had to travel from house to house?
If she used a helicopter as a car to press would have gone balistic at her.
The BRF are not celebrities, like Jackie O was.
I agree with you, what she did to Charles using her popularity was awful. But yes her boys were probably hurt the most by the War of the Waleses.

It is not as ridiculous as having Diana die accidentally and the fact you say they could not afford it is sheer conjecture. It was a matter of safety. The BRF could afford it although notconsidered it orofferitas an option and so could Diana.I have no idea what celebrity status has to do with life and death...and what point U are attempting to make.
Jackie used her brains which were plenteous.

 

[COUNTESS]

Since when aren't the BRF family as rich as Jackie O. Please, what a ridiculous statement. They have everything and then some and then some more. In the years that they never paid taxes, Jackie did. They also, shun the word "celebrity status", but they are out there getting there share of publicity. Mugging for the cameras. The problem was Diana was stealing their share of the page. They just want to seem above it. This myth that they are above manipulating the press for their benefit is also silly.

 

[Russophile]

Since when aren't the BRF family as rich as Jackie O.

Quite simply, they are richer than Jackie O ever was. Even though RFK paid her a stipend before he was assassinated, she received a stipend from the US Government for being a widow and Old Joe Kennedy put money into a trust so Jackie wouldn't leave JFK when he was running for President, Aristotle only gave her so much and was trying to dump her before he died, none of this money was enough for Jackie. Yes, Jackie used her brains, though Jackie never did anything without a purpose, Diana did the same in many respects.

 

[Jaya]

Since when aren't the BRF family as rich as Jackie O. Please, what a ridiculous statement. They have everything and then some and then some more. In the years that they never paid taxes, Jackie did. They also, shun the word "celebrity status", but they are out there getting there share of publicity. Mugging for the cameras. The problem was Diana was stealing their share of the page. They just want to seem above it. This myth that they are above manipulating the press for their benefit is also silly.

Thank you for that Countess. Everyone throws in an opinion and no truth will surface-.Jackie was almost a pauper compared to the BRF as a dynasty.Diana should and could have used a helicopter.Let us not have a pity party for the BRF and their supposed lack of money which would truly be spectacular if it equalled Jackie's shrewd brains .

 

[Anne-fan]

Well as I was very young as well, when Diana died, I didn't really have a chance to get to like her. That's why my opinion actually never quite changed. Although my mother sometimes talked about the Royals, so I got some kind of impression and as I grew older the media of course often praised Di and critized Camilla. At the beginning of becoming a royalist, I liked Diana. And at some point I disliked Camilla. But this soon changed. And this change didn't come because of any of the reasons we can choose in this poll. I just didn't like her pictures. I know this sounds superficially, but that's my first reason to dislike her. She always seemed so unreal on her pictures and I can't stand all this self-pity. Then someone presented me with this Morton biography. After I read it and saw her interviews etc. it was quite sure why I don't like her. Her behaviour was anything but honorable, graceful or whatever. It was embaressing in my eyes. Alright she wanted to get divorced and she fought for it - Well, she any rights to do this. But it's just the way how she fought. And making other people responsible for her sorrows... well marriage problems are always caused by two. If you can't accept you're own faults then is this the only reason for which I will pity you.

 

[Elenath]

As most people I thought the problems in Diana's and Charles' wedding were his fault and not hers. I think my view has become slightly more realistic since she died but it's still not negative towards Diana. I guess when people (who ever they are) get married they have dreams and a certain view of how that marriage should be. Diana being that young, probably had a different view than Charles, who only got married because he had to. Diana acted the way most people do when they are in an unhappy marriage (I should no, I worked at a divorce court) and that includes using the children against their spouse. I've also always had a distinct feeling Diana was very insecure and the royal family completely disregarded this. This may have stopped her emotional growth which would explain quite a lot. But these are all guesses since I have never met any of them and could be completely wrong...

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I think that Diana was very, very insecure. I think that in her desire to be loved and accepted, she was attracted to people who made a fuss over her--and those same people had their own agendas, such as Andrew Morton, Peter Settleton, Martin Bashir, and therapists and psychics.

Depending on how insecure a person is, that person can find it almost impossible to accept real love when it's offered because they don't feel worthy of it. So they're always looking for love and yet making it difficult for people to love them because they're so needy.

People can want to help insecure people but develop "compassion burnout" after a point.

I've also always had a distinct feeling Diana was very insecure and the royal family completely disregarded this.

 

[georgiea]

I really agreed Mermaid with your statement on Diana, Princess of Wales.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Thank you, georgiea. I'm glad that it made sense to you.

 

[agogo]

When she was alive, there was so much criticism and judgement directed towards her. After she died, everyone had such nice things to say about her. The press shapes a lot of public opinion about her.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't think that's true, after she divorced the Prince, the press changed their view of her. When she was married, all they wanted to do was take pictures of her and show her off.
She did use the press to her advantage a lot of the time.

Of course after she died the press were nice about her, on the surface, you can't really talk ill of a dead person, especially not the peoples princess.

 

[georgiea]

I think the press most of Diana, Princess of Wales marriage good to her. But after the separation and Diana getting rid of her bodyguards the press was after anything the could find especially her lovers.

When she died many books came out showing her unflattering light and some of it was true and some not. I think at the inquest some questions did not have to be brought up about Princess Diana and all her lovers and her menstruating cycle.

I really would love that Diana, Princess of Wales could rest in peace now.

 

[nascarlucy]

I'm a year younger than Princess Diana. I watched the wedding and hoped that they would be happy together but they weren't. Fairy tale weddings only exist in fantasy world. I could see that although she had glamour and had things that others only dreamed about, it wasn't a happy life. If she was happy, she wouldn't have had all the difficulties she had. She was not really prepared for royal life. In the interview, what she said and didn't say made this evident. In the interview she was a very sad person who spoke of being lonely. You could see that in her expression.

A woman who was a virgin and someone who could physically bear children were the main requirement of the job. Compatibility and similiar interests took a back seat to this. Love also took a bad seat.

When Prince Charles married he was 32 years old. By your early 30's, how many virgins are there out in their late to mid 30's. Very few. Most women in the early 1980's between the age of 22-30 had been married at least once. Some were divorced, a lot of them had children. Many of them lived with a guy before marriage. This was true regardless of their social class or standing. The age group that you would find any of them would be 18-22 (Diana was 19 years old).

In this case, I didn't take sides. I felt sorry for both sides as no one in this situation came out on top and both I believe everyone was hurt in the process.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I was a year younger than Diana as well. I think that there was a lot of fondness between them but different expectations as to what this dynastic marriage was really all about. Had they not courted and married, I think that they probably would have enjoyed running into each other in social circles; they did seem to really enjoy each others' company at first.

My view of Diana changed after the Panorama interview. When I heard her own words coming out of her own mouth, especially during the second half of the interview, I realized that she wasn't who I thought she was.

In this case, I didn't take sides. I felt sorry for both sides as no one in this situation came out on top and both I believe everyone was hurt in the process.

 

[Osipi]

A woman who was a virgin and someone who could physically bear children were the main requirement of the job. Compatibility and similiar interests took a back seat to this. Love also took a bad seat.

I remember watching the engagement video between Charles and Diana before the wedding and she was so starry eyed and blushing and he was saying "whatever love is." I really thought I must have heard something wrong but now it makes sense to me. As the Spencers were "close" to the throne, perhaps the BRF figured Diana knew the role and the Spencers figured they'd teach her?

You had a girl barely out of her teens with Charles photos on the wall and dreaming of a prince and happy ever after and man being pressured into marriage and the heir and the spare who'd rather stick with friends and read and be a farmer. Neither of them were at fault as they had no clue what they were getting into together. It seemed like a good idea at the time and might have worked if they could have somehow found common ground as friends first then worked into an engagement.. then marriage. We can go around about it till the cows come home but I can't put the failure on either one of them.

When did my opinion really change? It might sound crude but I voted others and the reason is that really reading about the last year and Khan and Dodi and Dodi's fiancee', it seemed to me more focus was Diana on Diana.
Struck me odd that reports just prior to her death was "wait till you see what I do next". I'm sure that's NOT what she intended but for me its that time period she just became Diana to me and not Princess of anything.

Here on TRF I've been lucky to get to know the Diana even more. She's done some really fantastic work in making the world aware of things that need to be known, just as Charles is still trying to do. I also see a lot of of her in her sons and how they remember her. I just hope that this is how history remembers them.

 

[georgiea]

When did my opinion really change? It might sound crude but I voted others and the reason is that really reading about the last year and Khan and Dodi and Dodi's fiancee', it seemed to me more focus was Diana on Diana.
Struck me odd that reports just prior to her death was "wait till you see what I do next". I'm sure that's NOT what she intended but for me its that time period she just became Diana to me and not Princess of anything.

Osipi, sorry that you feel that way to the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales. I believe that Princess Diana (a former member of the BRF) if she had more time on earth would have reinvented herself and serve good causes for mankind. I think a person has to take account of their life and move forward. Unfortunately Diana was killed when she was taking account. Diana will always be the People's Princess to me and she didn't need HRH. I just wish she could have lived and help the world as she was doing with her landmines campaign.

 

[Osipi]

It was during that time period that I just no longer regarded her as "princess". She was well on her way to becoming her own person when the accident happened and I'm sure that had history been different, she would have found a happy niche in life and hopefully the love she was seeking. There was so much she yet wanted to do.

 

[georgiea]

Osipi agreed!

 

[Duchess Sophie]

My opinion on Diana didn't really change. She is still one my favorite princesses. My opinion on the downfall of the marriage did change however. At first I blamed Charles first, later I blamed both. Now I blame the members of the household and friends of the couple for letting it escalate in such a media-war. I believe that from the moment that Diana and Charles started having problems, friends and members of the household choose sides. The fact that they leaked stories to press or did other things in order to help either Diana or Charles didn't help matters. It made Diana paranoid (my husband is doing this), and also Charles (he didn't thought she could play a game so nasty, and it destroyed the love he had for her). It also forced them to do stupid things: the Panorama interview (Diana) and the Dimbleby book (Charles, where Diana's state of mind was questioned for the first time). If their friends hadn't picked sides and didn't try to portray the other party as evil, but really tried to help the couple then the divorce wouldn't have turned so nasty. I really believe that later on, both Diana and Charles regretted what they did in that period. It was a hard period for both on them, and they were already on the nerves. Personell talking behind your back, friends leaking stories to the press,... it only made it worse.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree absolutely. Too many people were involved with the marriage, and I don't mean James Hewitt and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Even those of us who bought the papers and magazines that discussed the marriage are partly to blame, I think.

Personell talking behind your back, friends leaking stories to the press,... it only made it worse.

 

[Cadiva]

I was 11 when she married Charles and I don't recall having much of an impression of her then other than she was quite shy and a lot younger than him. As I grew older though, I never bought into the victim persona she liked to present as if to completely irradicate any sense of blame from her own actions.
I think she was "used" in its loosest term, by the Royal Family as a breeding machine but I also firmly believe she was completely aware that it was a marriage of dynastic convenience for Charles and herself. I do not believe she didn't know about Camilla when she married Charles. Imho, it's impossible that she couldn't have known about it because it wasn't a secret within the higher echelons of society from later accounts, even if the British press at that time didn't make much of deal about it.

I think she was a credit for her charity work, but no more so than any other member of the Royal Family who performs lots of charitable engagments and I think she became a very shrewd media manipulator. I think she was a flawed human being like everyone else and I think her troubled childhood was totally to blame for it.

ETA: I was 27 when she died and, personally, I think the hysteria over her death was completely bizarre. I am afraid I simply cannot subscribe to this mass outpouring of grief, similar to that when Michael Jackson died, that is completely driven by the media until the "masses" are whipped into a frenzy. I thought it was incredibly sad that she had died at such a young age but that was it. I didn't feel compelled to wail and gnash my teeth and go out and lay flowers. Personally I think that's one of the more distasteful traditions we seem to have picked up in the media age.

 

[Humera]

Demonstrations of communal/mass grief is not a creation of the media, it goes back centuries. The media might highlight it, yes, but it wouldn't go so far as to say people's actions are shaped by it. It's just that with the ease of communication and travel it is possible for far larger numbers of people to mobilize. And if someone wants to go out and lay flowers then that's because they were touched or saddened by the event.
Like it or not Princess Diana did strike a chord with many people and they genuinely grieved for her. It wasn't a media frenzy that brought out millions of people to mourn her, unless of course all of them had nothing better to do during those weeks following her death.

 

[Elessar]

My opinion of Diana really crystalized when she died. It is one of those events that I will remember where I was and what I was doing for the rest of the my life.

Before that horrible event, Diana was just some Brit royal who was in the tabloids and that was as far as my knowledge went.

Afterwards, Diana became to me a tragic heroine as I learned more about her and her experience. Her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales could not have come a worse time when (in America at least) we were on the verge of the age of 24/7 media coverage of anything and everything that might draw attention. Today, we have reality shows where people choose to go on TV and say, "look at me." But 30 or so years ago, none of them, particularly Diana, were ready for such constant scrutiny.

 

[Cadiva]

Demonstrations of communal/mass grief is not a creation of the media, it goes back centuries. The media might highlight it, yes, but it wouldn't go so far as to say people's actions are shaped by it. It's just that with the ease of communication and travel it is possible for far larger numbers of people to mobilize. And if someone wants to go out and lay flowers then that's because they were touched or saddened by the event.
Like it or not Princess Diana did strike a chord with many people and they genuinely grieved for her. It wasn't a media frenzy that brought out millions of people to mourn her, unless of course all of them had nothing better to do during those weeks following her death.

I don't doubt there were people who went to lay flowers from a genuine sense of grief. I haven't heard of any other expressions of mass/communal grief in times past, perhaps you could enlighten me on those as I'd be really interested to read anything which proves it isn't a modern phenomenon.

I will have to disagree with you though on the effect of the media. They sold the "Diana Myth" that she and the followers around her projected. Not all the media were slavish Diana followers though but certainly the mass market tabloids knew a picture of Diana on the front cover would add thousands to their sales.
I think you only have to look at the rise in people (not directly related to the victims that is I mean) laying flowers at the sites of accidents or widely reported media incidents like recent murders of young children/mothers etc, to see this is a change in the way people express grief. The town of Wooten Basset's actions since the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts are also in tune with this public displaying of grief which I do, personally, think is a modern phenomenon for people not directly related to the victims to be involved. I don't think there is anything odd with family and close friends wishing to visit the scene of an accident where a loved one has died. But the bloke from the corner shop who never spoke two words to the victims?
There was a very interesting programme on BBC2 a while back called In Loving Memory, which examined the phenomenon of roadside shrines and how they were being used by families to reclaim ownership of their dead loved ones. One of the "experts" involved in the programme is Gerri Excell, who has a website here - http://gerriexcell.webs.com/