When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[anbrida]

ysbel, your statements about revenge are great. Those revenge on others will get back all the crabs.

The funny thing about this thread is it often made me reflect on myself. My friends and my parents often said I was too revengeful. I got several punishment because of this. It doesn't mean I didn't learn the lesson, but occasionally I was just out of control. Actually the posters here also had experienced it when I yelled to them to shut up.

Because of my own defections, I really couldn't point a finger on Diana's. However everyone need to take the responsibilities for their acts. I have to, Diana had to. Even though, I am more lucky, because no one use a magnifier to scrutinize my defections. Everything of Diana looked so huge, good or bad, but if we take out the magnifier, probably she was the same size of us.

Originally Posted by normalil

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

Maybe that was why Dodi was attractive to her. It's said that addicts were one group of people Diana was interested in. I am not talking about Diana wanted to join them, but I think she wanted to help them.

Originally Posted by normalil

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

Sure, in 1997 Diana must have known more than us. But since Al-Fayed was a friend to the family, I think compared to us what she knew more was their goodness instead of their badness.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Is the story about the cufflinks a proven fact? Or is it Diana claiming that in the Morton-book?

What would it take to prove it? I think we can assume that Diana didn't lie about Everything. And some of her observations were so off-the-wall and unexpected, it's not like the typical lie using some generic event.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Because I doubt the man who can look so happy and in love with the mistress he married, who is said to have been his love for over 30 years can be so cold-hearted towards his young wife. Sorry, these character traits simply don't fit together.

Well, I have to agree with you Jo -- Charles does not look to be cold or mean in anyway. He has often expressed his frustration about others controlling his life and telling him what to do.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by anbrida

Because these two people are opponents. If Camilla is going well, then she is the winner, and Diana must be the loser. And we got accustomed to the ideas that it must be good choices lead to a winner, and bad choices lead to a loser. However, life not only has good choices and bad choices but also has a lot of uncertainties which are totally out of our control. Occasional accidents could make good choices into bad, and bad choices into good.

And the clear winner is HRH DOC, no doubt about it. Photo from "After Diana" by C. Andersen.

https://publish.comcast.net/rpath/Ur...BGE89juD1xgZY/

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by anbrida

Actually, before Diana's vacation with Al-Fayeds family. We really had little knowledge about them. It was until Diana was on borad with Al-Fayeds familly, the jounalists began to write about them. I guess those jounalists must have made a big effort to find out that information. To be honest, I don't think Diana knew a lot about Al-Fayeds except that he was an old friend of her late father. I thinks now most of us know much more about Al-Fayeds than Diana, with the advantage of hindsight.

That might be the case for people in other countries, but in Britain Mohamed Fayed was notorious and had been for many years.

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

That might be the case for people in other countries, but in Britain Mohamed Fayed was notorious and had been for many years.

Indeed Elspeth.

We knew all about the 'cash for questions' issue,the finance of the purchase of Harrods,the quest for British citizenship and the dubious social climbing including financing polo tournaments.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Fabulous Fake

Indeed Elspeth.

We knew all about the 'cash for questions' issue,the finance of the purchase of Harrods,the quest for British citizenship and the dubious social climbing including financing polo tournaments.

Just want a confirm. So before 1997, this was already well broadcasted. I remembered I watched a BBC program talking about exactly the same history about Al-Frayed. But it was after that accident.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by zhontella

What had the Fred and Gladys initials -- was that some bracelet gift?

Now see here is another weird story, because it has two versions! Ok, if I remember fully (forgive me, I'm going off memory) Diana told Morton that she found a bracelet with the "G" and "F" initials, as it had slipped out of an envelope on a desk in the office she was sharing (during the engagement) with Charles's private secretary. More specifically, it was the private secretary's desk and this envelope was addressed to Charles, I guess from Camilla but I do not remember that there was any specific reference "it was from Camilla."

Anyway, so Diana told Morton for the book, she saw this bracelet and "knew" that the initials stood for "Gladys" and "Fred", pet nicknames for Charles and Camilla.

Ok, another version: Dimbleby's account said the initials stood for "Girl Friday", which according to Dimbleby was in fact Charles's pet name for Camilla.

[ghost_night554]

I just think this whole thing of was Diana really the victim is silly, I mean I'll explain why I feel this way. In all honesty we don't know the real story behind what happened in the breakdown of their marriage, all we know is Diana's side of the story and we know Charles side of the story both very different. I just think that they both saw it in a different light,I know from past experiences I've found that my friends see their side of the story very differently then how I do.Now as for who was right who was wrong we'll never know I think it's sorta who you want to beleive you will beleive type of situation there's no real proof in all honesty. And one more thing I don't understand what the car crash and her dying at a young age had to do with her making mistakes in the years before. Car crashes happen simple as that, you can't really protect yourself or prevent it from happening. Sorry if I miss-understood anything but I sorta skimmed through the last few pages really quickly.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

That's an interesting aspect and well worth to discuss IMHO. Diana was compassionate, you state and I know that this is the impression she gave when she was introduced to a person who suffered. But I got the impression that she very fastly got tired of being compassionate with this one person or with this charity and selected a new topic which interested her more, leaving the old problems behind.

Eg the landmines: Richard Kay claimed on oath that Diana was already on the move, having felt that her work was nearly done and on the way towards a new charitable idea. But I think what charities really need is the constant interest of a patron, not just the short term help of a celebrity.

All I want to say there is not only one way to do charity work. I really don't expect Diana got very involved, since as you might know I don't think she was very professional person. To get involved it needed more professional knowledge. It was not her strong point. But the diary she made for the landmine campaign did gave me a surprise. And I think that was a good trend. I think the strongest point of Diana was to arose people's attention on issues. She've done that all those years, since the Aids campaign. Actually she didn't got too involved into the Aids either. But she did gave part of donation from her clothing auctions to Aids group. You might think she was to superficial. Well to be frankly, did you really expect she would go to dig the landmine herself. I just hope by arosing the interest on another campaign, she could contribute as much as to dig the landmine.

You were right. I heard that her next interest was the campaign of eliminating illiteracy in poor countries. And she was going to make a similar documentary on this issue as she did in landmine campaign.

[ghost_night554]

I think her purpose was to try and make a difference and make people more aware of the issues around the world. I didn't expect to see her get into each charity she did have many.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

I just think this whole thing of was Diana really the victim is silly, I mean I'll explain why I feel this way. In all honesty we don't know the real story behind what happened in the breakdown of their marriage, all we know is Diana's side of the story and we know Charles side of the story both very different. I just think that they both saw it in a different light,I know from past experiences I've found that my friends see their side of the story very differently then how I do.Now as for who was right who was wrong we'll never know I think it's sorta who you want to beleive you will beleive type of situation there's no real proof in all honesty. And one more thing I don't understand what the car crash and her dying at a young age had to do with her making mistakes in the years before. Car crashes happen simple as that, you can't really protect yourself or prevent it from happening. Sorry if I miss-understood anything but I sorta skimmed through the last few pages really quickly.

Your words made me feel worthy to almost stay overnight to write a post. I hoped my post was not too long to make your eyes tired. We can prove nothing. However, please don't put it so straight forward. We all know that is the fact, but we just don't want to lose a topic to discuss which can kill our boring time. Right now to post here is my only hobby, because I just hurted my knee and could not do any exercise at all.

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by anbrida

Just want a confirm. So before 1997, this was already well broadcasted. I remembered I watched a BBC program talking about exactly the same history about Al-Frayed. But it was after that accident.

Al-Fayed was notorious in Britain before the accident and that is why so many people were shocked by Diana associating with him so publically.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

And one more thing I don't understand what the car crash and her dying at a young age had to do with her making mistakes in the years before. Car crashes happen simple as that, you can't really protect yourself or prevent it from happening. Sorry if I miss-understood anything but I sorta skimmed through the last few pages really quickly.

True car crashes happen, but like most car crashes, it could have easily been prevented. You can protect yourself by making better choices. Drive at a safe speed, especially in a tunnel, wear a seat belt, don't drive after having a nightcap when you thought you were off duty for the night..... etc.
And another lesson: If you find yourself late at night in Paris, at the exceptionally safe Ritz Hotel, and you think it's possible you may be tempted to try outrunning the motorcycle paparazzi, just stay put, sleep cozily in a Ritz room, even if it's not the presidential suite. It's just one night for god's sake. And the next day, you can board that plane back to London and see your family and friends, and, best part, be alive.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

True car crashes happen, but like most car crashes, it could have easily been prevented. You can protect yourself by making better choices. Drive at a safe speed, especially in a tunnel, wear a seat belt, don't drive after having a nightcap when you thought you were off duty for the night..... etc.
And another lesson: If you find yourself late at night in Paris, at the exceptionally safe Ritz Hotel, and you think it's possible you may be tempted to try outrunning the motorcycle paparazzi, just stay put, sleep cozily in a Ritz room, even if it's not the presidential suite. It's just one night for god's sake. And the next day, you can board that plane back to London and see your family and friends, and, best part, be alive.

That's what I'm thinking, too, basically. But what happened some weeks ago gave me food for thought. My son showed me a short video on Youtube that had been showed to him when he attended the medical education he has at the youth group of the fire brigade he is volonteering at. It shows a group of young people having a couple of drinks in a nightclub with lightshow and loud music, then they walk out and take a car together with one of them the driver. Then an accident happens which the driver survives. He comes out of his shock and hears the others moaning in the back seats. Then the firebrigade comes and cuts him from the car. While being treated he sees how they free his backseat passengers who are heavily wounded and are treated immediately. And then he has to see how they cut his girlfriend from the car, lay her body on the ground and cover her with a white cloth. Then the video ends.

The thing is: the first scene in the club reminded me of my own youth, how carefree we were and how drunken from the atmosphere of the clubs that we went out, got into our cars and drover home still happily ensconed in this atmopshere of lightheartedness. Okay, nothing ever happened to me, but really there had been evenings or nights when I had drunk quite some drinks.

So I can remember how an atmosphere can carry with it, can lead to doing stupid things you normally don't do and I guess that's waht happened that night. Dodi, Diana and Henri Paul obviously were either very tense or full of adrenaline and I recall that picture where Paul looks that way, exited, while Diana is sitting in the back of the car in reverse direction looking out to the back. She couldn't have done that on wearing a seatbelt so she must have at least then opened it to be able to get a better look out into the back. And then it happened. it would explain why she was thrown into the footspace of the back seats when the crash happened.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

Skydragon was this person a female or male that Princess Diana treated in a bad manner. Also was this person from Princes Charles camp?