When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[scooter62986]

I voted other because I was 12 when she died. I knew who she was and I always respected her for doing good in the world. Like Beatrix I lost a relative around then so I didn't pay much attention. What I have heard about her is little because I am from American. The Truth pointed out a very true statement that American's have been very loyal and kind to her so it is hard to find bad things unless one is looking. I have avoided the bad because most of the time it is venomous crap people have come up with to sell tabloids. Even though I may not agree with all of her personal choices I still respect the work she did with AIDS and children.

[charmed4sure]

I was young when she died, and about 6 years ago I started to learn more and more about her, and the conclusions I was coming to was she was a very real person who put her own experiences and mistakes out there for others to learn from...but when I came across the phone calls to Oliver Hoare I really thought differently of her. It just showed that she was very obsessive and controlling. It wasn't so bad that i hated her for it, they were traits of hers, so whatever, but I looked at her different after that.

BTW great topic!

[Little_star]

My opinion of Diana has never really changed, I liked her when she was alive and I still do.

I don't think she was a perfect human being, nobody is, however I do think she was manipulated very badly by the RF and ultimately they simply used her.

[TheTruth]

Well the Panorama Interview was THE most terrible mistake in her whole life IMO. It was so bad that even when I look at it, I can't help but feel bad for the RF, in particular for Charles. He had already done this mistake of taking an interview and if one day Diana was back against the wall, it could have turned into a great argument by saying : "At least, I didn't talk about my private life in front of millions.". And she ruined this unique chance to defend herself by doing exactly the opposite of what could have saved her in the eyes of many.

[TheTruth]

It seems that according to the comments on the thread, we are many to have different feelings and sometimes paradoxal ones like sympathy and rage, just like you milla Ca. But I love that in a person. Understand me, I wouldn't want that person to be my friend because you never know what his reactions are going to be but I find it fascinating in famous people's personality.

[Chimene]

I understand what you're saying except I have the opposite view. To me, she was a wonderful woman with a lot of potential, but she could not overcome the loneliness of her childhood and her disappointment in love. While she had a complex character, I did not find her fascinating at all because she bared her soul for all.

In contrast to Diana, and although a very different circumstance, Jackie Kennedy was a true fascinating personality. She left us to ponder - how could she... why did she... was she strong... was she weak...? - and those questions will never be answered fully. Regardless of what the real truth was, no one can question the dignity she exhibited during that period, which is something we cannot say of Diana.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Chimene

I understand what you're saying except I have the opposite view. To me, she was a wonderful woman with a lot of potential, but she could not overcome the loneliness of her childhood and her disappointment in love. While she had a complex character, I did not find her fascinating at all because she bared her soul for all.

In contrast to Diana, and although a very different circumstance, Jackie Kennedy was a true fascinating personality. She left us to ponder - how could she... why did she... was she strong... was she weak...? - and those questions will never be answered fully. Regardless of what the real truth was, no one can question the dignity she exhibited during that period, which is something we cannot say of Diana.

True but I wasn't talking of doubts in her personality but more of changes. Frist there was the "Shy Di" then we had the "Di Mania". People were crazy about her and thought they knew her. But her choices showed us how wrong we were and I love the way it turned out. The public was blinded by the "Saint Diana" of the medias and it makes me laugh how she succeded to fool many. Of course I'm not at all talking about the charities she has supported. That came from the heart.

[Chimene]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

True but I wasn't talking of doubts in her personality but more of changes. Frist there was the "Shy Di" then we had the "Di Mania". People were crazy about her and thought they knew her. But her choices showed us how wrong we were and I love the way it turned out. The public was blinded by the "Saint Diana" of the medias and it makes me laugh how she succeded to fool many. Of course I'm not at all talking about the charities she has supported. That came from the heart.

Understood! On your final point, I like Princess Anne's low-key approach to doing her work much better. But, of course I do not take anything away from Diana's caring nature, which was always in evidence when she met people who were less fortunate than her.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Chimene

Understood! On your final point, I like Princess Anne's low-key approach to doing her work much better. But, of course I do not take away anything from Diana's caring nature, which was always in evidence when she met people who were less fortunate than her.

You have highlighted a significant point. I think it says a lot about her that she didn't seem to have this same caring nature toward people who were her equals or superiors.

[rmay286]

Chimene and Selrahc4--That's an interesting point--that Diana was caring towards people beneath her, but didn't always show the same concern for her friends and family. I think that's actually one of the main reasons I don't have a high opinion of her. I do think she cared for those who were suffering, but I also have the feeling that she did so because she saw these people as extensions of herself. She was quick to see people as victims because she saw herself as a victim to some extent; and her attempts to help people seemed, to me, to be a way of helping herself feel good, like "I'm going to empower these other victims so we can band together against the cruel world." I just feel like there was a lot of "self" mixed in with Diana's compassion. The compassion was real, but it wasn't selfless.

I'd have to vote "Other" for the poll because, like most people here it seems, I was young when Diana died. I was 11 actually, but I'd been interested in the BRF for a couple of years. I knew about Diana before that too, but I just saw her as this beautiful princess and devoted mother. Then I started seeing more recent news stories about her, including the divorce, and her lavish lifestyle. Everything I heard seemed at odds with my original belief that she was just a sweet, caring princess and mother who had no interest in fame and attention. I was sad when she died, but I clearly remember that I'd already lost a lot of respect for her by that point.

Over the years I've read more about Diana and it's only solidified my original belief that she was more self-interested than she appeared. The Panorama interview, like a lot of people have said, gave me a particularly unfavourable impression of her. She came across as extremely manipulative--the heavy make-up, the mournful expressions in her eyes--it all seemed very staged, and I was totally unimpressed by the comments she made: "there were three of us in the marriage" and "I want to be the Queen of Hearts." Perhaps it was more the delivery of the comments, than the comments themselves. Diana came across as both vindictive, and scheming for attention and compassion, so my opinion of her dropped even further.

All that being said, I don't think Diana was "evil" or that she schemed from the beginning to steal Charles' spotlight and hurt him. I think, even at nineteen (20 when she married) she must have purposely chosen to ignore some of the warning signs popping up everywhere, so I do think she was responsible for what she got herself into, but I also think she couldn't have imagined just how difficult royal life would be. I do believe she had a difficult childhood, suffered a lot, wasn't always mentally stable, and that the royal family, especially Charles, weren't always sympathetic or helpful. And I think Charles' affair was inexcusable no matter how difficult Diana was. Again, though, Diana could have taken the high road; she didn't need to become vengeful. In the end I guess I don't respect Diana, but I do feel sorry for her. She had one of those intense personalities that seem destined to suffer. I think as much as Charles and the royals may have hurt her, mostly her problems were within herself.

[jcbcode99]

Well, what can I say that hasn't been said? I did get up early when I was 6 years old to watch the "Wedding of the Century" and I was bowled over by it, and then there she was, on every newspaper and magazine I turned to. It was unbelievable and fascinating--
Let's flash forward to the nineties---a time when I was graduating from high school, in college, and graduating from college (first time--I'm going back now for another degree--much harder with a child BTW). I'm now married and I can tell you all that marriage ain't easy, but nothing worth having is easy. My husband and I are polar opposites, but we make it work and we have that settled down, been together, comfortable love that you only have when you truly learn to put each other first.
Charles and Diana did not have that--Charles and Camilla do have that. You could see it on their wedding day. I saw both weddings, and it is my opinion that while the first one was truly a dream wedding filled with carriages and fluff and "Oh my's" it was just a show. Charles and Camilla's wedding was very simple and genuine, and it meant more to me, as an adult who has learned how consuming and frustrating love can be, than the 1981 wedding did. I was only a child then, and I saw it through a child's eyes. I think in some ways that is what happened with Diana--bless her heart. She was so young, she saw the world through rose colored glasses and expected to live a fairytale. When her fairytale ended, she did that horrid book, and then the panamora interview. For me, it was when when she criticized Charles and whether he was fit to be king. It was also those coy looks, batting eyelashes, and sideways glances. It was all so engineered and fake. But, when it was revealed that she had pushed Raine Spencer down the stairs, well, come on--it all changed. "The People's Princess" had a nasty temper and couldnt' control it. I think she could have been amazing, but it never happened. She was spoiled and petulant, and always upstaging Charles because of her need to be better, to be first, etc....
Also, I chose Charles' interview because I thought it was incredibly brave of him to do that interview in the face of everything that was going on, and that was the mark of a future king. She however, wore that "Revenge Dress" in an attempt to futher upstage him.

[Picmajik]

I have to say I'm also one of the older folks here as I was 20 when I got up to watch the wedding on tv (loved it). I loved the spectacle but still wondered why on earth someone as educated as Charles would put up with a shy 19yr old as a wife. Yes, she met some requirements of good breeding and obviously had a crush on him but it takes more than that to make a good match. I questioned the age gap if nothing else. I still loved all the press coverage, magazines etc through the birth of their sons but it was obvious there were strains on the marriage. Yes, she was beautiful and glamorous but lacked depth.

Chimene mentioned Jackie Kennedy earlier. I think she is a fabulous example of how to make the best of a bad situation. Jackie still put on a good show in public of supporting her husband and behind the scenes made deals with in-laws to get her way on some matters to be able to come out ahead. Diana thinks she had it bad with the RF? Better than Jackie's situation (try losing your husband like that). That's where Diana made some of her mistakes. Diana simply could not deal with not being first in the "popularity contest" in her mind and couldn't understand why Charles might find others' company more enjoyable. Did she try to understand him or his interests? I don't know what all went on but they just couldn't have been that compatible. If she had really wanted to work on the marriage as she claimed in early interviews it would have shown. There are always highs and lows and once it was apparent it wasn't her ideal romantic situation there should have been some kind of friendship and respect for each other and their positions.

I didn't appreciate the War of the Waleses at all (my vote) and it became clear her motive was to upstage the RF and get all the attention and sympathy. I think she was childish and too immature to realize what she was getting into when she married and she loved the position more than the man. I know I wasn't ready for marriage at 19, much less the non-stop glare of publicity that no one seemed to foresee? Certainly caught the RF by surprise and I think Diana got swept up into it as much as any young celebrity gets carried away with it now. I also think she wasn't prepared for her future role and expectations. She was also swept up in the fantasy that marriage is for life and she was looking to avoid a future divorce. I remember that being part of the fantasy that if she married someone with a high title it would be difficult to get divorced as her parents had done. If she had more maturity she would have been able to work out a compromise where they could have shared interests (children/obligations to "the firm") and separate interests (charity/patronages) other discreet friendships/affairs. There is no need to ever air dirty linen in public and she could have come out ahead in all areas--keeping the honor of her title intact and still have a semi-private life off the record. Either be old-fashioned and be the little supportive wife OR be a modern girl and move on, can't always have it both ways.

When the Andrew Morton book came out I first thought "poor thing". I then read excerpts from the other book that came out (Junor's book?) with more info about Charles' point of view and started seeing more of the "he said, she said" side that was showing through. I was already suspecting that before the books came out based on press coverage and photographs. The Panorama interview really did it for me. Want to talk nasty divorce? I'll compare notes any time but OFF the record and even now even my family members don't know all the sordid details and never will. Some things just aren't discussed and especially while dealing with a public figure. I wish someone had told Diana "Grow up!" but I doubt that would have done any good. She seriously needed therapy and didn't get it (or at least any GOOD therapy).

I also like Princess Anne's low-key approach to doing things rather than just paying lip-service to things. I have really gained more respect for her after reading these forums and how she's handled things. First to marry, divorce and remarry but still doesn't splash it all over the front pages, handles things discreetly as they should be when in the public fishbowl. Wow, didn't mean to write a novel but bottom line is yes, I got swept up in the gee, isn't this a great fairy tale? at first. I then was disappointed the more I heard about her tantrums and publicity seeking but then taking the popularity contest to the press? too much! I will always like that "Shy Di" I thought I knew, the loving mother, loving wife (early pics show body language that the marriage wasn't all bad) but I certainly won't miss the manipulative crazy side that she was also.

[jcbcode99]

Well, I have to take a moment and ask for some clarification--I've not really ever read anything about Diana's extravagant lifestyle--well, besides the 20.000 Hermes Birkin Bag, that is. Any links to tell the tale?

[BeatrixFan]

Penny Junor tells a tale whereby Diana took an aide on holiday and then disappeared half way through leaving the aide to pick up the several thousand pounds bill. A horrified aide then had to phone Charles to bail her out.

[Liz]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Penny Junor tells a tale whereby Diana took an aide on holiday and then disappeared half way through leaving the aide to pick up the several thousand pounds bill. A horrified aide then had to phone Charles to bail her out.

It makes me wonder why on earth she would do such a thing? It seems that Diana was very unthoughtful at times.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Penny Junor tells a tale whereby Diana took an aide on holiday and then disappeared half way through leaving the aide to pick up the several thousand pounds bill. A horrified aide then had to phone Charles to bail her out.

I had heard that--and I think it is insensitive that Diana would do that someone who was only making middle wage (not sure what that is, but it doesn't sound like enough to pay for a holiday with Diana)--I also recall that Diana was very upset that Charles bailed the aide out, even though it was her own fault.

[sirhon11234]

Whenever the interview is on TV I cringe. I always thought Diana could have admitted her past faults, mistakes and apologize for it. Also she should've praised Charles for his work instead of publicly insulting him. She could have made herself appear apologetic and less petty and spiteful; also she could've made the interview an apology to Charles and TRF. I will always be dissapointed in Diana for they way she carried out the interview. But my opinion of her will never change.

[BeatrixFan]

I think the Queen of Hearts thing cuts me the most when I watch it. I just saw that as a direct attack on the Queen and it's difficult to stomach.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I think the Queen of Hearts thing cuts me the most when I watch it. I just saw that as a direct attack on the Queen and it's difficult to stomach.

Right on, Exactly. It was a direct attack on the queen and thus on the monarchy. It was infuriating to the extreme. Due to that statement, I was not surprised that the queen wanted to ignore Diana's life and death and stay oblivious to all at Balmoral after Diana died. I was not surprised that in her belated eulogy to Diana, she carefully omitted any expression of love for Diana. The queen is, afterall, front and center -- always has been and always will be until her death. It was no less than high treason for Diana to claim she wanted to replace the queen in "people's hearts".

I am not surprised that soon after that interview, the queen wrote Diana a letter stating it was time to divorce. And that naturally led to Diana having to give up her HRH and thus her royal protection and thus be an "accident" waiting to happen.

{edit - Elspeth}

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by zhontella

I am not surprised that soon after that interview, the queen wrote Diana a letter stating it was time to divorce. And that naturally led to Diana having to give up her HRH and thus her royal protection and thus be an "accident" waiting to happen.

She didn't have to give up her protection. Reportedly, she insisted on doing that even though the royal family wanted her to keep it.

{deleted for consistency - Elspeth}