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
 
  #921  
Old 01-07-2011, 05:20 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
Yes, CordeliaFitzgerald. Princess Diana's reputation will be redeemed (Diana fans give her slack) in the history books. The legacy will be her helping to modernize the BRF though her children.
Well, I am hoping that the reign of Prince William will help stylize Diana as the modernizer of BRF. I do know history is written with a agenda sometimes and it might take a few centuries for the princess to be know as the key to modernization. But hopefully it will happen and sooner then we think.
__________________

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #922  
Old 01-07-2011, 10:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,077
Puzzled.....

.....at the idea that Diana was a 'modernizer' of the monarchy? I hear this said many times. How did she modernize it - make it more 'current'?

From an historical point of view she will be the wife of the heir to the British throne who dies tragically in an accident, and the mother of two princes, one a future king (if events play out as expected).

Sociologically she was one of the many in the 20th century who became the focal point of intense media scrutiny and was one of the individuals so focussed on who used the media to spectacular effect with disastrous results. Diana's unique position in history will be that she is an example of this symbiosis that developed between the public, the media and an individual. Dissertations will be written on this interface, I predict - and there are many examples of it in the 20th century, acutely and painfully well documented. (Michael Jackson springs to mind).

It was only in the above sense that she 'modernized' the monarchy that I see - she turned the privacy of the monarchy inside-out and basically reduced it to tabloid scrutiny and scandal through the power of modern media. That is modern, I guess.

I would say that Catherine has more modern attributes that will impact the monarchy more in the direction of modernity - middle class, university educated, career experience (albeit limited by circumstances). Sophie, the Countess of Wessex, is also someone who brings the modern world into the monarchy - commoner, educated, career, business woman, etc. Then Charles himself with his work with the Prince's Trust - I'm not aware of any previous PoW that engaged in public works to such a formalized and wide extent. I view all of this as modernizing.

Was Diana bringing her sons into the spotlight with photo ops and 'normal' experiences like McDonald's and water parks - was that the modernizing being referred to?

I have always been under the impression that the modernizing of the monarchy began with QEII and the DoE deciding to educate Charles in 'public schools' - sending him to Cambridge, etc. From this single decision all else has followed.

A perspective.
__________________

__________________
  #923  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:39 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
Yes, and I believe that they were the first to do "walkabouts" as well. Her Majesty also did away with debutantes being presented at court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
.
I have always been under the impression that the modernizing of the monarchy began with QEII and the DoE deciding to educate Charles in 'public schools' - sending him to Cambridge, etc. From this single decision all else has followed.

A perspective.
__________________
  #924  
Old 01-08-2011, 01:37 AM
Hissy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Covington, United States
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
.....at the idea that Diana was a 'modernizer' of the monarchy? I hear this said many times. How did she modernize it - make it more 'current'?...I would say that Catherine has more modern attributes that will impact the monarchy more in the direction of modernity - middle class, university educated, career experience (albeit limited by circumstances). Sophie, the Countess of Wessex, is also someone who brings the modern world into the monarchy - commoner, educated, career, business woman, etc. Then Charles himself with his work with the Prince's Trust - I'm not aware of any previous PoW that engaged in public works to such a formalized and wide extent. I view all of this as modernizing.
I think people say Diana "modernized" the royal family as a blanket word for bringing more attention, youth, new people (herself and her sons) to the family. She was considered "modern" for appearing outwardly more emotional than the Queen for instance, taking her young children on royal trips with her when before that the royal children were left at home with a nanny. (Later Sarah was criticized for following the Queen's example rather than Diana's.) It is perhaps not the best word but seems the handy one to most when describing Diana's impact.

As for Kate/Catherine she did go to school, but I only see that her accomplishments on her own merit (Not future royal duties) are next to nil. A university degree mostly unused is a waste. Considering her parents business she would have been better served to study as a pastry chef and I am not being sarcastic.
In reality nobody who is in the royal family is truly "modern", the past is woven into their life. To me modern in the best sense would be no skanky photos, or behavior, real love, and truly working hard but smart.

My vote for when my opinion of Diana changed was "other".

I never really liked her that much, not that she was heinous, or ugly, but I thought she had went from being innocent and naive to competing with Charles, being an attention seeker. Then she hated the same attention from the press she courted heavily before to cover her. In my mind the press could be more respectful but you can't have it both ways: notice me, notice me, notice me... now get lost!

My feeling changed that August. I was quite young watching a movie on tv when they showed a news update stating she and her boyfriend had been in a car accident but they made it sound like a fender bender. Next they updated to say her arm was broken. Then it was that she had a broken arm and was unconscious but Dodi had passed away which was surprising enough. Then after what seemed like a couple of hours (probably while letting her family know, etc.) they came out and announced Diana had also died. It was so shocking I think I was stunned. It was not that I adored her, but she had been such a well known figure that it didn't occur to me she'd be dead at such a young age so it was greatly surprising.

I found a lot of the funeral distasteful, clapping at a funeral seems extremely odd to me, the hokey Elton John song update, etc. but after that my annoyances at Diana's overpraise softened. She may have not been the best person, but I never would have wished her dead. Perhaps she would have continued on healing things between her and Charles, matured into a more truly admirable person, etc. If only she hadn't stayed in Paris instead of joining her sons at Balmoral, or not gotten into the car, or at least wore a seatbelt, everything might be different for the better.

Now I'm left with a feeling of I don't dislike her as much anymore, I can see some of the good things she did and how in royal history she will have a big, romantic, tragic chapter that will dwarf all the other women as it stands (besides the Queen). I am also left with thinking the Queen herself was changed by her passing as is shown quite well in the movie "The Queen". If that has made her more understanding, gentler on the family, etc. I think it may be a good change, as I like the Queen.
__________________
  #925  
Old 01-08-2011, 12:07 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,465
I always found Diana to be modern especially with the charities she supported like HIV/AIDS which is still infecting people today. I also believed she modernized the monarchy through her children. The Princess did say she wanted to show them the world beyond the palace gates. So she took them all over london to the movies, stores, restauraunts hospices and homeles shelters. Yes sometimes some of these outings she alerted the press, but still Will and Harry saw their subjects in person and hopefully they have a better understanding of them. She may not have made ground breaking changes but she made some steps towards modernity.

My favorite story I've read about her was in Paul Burrell's first book and he wrote that Diana many nights would drive around London visiting hospices, and patients she befriended. She also befriended these two prostitutes who were working to support their children. She gave them money so that the two women could have coats to keep them warm. She was modern in her own way imo.
__________________
"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
  #926  
Old 01-08-2011, 04:15 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
I have always been under the impression that the modernizing of the monarchy began with QEII and the DoE deciding to educate Charles in 'public schools' - sending him to Cambridge, etc. From this single decision all else has followed. A perspective.
I don't think getting a education away from home modernized the BRF. Princess Diana changing her sons diapers and Prince Charles being around with his infants shows more modernization. The way Diana, Princess of Wales raised her boys with real world experiences seeing their subjects will in my opinion impact the reign of Prince William. When you see the prince's at their charity event you see them holding or touching their subjects. Just like their dear mother, Diana did.

Princess Diana by publishing a book in 1992 (that she said she had no part in-unfortunately she did ) did not really know that she started the modernization of BRF. I think the pity she got from the book revelations and her Aids/Landmine/Leprosy/Abuse/Drug/Abuse charities and campaigns, turn from intense interest, awe and then love by many people around the world. It was the first time a common person could see a royal going through life with problems like they do. When Diana was at her most stressed out and probably mentally sick during her panorama interview and said she would not be Queen but would like to be called the People's Princess again the pity and love from people was what she got.

I don't know what other Diana, Princess of Wales fan are like but that is the way I felt. My perspective she became someone I knew and felt for.
She let me look in and the mystery of royalty for me changed or modernized. Royals are just people with a job to guide their subjects to the good in life.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #927  
Old 02-04-2011, 04:13 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,319
Diana married in the same year that I did, but I was 3 years older than she. Still, I wondered about her marrying such a stodgy-seeming older man, for Prince Charles certainly seemed older than other men his age. Compared to young American women I knew, Diana seemed beyond naive, clueless, really. She had a sort of babyish quality and seemed the sort of girl who liked children, fashion and giggling. So it was surprising that after years of speculation about who Charles would marry, there was suddenly Diana. She was subjected to such scrutiny, from the RF and from others, I wondered how anyone could ever tolerate that.

Over the years, we all found out that she didn't tolerate it well. Like so many women in my age group, she was suffering inside an unhappy marriage, but also struggling with internalized notions about how women should appear, especially public women. I can remember being approached by faculty at my university to ask why I was (suddenly) wearing make-up (I stopped), and the same faculty told me to tell one of the other doctoral candidates that she was "ruining her employment chances" by having her nails done. In those years following Diana's entry into public life, it seemed that many of us felt less shy about exhibiting formerly forbidden (by feminist rhetoric of the day) fashions.

It may not make sense to some of you who are younger.

Ultimately, I did not evolve a sense of personal style or an interest in make-up and hair until my mid-thirties (and I still prefer my hair to look natural rather than tinted or dyed or flat-ironed; I have a simple make-up routine without which I rarely leave home except for the grocery store). I was at the gym yesterday and the entire conversation I had with two twenty-something women was how much they disliked their appearance, how they had chosen this gym for its relative isolation (me too, but not because I'm afraid to be seen, I'm over that).

But it seemed Diana had to confront that Monster and become fashionable. How could she help but draw attention? I too can play the piano. Given the sarcastic, often dark sense of humor exhibited by some Royals, I would find it very difficult not to have a good time showing up their cello playing (I mean, seriously! If a person can do something well - they are not to do it, because their husband is a prince? What a terrible life!)

My first husband was a physician, and as time went on, he decided to use that position to limit and control my behavior (and that of his daughters) while doing nothing to change his own (some people liked and still like his bedside manner; others decidedly do not). But, I was not about to change my being in order to suit his new notions of who I should be. Indeed, his views of how I should use my talents, when I should be silent, when I should speak up, grew more and more discordant with who I really am, and how others knew me. Ultimately, I left him.

My ex-husband was obsessed and fascinated with Princess Diana, and to some degree, with Prince Charles. He stayed up all night to watch their wedding, he truly admired her. Both of us felt the pain of her increasing psychological problems, which finally turned into bona fide psychiatric problems; we did not blame the RF for this, as mental health issues are ultimately best dealt with by the person with the illness - and their treatment team. I've always been curious as to whether Prince Charles's interpersonal skills would have allowed him to deal well with any sort of depression, eating disorder, etc. There seem to be plenty of eccentricities in his own family, but they aren't regarded as "problems" the way Diana was regarded as a problem (my opinion).

Diana blossomed into a huge celebrity at a time when television was changing, there were news magazines/gossip shows emerging, MTV had been born, there was a more immediate, real time edge to things (still terribly slow by today's standards). Today, there are hundreds of celebrities (young blondes especially) appearing daily on the television whom I can barely recognize or don't recognize at all (someone named Heidi Montag has been on my television for an hour now, I barely know who she is - but apparently others do).

Diana could not have helped but be a celebrity. In a day and age when actresses and models can catapult into celebrity overnight, an actual princess who can afford the highest fashions and is attractive in a globally-acknowledged way is going to trump a man, regardless of whether he wears suits or kilts or hunts or has causes. That was not her fault, but she certainly did not discourage it.

I became disapproving of her (in the way I'd disapprove of a sister, really) when she had so many lovers/boyfriends immediately after her divorce. The children should have had more stability, not a mom running around on yachts. I was particularly critical of her involvement with the paparazzi - she encouraged them (I've always wondered about the system of monetary feedbacks there; doesn't everyone want to know - when pictures of Diana were selling for $300,000 and up each, whether she - or the Fayeds - ever got some of that? Certainly, Andanson was on their yacht for several days right before the accident).

I'm realizing that after all these years of thinking about Diana and the royals, I still have no clue how they actually remain so wealthy. Even Donald Trump had a bankruptcy, and we can see how he rebuilt his fortune. Do the royals own lots and lots of stock? Diana's divorce settlement doesn't seem that grand for the longterm - she obviously had moved into, well, I hate to use the term "golddigging" mode, but she was not going to be marrying merely for love, right?

She would have been happier (and still alive) had she developed a capacity for non-public relationships, and for a different kind of intimacy. It makes me terribly sad, still, that she didn't get a chance to do that (perhaps she would have, had she had more time as a divorcée.
__________________
  #928  
Old 02-05-2011, 11:06 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
... all these years of thinking about Diana and the royals, I still have no clue how they actually remain so wealthy.
The Queen's private income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster. For the financial year ending March 2010 the Duchy's surplus was £13.2m (US$21.2m) source

The Prince of Wales receives income from the Duchy of Cornwall. For the financial year 2009/2010 this amounted to £17.2m (US$27.7m) source

Further (unknown) income would come from private investments. Some members of the Royal Family also have significant trust funds.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #929  
Old 02-05-2011, 05:19 PM
wa3kittiees's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tacoma, United States
Posts: 24
from the announcement of the engagement, I thought the marriage of Charles and Diana headed for disaster
-- their body chemistry was not good
-- I do think the age gap was a great issue -- perhaps more because Charles had been to university and was more educated; also that he had been out & about in the world
-- also, I did not like the 'shy Di' stuff -- looking through her eyelids; she struck me as a very young, unhappy woman (I am two years younger than Diana); so yes, I was never a big admirer of Diana but I never hated her or wished her ill

so, sadly I wasn't suprised when their relationship soured; however, I was shocked at how it happened ... how public it was

what I found upsetting about the situation was the public aspect
I know the media was obsessed with Diana & I believe that she used/manipulated the media too

neither Charles nor Diana displayed consideration for their sons or for the Queen (a woman I admire greatly)
the books, articles, interviews -- neither of them cared what they said just as long as their story was stated
I found it all very unpleasant & I have never watched the interviews nor read the books

but the one thing that really got to me ... that firmly turned me against Diana was her public discussion of Charles' behaviour as a father
to me, that is unforgiveable
especially upsetting was her revelations about Charles' supposed disappointment at Harry's birth
if the story is true, it should never have been made public
if the story is not true, it is a horrible lie

so while I was never an admirer of Diana, those stories about Charles and sons firmly turned me against her
IMHO, any parent who tries to use their children against the other parent is beyond the pale
(I have never married nor do I have children)

I think Diana had some emotional issues that needed to be professionally and thoroughly dealt with -- I think she never got the help she truly needed to be an emotionally healthy woman & that is sad

I am sorry she died at such a young age & I am sorry for her sons, losing their mother at their young ages ... it is tragic
I found the public response distasteful

I do not excuse Charles his on-going relationship with Camilla -- he was wrong & should have ended things with Diana earlier

the whole situation was a mess & Charles & Diana both behaved as self-absorbed jerks
__________________
  #930  
Old 04-30-2011, 12:09 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 158
With age should come wisdom

I've been away from this site for almost four years now and I am so glad to be back. My life had got in the way of things that weren't as important such as becoming a mother, which I had no idea would ever happen to me as I really don't like children LOL Thankfully I've learned how to balance all that and I'm so glad to be back posting with you all especially now the speculation has been put to rest and we can officially toast the beautiful Duke and Duchess of Cambridge!

Now on to topic:

I was not yet born when Charles and Diana married, but when the 90s rolled around my Anglophilia began to rear its pretty head and I was very much interested with what was going on. She died when I was thirteen and I'll never forget that day. At the time she was heavily favored in American media over the likes of Charles, and the British people I found (from British relatives) were divided between royal loyalists and those who just tolerated the ancient monarch. This really gave me room to make up my own mind about Diana with all the different views on her.

I have always been and always will be "Team Diana" simply for the fact that she showed that she was human and capable of flaws but she was also capable of many great things. I think like may women who came before her was a bit of a pawn and she didn't quite know what she was getting into. Now, I am 27 this 5th of May and I've experienced much more in the world and my opinion in how Diana dealt with her situation does not sit well with me.

Perhaps it's comparing apples to oranges, but I feel that in the situation she was dealing with a person to look up to iwould have been Queen Katherine of Argon (may she always rest in peace). Here was a woman whose only crime was that she could not produce a male heir to the throne for King Henry VIII and her faith, integrity, morality and her love for the king was being questioned by her own husband and all of the advantage seeking toads around her. Through it all-though she was not without flaws especially when it came to dealing with Mary-she remained noble, gracious, and loving both publicly and privately toward the king, even as she had to stare at Anne Boleyn on a regular basis. She let the king hang himself by his own actions. She didn't air their dirty laundry in the open. Her persona of simply being the devoted wife whilst getting the shaft made her so much more popular and loved.

Herein lies where my opinion of Diana changed: Her misleading/misuse of the press to air our her and the prince's dirty laundry for revenge or simply because she felt justified, was simply wrong. She was still a royal and I'm not saying stay in a loveless marriage, but for the sake of her children and for the betterment of the monarchy, she could have chosen a different path. I've come to the realisation that Prince Charles had loved Camilla before Diana and there was no reason for them not to really have been married other than some silly thing between Queen Elizabeth and Mountbatten. Diana, Charles, and Camilla all suffered. Charles was wrong to cheat, but Diana could have handled the situation better as well and then everyone could have come out somewhat satisfied. She did not set a very good example for Harry and Wills on how to handle these types of situations. By remaining silent, stoic, and discreet all of Charles' wrong doing would have come to past on its own and she would not have had to suffer her reputation or integrity for it.

And, it could have very well saved her life.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
  #931  
Old 04-30-2011, 01:51 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Loveland, United States
Posts: 66
Vita....very strongly disagree w/ you on example for Wills and Harry.....did you watch the wedding today at all? Diana was reflected in any and all of the bride and groom's actions and statements. Very much a reflection of Diana's influence; not Charles. How exactly would you have liked Diana to cope? The only reason William and Harry are as they are today is prescisely because she didn't choose a different path. She could have been a glamorpuss to the exclusions of all else but she would have none of that. And God bless her for it....her son is a King and statesman with the common touch because of her. She has changed the course of history whether you can see it this day or not. She is and will always be the people's princess not only to all of us but to her sons who cannot conceive a comfort or a replacement for her kindness and love.
__________________
Bennysmom
  #932  
Old 04-30-2011, 02:09 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA, United States
Posts: 1
The Morton book and Panorama interview started the change for me. First rules in a divorce if there are kids involved: don't make it harder for them, and don't criticize the other parent. I can't even imagine how William and Harry must have felt having all that mess splashed all over the press. It's hard enough for kids to cope with parents' divorce at all but it makes it a lot harder if one parent criticizes the other all the time.

I also think Diana showed very poor judgement in getting involved with the Fayed family. Mohammed al-Fayed has been refused British citizenship twice, and Dodi was basically a playboy, and also involved with somebody else when he met Diana.
__________________
  #933  
Old 04-30-2011, 07:35 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
I was seven when Diana died, and as a result the outpouring of grief was thing about her that I had paid any attention to. I became a complete Diana lover because of this. My belief in her perfection wanned as I learnt more about the soap opera. There was nothing I learnt that made me think "she was pathetic!", I just came to appreciate that she didn't glow, like the tears I saw as a seven year old, had me believe she did. She wasn't black hearted, but she just wasn't mentally healthy enough to handle the situation she found herself in The Royal Family were not malicious, but they were ill equipt to deal with Diana's emotional instability. They could have just accepted Camilla's sexual experience in the 70's, and they could have just let Charles and Diana get a divorce earlier on, before infidelty was resorted to, but what's done is done, and they've learnt from their mistakes, as the acceptence of the newly minted Duke and Duchess of Camebridge proves

On the issue of charity, Diana was the first Royal to support AIDS patients, and campaign for the abolition of landmines, but all her other causes were ones that other Royals supported too. This is why the "People's Princess" tag annoys me. Does Princess Anne spend all her time at the spa? Diana genuinely cared, but her black and white thinking had her convinced that because the Royals had increasingly rocky relationships with her, their low key support of their charities indicated a lack of real compassion.

As for the things that The Royal Family were made to do after Diana's death, I used to feel that they were right to comply, given that it was what the general public wanted, but now I feel that they shouldn't have, not because Diana wasn't worthy of any tribute (if they had stopped William and Harry from going to the hypothetical private funeral, then there would be cause for outrage) but because they didn't want to do it. They wanted to stay at Balmoral and comfort the young Princes. I find it ironic that people were calling for more normality, yet insisting that The Queen organise a funeral for a Daughter in law who she had been on very bad terms with, rather than being a shoulder for her grief stricken Grandsons to cry on.

The answer I gave to the poll was "other". There was no moral event horizon for me, its just easy to start seeing things in a new light, when a figure is so complex.
__________________
  #934  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:45 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
The Queen organise a funeral for a Daughter in law who she had been on very bad terms with,
The Queen was not on bad terms with the Princess at the time of her death. After the divorce Diana's relationship with the Queen and Charles greatly improved.
__________________
"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
  #935  
Old 04-30-2011, 09:45 PM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Where is the evidence of this? If there is some, I'll take back the comment about Diana being on bad terms with The Queen. Regardless of how things were between the two Women, though, do you really think William and Harry wanted to be in front of the cameras, at that time?
__________________
  #936  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:14 PM
misselle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Altos, United States
Posts: 218
I still like Diana eventhough I now know what a difficult person she could be.After Diana:Her True story came out,I was completely on her side,but as time went on and more and more information came out,I saw that Diana also bore equal culpability in the demise of her marriage. I thought it a huge mistake to give the Martin Bashir interview.Didn't Diana realize the damage that she was causing to the institution of monarchy,the institution she supported and hoped that her son William would serve well?
I wasn't too pleased with many choices that Diana made.She seemed to flit from one unsuitable man to another.Dodi Fayed,who was engaged at the time,was thrust upon Diana by publicity-power-seeking Mohamed al Fayed.Al Fayed was using Diana to gain social cachè;al Fayed was forever trying to gain entrance into the higher echelons of society,failing each time.He couldn't gain British citizenship because of some notorious political-business dealings he made in the past,so he first tired to buy his way into society.Then he used Diana.Diana should have seen through this man.I think that she was using him for privacy and protection,but this ploy failed because she was also alerting the press about her plans.
I was saddened by her untimely death and disgusted by Mohamed al Fayed's claims.
I was able to learn more about Diana after her death.There are so many well-written,well-researched biographies about her.I was able to see how Diana was manipulative and manipulated,calculating and naive,complex and fascinating.
I was able to see how jealousy effected Charles and Diana's marriage.Both were jealous of the other for different reasons.Charles was jealous because of the press attention Diana received and Diana was very upset by Camilla.If only these two were mature enough to have seen each other's needs,both being emotionally-needy people,maybe they could have made things work...then ,maybe not.
I was 38 when Diana died--not young,so I had been following her comings and goings since she entered the royal family.
EDIT:The Queen is of a different generation than Diana;duty is most important to her.Elizabeth II was also trained to keep her emotions in control.She didn't understand Diana at all.She tried to help,but she grew weary of all the varying emotions,felt helpless and couldn't deal with it. I don't think Elizabeth II hated Diana,but I know for certain that she did not like the very public way both Charles and Diana aired their marital difficulties in public.
At the time of her death,Diana and Charles were on good terms with each other;they were friendly again.Diana was invited to attend various family gatherings but she chose not to.As long as Charles and Diana were not fighting in public and endangering the stability of the monarchy,Diana was in good terms with the family.
__________________
  #937  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:29 PM
monarchistforever's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Southern River, Australia
Posts: 2
How my opinion of Diana changed

Being of a similar age to Diana, and an ardent monarchist from way back, I gleaned most of my knowledge of Princess Diana from the "Royalty" magazines that I read. When my aunt gave the opinion that the Wales marriage didn't seem happy, a few years into the marriage, I was appalled. I couldn't imagine them (and most especially Charles) being so derelict in duty as to break up: It simply wasn't right, no matter what was really going on.

I was intoxicated with how beautiful Diana was, and believed that she was a genuinely wonderful person. The admitting of adultery, by them both, was horrendously shocking to me. It was heartbreaking. Then came the separation and divorce.

When the Princess was killed, I cried for days. When I first heard of the accident, and the fact that she was still alive, I prayed desperately for her soul. I believed (and still do) that the continuation of "affairs", with whomever, was seriously wrong.

So, in a nutshell, my opinion gradually changed with the years, and with my growing recognition of Diana as a normal, fallible human being. I am still angry that Charles didn't marry Camilla in the early days, thus preventing this extended tragedy.

Was Diana manipulative? Was she ego-tripping? Was she simply vulnerable? She was certainly young when she married, and probably had less help with coping with royal duties than she needed.

What was she really like? No way of knowing. If she were still alive, she'd be nearly 51. Would she have much more maturity and wisdom? Probably. Would she do things differently, in hindsight? Probably, yes. Most of us would, but none of us have the luxury of hindsight when we are actually making our mistakes.
__________________
  #938  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:46 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Darwin View Post
Where is the evidence of this? If there is some, I'll take back the comment about Diana being on bad terms with The Queen. Regardless of how things were between the two Women, though, do you really think William and Harry wanted to be in front of the cameras, at that time?
You should read The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown and Diana by Sarah Bradford, which describes Diana's relationship with the Queen and Charles as very civil. Also there is a thread in the Diana forum which discusses the subject of Diana's relationship with members of TBRF.
__________________
"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
  #939  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:46 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Miami, United States
Posts: 4
I have always been a HUGE fan of Diana, but my view of Diana was altered somewhat yesterday, while watching a re-run of the wedding of William and Kate. It occurred to me that Diana might not have made the best mother-in-law. There are many reports of Diana discussing too-adult things in her life with her young son, William. She was also reportedly massively insecure, needing constant reassurance. This aspect of her personality might make her the mother-in-law from h#ll who controls and manipulates and who competes with her daughter-in-law for her son's attention. She also certainly knew how to steal the spotlight, even upstaging the Queen with a simple change in hairstyle.

While certainly not wishing anyone dead, it is my opinion that William will have a more healthy marriage and that Kate will have a MUCH easier go of it by only having the memory of Diana around at every turn, rather than the real deal.
__________________
  #940  
Old 04-30-2011, 11:00 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,465
I respectfully disagree. Diana loved her sons very much and would want them to be happy. She even told William that once he found his love to hold on to that person. Her friend Lana Marks was on CBS and commented that Diana would have adored Kate. Its rather mute to debate whether or not Diana would have liked Kate since Diana is no longer here. But what we do know is that Diana loved William and as his mother, she would want him to be happy. Catherine makes him happy.
__________________

__________________
"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
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 Prince Carl Philip 253 09-05-2012 03:45 AM
What would you change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 20 06-23-2010 06:31 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena jordans king king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]