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
 
  #121  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:53 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
I should have been more specific, Elspeth is correct I ment Borderline Personality Disorder.
Well both are close if you compare the effects but bipolar is considered as a dangerous behaviour for yourself and in some case, for others. BPD is much more common I think ; I have friends who live between laughs and cries but I'm sometimes like that too so I don't know if it should be qualified as a disease in fact.
__________________

__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #122  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:18 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
What exactly is borderline personality disorder? Is it like Narcissistic (spelled it wrong--apologies) personality disorder?
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #123  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:23 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
It's actually the fact that in a second you can go from happiness to depression (exagerating a little there but just to illustrate the situation). Going from white to black if you prefer.

Wikipedia explains it well :
Quote:
BPD is defined as a personality disorder primarily characterized by emotional dysregulation, extreme "black and white" thinking, or "splitting", and chaotic relationships. The general profile of the disorder also typically includes a pervasive instability in mood, interpersonal relationships, self-image, identity, and behavior, as well as a disturbance in the individual's sense of self.
Diana may have been touched by it because as we know she had problems to keep good relationships with the people around her : " These disturbances have a pervasive negative impact on many or all of the psychosocial facets of life. This includes the ability to maintain relationships in work, home, and social settings. " (Borderline personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #124  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:33 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
I didn't say she didn't do it or that it was forgivable Roslyn. Just that I don't believe everything Penny Junor writes.
Fair enough.
__________________
  #125  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon View Post
Ban her to Siberia?
Who have you ever heard of, who the Royal Family banned to Siberia?
If Sarah wasn't 'banned' and had pretty much equal rights with Andrew, when it came to children, then surely Diana would know that her situation couldn't have been worse?
No I didn't mean Siberia literally, I meant ban her to a deep freeze. Urm, I don't mean that literally either.......however, I know all about custody battles since I was in one for 8 years with my ex-husband, and I know many others who were in the same boat as well. I know the drill, I can recognize the vernacular in the dark -- I know they were flirting with plans to exclude Diana from her childrens' lives. All the nonsense about MPD and other "mental illnesses" as practiced by the armchair shrinks is a dead giveaway. Plus, any mother has sensitive antennae for plans such as this, and Diana knew and responded accordingly.

Typically, Diana herself even played into it claiming to be bulimic and suicidally depressed, and although I'm sure she did have mild forms of those, it's not something she would have ever otherwise publicized. True bulimics don't have the skin, hair and teeth that Diana did. Those who are suicidally depressed don't do the fantastic job that Diana did. The purpose of the definition of any Personality Disorder was originated mainly to describe people who could not function well enough to maintain a job or support themselves. This does not describe Diana by any stretch of the imagination. I think much of her "malicious" behavior could be explained as provoked.

The situation with Sarah was entirely different since for one thing, she did not have control of the family jewels -- and they'd also managed to give her a financial settlement in the negative so Sarah actually owed money. Additionally, there was no motive to take away Sarah's children, they stitched her up quite effectively in other ways.

Even though the royal family did not ban any members to Siberia, they sure knew how to ban. Prince John was banned to the distant cottage, and David was banned to France -- whatever it took to effectively ban them was done.
__________________
  #126  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
It is always a mistake if it is clear that it is not the truth (Panorama Interview). The over acting was hilarious to watch.
I don't understand your posting an old picture or your last comment. Diana was given luxuries most girls can't even imagine!
http://home.comcast.net/~thissal/thisandthat2/ok.jpg

In the Panorama Interview, Diana spoke her own truth, so that is why I don't see it as a mistake since it generated more appropriate consequences. I would have preferred for Diana to keep her mouth shut and become our discreet and silent queen and perhaps Charles would have returned eventually, but that was not to be. In the grand scheme, my preferences for what the royal family does don't matter one iota anyway. The Panorama Interview allowed Diana to speak her truth, to be released from the constraints of the royal family and to generate a ban on landmines -- so I suppose that is good and what was meant to be.

The picture I included is a snap of Charles and Diana which shows how much he did love her at one time.
__________________
  #127  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
Bad Boy Charles should have paid more attention to the luxury of Diana.
What do you mean by "paid more attention" ? I'm a little confused there .
I was referring to that top worn by Diana once that stated "I am a Luxury". What does luxury mean? It usually refers to something that is nice to have but not really needed. Just a sad commentary was all.
__________________
  #128  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:12 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
I was referring to that top worn by Diana once that stated "I am a Luxury". What does luxury mean? It usually refers to something that is nice to have but not really needed. Just a sad commentary was all.
Alright . I know that picture too but it was just the sense of your sentence I didn't catch, sorry .
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #129  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:22 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post

The situation with Sarah was entirely different since for one thing, she did not have control of the family jewels -- and they'd also managed to give her a financial settlement in the negative so Sarah actually owed money. Additionally, there was no motive to take away Sarah's children, they stitched her up quite effectively in other ways.

Even though the royal family did not ban any members to Siberia, they sure knew how to ban. Prince John was banned to the distant cottage, and David was banned to France -- whatever it took to effectively ban them was done.
Sarah did still owe money, but because of her own reckless spending habits. We can't really blame the Royal Family for her bad choices. Also, Diana really did not have control over the family jewels--she had certain pieces which she had the use of, but did not own or control. If the Queen wanted them back, she had only to request them.
Also, I don't think the Royal Family was scheming to take the boys away from their mother--that would have been very bad press and I just don't think that Prince Charles is that type of person. The Queen let her keep apartments in Kensington Palace and also paid around 600,000 pounds yearly for her private offices--so had they wanted to edge her out of the lives of the boys I think she would have been kicked out of the palace and lost other perks.

I don't think that Prince John was banned--I have read that the child suffered from epilepsy and also Asperger's syndrome. If he did have Asperger's syndrome, then he was accustomed to routines and such and would have had trouble if his routines were unsettled. He died at age 13, having been born in 1905. He was at Sandringham for the two years prior to his death, at the suggestion of his physicians (according to Queen Mary's bio by James Pope Hennessy). It was not a question of him being "banned" but unfortunantly it was not uncommon to send family members elsewhere if they had odd beahviors. We can't look at it with the knowledge we have now, in 2007, and judge what happened in 1917. I must admit, I find Prince John to be fascinating and there was even a mini-series on him entitled The Lost Prince.
As for David being banned to France, I'm not sure I know enough about that to effectively disagree, but I cannot really blame King George VI for the decision to not let him return to England. I do know that a lot of different things played into that decision, though.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #130  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:41 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
I must admit, I find Prince John to be fascinating and there was even a mini-series on him entitled The Lost Prince.
PBS Masterpiece Theatre will playing the series soon. I'll be sure to watch it!
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
  #131  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:51 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
I was referring to that top worn by Diana once that stated "I am a Luxury". What does luxury mean? It usually refers to something that is nice to have but not really needed. Just a sad commentary was all.
Wasn't the full wording "I'm a luxury few can afford"? It actually struck me as sort of amusing. I thought the photo of her in that top pre-dated her marriage, but I might be misremembering.
__________________
  #132  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:56 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
http://home.comcast.net/~thissal/thisandthat2/ok.jpg

In the Panorama Interview, Diana spoke her own truth, so that is why I don't see it as a mistake since it generated more appropriate consequences.
Well if Diana needed out of the marriage then the Panorama interview did it. She would have made her wishes clearer if she had said straight up front that she wanted out of the marriage rather than protesting that she didn't want the marriage.

That interview didn't change my opinion of Diana but it did surprise me for two things. I was astounded that she claimed that she didn't want a divorce; I couldn't fathom being willing to do an interview like that and not wanting a divorce. I suspected that she in fact wanted a divorce but she didn't want to admit it. Or rather she wanted the divorce and then wanted to be able to claim that the Royal Family forced her into a divorce.

This kind of cunning I cannot blame on a mental illness. I mean its possible to be mentally ill and paranoid but to be mentally ill and that calculating does not sound right.

But simply because one has post partum depression and bulimia doesn't make one mentally ill I think. Mentally troubled but one should still be able to be responsible for their actions.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #133  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:58 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The thing is, any mental illness such as BP or BPD would have been so obvious that it wouldn't have been possible to keep it a secret. I mean, people know I've got BP because it shows in my everyday life. For example, sometimes I blank people I know when I pass them in the street because I don't feel I want to talk to anyone and so I just ignore them. But they know thats what I do and that I dont really mean it. Unless Diana was zonked out on meds, I can't see her keeping her illness under wraps.
__________________
  #134  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Wasn't the full wording "I'm a luxury few can afford"? It actually struck me as sort of amusing. I thought the photo of her in that top pre-dated her marriage, but I might be misremembering.


I don't remember the exact wording but if I run across the picture again, I'll post it. I think it was after the marriage though since I vaguely remember William and Harry as toddlers in the picture.
__________________
  #135  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:01 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Wasn't the full wording "I'm a luxury few can afford"? It actually struck me as sort of amusing. I thought the photo of her in that top pre-dated her marriage, but I might be misremembering.
Well there's another one of her in that top but it seems that it was the same day.

Pictures 1 & 2
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #136  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:31 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4 View Post
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.
I do have a bunch of questions about Diana giving up her royal protection but it would probably be more relevant under the Inquest thread.
__________________
  #137  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
Well there's another one of her in that top but it seems that it was the same day.

Pictures 1 & 2
Thanks TheTruth. There she is, the late luxury of Great Britain.
__________________
  #138  
Old 12-30-2007, 09:45 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Thanks TheTruth. There she is, the late luxury of Great Britain.

Too funny!
I have to confess, I do like the sweater. My husband would probably agree!
I would think that the "I'm a luxury" statement was completely made in jest and the press had a field day with it.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #139  
Old 12-30-2007, 10:02 PM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 341

First a person can have both an Axis I diagnosis-a mood disorder such as depression, bipolar, atypical depression etc. AND an Axis 2 diagnosis of a personality disorder such as borderline, histronic, narcisstic etc.. Since most people's mood disorders are cyclical a person can be an intelligent and functional member of society and Still have serious mental illness.In the book "Diana in Search of self" Bradford does an exhausative review of Diana's maladaptive and manipulative behaviors going back to middle school. She makes a good case for borderline personality disorder.It is clear that Prince Charles realized early in the marriage that she needed help. Many authors have documented that Diana was taken to many psychiatrists and was offered medication that she refused. NO SPOUSE can make one comply with treatment. Saying that Diana had a mental illness does not excuse her manipulative or hurtful behaviors. Rather I think it explains some of it. Ultimately it was her responsiblity to get help and take care of herself.ADD- Axis 1thru 5 diagnosis are found in the DSM-these categories help mental health professionals classify illness.
__________________
  #140  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:19 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
That interview didn't change my opinion of Diana but it did surprise me for two things. I was astounded that she claimed that she didn't want a divorce; I couldn't fathom being willing to do an interview like that and not wanting a divorce. I suspected that she in fact wanted a divorce but she didn't want to admit it. Or rather she wanted the divorce and then wanted to be able to claim that the Royal Family forced her into a divorce.

This kind of cunning I cannot blame on a mental illness. I mean its possible to be mentally ill and paranoid but to be mentally ill and that calculating does not sound right.
I was almost persuaded by the mental illness argument, when I decided to re-read the Bashir interview. She was all over the place that day and her answers were so cold and calculating. She even spoke of herself in the third person like some dictator.

The marriage was not working out, so she was seduced by the idea that she wanted to be free. After the book came out and she saw the reactions, she started to rethink her plan, and this is where the battle began. The children became her weapon in her power play or “chess game” as she called it. She was negotiating with the BRF in front of the entire world - she wanted to be an "Ambassador".

In doing so, she was undermining Charles reputation, while telling the Queen how things should be done. She seems to have a clear understanding of how the establishment and system worked, yet how on earth could she have underestimated their power?

Quote:
so that is why I don't see it as a mistake since it generated more appropriate consequences.
She did not want to lose her HRH and she wanted an official role, both of which did not happen. Charles and the children benefited the most from the consequences of the interview.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/diana/panorama.html
__________________

__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
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 Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 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




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess haya princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 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]