When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[MARG]

Leave the woman alone. Speaking ill of the dead (in these circumstances) is below the level of gutter journalism. Strange how it is mainly women who like to stick the boot it.

Might I suggest that you are on the wrong forum and thread (When did you opinion of Diana change and why?) if you wish to hear what people think about Diana only to respond with vile abuse when those opinions don't agree with yours.

It takes one to have an opinion, two to have a conversation and a forum to have an international debate. And that is what this forum is all about, debating issues "in these" or indeed any, "circumstances".

FYI, descending to abuse is the resort of the bigot which, in my experience, is genderless!

 

[georgiea]

she visited him and told him about the Panorama programme and left him alone, and open to to cruel nudges, winks etc, of a Boys Public School.

She calmly walks off and leaves him there alone to face the humiliation of "the whole ghastly mess". Boys are mean and cruel and with any luck grow out of it but he was exposed and she just went ahead and destroyed his world, and trashed his father and family to the whole world. Where was the loving protective mother then?

I remember in the Panorama interview. Diana, Princess of Wales was asked about Prince William. Her reply was she did the interview while he was protected in school. I thought they had a ban on media there. She also went to her boys to explain the interview. Marg where did you get your info on how Prince William and Prince Henry were treated?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember when the Morton book came out she did the same thing and there was a ban on the book being brought into the school but that some were smuggled in anyway.

The interview was done in late November with the boys going on holidays only a few weeks later. Do you really think that none of the other boys parents hadn't kept the interview on tape to show their sons (or the sons had other ways of getting to see the interview during the Christmas holidays).

She may have been able to put a ban on things officially for a couple of weeks or so but the boys would certainly have had full knowledge of it by the time school returned the following January.

Boarding schools always have underground ways of finding things out and of keeping things secret away from the prying eyes of teachers (this I know from personal experience of boarding school having been in one for 4 years and having other family members who were also at boarding school and who say the same thing over a number of generations).

Eton is also a school where the boys have easy access to the town and the reports of the interview were all over the newspapers for the next couple of days/weeks.

I have absolutely no doubt that William was aware of the contents of the interview and subject to teasing about it by his class mates and others in the school - and that he didn't report this as that would have only led to worse bullying in private situations.

 

[sirhon11234]

It had to be so difficult for the boys to have both of their parents doing tell all interviews and books saying hurtful things. At least by 97 everything was much better.

 

[MARG]

I remember in the Panorama interview. Diana, Princess of Wales was asked about Prince William. Her reply was she did the interview while he was protected in school. I thought they had a ban on media there. She also went to her boys to explain the interview. Marg where did you get your info on how Prince William and Prince Henry were treated?

I only referred to Prince William because he was there on his own at that time. There was actually a photograph published with she and William sittling on a bench outside half turned toward each other. She confirmed that is when she told him and ile the British press may have ignored it, the international press did what they alwayas had. The school is virtually open, which was what both parents had wanted and Diana was hardly discreet or invisible!

Eton is also a school where the boys have easy access to the town and the reports of the interview were all over newspapers for the next couple of days/weeks.

Kids will be kids and I have no doubt they talked and sniggered at the whole ghastly mess, as other members have pointed out, the knowledge was freely available and the school is anything but "Cloistered".

 

[Mermaid1962]

Was this the same incident or another one where she went behind a hedge to talk to him?

I only referred to Prince William because he was there on his own at that time. There was actually a photograph published with she and William sittling on a bench outside half turned toward each other.

 

[MARG]

Yes I think that may be the one plastered over the magazines, he in his Eton uniform and Diana trying to hustle him off, but I am sure the telephoto lens followed to where they sat together. The closer one may not haved been published in the UK due to the "agreement" about the boys at school . Time dulls exact memories but that sounds about right.

 

[Dierna23]

...but the boys would certainly have had full knowledge of it by the time school returned the following January.

I agree. As far as I remember Katie Nicholl wrote in her new bio about William and Harry that William indeed had quite a difficult time because of the Panorama interview and that he was ribbed or at least he was ashamed because of it, as some of his school mates knew about it of course. I have to read that again.

 

[Osipi]

There was mention in the book also that William got very angry with Diana over it too.

That's one part of the book that I found to be a bit of "poetic license". How did Katie have any clue of what happened between Diana and Will in their private apartment in KP?

Actually though, I really enjoyed the book.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

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

Just speculation, but I don't think she would have ever been "happy." She was dating wealthy scoundrels and covertly threatening the RF with bad behavior. I believe Diana "shot herself in the foot" with her whining and her unwillingness to reconcile with PoW. I believe he would have stayed with her for life if they could have reached some kind of agreement. They were separated for a number of years and it is my understanding that the Palace insisted that Charles divorce her. (Someone set me straight if this isn't true).

She was in need of serious counselling, but I don't think she took advantage of any that was offered.

She disliked being a Royal and when she was no longer a Royal, she didn't like that much, either.

 

[Iluvbertie]

After the Panorama Interview the Queen wrote to both of them insisting on a divorce. The Panorama interview was the final straw for the Queen and Diana had to go, finally.

 

[sirhon11234]

IMO Charles and Diana would have divorced either way. The marriage was a PR disaster for the BRF and everyone by 1995 knew the marriage had serious problems. There would have been no point for Diana to reconcile with Charles, the marriage was causing too much pain and embarrassment. IMO the divorce was long coming, with the book, Charles and finally Diana's interview it became way too much. I am very happy that marriage ended. Charles and Diana were much happier once it was over.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, it was at the point where they'd have to divorce. The only other thing possible was if they truly reconciled, did away with outside--ahem--interests, and told their friends to stop talking as well.

Some people think that HM was cruel to tell them to divorce. But the marriage had come to the point that it was causing dissension in the nation; people were picking sides all over the place. Perhaps the Prime Minister advised the Queen to tell them to divorce for that matter.

 

[georgiea]

I just finished reading William's Princess chapter on Teen Icon. I believe the author Robert Jobson got the true picture of the princes especially Prince William and how they relate to their parent's marriage and divorce.

Jobson says Prince William wanted his mother and father happy, so he would have a peaceful life. The author did not mention the Panorama Interview, but other situations with his parents public fighting. The princes acted differently handling the fighting. Prince William rebelled and Prince Henry closed up.

The book says that Prince William learned about his parent's feud when in school by watching TV in his bodyguards room. The school band the news. Prince William was also Princess Diana's support. The book stated that she told her friends that William was her soul mate and very needy of him, like a husband. The author said that happens a lot with mothers who don't get along with their husbands.

Something interesting to me was the statement by the author saying Prince William would not want a girlfriend too needy of him (Princess Diana was too much), but his nature is to be protective of family and friends. I think Kate fits his preferences perfectly.

What clues me that this author got it right is the princes wanting their parents happy, so they will have a peaceful life. Prince Henry made a public statement concerning the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. He stated that his father is happy now and both he and his bother are happy for them.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Iluvbertie

The difference between journalists and schoalrs is that the latter vigorously defend academic rigour and dismiss gossip and simple hatefulness for a more honest picture.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Iluvbertie

The difference between journalists and schoalrs is that the latter vigorously defend academic rigour and dismiss gossip and simple hatefulness for a more honest picture.

I know the difference, being a History teacher but...any true historian who dismisses gossip isn't getting the 'full picture' anyway as the journalists also do a lot or research into what the feelings are of the public at the time and thus jounalistic writings are valid sources to gain views and opinions to add to the more rigorous academic research. A true historian these days wants to get the full picture as much as possible and that includes the versions of the people AND the opinions of others including those whose opinions are full of hatefulness as that is a valid opinion and has to be investigated to find out why the writer is so full of hatefulness just as someone who is all in favour of someone/something has to be evaluated to find out why they are so positive. In fact any decent researcher who doesn't look at all possible sources and opinions, both for and against, is a poor researcher and not a good one. It is essential for historians to read and use formal and informal sources - e.g. going back in time to researching attitudes to the outbreak of WWI historians look at the enlistment figures, the speeches in Parliament, the letters to the newspapers and the photos taken of the crowds cheering the announcement - some of these would be seen as gossip and jounalistic reporting but a good historian would be using both the formal and informal opinions to get the full picture. Just because the gossip magazines and the journalists are writing today doesn't mean that they are to be dismissed but rather evaluated for reliability in the same way that a more 'learned' treatise is written and if deemed useful, reliable and valuable used and if not ignored - any decent historian would do that of the past and increasingly of the present - it is certainly how we teach the children at NSW High Schools to be historians.

 

[lyndell75]

For me, it was the the Charles interview....I didn't believe the Morton book at first but after Charles open his mouth about Camilia

Diana on the other hand should have stop the war right there she continued to talk and did her on tv interview, after that she lost me somewhat

 

[nascarlucy]

By the early 1990's it was evident to the average person that their marriage was not working out very well. When I watched the 1995 interview with Diana, I was imaging in my head what the Queen or Prince Charles must have thought. To say they were not pleased would be an understatement.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Obviously Diana didn't think taking a lover at about the same time as Charles took up with Camilla (my source for the timing is Diana's Panorama Interview - she says Charles went back to Camilla in 1986 and that is when she started with Hewitt - assuming he was the first one she actually cheated with) was a problem for the marriage.

 

[Mermaid1962]

True. There was more than enough hypocrisy on both sides in that debacle.

Obviously Diana didn't think taking a lover at about the same time as Charles took up with Camilla (my source for the timing is Diana's Panorama Interview - she says Charles went back to Camilla in 1986 and that is when she started with Hewitt - .

 

[georgiea]

Obviously Diana didn't think taking a lover at about the same time as Charles took up with Camilla (my source for the timing is Diana's Panorama Interview - she says Charles went back to Camilla in 1986 and that is when she started with Hewitt - assuming he was the first one she actually cheated with) was a problem for the marriage.

I thought Diana, Princess of Wales said in the Panorama Interview that by her woman's intuition she felt that Prince Charles was cheating. Remember, Prince Charles moved to High Grove permanently before 1986. I think if there is three in a marriage, then someone is left out. If my husband moved out I would think I was a separated but maybe not officially. I blame them both for their marriage failure. But I blame Prince Charles mostly because he could not give up the Duchess of Cornwall. He said it was non negotiable.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She did say that in the Panorama interview and the next question or the one that lead to it was about the timing of that change - 1986 was her answer. She also went on to admit that it was 1986 that she started her affair with Hewitt -but who was first isn't clear. What is clear is that they both started cheating at about the same time - 1986.

The other thing is was after 1986 that Charles started to stay more at Highgrove and Diana at Kensington (that though was also because he was/is more a country person and Diana was more a city person). This is also agreed upon by both of them - when they really established separate homes.

The non-negotiable comment was made after the divorce not during the marriage.

The timeline is important - not everything was said and done at the same time.

Both started cheating on the other in 1986 according to Diana and Charles only statement on date was after the marriage had 'irretrievably broken down, both of us having tried'. It always amazes me that people overlook Diana's own dating of when Charles started cheating and also assume that Charles' is lying when he makes the comments he made.

The important thing to me is that Charles is the happy Prince of Wales is was in my youth rather than the morose PoW he was through most of the 80s and 90s.

 

[sirhon11234]

I blame them both for their marriage failure.

I agree its interesting when some people souly blame either Charles or Diana for the failure of the marriage. With the divorce we saw two people finally happy and able to repair their relationshp and becoming friends again. It was great to see the Princess have such happiness in her final year.

 

[georgiea]

The important thing to me is that Charles is the happy Prince of Wales is was in my youth rather than the morose PoW he was through most of the 80s and 90s.

It was great to see the Princess have such happiness in her final year.

Yes, to both of the above quotes. They both were much happier after the divorce.

 

[ghost_night554]

I've come to appreaciate and respect both individuals over the years. So in the end, while we did want that fairy tale story to end with a happily ever after , it really was better for them to go their own separate ways, after all I think the only thing any of us here really wanted was to see both of them equally happy.

 

[LadyDiana]

I put other because I am still learning of Diana's life, and I feel that she was a flawed yet misunderstood person.

For one why should someone automatically that someone is being needy for wanting their husband, it was her husband obviously he wasn't showing her any attention!

Also is there any actual proof of affairs, I'm not saying she's a saint, but other then maybe Barry Mannakee (spelling) again i'm still new but is there proof she really did cheat? As for that, granted it wasn't right for her to cheat either but, what do you expect her husband was obviously cheating on her since day one!

I think that going around and doing things for people doesn't always mean your doing it for publicity. Maybe it truly made her happy and gave her something to do.

Again i'm still new but I feel like there is way to much negativity directed towards her when if anything they should maybe be both blamed.

 

[Osipi]

I put other because I am still learning of Diana's life, and I feel that she was a flawed yet misunderstood person.

For one why should someone automatically that someone is being needy for wanting their husband, it was her husband obviously he wasn't showing her any attention!

Also is there any actual proof of affairs, I'm not saying she's a saint, but other then maybe Barry Mannakee (spelling) again i'm still new but is there proof she really did cheat? As for that, granted it wasn't right for her to cheat either but, what do you expect her husband was obviously cheating on her since day one!

I think that going around and doing things for people doesn't always mean your doing it for publicity. Maybe it truly made her happy and gave her something to do.

Again i'm still new but I feel like there is way to much negativity directed towards her when if anything they should maybe be both blamed.

I think as we watch William and Harry grow in their lives, we're going to be seeing the best of both parents. Its the same with the York girls and Anne's kids.

I've flip flopped a lot on my opinion on Diana and I've really not registered a vote yet. I've posted yes.. but I've not really voted yet. There is a lot about Diana that I wish I was like and a lot about Diana I'm glad I'm not. In the long run I've never ever met Diana and know what only I've learned from the years and books and what folks say here. Her life was so scrutinized and followed that I think she had the bigger fishbowl than the entire BRF for the past century. '

What she did have was I think have a genuine interest in the human condition. Perhaps her childhood had a lot to do with that. When you need certain things, you find you're empathic to sensing those needs in other people.
Whether it be AIDS, bulimia, smallpox or just hungry on the streets, I do think she sensed the need. This is why I think Centrepoint is so important to William as is his work as a SAR. It reminds me of a song that's hauntingly appropiate here and to me it reflects both Diana and her sons.

Streets of London

Have you seen the old man
In the closed-down market
Kicking up the paper,
with his worn out shoes?
In his eyes you see no pride
Hand held loosely at his side
Yesterday's paper telling yesterday's news

Chorus: So how can you tell me you're lonely,
And say for you that the sun don't shine?
Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London
I'll show you something to make you change your mind

Have you seen the old girl
Who walks the streets of London
Dirt in her hair and her clothes in rags?
She's no time for talking,
She just keeps right on walking
Carrying her home in two carrier bags.

Chorus

In the all night cafe
At a quarter past eleven
Same old man is sitting there on his own
Looking at the world
Over the rim of his tea-cup,
Each tea lasts an hour
Then he wanders home alone

Chorus

Have you seen the old man
Outside the Seaman's Mission
Memory fading with the medal ribbons that he wears
In our winter city,
The rain cries a little pity
For one more forgotten hero
And a world that doesn't care

Chorus

Now... on the other side.. and yes we need to remember there are two sides.

The marriage between Charles and Diana didn't work period. But one thing they both excelled at was being parents.

As far as the cheating goes we can't say with proof that Charles was cheating from day one. Charles remained close friends with both Camilla and Andrew after their marriage and is even godfather to their eldest son Tom.
Camilla and Charles I think have always had the natural intimacy of being close friends. IMO its that intimacy of being close friends that really set Diana on edge as its the intimacy she wished she had with Charles. The cheating part on both sides I do believe happened after there just wasn't any way they'd achieve intimacy.

What I did find touching is that Charles cared enough to travel to Paris to escort Diana home. He didn't have to. Charles is not the monster I think in that fiasco of a marriage. The marriage failed because of two people but the good thing is the sons carry the best of both.

 

[LadyDiana]

I agree that it was nice of him to accompany her body back to England. It proves he must have cared for regardless of everything that occured while and after they were married.

Has he ever visted her grave? And what was his opinion of her after her death does he speak of her?

 

[Zonk]

I think Charles cared for Diana when they married and fell in love with her afterwards. It was kind of like he fell in love with the Diana image. Remember what Rita Hayworth said back in the day....Men fall in love with Gilda (a character she played in a great movie) and wake up with me (which waking up with Rita Hayworth wasn't a bad thing but you get the idea).

I think that Charles and Camilla had a love that evolved into a great friendship and Diana was threatened by that. She wasnt the first and wont be the last not to understand a woman/man relationship that isn't sexual. Camilla and Charles had a great history and affection that withstood both of their marriages. Now if Camilla wasn't having some issues or felt that something was missing in her marriage...well maybe she wouldn't have turned to Charles and vice versa.

I think Diana sought out love from other men because she wasn't getting it (or believed she wasn getting it) from her husband. For me personally the timelines on who cheated first dont matter. Although one can certainly argue the merits and differences of a sexual affair with someone outside of your marriage versus a love affair with someone outside of your marriage. There is a difference but at this point its moot. Two wrongs don't make a right.

By the time of her death, both Charles and Diana had reached a turning point in their relationship where they could be friends. Diana was also accepting of Camilla's role in Charles's life.

Charles too me look devastated when he brought her back from France. It could be because of his sons, because he and Diana were friends, or whatever. Just devastated IMO.

Nonetheless I still have a fondess for Diana. I just accept her with her faults. She wasn't a perfect person.

 

[sirhon11234]

Nonetheless I still have a fondess for Diana. I just accept her with her faults. She wasn't a perfect person.

I too. Does a perfect person even exist in this day in age?