When did your opinion of Diana change and why?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

When did your opinion of Diana start to change and why?

  • Morton book (1990)

    Votes: 25 9.8%
  • War of the Waleses (starting 1990)

    Votes: 20 7.8%
  • Squidgygate (1992)

    Votes: 12 4.7%
  • Hewitt affair (1993)

    Votes: 17 6.7%
  • Charles' interview (1994)

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • Panorama interview (1995)

    Votes: 43 16.9%
  • Phone calls to Oliver Hoare (1994)

    Votes: 14 5.5%
  • Dodi al-Fayed (1997)

    Votes: 23 9.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 96 37.6%

  • Total voters
    255
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think Diana can throw stone

The only stones being thrown come from those, totally uninvolved, who feel they have a right to take a side.

And, well it's quite impossible for Diana to throw stones and has been for the past 10 years...:)
 
Last edited:
She asked to be judged by doing a book and an interview portraying herself as the innocent party. It's never black or white, and it's true she married really young, but you're not still young at 32? Anger is not a rational way to go about solving problems, which she had to learn the hard way.

I think everyone here has sympathy for her, I certainly do. Her troubled life was cut short and she left two young children. How could we not feel bad. But, this thread is simply an analysis of this question: when-did-your-opinion-diana-change-why?

Don't worry, no one can ever do anything to her now! May she rest in peace.
 
Last edited:
The only stones being thrown come from those, totally uninvolved, who feel they have a right to take a side.​

It was not meant to be and they were both wrong.:flowers:


And, well it's quite impossible for Diana to throw stones and has been for the past 10 years...:)
You know what I mean. She was hurt by Charles' affair, as she should be. Yet she did the same and threw stones by blaming him for everything that was wrong in her life.​
 
Last edited:
You are right, Chimene, she did foolish things. From my prospective 32 is very young, also. Plus, by then she, as I said, let her anger determine her lifestyle, which was really a bad idea. And you are also right, life is not black and white, there are many shades of gray mixed in. That everyone here has sympathy for her, I do not know. And the question ...when did your opinion of Diana change... was a lead in for more negative comments, which I find at this point, 10 years after her death, to be stultifying.
 
Well, personally, at the age of 32, I would hope that most would better appreciate the sanctity of marriage, and not enter such a union if one's feelings are not as they should be towards the proposed spouse.​


It was an ill made match from day dot, and given the circumstance and enormity of the situation, I think both Charles and Diana were subject to the expectations of everyone around them and even those they did not know. Very early both surrendered their personal happiness for the contentment of others, I think.​


and they were both wrong.


:flowers:


They were both scared I think. And yes, choices they made were often far from appealing and did little to aid the difficulty of the situation.​
 
Last edited:
They both were wrong, that is true, but I'm not sure I would call Charles spoiled, selfish, and terrible. I think that is unfair, especially since he had to deal with all the carefully manipulated negative press Diana kept throwing his way. Even though he admitted to having a relationship with Camilla, he always maintained the correct sense of decorum and propriety. I didn't see him out there giving interviews criticizing Diana's parenting skills. Also, are we forgetting that Charles carried on an affair with a woman he had known for years and years? Diana carried on numerous affairs in an attempt to validate herself as a person of worth and to get back at Charles. Neither was right and neither behaved as they should have, but I have to say that Diana was vengeful where Charles was not. True, she was young when she married Charles--and it wasn't a booming success from the get-go, but Charles has said over and over that there was a time when they were very much in love and happy--you can see it in photos after Harry was born-but it just didn't last because they were not a good match and Diana, frankly, just did not deal gracefully with the situation because of the way her life had played out. She had a troubled upbringing and didn't get enough attention; she read those ridiculous Barbara Cartland romance novels expecting that was how love would be (at 19 I think we all think that way) and then married THE prince of her dreams. She found out it wasn't that way at all, that dreams do not become reality, and was upset and reacted in the same way she reacted to things as a child--sulking, anger, manipulation, etc...--all things which we, as teenagers, were probably guilty of. But, she never really outgrew it and that is tragic.
 
Two wrongs, certainly, don't make a right, but to whom should she have been faithful?
She could have been true to herself. If the marriage was not working and she wanted to end it and live honestly, I would have applauded her, even admire her for it. However, I think she wanted to have it both ways, and as you know, the rest is history.
 
However, I think she wanted to have it both ways...

As did her husband, if that's the case.

I, for the life of me, can't take sides...it's impossible and pointless. And I believe that if such statements are addressed to one, then surely the other should not elude the very same critique...:flowers:

I fondly remember Diana and I genuinely like Charles. To think poorly of either person for the unhappy state of their marriage is no one's place, imo.
 
Last edited:
By what means did Penny expose this tale, Sam?
As Sam has answered that question, here's the relevant passage (pages 165-166):

"Another victim of Diana's erratic behaviour towards friends and staff was Victoria Mendham. She was the Princess's secretary for seven years, and was totally devoted to her... It was a measure of their friendship that Diana asked Victoria to go on holiday with her four years running. For the first two Diana paid the full cost. When they went to the Caribbean again at Easter 1996, Victoria assumed she was there as a guest once again. It was a great treat and all was going well until half way through the holiday when the Princess suddenly said 'Oh, Victoria, I've written a note...to make sure you get your share of the bill. I think it's about £5,000.'

Victoria telephoned the London office in floods of tears... The Prince [of Wales] paid.

Nine months later it happened again. This time Victoria said she could pay the airfare to the Caribbean but they had stayed at the K Club where beach-side villas cost £1,700 a night, and paying that kind of money was out of the question. When the Princess learnt that her husband had footed the previous bill she 'went through the roof' and Victoria was frozen out as others had been before her."
 
Cheers for that, Warren.

That's certainly some unfortunate behaviour displayed by the late Princess of Wales.

I think it's proven that Diana had a temperament which was most fragile. I think, and spychological burden's aside, that she also became accustomed to wielding a certain influence over others desires to please.

She was as flawed as the next person and on occasion displayed a manipulative streak, though this does little to alter my strong belief that she was a beautiful woman who believed in the greater good of humanity and wanted to do what she could to help shape a better and brighter future for many.
 
I agree that Penny Junor is probably telling the thruth on this point but she's not a writer I appreciate. Her little pleasure is to bring down Diana for everything and I don't follow her on that, like I wouldn't with someone who would do the same for Charles or Camilla.

To come back to her anger, I think that when the problems started she was angry with herself. She couldn't believe how wrong she had been and why Charles would prefer Camilla to her. There was also the terrible insecurity she couldn't stop even after marrying, the bulimia and so on. All the factors were there to push her a little more down. But then with the fame, she saw that she could have everything she ever wanted and had the support of many. Unconsciously, people around her made her thought and told her she didn't have to take it on herself, that the cause of her unhappiness was created by others. From that moment, her anger turned upon others : that's where all the problems began. I'd say that she was wrong to blame others for all her miserableness but most people around her encouraged this anger so it's very complicated to blame only one.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Penny Junor is probably telling the thruth on this point but she's not a writer I appreciate. Her little pleasure is to bring down Diana for everything and I don't follow her on that, like I wouldn't with someone who would do the same for Charles or Camilla.

Don't shoot the messenger! If Junor's description of those facts and circumstances is accurate, Diana's conduct was appalling. There can be no excuse for her behaviour which was thoughtless and selfish and apparently designed to cause discomfort to her employee. But she had a long history of behaving inappropriately with respect to employees.
 
-SNIPPED-Charles was a CAD, just not a good looking one. He is spoiled, selfish and was a terrible husband-SNIPPED-
You know this how?

-SNIPPED - No one of us, has the right to judge how and what she felt when she made these foolish decisions.-SNIPPED
And yet many presume to judge Charles.

Another victim of Diana's erratic behaviour towards friends and staff was Victoria Mendham.-SNIPPED- This time Victoria said she could pay the airfare to the Caribbean but they had stayed at the K Club where beach-side villas cost £1,700 a night, and paying that kind of money was out of the question. When the Princess learnt that her husband had footed the previous bill she 'went through the roof' and Victoria was frozen out as others had been before her."
Oh what a wonderful person she was! :rolleyes: Why do people find excuses for all the nasty incidents, she was ill, it was a cry for help, the way she was treated is to blame, she was driven to it, etc, etc. :rolleyes:
 
Don't shoot the messenger! If Junor's description of those facts and circumstances is accurate, Diana's conduct was appalling. There can be no excuse for her behaviour which was thoughtless and selfish and apparently designed to cause discomfort to her employee. But she had a long history of behaving inappropriately with respect to employees.

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.
 
Diana did suffer a spychological illness. Whether people wish to believe it or not, for whatever ill felt means they grasp, does not change that fact.
 
Diana did suffer a spychological illness. Whether people wish to believe it or not, for whatever ill felt means they grasp, does not change that fact.
Do you have a link to the specialists report confirming that she had an illness, or is it more the case that it is the only way people can excuse the nasty things she did?

She 'may' have had a psychological illness, but that does not explain away many of the things she did.
 
I've just deleted an exaggeratedly polite but pointless catfight between two members. The rest of us are not interested in reading your personal comments about each other.

The affected parties will receive pms from the moderating team with explanations later.

ysbel
British forums moderator
 
Bulimia, as I am sure you must know, although now recognised as an eating disorder, manifests for many reasons. To say this was the reason for treating people as she did, is a dis-service to others who 'suffer' from this illness. I would suggest you read some of the books/comments/articles about Diana's childhood, before she 'suffered' from bulimia, when her treatment of people couldn't be blamed on anything but her nature!

Princess Diana as a child treated most of her nannies badly after her mother left her. Skydragon, who else did she hurt? I think her actions to her nannies show a little girl who really hurt for her mother. I never had a nanny, but not having your mother around would hurt me and maybe make me act in ways I would not normal act. She really only had one nanny that worked out - Mary Clark.

To say that Diana suffered a psychological illness, which is an excuse for her nastiness, without corroborating evidence from a reliable source is lax. For those interested, these are fairly accurate articles about Bulimia, (a subject I have taken an interest in for many years as a close friend 'suffered' from it and she was a really nice person!)

Skydragon, Princess Diana's actions in my opinion show a paranoid person with depression as well as a bulimic. What a terrible combination to have. Her numerous affairs, her Morton Book, the TV interview, and mostly her letter about Tiggy shows (in true form) a person under pressure gets sick with mental illness. It is documented that Princess Diana was still bulimic in 1993 after most of the damage and affairs took place. I don't know if your bulimic friend had a family and husband to love her, but what I have read about Princess Diana is that she really did not have anyone and her friends where all compartmentalized.

It looks like Diana's positive legacy is living on from the response of this thread. My opinion of Princess Diana has not changed or will NEVER change. I liked and admired her because she was human. She showed the world even a Princess could suffer from a mental illness brought on by pressure and still contribute to society in a big way. Just look at the Crown Princess of Japan who is fighting mental illness. The Japan Royal family have her under treatment and hidden from the pressure. If Diana would have done treatment for her illness early in her marriage, she would still be married to Prince Charles. I just wish Charles would have made her do it.:flowers::flowers::flowers:
 
Last edited:
Princess Diana as a child treated most of her nannies badly after her mother left her. Skydragon, who else did she hurt? I think her actions to her nannies show a little girl who really hurt for her mother.-SNIPPED - in my opinion show a paranoid person with depression as well as a bulimic
The young girl at school who was taken before the head teacher and the subject of a police investigation to name one, how many girls would go so far as to send hate mail and make malicious calls to a step parent! Diana like most girls of her breeding, would have had a nanny before being sent to boarding school and they don't act in that way, with or without an absent parent. The spite show against some of her nannies is beyond a young girl missing her mother.

The facts are that Diana was never diagnosed with anything, it is only the 'labels' others have given her (or that she gave herself), normally IMO, to excuse her bad behaviour. It is so much easier to say 'she was ill', rather than accept she was not very nice at times.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a link to the specialists report confirming that she had an illness, or is it more the case that it is the only way people can excuse the nasty things she did?

She 'may' have had a psychological illness, but that does not explain away many of the things she did.

I think with Diana's sister's history with anorexia and the fact that her uncle committed suicide, it is safe to believe that Diana suffered from an eating disorder and it makes it understandable that she engaged in acts of self-harm.

I think its a bit simplistic to say that one illness or the other caused Diana to act the way she did but her overall psychological makeup could have been the deciding factor in many of her actions.

Unfortunately I think one of the side effects of Diana's public attacks against the Royal Family is that it encouraged people to want to assign blame to someone for the failure of the marriage. By the Panorama interview, I think Diana wanted the public to blame Charles and the Royal Family and as others have mentioned, Diana didn't sound that convincing on some things in that interview. So if one suspects that message not being true, its tempting to take the opposite stance and say that Diana rather than Charles was the cause of the breakup of the marriage.

But that is simplistic too. I think the truth was that they both made mistakes that they could have prevented however the marriage had severe problems that they could not solve that doomed the marriage.
 
I never knew that Diana was the subject of a police investigation when she was young for sending hate mail to a step-parent. That is really just over the top. I used to feel sorry for her, but she apparently never learned from the mistakes of her youth and then after marriage to Charles she was excused for all of her actions because she was "unhappy". I find it deplorable that she was not held accountable for her actions.
I know that Diana did a lot for charities and that she had a caring heart and engaging personality, but the way she treated the people in her own life is a direct contrast to the way she wanted to be perceived by the public. Sometimes it just really floors me when I read about how she really was. I konw that many believe that it was Charles' indifference to her that put her over the edge (I doubt he was indifferent to her), but I really do think it all started in childhood, and since she was never held accountable for her actions then, why, at least in her own thinking, should she have been held accountable as an adult? Neither was blameless in this marriage, but the way they conducted themselves was vastly different, and I have to say that Charles showed the most decorum.
 
I think with Diana's sister's history with anorexia and the fact that her uncle committed suicide, it is safe to believe that Diana suffered from an eating disorder and it makes it understandable that she engaged in acts of self-harm...
And like you pointed out, her uncle suicide was another reason why people, and in particular some of Charles' friends, came up with the borderline disease. I'm not saying they were wrong but Diana could be destabilized very easily and for someone with already alot of emotional problems, it can become very depressing. I don't think she was deeply ill, at least not more than the averge person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think with Diana's sister's history with anorexia and the fact that her uncle committed suicide, it is safe to believe that Diana suffered from an eating disorder and it makes it understandable that she engaged in acts of self-harm.
I have to agree, on the whole, with the majority of your balanced view. :flowers:

And like you pointed out, her uncle suicide was another reason why people, and in particular some of Charles' friends, came up with the borderline disease. I'm not saying they were wrong but Diana could be destabilized very easily and for someone with already alot of emotional problems, it can become very depressing. I don't think she was deeply ill, at least not more than the averge person.
Soames suggested Diana was paranoid after the Panorama interview, he never said anything else to suggest she had a BPD. I don't recall any of Charles' other friends making any comment about her mental state. :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the documentaries I watched on Diana, I believe "Diana Story of a Princess" Penny Junor stated in her book that Diana displayed signs of BPD.
 
But signs are not the disorder. There's all kinds of illnesses that can show symptoms similar to bipolar but if she had have been bipolar, I get the feeling she'd have been on anti-depressants.
 
Soames suggested Diana was paranoid after the Panorama interview, he never said anything else to suggest she had a BPD. I don't recall any of Charles' other friends making any comment about her mental state. :flowers:

I recall reading something about it in Bradford's biography. I'll try to find the passage from the book.
 
But signs are not the disorder. There's all kinds of illnesses that can show symptoms similar to bipolar but if she had have been bipolar, I get the feeling she'd have been on anti-depressants.

I think BPD is borderline personality disorder, not bipolar disorder. A few of Diana's biographers seem to be saying that borderline personality disorder explains some of her actions and her state of mind (to the extent that we're aware of her state of mind, of course).
 
I think BPD is borderline personality disorder, not bipolar disorder. A few of Diana's biographers seem to be saying that borderline personality disorder explains some of her actions and her state of mind (to the extent that we're aware of her state of mind, of course).

Yes, BPD is more likely to correspond to Diana's personality than bipolar. Bipolar is much more serious and damaging than BPD.

Borderline personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bipolar disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I should have been more specific, Elspeth is correct I ment Borderline Personality Disorder.
 
Sorry, I read that without my specs and didn't really see it properly. My apologies. BPD is a possibility. As TheTruth says, bipolar is more serious and I'd suggest that because it's so evident in every day life, we'd have seen signs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom