When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[TheTruth]

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.

 

[jcbcode99]

What exactly is borderline personality disorder? Is it like Narcissistic (spelled it wrong--apologies) personality disorder?

 

[TheTruth]

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 :

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)

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[TheTruth]

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 .

 

[jcbcode99]

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.

 

[Chimene]

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!

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[ysbel]

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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[TheTruth]

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

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[zhontella]

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.

 

[jcbcode99]

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.

 

[sthreats]

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.

 

[Chimene]

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?

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

 

[Madame Royale]

yet how on earth could she have underestimated their power?

It would have seemed that both 'parties' underestimated the other. I think all were in for a surprise, myself. Certainly a very unhappy situation.

 

[Chimene]

It would have seemed that both 'parties' underestimated the other. I think all were in for a surprise, myself. Certainly a very unhappy situation.

Yes, she certainly surprised the "enemy", one she wanted to still be a part of.

 

[Incas]

It's surprising now how many people are viewing the Panoramic episode as a negative. Maybe the last twelve years have filled in a lot of context it took place. However, at the time, when Nicolas Soames described it as a toe-curdling performance, he was pretty much pummeled by the rest of the panel in a round-table analysis group, not to mention virtually all press and public the next day. As a foreshadowing of the reaction to her death two years later, if anyone held a negative opinion of the princess, it was not a good idea to publicly acknowledge it.

Personally, I was curious of the whole BRF for much of the 1980's. I started to be more interested in the Wales family when their marriage drama started. I think it was around Sept. 1987 when C&D were apart for about a month and the press where counting the days. There was a flood in Wales and the couple went to tour the affected area. I remember watching news clip of their visit. I was struck by how Charles appeared to be genuinely concerned by the devastation, and Diana was looking like she couldn't wait to get out of there. She only smiled once when someone presented her flowers. A few months later, during the couple's Australian tour, she purposely upstaged Charles with a piano performance. I think someone else have mentioned the same episode. While the press account of the incident made light of it, and showing how Diana blushed when the music teacher gave her a kiss for the performance, I just thought that was wholly uncalled for. It really made me wonder if she really is the loving devoted wife people seem to believe. Over the years, there were other accounts of how she would use her children in a petty game of one-upmanship. I think it was "The Housekeeper's Diary" by Wendy Berry that described how Diana would keep the children away from Charles even when they were at Highgrove together. Years before her using the press became obvious, there was a trip to Nevis with her mother and sisters in April 1990. There was a photo op on the beach with Diana in a leopard print dress. Several stories at the time described a curious thing, when the photographers were starting to leave after the photo op, Diana dashed inside and came back in a red bikini. There were photos of her lounging next to her mother in the sand from a long distance. It was just lots of little things that doesn't make sense if someone was intent on having privacy.

 

[sthreats]

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.

 

[Incas]

I don't understand the need to diagnose someone having any mental disorder. Almost everyone have had moments of pique and pettiness, due to jealousy, anger, frustration or just because. That some people carry those moments to the next level and make a habbit of seeing everyone else as their competitor or enemy don't make them mentally unstable.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I don't understand the need to diagnose someone having any mental disorder. Almost everyone have had moments of pique and pettiness, due to jealousy, anger, frustration or just because. That some people carry those moments to the next level and make a habbit of seeing everyone else as their competitor or enemy don't make them mentally unstable.

The difference is that you can help with a mental illness through medication nowadays - and those who let themselves be helped are normally much happier when taking their "happy pills" than they were before and are in most cases able to have a good family life again. But if it is a question of character (there are petty and nasty people around, you know) then no medication can turn these people into nice human beings. The mentally ill suffer from their disease while the nasty people enjoy their being nasty.

I'm not sure about Diana. Only she would have known.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

There are even some academic papers on the net where the authors, communication analysts doing resear at university, decipher the system of "blaming" others during that interview. For anybody interested in language and rhetorics, well worth the read. Must see if I find the link....

 

[love_cc]

First a person can have both an Axis I diagnosis-a mood disorder such as depression, bipolar, atypical depression etc.

thanks for the explanation. Only one thing, I believe the author of "Diana In Search of herself" is Sally Bendall Smith not Sarah Bradford. Bradford is more explicitly sympathic expression about Diana, but Sally Bendall Smith is more neutural.

 

[sthreats]

To love cc. Thanks for the author clarification. So many books.... (smile)

 

[ysbel]

It's surprising now how many people are viewing the Panoramic episode as a negative. Maybe the last twelve years have filled in a lot of context it took place. However, at the time, when Nicolas Soames described it as a toe-curdling performance, he was pretty much pummeled by the rest of the panel in a round-table analysis group, not to mention virtually all press and public the next day. As a foreshadowing of the reaction to her death two years later, if anyone held a negative opinion of the princess, it was not a good idea to publicly acknowledge it.

Yes that was my memory too. Everybody thought that the interview was the best thing that Diana had done and wasn't the Royal Family such a pile of junk for treating her that way.

But I think the damage to Diana was more behind the scenes. Despite Tony Blair's seemingly chumminess to Diana's memory, I can't imagine that he was elated at the prospect of the wife of the heir of the throne doing a secret interview outside the knowledge of the royal family and all the government officials. Diana was still part of an institution that was part of the government.

So I think the damage to Diana was more to the fact that people inside the government realized that the government was going to be hampered if Diana continued to do stuff like that while she was part of the Royal Family. She did gain the reputation for being a loose cannon and the government hates loose cannons.