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.
All of these children are 11 plus years old--we have no idea about what their mother's relationships were with Diana--it could well be that Diana was still friendly with them at the times of the births, but later on kind of distanced herself from them. There really is no proof that either substantiates or refutes Diana's early relationships--I would like to think that she maintained some of her childhood friendships--it is a sad thing to read about her living this glamourous photographed existence and then heating up her meals in a microwave--its a little pathetic, really. I quite feel sorry for her--but she often talked about being lonely, etc....if she had maintained all these friendships perhaps she wouldn't have been lonely? I don't know--are there any interviews about Diana where talks about friends or interviews that show friends talking about Diana? I don't really know--but I do know that she had some patterns of behavior regarding friendships that cannot be overlooked when we talk about school chums...



About the first possibility about the relationship to her god children's mother. It's very much a conjecture. possibly yes possibly not, this can be applied to every thing.

but the lonely thing was quite substantial fact. I will have another explanation. The "lonely" was more about the loneliness of family lives. And weekend is very much family time, I think Diana would have that kind of decency not to intrude her friends' family gathering. But I also heard that she was living on the telephone lines, she could called bunch of friends in several minutes. At least she had friends to take her calls, right? However I agreed her life was a very lonely one. I read that sometimes she would go to the hospital at 2 a.m. to check which patient could not fall sleep. Wow she must be very lonely at night, and did she has insomnia?

About interviews from her friends. I think there were already enough people who could not wait to go on the Tv to talk about her. Her true friends would not want to make it more noisy.

Just keep in mind that her life was quite different to our normal persons, in fact much more difficult than us. There were a lot of difficulties she had which we would never confront, and hence a lot of acts of her were different.

And I think the discussions about her friendships shoud be stopped here. By now I think all of us can reach a conclusion that no party can convinced another party on this topic. Everyone have their own Diana, but no one can declared his is more accurate.

Just do your conscience a favor, let her in peace.
 
Just do your conscience a favor, let her in peace.

Just a question: this is a forum designed to discuss Diana and that's what we do here. Why are you here and not doing your own conscience a favor to quote your words on letting her rest in peace?
 
It is really naive to believe the newspaper or Charles' friends books would not exaggerate facts.
May I ask what you are basing your opinion on, if not books and newspaper articles? :ermm:
 
This should mean something -- those she included in her will:
DIANA'S GODCHILDREN
Just because she mentioned her godchildren in her will, doesn't mean a thing really. It does not show that she maintained a friendship with their parents, just that she continued a vague contact with the children and as I said in post 458, she was a good playmate to her friends children.

How many of these childhood friends have come forward to refute the suggestion that she dropped friends for no apparent reason and then turned up as if nothing had happened.

I don't know about anyone else on here, but if people were making such allegations about one of my friends, I would stand up and be counted in the defence!
 
Last I knew her pre-marriage friends stayed in contact for many years.

There is evidence to show that Diana didn't maintain any long term friendships.

Sarah Ferguson was a friend from their teen years ( their mothers were friends at school) After Diana married they continued to see each other at least once a week. Sarah was the only non-family member to attend Diana's 21st celebration, (it's in the news articles of the day) so they must have been close, far closer than her former flatmates who weren't invited. Yet Diana cut Sarah off completely according to Sarah's sworn statement at the inquest TWO years before Diana died they had no verbal or physical contact. That means from 1995, therefore it wasn't Sarah's book, published in 1996 that caused the rift.

After making a point of standing by Carolyn Bartholomew at the time of the Morton book ( Carolyn was a school friend) Carolyn too by the mid 1990's was cut off.

James Colhurst who Diana used as a go-between with Morton was also a friend from her school years. He was cut off in 1995 after he also got tired of Diana's dramas and need to be the centre of attention.

Diana didn't keep in touch with her former flatmates after she was married, except for Carolyn and then she eventually was cut off.

One of the interesting things that's come out in the Inquest is that all the people Diana was close to at the end of her life, she hadn't actually known that long. Lucia she met in 1990, Lucia introduced her to Rosa Monckton in 1991, Annabel Goldsmith also around 1990. Simone Simmons in 1992 ( although she was cut off by June '97)

The fact that women that Diana went to school with asked her to be godmother is not a sign of continued closeness. One of her godsons was Carolyn Bartholomew's son and yet Diana still cut off contact.
Being chosen as a godparent wasn't necessarily a sign of closeness, Diana was godmother to Lord and Lady Romsey's youngest daughter Leonora, Diana was asked as a kindness by the Romsey's to try and make Diana feel included in Charles's circle of friends. Same with King Constantine, Diana was godmother to his youngest son Philippos, but she was never close to Constantine and his family.
 
Psychiatry is not an exact science -- it is still in its infancy -- it's kind of like an art form. Psychiatrists can be as waffly as anyone else when it comes to a diagnosis. The only thing that protected Diana on this question was the risk of a public outcry. Why else do you think she went to all the trouble of airing the dirty royal linen in public?

I think mental health professionals would disagree with your statement that psychiatry is still in its infancy.

Diana went to air her dirty linen in public because she was a woman scorned and "heaven hath no fury like a woman scorned".

There was no threat of Diana ever loosing access to her sons and she well knew this as there already had been 2 divorces in the royal family and neither non-royal parent lost access.

Margaret and Anne also had marriages marked with infidelity, Margaret and Lord Snowdon both had affairs, both were cruel to one another and he eventually married his mistress. And yet no airing of dirty linen by either, no cooperation on tell all books, no 'war of the Snowdons'. Their children were at boarding school and spent equal time with both parents.
Anne too had a marriage marked by infidelity, both she and Mark had affairs. Like Margaret, hers coming to light made the split public and Anne eventually married her lover Tim Laurence. Again no airing of dirty laundry, no 'war of the Philipses' Equal access to both parents.
Sarah whose behaviour shall we say was less than exemplary once she and Andrew separated, none the less she had her daughters living with her fulltime, Andrew had access whenever he wanted. The girls always lived fulltime with Sarah, after the divorce she moved into Sunnyhill with them, for a number of years they all lived in the same house each with their own wing.

Anne, Mark Philips, Margaret and Lord Snowdon all of them were unfaithful, yet they managed to dissolve their marriages with grace and dignity. Something it seems Diana was incapable of, there was no question that she would loose access, as a precedent had been set before and she would have known that.

Finally the expression 'barking mad' does not mean insane or suffering from a mental illness. It's used as an idiom in the context of 'that person is an idiot' or affectionally "how stupid is that person" As in "You must be barking mad to want to go bungy jumping!"
 
The Duchess have come out said not than one times that Diana were good friend, and she really missed her.

To be honest, we never knew why Sarah and Diana didn't contact each other. But why all of you were all blind on her statement and kept insist on your the newspaper and all those books stories who were written by an outsider who had their own purpose?

I think since Sarah already said the conclusion, we better just shut up and listen.
 
The Duchess have come out said not than one times that Diana were good friend, and she really missed her.

To be honest, we never knew why Sarah and Diana didn't contact each other. But why all of you were all blind on her statement and kept insist on your the newspaper and all those books stories who were written by an outsider who had their own purpose?

I think since Sarah already said the conclusion, we better just shut up and listen.
Sarah may have been friends with Diana but clearly Diana was not friends with Sarah.

You seem to be saying nobody should be taking any notice of what they might read about Diana, but isn't that what you are doing, quoting books and newspaper articles and insisting that only your version can be correct?

It also does not make for good relations to be told to 'shut up'.
 
Sarah may have been friends with Diana but clearly Diana was not friends with Sarah.

You seem to be saying nobody should be taking any notice of what they might read about Diana, but isn't that what you are doing, quoting books and newspaper articles and insisting that only your version can be correct?

It also does not make for good relations to be told to 'shut up'.


I do want to be apologize for some of my words. I was over-reacted. That was not good for discussion. But as I have said every body have their own Diana in their mind. I don't change on this. If I gave you the expression I was forcing on other members to accept my opinion, that was because my anger lead to inappropriate choosing of words. I want to clarify it now.

As you said you didn't want to be friend with Diana(your version's Diana), but Sarah said they were good friends, and she really missed her, it might probably imply that your version's Diana was not that Diana in Sarah's eyes. However Sarah was much closer to her than us.

And it seems most of "cut-off" happened in 1995, when I think Diana was in her life low. I don't know whether you have this kind of feeling, when people are low, they don't want to have too much social activities, actually they might not even want to go out of the bed.

About the word "cut-off", since from 1995 to 1997 was merely two years, didn't contact friends for two years doesn't mean cut-off. Who know whether Diana would contact them again had she not died?
 
Diana didn't keep in touch with her former flatmates after she was married, except for Carolyn and then she eventually was cut off.
As in the words of Skydragon, where are your links or proof of this? It seems I remember Diana in interactions with her friends pre-Charles.
 
About the word "cut-off", since from 1995 to 1997 was merely two years, didn't contact friends for two years doesn't mean cut-off. Who know whether Diana would contact them again had she not died?

We cannot have a realistic discussion regarding how our opinions about Diana changed if we base it on a "what if" type of supposition. It just doesn't work. Her behavior was what it was and she had opportunities to redeem herself often, but choose not to do so. That is my whole point about Diana--I keep reading and re-reading how Diana was used, had a bad childhood, was too famous to have real friends, etc etc etc......it is a constant barrage of excuses for what can only be classified as bad behavior. Honestly, my own son, who at the time was age 5, learned the difference between good choices and bad choices. We were at the pool, I told him not to get on the diving board, and I looked up and where was he? On the diving board. So, I said to him "Sterling, is that a good choice or a bad choice?" and he just kinda looked at me, and I then said "How can you make your bad choice a good choice?" and he got down and went where he was supposed to be. Same theory applies to all adults-we make our own decisions and we have to live with those decisions and their consequences, good or bad. Most people eventually discover how to make good decisions, some do not--but we make our own decisions--and yes, that applies to even the Sainted Diana.
 
Last edited:
As in the words of Skydragon, where are your links or proof of this? It seems I remember Diana in interactions with her friends pre-Charles.

Both Virginia Pitman and Anne Bolton when in the mid 80's were asked about Diana said they had very little contact. Search the library hardcopies of newspapers and magazines of the time and I'm sure you'll find some reference to them. ( It wasn't something they stated negatively, rather more philosophical) Anne Bolton married an Australia and so there was some coverage of her in Australia and it was also reported that she had no contact with Diana. More recently Harry when on his Gap Year, stayed with Anne Bolton in Australia as she had married the son of one of Prince Charles's friends, a wealthy grazier. Harry went to work on their cattle station ( ranch to non-Australians) The contact though was Charles's connection to the family, not Diana's again it was reported that Anne and Diana hadn't maintained contact. Charles knows the family well and Anne met her future husband at Charles and Diana's wedding.

As for Carolyn Bartholomew, Tina Brown has 'on the record' statements about the fact that Diana broke off contact in the mid 1990's.

James Colhurst who was Diana teenage friend and stayed in contact with Diana and was trusted by her to provide material for the Morton book, went very much 'on the record' with Tina Brown and is quoted in her book also tells how he fell out of favour with Diana as she expected him to be at her beck and call and didn't appreciate when he told her that it was embarrassing for William for her to constantly go to Eton and basically hunt him down infront of his friends. James said as he himself had been at Eton he knew how embarrassing it was for a teenage boy in a boarding school to have his mother constantly turning up.

The sad consequence of Diana falling out with people was that in the last summer of her life she really didn't have anyone or anywhere to spend her summer holidays and that's why she accepted the al Fayed offer of a holiday. Had she had other options then she wouldn't have gone with the al Fayeds, she was looking at a long summer with bored teenagers in London ( for the time she had William and Harry) and then by herself when other people were off on holidays. She had organised the holiday with Rosa Monckton ( a friend only from 1991 according to the inquest) and some time in Milan with another friend, but that time was cancelled. Until that particular friend Lana testifies at the inquest we won't know how long they were friends either, but I doubt if the friendship would go back to Diana's pre-Charles days.
 
Last edited:
Let's avoid telling other members what they should and should not be discussing in the thread.

I also deleted some personal comments between members. Let's eliminate them too. You don't have to like each other but please refrain from throwing sarcastic comments about your fellow members in the thread which can only make the temperature hotter.

ysbel
British forums moderator
 
About the word "cut-off", since from 1995 to 1997 was merely two years, didn't contact friends for two years doesn't mean cut-off.
That isn't the way friendships are supposed to be, you don't cut someone off and then expect to pick up again, when you feel like it. It seemed to me that she used people and cast them aside when it suited her purpose, without any thought for their feelings.
 
That isn't the way friendships are supposed to be, you don't cut someone off and then expect to pick up again, when you feel like it. It seemed to me that she used people and cast them aside when it suited her purpose, without any thought for their feelings.

Its not a good practice I agree but I don't think Diana didn't care for people or that she used them. I think she dropped people because she didn't know how to resolve conflicts healthily with them.
 
That isn't the way friendships are supposed to be, you don't cut someone off and then expect to pick up again, when you feel like it. It seemed to me that she used people and cast them aside when it suited her purpose, without any thought for their feelings.

That's what Paul Burrell said yesterday about the way Diana obviously saw the world (the last is my interpretation):

"I remember on occasion she talked about her own
4 engagement ring and made comment on that, saying that,
5 well, she didn't get the choice, it was chosen for her.
6 Like everything in her life, she was always thought of
7 in second or third place. "

Like everything in her life, she was always thought of in second or third place.... now, if she really felt that way after how she had been treated in her life ever since she became the Princess of Wales, I don't know what idea she had of life and how it works. She was virtually carried over red carpets around the world, she had servants at her beck and call, endless nimbers of hosts tried to make her visit comfortable and she thought that "she was always thought of in second or third place"?

Well, to be honest, mankind is a bunch of egotists and egocentrics and I think that in reality most people think of themselves first but that's a reality and nothing to complain about.

As for engagement rinds: here in Germany you normally are not consulted when it comes to the engagement ring, it's the groom, maybe aided by a friend or his parents selects the ring or makes a pre-selection of several, but presents one and gives you the chance to change it after you accepted. You do choose the wedding bands together, though. It's the same in Britain, isn't it? So Charles' choosing of the ring without consulting Diana was okay, or am I wrong? But it shows of course how very foreign those two were when they decided to get married. I bet william will have quite the idea what kind of ring Catherine will want once he decides to offer her "the" ring.

And another of the Burrell-quotes about Diana and relations:

Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.
 
Last edited:
That's what Paul Burrell said yesterday about the way Diana obviously saw the world (the last is my interpretation):

"I remember on occasion she talked about her own
4 engagement ring and made comment on that, saying that,
5 well, she didn't get the choice, it was chosen for her.
6 Like everything in her life, she was always thought of
7 in second or third place. "
.

Hmm, interesting. Stephen Barry, Charles' valet at the marriage said that Diana was presented with a collection of engagement rings and chose her favorite the blue sapphire. I tend to believe Barry more because he published his memoirs before the War of the Waleses got started. If Diana actually said this to Burrell, I suspect that she was just doing some mindless complaining - like, They never let me do anything and exaggerating in the process.

I wonder if the feeling in second or third place was more a problem for Burrell than it was for Diana. Its possible he was projecting his own feelings on her. Other than being born a girl when her parents wanted a boy, the tag doesn't fit. When she was married to Charles, she was next to the highest lady in the land and while that was second place, being Princess of Wales and only second to the Queen is nothing to sneeze at.

And another of the Burrell-quotes about Diana and relations:

Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.

Interesting. That's another reason I think Diana just didn't know how to handle some conflicts well. It seem like at first the other person was totally wonderful, nothing wrong, and then when she found a fault or some problem that needed to be worked out between them, she didn't know how to do it and so left.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. That's another reason I think Diana just didn't know how to handle some conflicts well. It seem like at first the other person was totally wonderful, nothing wrong, and then when she found a fault or some problem that needed to be worked out between them, she didn't know how to do it and so left.
I don't think it was even that, as someone described her actions - "A child with a new toy, use it, abuse it and cast it aside for the next new toy".
 
I don't think it was even that, as someone described her actions - "A child with a new toy, use it, abuse it and cast it aside for the next new toy".
As Diana has never made a statement about this, any story cannot be based on anything other than imagination. Do you know with 100% or even 35% certainty, that Diana thought of her friends as mere toys instead of Diana having problems with trust/resolving conflicts?
 
As Diana has never made a statement about this, any story cannot be based on anything other than imagination. Do you know with 100% or even 35% certainty, that Diana thought of her friends as mere toys instead of Diana having problems with trust/resolving conflicts?

I see your point here, zhontella, but at the moment we are discussing what Paul Burrell, a person who was the closest to her for the last 5 years of her life and who still adores her, said on oath. Thus that's how it was. He said:

Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.

Now that is a very clear statement. "Very often" Diana became infatuated and obsessed with someone but grew tired of them.
What else is there to say? Adults normally don't become "obsessed" with others out of habit and then grow tired of them. To "grow tired" of people IMHO says very clearly that these people were not seen as partners in some sort of communication but as objects. That is the way a child thinks and acts.

Si IMHO what Skydragon said is just another wording of what Paul Burrell said. And he said that on oath.

That's what he said in context (about her relationship with Dodi shortly before the crash):

I felt she was telling me -- she was inferring that
19 this relationship had reached its peak and it was going
20 down the other side. Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.
 
Last edited:
I see your point here, zhontella, but at the moment we are discussing what Paul Burrell, a person who was the closest to her for the last 5 years of her life and who still adores her, said on oath. Thus that's how it was. He said:

Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.

I think Mr. Burrell was talking about men relationships Jo. zhontella is talking about all personal relationships. We all know Princess Diana's track record with men that are louses or married. I think she did not grow tired of Dr. Kahn and would have married him if he would let her. Also, reading a book about Diana - she gave Oliver Hoard cuff links from her father, so it is possible that she wanted to keep Dodi interested. Mr. Burrell and her close girlfriends were compartmentalized with her true motives on Dodi. Only time would have told us if the relationship would have worked out.:flowers:
 
As Diana has never made a statement about this, any story cannot be based on anything other than imagination. Do you know with 100% or even 35% certainty, that Diana thought of her friends as mere toys instead of Diana having problems with trust/resolving conflicts?
I would have to suggest that you read my comment in context of what was being said.

Why would Diana make a statement on how she treated friends? IMO, Diana gave no thought to how she treated friends after she had finished with them. The description was made, to me, by someone she had treated in that manner, not in a press release or TV interview. As I was not presenting it as said by so & so or printed in a paper, it is what it is, a personal observation.
 
I just completed reading Paul Burrell's book- no matter what we think of him (advocate, opportunist, or somewhere in between), it really struck me how much he devoted to serving her. If he chose this or if it was demanded of him- who knows. However, he admits in the book that his wife often questioned how much Diana 'needed' him... at all hours of the day and night. If she was indeed so clingy and reliant on friends, it's easy to understand why she did not keep them for long.
 
The description was made, to me, by someone she had treated in that manner, not in a press release or TV interview. As I was not presenting it as said by so & so or printed in a paper, it is what it is, a personal observation.

Skydragon was this person a female or male that Princess Diana treated in a bad manner. Also was this person from Princes Charles camp?:flowers:
 
Getting back to Diana's 1981 engagement ring... it was my understanding that the jeweler brought a whole tray of rings of various kinds, and Diana picked out the biggest one on the tray. And the way I heard the story, Prince Charles and the Queen were there as she did this. (And allegedly the Queen was taken aback by her ostentatious choice -- although I don't know who would have leaked the Queen's thoughts on the subject.)

Young Diana must not have been very educated about gems, however, as the biggest isn't necessarily the best in quality.
 
Getting back to Diana's 1981 engagement ring... it was my understanding that the jeweler brought a whole tray of rings of various kinds, and Diana picked out the biggest one on the tray. And the way I heard the story, Prince Charles and the Queen were there as she did this. (And allegedly the Queen was taken aback by her ostentatious choice -- although I don't know who would have leaked the Queen's thoughts on the subject.)

Young Diana must not have been very educated about gems, however, as the biggest isn't necessarily the best in quality.

This is what I've always heard as well--and that Diana had indeed picked the largest on the tray. I've always thought, also, that she must not have been well informed about jewels. I wonder what else was on that tray?
 
As about using friends, I have a very tacky experience. I once warned my friend that she needed to be careful, because someone might be using her. She was very shocked by my words. She said she could never imagined that people could use friends. Moreover, it was me, the first person who she suspected was using her. Because she thought using friend must be one thing in my mind, otherwise I could not come up with this thought. That was one of the main reason I was cut-off by one month. But the most horrible result was, since then I instilled a virus in my friends mind. Now she is always on guard of being used by people. I hoped we had never had that conversation.

But I am really curious of one thing. If a person enters into an relationship carring a thought from the beginning that he would never made a commitment, can we say this person is using his partner?
 
ysbel, I appreciat your comment 523.
The whole beauty of this forum is the reasoned and objective argument and discussion. (I'm a newbie.) I have my own very strong opinions, and yet respect the whole other side of the coin. I have deserted other forums because of the abuse and unreasonable chatter between posters. Great moderating. Though I guess that there is not much of it needed here... Thankyou.
 
Burrell said:
20 Very often relationships did that
21 in the Princess's world. She became infatuated,
22 obsessed with someone, and then grew tired of them.
I find it difficult to take anything Burrell says seriously. He's kind of creepy, and seemed obsessed and infatuated with Diana in a perverse kind of way. He probably projected those desires onto Diana, and then decided she was getting tired of him since his fantasies didn't seem to fit reality.

I always thought with Burrell: read between the lines -- he was no true friend to Diana.
 
I find it difficult to take anything Burrell says seriously. He's kind of creepy, and seemed obsessed and infatuated with Diana in a perverse kind of way. He probably projected those desires onto Diana, and then decided she was getting tired of him since his fantasies didn't seem to fit reality.

I always thought with Burrell: read between the lines -- he was no true friend to Diana.
He is not true friend to Diana but he is very obessed about Diana which probably reduce his amount of reasoning matters he witnessed during Diana time.

After I read "They Royal Duty", my thought was that that book was written by a person more likely to be her fan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom