When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[zhontella]

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.

Well, I can sympathize with that someone. It's not fun to be used and discarded by anyone. However, none of us know the true nature of the kind of emotional or mental handicap Diana might have been under in order to be this insensitive.

 

[love_cc]

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?

Do you mean "he" as Prince Charles? Prince Charles married Diana with best intentions to make the marriage to succeed and he had his efforts in it. This is a fact and no one shall deny this. However the relationship did not work out because the huge gap between two parties and Diana's inablity to make the best choice of the difficulty situation: she chose very hatred way and damaged way to deal with Charles's affair which finally caused more hurts and damages to her sons and the monarchy.

I don't think Prince Charles used Diana at all. Diana became HRH The Princess of Wales after she got married. She was the mother of a future king after she gave birth to Prince William. I would not call this situation as "used". I always think this is a mutual deal which gave the royal family the heirs and the person who filled in the position of the Princess of Wales, and realised the ambition of Spencers to have legimate royals on the family tree.

 

[anbrida]

Do you mean "he" as Prince Charles? Prince Charles married Diana with best intentions to make the marriage to succeed and he had his efforts in it. This is a fact and no one shall deny this. However the relationship did not work out because the huge gap between two parties and Diana's inablity to make the best choice of the difficulty situation: she chose very hatred way and damaged way to deal with Charles's affair which finally caused more hurts and damages to her sons and the monarchy.

I don't think Prince Charles used Diana at all. Diana became HRH The Princess of Wales after she got married. She was the mother of a future king after she gave birth to Prince William. I would not call this situation as "used". I always think this is a mutual deal which gave the royal family the heirs and the person who filled in the position of the Princess of Wales, and realised the ambition of Spencers to have legimate royals on the family tree.

Sorry you guessed wrong, zero point. I am talking my friend's ex-bf(happend to be a muslim). He is a well-bred and well-educated guy. He is nice but too rational, so rational that he has the ability to distinguish love and marriage. Gradually, I found him smelled familiarly, so gave a little warning to my friend. By now, I still hold my opinion.

I did believe that Charles hoped the marriage to succeed when he married. That is a common sense right? I don't think of him as an alien.

 

[zhontella]

Prince Charles married Diana with best intentions to make the marriage to succeed and he had his efforts in it. This is a fact and no one shall deny this.

I think I will deny that so-called fact. No one who is intent on making his marriage work will wear cuff links with his mistress's initials entwined in his on The Honeymoon with his new bride. Furthermore, he would not let pictures/letters "accidentally" fall out of his diary/notepad so his new bride could see the "secret" face of the mistress again on the Honeymoon. I don't believe those were accidents. I believe Prince Charles was trying to set the rules out the starting gate: Princes of Wales will have, and have always had, their Mistresses.

But to be fair, I suspect Diana was also using Charles, but I doubt she was mature enough to be as fully aware and deliberate about it as Charles, hence her anger.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I think Paul was her friend and loved her very deaply. In the trial he seemed very upset to have to discuss her secrets. I think he wrote the book because he had nothing, he had a family he had to support and that was the only way to make money and survive. The people he worked for (royal family) did not help him. He kept many of Diana's secrets, I don't think he betray her, I think he honored his memory of her.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think I will deny that so-called fact. No one who is intent on making his marriage work will wear cuff links with his mistress's initials entwined in his on The Honeymoon with his new bride. Furthermore, he would not let pictures/letters "accidentally" fall out of his diary/notepad so his new bride could see the "secret" face of the mistress again on the Honeymoon. I don't believe those were accidents. I believe Prince Charles was trying to set the rules out the starting gate: Princes of Wales will have, and have always had, their Mistresses.

But to be fair, I suspect Diana was also using Charles, but I doubt she was mature enough to be as fully aware and deliberate about it as Charles, hence her anger.

Is the story about the cufflinks a proven fact? Or is it Daina claiming that in the Morton-book? Or the pics... is that really proven?
Because I doubt the man who can look so happy and in love with the mistress he married, who is said to have been his love for over 30 years can be so cold-hearted towards his young wife. Sorry, these character traits simply don't fit together.

I personally wouldn't rely on Diana to tell the truth about Charles and Camilla and her at all - after all she believed Camilla was just a decoy for Tiggy, thus she sincerely believed Charles to be a sort of cad he IMHO is not.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

^ Geez, I knew Diana had some weirdo thoughts about the whole Tiggy situation, and that she told ?Kay? (or Seward??) that she thought Charles was planning to marry Tiggy. I always assumed she was just smoking too much of something, never thought she had it in her head that Charles actually made Camilla into a "decoy to Tiggy". I mean, who the heck was Tiggy and where did she come from, compared with Camilla who was there as one of Charles's dearest friends, maybe even his dearest, from the time they were 22,23 something years old?

The cufflinks story is confusing. Even Diana admitted they were Chanel cufflinks, hence the CC logo, but of course she said ever so sarcastically, "very clever, the Chanel c's." But I mean...... come on! Yeah, exactly, the Chanel C's!!!!

 

[ysbel]

I think I will deny that so-called fact. No one who is intent on making his marriage work will wear cuff links with his mistress's initials entwined in his on The Honeymoon with his new bride.

Why do you believe that? Because Diana said so or something else?

 

[anbrida]

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.

Sure, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is easy to tell what were good decisions and what were bad. But I think there were few people in 1981 able to foresee that marrying the Prince of Wales was the worst choice Lady Diana made in her life.

There is a Chinese saying, “who is the hero depends on who is the winner”. Actually I think some people’s opinions of Diana are significantly affected by how is the life of Camilla going now. Why? Because these two people are opponents. If Camilla is going well, then she is the winner, and Diana must be the loser. And we got accustomed to the ideas that it must be good choices lead to a winner, and bad choices lead to a loser. However, life not only has good choices and bad choices but also has a lot of uncertainties which are totally out of our control. Occasional accidents could make good choices into bad, and bad choices into good. I remembered a movie “Butterfly effects”, in which the main actor had an ability to go back to the past. So whenever things go wrong at present, he went back to change his bad choice. However, each time he went back, the outcome became even worse than before. Finally, he realized that the only way to get things right was he had never come to this world. So at the last time he went back to the time when he was still an embryo in his mother’s womb, and smothered himself by the umbilical core. This movie made me realize that even with the wisdom of hindsight, one can not resist the fate—the uncertainties in life.

So with so many uncertainties in life, I think it’s not so meaningless to ask what if. What if Diana had never spoke out, but kept all her unhappiness in herself? Probably she would have killed herself because of depression before 1997. What if Charles chose to leave Camilla for the sake of children and the country, probably right now we were mocking the divorced Camilla. In the same way, can any one declare that Charles and Camilla didn’t benefit from the accidental death of Diana at all?

Lives are not fair, basically. But thankfully there is at least one last fairness, that finally we will all go back to the dust no matter how many “good” choices or “bad” choices we have made. Everyone has to die, then what is the purpose of the life journey? I don’t think it is merely to be a winner.

One of my friends had introduced me the idea Reincarnation. In reincarnation it is said there are two worlds here. One is the spiritual world, where is the habitation for all kinds of spirits, animal’s and human being’s. The other world is our world. Once for a while the spirit will come to our world to go through a life journey, with the purpose to refine itself by confronting the challenges in our world. When the life journey is finished the spirit will go back to the spiritual world and wait for the next journey. This will repeat again and again until the spirit is culminating (be a Saint?), then it will stay in the spirit world without experiencing the difficulties in our world any more.

At first I don’t like the idea of Reincarnation, because I think it will lead people to give up lives easily. But I like this explanation now. If it is true, then no one will give up easily, because in order to refine our spirits most, we need to stay in this world as long as possible. Only here spirits can get exercised and refined. And in this way all the pains and difficulties look worthy too. Actually suffering put people in an advanced place to exercise the spirit. Like the fairness is fulfilled. Haha, thank goodness, it seems everyone would encounter some kinds of suffering in their lives. No one’s life is easy.

Talking about choices. I am not sure how to make absolute good choice, but definitely I can make choices out of righteousness and my conscience. There is an old Chinese saying, “one can not please all people, but at least one can please his own conscience.” That is my guiding rule. When I have my own children, except to teach them those adult experiences, I would more emphasize on leading them to develop their conscience and righteousness. And if the Reincarnation story is true, I think this is the right way to refine our spirits.

About Diana, my view is, she was very likely to be stupid, inexperienced and imprudent, but she was compassionate. She got her compassion not by learning (I mean not from the faith of some kind of religion), but by instinct. I like this kind of purity. And I don’t think she used her friends, but she might be very aware of being used. Diana suffered a lot, however I didn’t see her had given up. I think she had always been looking for a way to make her lives meaningful. And I believe finally she found that way – by helping other people. Everyone witnessed her charitable work in her last year, although it was not talked too much now. Though she didn’t have enough time to stay in this world to make any substantial achievement in her charitable work, spiritually she had already achieved something. Overall, I am glad to think that she , Diana, has had a prosperous life journey.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The cufflinks story is confusing. Even Diana admitted they were Chanel cufflinks, hence the CC logo, but of course she said ever so sarcastically, "very clever, the Chanel c's." But I mean...... come on! Yeah, exactly, the Chanel C's!!!!

I hadn't heard about the cufflinks being Chanel ones yet - now that makes finally a bit of sense because I couldn't believe Charles would wear custommade cufflinks with a reminiscense to Camilla on his honeymoon, that's far too caddish.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

About Diana, my view is, she was very likely to be stupid, inexperienced and imprudent, but she was compassionate. She got her compassion not by learning (I mean not from the faith of some kind of religion), but by instinct. I like this kind of purity.

That's an interesting aspect and well worth to discuss IMHO. Diana was compassionate, you state and I know that this is the impression she gave when she was introduced to a person who suffered. But I got the impression that she very fastly got tired of being compassionate with this one person or with this charity and selected a new topic which interested her more, leaving the old problems behind.

Eg the landmines: Richard Kay claimed on oath that Diana was already on the move, having felt that her work was nearly done and on the way towards a new charitable idea. But I think what charities really need is the constant interest of a patron, not just the short term help of a celebrity.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I found that article on the net, from the Independant of 1999 :The forgotten princess | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET.com
about "The forgotten princess". But be careful: the article while it has very good observations in it is nothing for Diana-fans... and here you get an idea, why:

"For this enduring sense of injustice, this much-cultivated feeling that she still is not getting the credit she deserves, is the most fitting memorial to Diana of all. For Diana was a woman who could never have enough - enough money, enough attention, enough adulation, enough power to do good, enough work to fulfil her, enough love, enough understanding, enough privilege. She always, always, wanted more. This is the way we should remember her. And this is the way we do.
Over the years there will be many tributes to Diana, some permanent, others fleeting, some valuable, others less valuable. But the most pertinent fact about her, the aspect of her existence that shaped it more than any other, was that her life was always a mess. She was living proof that you could have everything - everything - and still be desperately, self-destructively unhappy.

She was the breathing, walking, radiantly smiling-through-the- tears goddess of Schadenfreude. The whole world pitied her, as she pitied herself, despite it all. She found no peace in life, and precious little help in trying to find it. Nor is there any peace for her in death - just more disagreement, more controversy, and more publicity.


Surely, all this is an appropriate memorial of a sort. Of a sort that should make us think harder about the true nature of her life - but sadly never seems to."

 

[ysbel]

Sure, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is easy to tell what were good decisions and what were bad. But I think there were few people in 1981 able to foresee that marrying the Prince of Wales was the worst choice Lady Diana made in her life.

anbrida, I remember when my father saw Diana walk down the aisle, he said, 'The Earl of Spencer must have rocks in his head. I'd never let my 19 year old daughter with no education and no experience go into something like this prince or no prince' She seemed too innocent, her husband didn't seem attracted to her type, and she was marrying into the most high profile and high stress marriage in the world where every little mistake and problem seemed magnified.

First people could see their age difference could be a factor in making the marriage go wrong: 13 years is a large age difference. In my own family, we have had one marriage with that age difference turn out successfully but we've seen several more marriages with similar age differences fail.

Secondly there was the purity you speak of: Diana was not only incredibly young, 19, but people remarked often that Diana cast an innocence and purity of being unspoiled, unsophisticated and untouched. Her father claimed that she had never had a lover and in her innocence she seemed far younger than her 19 years. Somebody that has that much purity and innocence often does not have enough life experiences to judge and act maturely and to make the best choices.

Thirdly, Diana was marrying into probably the most high profile marriage in the world. Charles' position as heir to the most well known monarch in the world meant his wife's position was going to be high profile and high pressure. Although not much was known about Diana's early life at that time, people knew a lot about Charles' life and previous relationships. It is possible for marriages with large age differences to work however, Charles had never had a history of being interested in women a lot younger than he was; he always was attracted to older women or women closer to his age and he didn't favor the romantic type of love but more of a sharing of deep friendship.

It is possible I suppose that Charles and Diana could have surprised us and that only knowing what we knew, Diana could have shown a strength and maturity that her innocence facade masked and Charles could have shown a romantic, dashing knight in shining armour side of him that we hadn't seen before, but the couple didn't show us anything to make us believe that their were any hidden strengths under what they showed us.

Whether Camilla is now seen as a winner is not clear. I will say that Camilla has one trait that in general make people's lives more rewarding and productive and that is that Camilla focuses on the relationships with those closest to her and manages to have mutually beneficial close relationships. I don't believe that Camilla is simplly lucky and that Diana was unlucky. I just think there is one trait that Camilla has that helps her with maintaining these close personal relationships and Diana didn't have this trait.

However compared to Diana, Sarah who made a lot of wrong choices can be seen to come out a winner. At least she is around to see her daughters grow up. Sarah made so many mistakes in her short life and she is not that good I think in really making her close relationships successful.

However, I think the difference between Sarah and Diana and the reason that Sarah is alive today despite her many many poor choices is that Sarah lacks the capacity for revenge. When one engages in revenge, a chain of events can start off which often comes back and destroy the original person. Also with Diana I think the type of people that her vengeful nature attracted, like Paul Burrell, and Mohammed al-Fayed were dangerous company for her to have around. In fact, I think that if Diana had been exactly the same except for one thing and if she had not had the capacity for revenge, I think that Diana's life would have turned out much differently and probably much happier for her and everyone around.

Sarah has not made good choices with her friends and companions either but her nature does not attract the dangerous users that were probably attracted by Diana's less attractive and more vengeful side.

I've heard separately that Diana was with Dodi that night she died to 1) make Hasnat Khan jealous 2) steal the thunder off of Camilla's 50th birthday party. Either way, she knowingly allied herself with the son of a man with dubious business connections and one who wanted to avenge himself on the British establishment who had cast him off.

And Diana willingly associated with the al-Fayeds for what? To make an old boyfriend jealous? Or to knock her ex-husband's love off the front page? This is one area where I believe that Diana's choices directly affected the short tenure of her life. That and her decision to not have security and tell the press that they were going to be surprised by the next thing she did. These were all incredibly bad choices that directly affected the way her life turned out and Charles and the Royal Family didn't have any influence over any of them.

So while many choices in her life were hard to judge at the time I think two: the first of her marriage and the last choices she made regarding her security and life with Dodi could be seen as bad choices at the time.

 

[Fabulous Fake]

ysbel

That is a truly wonderful post.

Thank you.

 

[zhontella]

The cufflinks story is confusing. Even Diana admitted they were Chanel cufflinks, hence the CC logo, but of course she said ever so sarcastically, "very clever, the Chanel c's."

What had the Fred and Gladys initials -- was that some bracelet gift?

 

[zhontella]

I found that article on the net, from the Independant of 1999 :The forgotten princess | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET.com
"For this enduring sense of injustice, this much-cultivated feeling that she still is not getting the credit she deserves, is the most fitting memorial to Diana of all. For Diana was a woman who could never have enough - enough money, enough attention, enough adulation, enough power to do good, enough work to fulfil her, enough love, enough understanding, enough privilege. She always, always, wanted more. This is the way we should remember her. And this is the way we do.

This article by Deborah Orr probably reflects her own personality since there is no evidence that Diana was as greedy as the above seems to indicate. Diana wanted a husband who loved her. Is that such an outrageous desire? The rest of the labels don't hold water.

 

[rmay286]

anbrida, I remember when my father saw Diana walk down the aisle, he said, 'The Earl of Spencer must have rocks in his head. I'd never let my 19 year old daughter with no education and no experience go into something like this prince or no prince' She seemed too innocent, her husband didn't seem attracted to her type, and she was marrying into the most high profile and high stress marriage in the world where every little mistake and problem seemed magnified.

First people could see their age difference could be a factor in making the marriage go wrong: 13 years is a large age difference. In my own family, we have had one marriage with that age difference turn out successfully but we've seen several more marriages with similar age differences fail.

Secondly there was the purity you speak of: Diana was not only incredibly young, 19, but people remarked often that Diana cast an innocence and purity of being unspoiled, unsophisticated and untouched. Her father claimed that she had never had a lover and in her innocence she seemed far younger than her 19 years. Somebody that has that much purity and innocence often does not have enough life experiences to judge and act maturely and to make the best choices.

Thirdly, Diana was marrying into probably the most high profile marriage in the world. Charles' position as heir to the most well known monarch in the world meant his wife's position was going to be high profile and high pressure. Although not much was known about Diana's early life at that time, people knew a lot about Charles' life and previous relationships. It is possible for marriages with large age differences to work however, Charles had never had a history of being interested in women a lot younger than he was; he always was attracted to older women or women closer to his age and he didn't favor the romantic type of love but more of a sharing of deep friendship.

It is possible I suppose that Charles and Diana could have surprised us and that only knowing what we knew, Diana could have shown a strength and maturity that her innocence facade masked and Charles could have shown a romantic, dashing knight in shining armour side of him that we hadn't seen before, but the couple didn't show us anything to make us believe that their were any hidden strengths under what they showed us.

Whether Camilla is now seen as a winner is not clear. I will say that Camilla has one trait that in general make people's lives more rewarding and productive and that is that Camilla focuses on the relationships with those closest to her and manages to have mutually beneficial close relationships. I don't believe that Camilla is simplly lucky and that Diana was unlucky. I just think there is one trait that Camilla has that helps her with maintaining these close personal relationships and Diana didn't have this trait.

However compared to Diana, Sarah who made a lot of wrong choices can be seen to come out a winner. At least she is around to see her daughters grow up. Sarah made so many mistakes in her short life and she is not that good I think in really making her close relationships successful.

However, I think the difference between Sarah and Diana and the reason that Sarah is alive today despite her many many poor choices is that Sarah lacks the capacity for revenge. When one engages in revenge, a chain of events can start off which often comes back and destroy the original person. Also with Diana I think the type of people that her vengeful nature attracted, like Paul Burrell, and Mohammed al-Fayed were dangerous company for her to have around. In fact, I think that if Diana had been exactly the same except for one thing and if she had not had the capacity for revenge, I think that Diana's life would have turned out much differently and probably much happier for her and everyone around.

Sarah has not made good choices with her friends and companions either but her nature does not attract the dangerous users that were probably attracted by Diana's less attractive and more vengeful side.

I've heard separately that Diana was with Dodi that night she died to 1) make Hasnat Khan jealous 2) steal the thunder off of Camilla's 50th birthday party. Either way, she knowingly allied herself with the son of a man with dubious business connections and one who wanted to avenge himself on the British establishment who had cast him off.

And Diana willingly associated with the al-Fayeds for what? To make an old boyfriend jealous? Or to knock her ex-husband's love off the front page? This is one area where I believe that Diana's choices directly affected the short tenure of her life. That and her decision to not have security and tell the press that they were going to be surprised by the next thing she did. These were all incredibly bad choices that directly affected the way her life turned out and Charles and the Royal Family didn't have any influence over any of them.

So while many choices in her life were hard to judge at the time I think two: the first of her marriage and the last choices she made regarding her security and life with Dodi could be seen as bad choices at the time.

That was a great post. I wasn't even born when Diana married Charles, but if a similar marriage between an inexperienced 19 year-old (well, she had just turned twenty when she married Charles) and a 32 year-old prince took place today, even if I'd never seen what happened with Diana and Charles, I can't imagine I wouldn't notice the warning signs. On the other hand, I can easily see how people, with the help of the media, could become blinded by the marriage's fairy-tale romance quality.

Even leaving out Camilla or Diana's personality problems from the equation, even assuming that Diana and Charles were deeply in love, the marriage had significant factors working against it from the start...the age differences, Diana's inexperience, Charles' royal status...

I actually have to say that even if Charles brought Camilla's cufflinks on his honeymoon, I don't think Camilla was at the forefront of his mind during that time. I think there was real attachment and love between both Diana and Charles at the start. I've never liked the argument that Charles and Diana's marriage was doomed because of their basic personalities rather than their specific personality flaws; or that Charles and Camilla are soulmates. I guess because I think compatibility is relative. There must have been some attraction between Diana and Charles for them to even consider entering into a marriage. I actually see a lot of similarities between Diana and Charles in certain ways. Both had childhoods where their parents were somewhat distant, either physically or emotionally; both could be emotional and intuitive although in different ways; both had a romantic streak; both were probably seeking to create the idealized home and family for themselves that they'd missed out on in various ways; and both were looking for an unconditionally loving and affirming partner. I think the last similarity is what--after bigger factors like Charles' status and Diana's psychological problems--doomed their marriage. They were both insecure and needed more from other people, than they were capable of giving.

And that to me is a personality flaw. All the other aspects of Charles and Diana's personalities don't seem dramatically incompatible to me. But both of them in their own ways needed someone to take care of them and affirm them and while both could be loving and attentive, if their own needs weren't met, this ability quickly faded. I don't really see Charles' marriage to Camilla as a particular personal success. It made him happier, for sure, but not because he made significant changes within himself (as far as I'm concerned). Charles is emotionally vulnerable, has an ego, needs affirmation. Camilla can give him that affirmation, hence Charles is happy and can love Camilla back. Diana couldn't affirm Charles, hence Charles wasn't happy and couldn't love Diana back.

Camilla is a better match for Charles because her presence glosses over his inadequacies, and everyone is always going to have inadequacies...but I've never seen Camilla and Charles' match as a particular triumph (though I'm not going around disliking either one of them) because I don't see anything selfless about it. I'm not saying Charles could have made his marriage to Diana work, I'm just saying I don't think Charles and Camilla ultimately sacrificed a lot, in the best sense of the word, to end up together. They kind of blundered their way through until natural attraction took its course.

Oh and one more response to ysabel--I liked the distinction you made between Sarah's behaviour and Diana's. In trying to figure out why I somehow liked Sarah and liked Diana less, I always concluded it was because of Diana's tendency to take revenge. That was probably the most dramatic difference between the two of them, I think. Sarah tends to be loyal and go overboard to please other people in order to hold on to relationships, Diana also tried to please other people--but in a very conditional way. If she wasn't pleased with them, suddenly they were cut out of her life. I guess my likings have to do with whether I'd like to be in a relationship with a particular person--and Diana's relationship habits were ones I'd like to avoid.

 

[anbrida]

anbrida, I remember when my father saw Diana walk down the aisle, he said, 'The Earl of Spencer must have rocks in his head. I'd never let my 19 year old daughter with no education and no experience go into something like this prince or no prince' She seemed too innocent, her husband didn't seem attracted to her type, and she was marrying into the most high profile and high stress marriage in the world where every little mistake and problem seemed magnified.

First people could see their age difference could be a factor in making the marriage go wrong: 13 years is a large age difference. In my own family, we have had one marriage with that age difference turn out successfully but we've seen several more marriages with similar age differences fail.

Secondly there was the purity you speak of: Diana was not only incredibly young, 19, but people remarked often that Diana cast an innocence and purity of being unspoiled, unsophisticated and untouched. Her father claimed that she had never had a lover and in her innocence she seemed far younger than her 19 years. Somebody that has that much purity and innocence often does not have enough life experiences to judge and act maturely and to make the best choices.

Thirdly, Diana was marrying into probably the most high profile marriage in the world. Charles' position as heir to the most well known monarch in the world meant his wife's position was going to be high profile and high pressure. Although not much was known about Diana's early life at that time, people knew a lot about Charles' life and previous relationships. It is possible for marriages with large age differences to work however, Charles had never had a history of being interested in women a lot younger than he was; he always was attracted to older women or women closer to his age and he didn't favor the romantic type of love but more of a sharing of deep friendship.

It is possible I suppose that Charles and Diana could have surprised us and that only knowing what we knew, Diana could have shown a strength and maturity that her innocence facade masked and Charles could have shown a romantic, dashing knight in shining armour side of him that we hadn't seen before, but the couple didn't show us anything to make us believe that their were any hidden strengths under what they showed us.

Whether Camilla is now seen as a winner is not clear. I will say that Camilla has one trait that in general make people's lives more rewarding and productive and that is that Camilla focuses on the relationships with those closest to her and manages to have mutually beneficial close relationships. I don't believe that Camilla is simplly lucky and that Diana was unlucky. I just think there is one trait that Camilla has that helps her with maintaining these close personal relationships and Diana didn't have this trait.

However compared to Diana, Sarah who made a lot of wrong choices can be seen to come out a winner. At least she is around to see her daughters grow up. Sarah made so many mistakes in her short life and she is not that good I think in really making her close relationships successful.

However, I think the difference between Sarah and Diana and the reason that Sarah is alive today despite her many many poor choices is that Sarah lacks the capacity for revenge. When one engages in revenge, a chain of events can start off which often comes back and destroy the original person. Also with Diana I think the type of people that her vengeful nature attracted, like Paul Burrell, and Mohammed al-Fayed were dangerous company for her to have around. In fact, I think that if Diana had been exactly the same except for one thing and if she had not had the capacity for revenge, I think that Diana's life would have turned out much differently and probably much happier for her and everyone around.

Sarah has not made good choices with her friends and companions either but her nature does not attract the dangerous users that were probably attracted by Diana's less attractive and more vengeful side.

I've heard separately that Diana was with Dodi that night she died to 1) make Hasnat Khan jealous 2) steal the thunder off of Camilla's 50th birthday party. Either way, she knowingly allied herself with the son of a man with dubious business connections and one who wanted to avenge himself on the British establishment who had cast him off.

And Diana willingly associated with the al-Fayeds for what? To make an old boyfriend jealous? Or to knock her ex-husband's love off the front page? This is one area where I believe that Diana's choices directly affected the short tenure of her life. That and her decision to not have security and tell the press that they were going to be surprised by the next thing she did. These were all incredibly bad choices that directly affected the way her life turned out and Charles and the Royal Family didn't have any influence over any of them.

So while many choices in her life were hard to judge at the time I think two: the first of her marriage and the last choices she made regarding her security and life with Dodi could be seen as bad choices at the time.

About the summer vacation. I think Diana at first had another plan, but was rejected by the Royal security officer. So she accepted al-Fayeds' invitation. Without the our hindsight of Al-Fayeds, if she turned down that invitation at that time, I could only say probably she was a racist.

Actually, before Diana's vacation with Al-Fayeds family. We really had little knowledge about them. It was until Diana was on borad with Al-Fayeds familly, the jounalists began to write about them. I guess those jounalists must have made a big effort to find out that information. To be honest, I don't think Diana knew a lot about Al-Fayeds except that he was an old friend of her late father. I thinks now most of us know much more about Al-Fayeds than Diana, with the advantage of hindsight.

This article by Deborah Orr probably reflects her own personality since there is no evidence that Diana was as greedy as the above seems to indicate. Diana wanted a husband who loved her. Is that such an outrageous desire? The rest of the labels don't hold water.

Actually, that is one criterian I always used. How you perceived others reflect what you are. For those who never think twice before using the most extreme words to described other people, I will think twice about what that person is.

 

[normalil]

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

 

[TheTruth]

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

I can't remember reading she was sure he was taking drugs ... I know she suspected him but I don't know if she had a proof.

 

[anbrida]

ysbel, your statements about revenge are great. Those revenge on others will get back all the crabs.

The funny thing about this thread is it often made me reflect on myself. My friends and my parents often said I was too revengeful. I got several punishment because of this. It doesn't mean I didn't learn the lesson, but occasionally I was just out of control. Actually the posters here also had experienced it when I yelled to them to shut up.

Because of my own defections, I really couldn't point a finger on Diana's. However everyone need to take the responsibilities for their acts. I have to, Diana had to. Even though, I am more lucky, because no one use a magnifier to scrutinize my defections. Everything of Diana looked so huge, good or bad, but if we take out the magnifier, probably she was the same size of us.

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

Maybe that was why Dodi was attractive to her. It's said that addicts were one group of people Diana was interested in. I am not talking about Diana wanted to join them, but I think she wanted to help them.

O I don't know, I think Diana must have known quite a bit about them, the Earl being a friend of Mohammed. Diana also knew about Dodi's drug habit, and yet still felt it ok to have her children around him. That is another thing which I dislike her for, imagine how she would have reacted if Charles was exposing them to such things.

Sure, in 1997 Diana must have known more than us. But since Al-Fayed was a friend to the family, I think compared to us what she knew more was their goodness instead of their badness.

 

[zhontella]

Is the story about the cufflinks a proven fact? Or is it Diana claiming that in the Morton-book?

What would it take to prove it? I think we can assume that Diana didn't lie about Everything. And some of her observations were so off-the-wall and unexpected, it's not like the typical lie using some generic event.

Because I doubt the man who can look so happy and in love with the mistress he married, who is said to have been his love for over 30 years can be so cold-hearted towards his young wife. Sorry, these character traits simply don't fit together.

Well, I have to agree with you Jo -- Charles does not look to be cold or mean in anyway. He has often expressed his frustration about others controlling his life and telling him what to do.

 

[zhontella]

Because these two people are opponents. If Camilla is going well, then she is the winner, and Diana must be the loser. And we got accustomed to the ideas that it must be good choices lead to a winner, and bad choices lead to a loser. However, life not only has good choices and bad choices but also has a lot of uncertainties which are totally out of our control. Occasional accidents could make good choices into bad, and bad choices into good.

And the clear winner is HRH DOC, no doubt about it. Photo from "After Diana" by C. Andersen.

https://publish.comcast.net/rpath/U...8sBYC6Ve0fX2_bSvKPrncqS91DmXMOoBGE89juD1xgZY/

 

[Elspeth]

Actually, before Diana's vacation with Al-Fayeds family. We really had little knowledge about them. It was until Diana was on borad with Al-Fayeds familly, the jounalists began to write about them. I guess those jounalists must have made a big effort to find out that information. To be honest, I don't think Diana knew a lot about Al-Fayeds except that he was an old friend of her late father. I thinks now most of us know much more about Al-Fayeds than Diana, with the advantage of hindsight.

That might be the case for people in other countries, but in Britain Mohamed Fayed was notorious and had been for many years.

 

[Fabulous Fake]

That might be the case for people in other countries, but in Britain Mohamed Fayed was notorious and had been for many years.

Indeed Elspeth.

We knew all about the 'cash for questions' issue,the finance of the purchase of Harrods,the quest for British citizenship and the dubious social climbing including financing polo tournaments.

 

[anbrida]

Indeed Elspeth.

We knew all about the 'cash for questions' issue,the finance of the purchase of Harrods,the quest for British citizenship and the dubious social climbing including financing polo tournaments.

Just want a confirm. So before 1997, this was already well broadcasted. I remembered I watched a BBC program talking about exactly the same history about Al-Frayed. But it was after that accident.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

What had the Fred and Gladys initials -- was that some bracelet gift?

Now see here is another weird story, because it has two versions! Ok, if I remember fully (forgive me, I'm going off memory) Diana told Morton that she found a bracelet with the "G" and "F" initials, as it had slipped out of an envelope on a desk in the office she was sharing (during the engagement) with Charles's private secretary. More specifically, it was the private secretary's desk and this envelope was addressed to Charles, I guess from Camilla but I do not remember that there was any specific reference "it was from Camilla."

Anyway, so Diana told Morton for the book, she saw this bracelet and "knew" that the initials stood for "Gladys" and "Fred", pet nicknames for Charles and Camilla.

Ok, another version: Dimbleby's account said the initials stood for "Girl Friday", which according to Dimbleby was in fact Charles's pet name for Camilla.

 

[ghost_night554]

I just think this whole thing of was Diana really the victim is silly, I mean I'll explain why I feel this way. In all honesty we don't know the real story behind what happened in the breakdown of their marriage, all we know is Diana's side of the story and we know Charles side of the story both very different. I just think that they both saw it in a different light,I know from past experiences I've found that my friends see their side of the story very differently then how I do.Now as for who was right who was wrong we'll never know I think it's sorta who you want to beleive you will beleive type of situation there's no real proof in all honesty. And one more thing I don't understand what the car crash and her dying at a young age had to do with her making mistakes in the years before. Car crashes happen simple as that, you can't really protect yourself or prevent it from happening. Sorry if I miss-understood anything but I sorta skimmed through the last few pages really quickly.

 

[anbrida]

That's an interesting aspect and well worth to discuss IMHO. Diana was compassionate, you state and I know that this is the impression she gave when she was introduced to a person who suffered. But I got the impression that she very fastly got tired of being compassionate with this one person or with this charity and selected a new topic which interested her more, leaving the old problems behind.

Eg the landmines: Richard Kay claimed on oath that Diana was already on the move, having felt that her work was nearly done and on the way towards a new charitable idea. But I think what charities really need is the constant interest of a patron, not just the short term help of a celebrity.

All I want to say there is not only one way to do charity work. I really don't expect Diana got very involved, since as you might know I don't think she was very professional person. To get involved it needed more professional knowledge. It was not her strong point. But the diary she made for the landmine campaign did gave me a surprise. And I think that was a good trend. I think the strongest point of Diana was to arose people's attention on issues. She've done that all those years, since the Aids campaign. Actually she didn't got too involved into the Aids either. But she did gave part of donation from her clothing auctions to Aids group. You might think she was to superficial. Well to be frankly, did you really expect she would go to dig the landmine herself. I just hope by arosing the interest on another campaign, she could contribute as much as to dig the landmine.

You were right. I heard that her next interest was the campaign of eliminating illiteracy in poor countries. And she was going to make a similar documentary on this issue as she did in landmine campaign.

 

[ghost_night554]

I think her purpose was to try and make a difference and make people more aware of the issues around the world. I didn't expect to see her get into each charity she did have many.