Why do you think Diana did the Panorama interview?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

True. It's awful to come to a point where you must always please people around you just to have their 'love'. It reflects a certain loneliness she couldn't push away because she felt she had no one around her. IMO, she only came obsessed with her image in the press in the early 90's. Before, she still had a grip on Charles' possible affection or care and she had an affair (two, if you include Mannakee) so she wasn't craving for someone's love. But then it all went away : the dreams, the caring lover, etc. to be replaced by terrible headlines like Squidgygate and separation rumors ; It was supposed to be the fairytale of the century and it ended up in a disaster. Who was left next to her ? Who was still standing at her side ? The public. And that's how it all started ...

Well Diana seems to have found a tireless and loyal champion in YOU, TheTruth.

You seem to have boundless sympathy and understanding for her no matter what she did. May I ask you a question? Do you think that, Diana, this object of your devotion was deserving of your devotion trust and loyalty?

Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?

[Fabulous Fake]

I love your post ysbel.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by love_cc

Moreoever, the interview was in 1995 and Tony Blair was not the opposite leader yet. I doubt how Diana could have any interaction with them.

Nobody just appears on the stage and within two years becomes prime minister. Tony Blair was already on the move up to the leadership of his party and thinking about ways to make his party the ruling one. As the Rf had been notoriously non-political and surely were no labour voters Blair had nothing to loose on encouraging Diana but a lot to win.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well Diana seems to have found a tireless and loyal champion in YOU, TheTruth.

You seem to have boundless sympathy and understanding for her no matter what she did. May I ask you a question? Do you think that, Diana, this object of your devotion was deserving of your devotion trust and loyalty?

Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?

Well yes, of course ! She did terrible things that I can't accept and I wouldn't have liked to be around her. I don't have sympathy or devotion for her in those moments close to madness, obsession or whatever. I don't want to be labeled as a "Di defender" because I'm simply not one of them. I refuse to think she was all good but I don't see her all bad either. I've never found her any excuses for her behavior and action if I remember well.
The post you've quoted may need some explanations because I didn't intend to show devotion or compassion. The questions I wrote in the end were NOT my opinion, just a glimpse of how she felt. I didn't say I was adhering to it. And what worked for Diana also works for Charles ; he, too, had to go through the whole story.

Could you tell me why you believe I'm a "tireless and loyal champion" ?

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?

Diana, Princess of Wales did the Panorama interview to get a divorced sooner. I think she went a little overboard about Prince Charles and the BRF in the interview.

I still see Diana as a mentally sick person who the BFR gave up on. I guess I see a victim. So to answer your above statement, I don't think that anything that Diana would have done would not make me her fan.

[sirhon11234]

I always felt that the Princess of Wales did the interview to A. Try to get the public's sympathy, and B. try to damage Charles' reputation.
Whenever I look at that interview I see a woman who was angry, hurt, vengful, and sad that her marriage turned out to be a complete failure.
I also saw a woman who had hopes for the future, for herself and her children.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well yes, of course ! She did terrible things that I can't accept and I wouldn't have liked to be around her. I don't have sympathy or devotion for her in those moments close to madness, obsession or whatever. I don't want to be labeled as a "Di defender" because I'm simply not one of them. I refuse to think she was all good but I don't see her all bad either. I've never found her any excuses for her behavior and action if I remember well.
The post you've quoted may need some explanations because I didn't intend to show devotion or compassion. The questions I wrote in the end were NOT my opinion, just a glimpse of how she felt. I didn't say I was adhering to it. And what worked for Diana also works for Charles ; he, too, had to go through the whole story.

Could you tell me why you believe I'm a "tireless and loyal champion" ?

Believe me, I was thinking of it as a compliment. You are always willing to stick around any discussion about Diana no matter how negative it sounds, and you are always pleasant, always cheerful in trying to get people to see things from Diana's point of view. The way you described the way she must have felt in the Panorama interview displayed such empathy and compassion towards Diana made me think that this was a person and a situation that you could identify with a lot. And I've noticed your willingness to empathize with Diana in cases where it seemed difficult to empathize with her.

I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, In fact I was just thinking after I read your post that the British Royal family would have no worries about the future of the British monarchy if they had received just a small fraction of the devotion that Diana got from her fans.

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I always felt that the Princess of Wales did the interview to A. Try to get the public's sympathy, and B. try to damage Charles' reputation.
Whenever I look at that interview I see a woman who was angry, hurt, vengful, and sad that her marriage turned out to be a complete failure.
I also saw a woman who had hopes for the future, for herself and her children.

My thoughts exactly! If I might add a respectful C) in an effort to secure a somewhat official position for herself within the royal family after the divorce became final or perhaps as even part of the divorce settlement. I believe she was a little naive in that regard.

Cat

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by georgiea

Diana, Princess of Wales did the Panorama interview to get a divorced sooner. I think she went a little overboard about Prince Charles and the BRF in the interview.

I still see Diana as a mentally sick person who the BFR gave up on. I guess I see a victim. So to answer your above statement, I don't think that anything that Diana would have done would not make me her fan.

Georgiea, while I of course respect your opinion, it still makes me a bit worried. If you'd said that while you see her bad sides as well you still enjoy her charisma etc., okay. But saying as you said that you see her as a mentally ill victim, so no matter what she'd have done, you'd be a "fan" = fanatic about her - that really, really scares me and makes me think of the fascination some people have with psycho- or sociopaths. Like sympathy for Hannibal Lecter, no matter what.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

My thoughts exactly! If I might add a respectful C) in an effort to secure a somewhat official position for herself within the royal family after the divorce became final or perhaps as even part of the divorce settlement. I believe she was a little naive in that regard.

Cat

I think her problem was that she never understood her husband at all. She obviously always had the wrong picture of him. As Skydragon said in another Thread he seems to be very thick-headed but very often he is right about what he thinks so it's worth accepting and going along. That's something I think Diana could not do. I think it was in the Morton book where a scene is described of Charles presenting Diana to somebody and she really is not a "Yes, Sir"-personality there but is equally thick-headed and convinced she is right. Which makes for a very bad situation because that means a compromise is not easy to achieve between the two and what is a marriage without compromising? IMHO it's doomed.

What Diana IMHO could not see was the gentle, caring and helpful side of Charles. And he could not see hers because this strong will to lead which both possessed obviously gave the other the image of an unbreakable wall and slowly there came the moats till each of them lived in his own crennellated castle: the war of the Waleses had started.

But if she had accepted for herself that the marriage was over, she surely would have found reassurance in Charles when it cames to the kids.Of course, Diana still wanted it all:

Lady Sarah, her sister at the inquest yesterday:
with divorce goes problems of access to
11 children, and she was very stressed about sharing them
12 and having to not have them with her all their holiday
13 times.

I doubt Charles felt the same way. For him IMHO it was natural that his sons needed their mother while I doubt Diana saw the need for her sons to see their father. In the Morton-book it says that Diana even threatened to move with the kids to Australia and found out that you can't move with the heir of the heir into another country without the queen's okay, even if you're the mother. But how could she ever thought of that and/or used that in negociations about a divorce settlement? Didin't she see that William needed Charles' guidance and the back-up of the RF and their court to be able to become king one day? Just imagine: Diana with William and Harry moved to Australia, both kids grow up like your typical Sydney-child with lots of fun at the beach, barbecues, etc. While that sound good and probably is pretty good for next to anyone, I doubt that the British media would have supported the "Aussie"-prince on his return as the next king...

So, IMHo Diana was not able to see where compromises lead to better results in the long term.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I think her problem was that she never understood her husband at all. She obviously always had the wrong picture of him. As Skydragon said in another Thread he seems to be very thick-headed but very often he is right about what he thinks so it's worth accepting and going along

I don't think Charles is very often right about things. Actually one thing Charles and Diana both agreed on was the boys schooling and in Harry's case I think they both got it wrong. They both wanted the boys to avoid the heartaches that Charles had experience in the rough and tumble school Gordonstoun and avoided sending the boys to anywhere like that at all costs. What they failed to realize that a very physical but less intellectually gifted boy like Harry would likely thrive in an atmosphere like Gordonstoun much better than where he did end up and where his cousins Peter and Zara actually did end up and enjoy it immensely. For Harry I think Eton was a big mistake.

When Charles and Diana both agreed on something, the results were often not quite right. Charles and Diana also agreed when the boys were little on less discipline and more hugging and affirmation for the children and as a result William was almost uncontrollable. He behaved so badly when Diana took him by herself to an event when he was about 3 that she had to leave in the middle of the event.

Charles was most often not right when he made decisions for his sons based on his miserable childhood.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

He behaved so badly when Diana took him by herself to an event when he was about 3 that she had to leave in the middle of the event.

Charles was most often not right when he made decisions for his sons based on his miserable childhood.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think 3 yo's have to behave all the time on occasions that are not organised for children - prince or no prince. And it is difficult for parent to choose the right school for their kids. But IMHO you're right and Gordonstoun would have been a better choice at first and then they could have taken advice if the school really was the right thing for them. But if a father has serious misgivings about a school because he hated it there, of course he will not send his own sons there.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I'm not sure about that. I don't think 3 yo's have to behave all the time on occasions that are not organised for children - prince or no prince.

Actually that was my mistake he was closer to 4, it was a couple of weeks before Andrew's and Sarah's wedding and he was being taken out to see if he could behave himself during the wedding ceremony. However, the discipline problems with William when he was a toddler were pretty public.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Actually that was my mistake he was closer to 4, it was a couple of weeks before Andrew's and Sarah's wedding and he was being taken out to see if he could behave himself during the wedding ceremony. However, the discipline problems with William when he was a toddler were pretty public.

But isn't hat a question of character? IMHO either prince Frederick of princess Mary of Denmark just said that while their son prince Christian has always been an extremely easy child his little sister Isabella is turning out to be a kind of hellion. And I doubt you can stop that that easily by educating the kids till they have reached a certain age.

[ysbel]

No because his character after they changed nannies turned 100 percent better and he became the best behaved of the children.

I noticed this in my nephew, he is a sweet sensitive soul but his parents admitted they got some things wrong in the discipline department when he was younger and he was a terror, they changed their tack and he became a delight to be around.