The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:03 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: new-york, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Diana's secret tapes

These are 7 tapes about 12 hours.
(These are not the Settelen which are 20 tapes about 21 hours.)

The most damaging:

"She makes it clear that she would do everything possible to make sure Charles never became King. She wanted William to succeed to the Throne when the Queen died. Diana clearly saw her role as the power behind William. She had this somewhat romantic idea of being a king-maker -- the mother behind the monarch", said the source.

And these are her opinion from 1997.

IMO, they should release all the tapes to the public.
Including these, the Settelen tape, the unedited Panorama interview, the Morton tapes and all secret recorded telephone calls.

We can all listen to them, in order of recording, to see how her story changes,

Agree. why did Diana want to destroy Charles? why she could not calm down after the divorce?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:14 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
Agree. why did Diana want to destroy Charles? why she could not calm down after the divorce?
It's a great question. I'd ask why the press at the time and why so many people today still cannot calm down after the divorce? Because that's the answer.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
It's a great question. I'd ask why the press at the time and why so many people today still cannot calm down after the divorce? Because that's the answer.
Yup. A lot of people have a hard time admitting Diana was vindictive JMO.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 01-20-2018, 01:33 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
Agree. why did Diana want to destroy Charles? why she could not calm down after the divorce?
For lots of reasons: she could not control him, she lost her status, lost her entre to society and her nested royal world. There was nothing logical taking place. Diana was driven by passion, albeit she was clever and canny. Look at the Panorama interview in which she admits to having been 'madly in love' with a man she engaged across years, where she impugns Charles' fitness (or willingness) to be king, and then talks about what a good team she and Charles made. What? Not logical. Consequence: she forced a divorced, without fully comprehending what that would mean to her daily life, and she must have reeled from it (imo). Reason enough for a passionate person to 'not calm down'. It's a very sad story. I take no pleasure in how it ended.

Diana always seemed to act impulsively and then suffered when the consequences came thundering down on her head. I believe Diana did not think she would ever suffer the indignity of a divorce. She later admitted to regret regarding the Panorama interview but I think that regret was because she realized it cost her the marriage and her social status. Life was suddenly very drab with all aristocratic and royal doors shut to her. In the end she was a very alone figure. I am haunted by the image of her weeping quietly in the restaurant of the hotel she and Dodi were staying at, either the evening of her death or one of the evenings before.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 01-20-2018, 02:08 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
Agree. why did Diana want to destroy Charles? why she could not calm down after the divorce?
Both of your questions are assuming the worst of Diana.

It was not a compatible marriage, but that doesn't mean Diana wanted to destroy the father of her children, nor does it entail 18th century notions of women "calming down."
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 01-20-2018, 03:59 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,769
The tapes have been revealed. Despite all the hullabaloo made about it, the impact has been zero. The royals live on. The tapes merely revealed a quite monotonous, self-pitying and by moments annoying lady. Even the DM did not manage to stir things up. The whipped cream has become flat and is not whipped up again. That is what Diana's tapes learned.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 01-20-2018, 04:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Both of your questions are assuming the worst of Diana.

It was not a compatible marriage, but that doesn't mean Diana wanted to destroy the father of her children, nor does it entail 18th century notions of women "calming down."
I agree. I don't think she wanted to destroy him, she was angry still though because she felt hurt that the marriage had not worked.. and that she was "pushed out" by the RF.
But a lot of people are still angry at their exes when divorced. For some the bitterness may never go away, but it doesn't mean they "want to destroy" their ex partners.. just that theyre unable to let go.
I don't think that Diana was that bad, she did try to find a new husband, she did try to make a new life.. and I think that some of the time at least, she hoped to work out some kind of friendly relationship with Charles, wehre they could be parenets to the children, and get on in a civilised way..
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 01-20-2018, 01:23 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: new-york, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Both of your questions are assuming the worst of Diana.

It was not a compatible marriage, but that doesn't mean Diana wanted to destroy the father of her children, nor does it entail 18th century notions of women "calming down."
Having said that, I'm of the opinion that Diana should have got a grip of her emotions. By the time she passed she was no longer a 19 year old virgin. She'd had several affairs, she should have gotten over Charles and focused on being a future King Mother. That is a very powerful. Instead she was fighting Charles to her dying day. Everything she did was calculated to reel him in or to rile him up. She wanted him to abdicate while she raised William to be the next heir
As a woman, in life, you have to choose your battles. Diana had some pretty good cards but she played the game poorly! she kept on banging her head against the wall. When they divorced, she literally cleaned out Charles, she got 17,000,000 in cash, she got to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace and Charles was to pay for her private office. Diana should have taken her white woman privilege and chilled out instead she took to running around with unsavoury men. Dodi Fayed's dad- Mohammed Al Fayed was/is end of! And dabbling in explosive charities- landmines. That chick played herself!

Yes, Diana did some good- her work with unfashionable causes- HIV, cancer, leprosy and landmines but to her detriment she also acted as if she was the first and last woman ever scorned. 20 years later, The Institution is still standing, which is less than you can say for her.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 01-20-2018, 01:46 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,199
One thing to remember too is that at the time of her death, Diana had only been legally divorced from Charles for a year. That's a relatively short time in which she, according to you, would move on and get a grip on her emotions.

The cold, hard reality of a divorce takes time to sink in after the final decree. Up until then, there is always the odd chance that things will work out and the divorce canceled and its like being in limbo. Not really married yet not really single either.

One thing I have read many places is that by the time of Diana's death though, Diana and Charles were able to have a somewhat amicable relationship with each other and they were both moving forward in their lives.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 01-20-2018, 01:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,273
I don't think Osipi that she had reached any kind of equlibirum by the time of her death as regards Charles. I think that perhaps although she did want out fo the RF, she maybe thought on one level that it would never actutally happen. She was a volatile emotional person who I think had great potential but needed help to fulfil it..a nd I'm not sure she was getting that help
But she had probably been told for years that "even if she was unhappy in the marriage, the marriage had to last for the sake of the monarchy", and I think perhaps she found it hard to believe it, when It DID actually happen.
and she hadn't adjusted. I think she was still hurt that Charles had essentially lost any feelings for hr and was now happily settled in an affair with Camilla, which might very well become a marriage. But I think she tired to "play nice" with him and to develop some kind of friendly relationship, but it wasn't easy.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 01-20-2018, 02:21 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
Having said that, I'm of the opinion that Diana should have got a grip of her emotions. By the time she passed she was no longer a 19 year old virgin. She'd had several affairs, she should have gotten over Charles and focused on being a future King Mother. That is a very powerful. Instead she was fighting Charles to her dying day. Everything she did was calculated to reel him in or to rile him up. She wanted him to abdicate while she raised William to be the next heir
Underlined bolded comment: exactly so! I always feel that fans of Diana see her fixed in amber, as that 'innocent 19 year old virgin' even as a 36 year old mother of a teenager, which btw is Diana's spin. Her 'lamb to the slaughter' rings down the years, yet we have rumblings that she may not have actually been as virginal as advertised (a boyfriend lurks in the months prior to her bale-of-hay meet-up with Charles I have recently read). She was a bit too adept at filtration to be the 'innocent'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
As a woman, in life, you have to choose your battles. Diana had some pretty good cards but she played the game poorly!
Exactly so! The very sentiment Camilla conveyed to Diana in the famous confrontation scene from the drama Diana was scripting.

Diana really did hold the best hand (not Camilla, or any other woman). All the evidence points to a Charles who genuinely liked Diana very much upon their (arranged) marriage and subsequently loved her. Can't ask for more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
she kept on banging her head against the wall.
Yes. Maybe Charles can be a jerk. Maybe Diana could be a jerk. Yet we are suppose to believe that in all of it Charles bears the greater burden because of the unpardonable fact that Diana was 19 when she married. Good grief!

Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
When they divorced, she literally cleaned out Charles, she got 17,000,000 in cash, she got to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace and Charles was to pay for her private office. Diana should have taken her white woman privilege and chilled out instead she took to running around with unsavoury men. Dodi Fayed's dad- Mohammed Al Fayed was/is end of! And dabbling in explosive charities- landmines. That chick played herself!
Well put! Thank you!

Diana's story is her private story overlaid with her fascination (and fixation) on her public story. She had the ill-luck to have her story coincide with Rupert Murdock's tabloid ascendency. She was the 'prefect storm' for his kind of 'news'.

Unfortunately, Diana was not balanced. There was little inner life ballast evident in her life choices. It's like she saw her soul in the tabloid press and behaved accordingly. Tragedy of monumental proportions, and nothing Charles could ever have 'corrected', even had he immolated himself for her, which he initially began to do, until he realized the insanity that was being demanded and did the only thing he could to maintain his own balance: freeze her out. Unfortunately, that also left his sons to figure it all out on their own. Hope they have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aigulminimalist View Post
Yes, Diana did some good - her work with unfashionable causes - HIV, cancer, leprosy and landmines - but to her detriment she also acted as if she was the first and last woman ever scorned. 20 years later, the Institution is still standing, which is less than you can say for her.
Standing, yes, but at some human cost, unfortunately, in the lives of those closest to her. It remains to be demonstrated whether her active animus towards the BRF will play out with William's kingship, and Georges'. We already know there has been a lasting impact on Charles and his relationship to his sons. If one is a monarchist, one can hope that the influence of the present Queen will maintain over the influence of Diana.

And the last and saddest part of the story: Diana's insistence on remaining a public figure after her divorce. How can one not remember the video of Diana in an airport trying to keep photographers at bay: the ultimate victim, when we all know (or at least some of us know) that she had access to innumerable perks that would have allowed her to enter and exit airports virtually invisible to anyone. Diana played herself, but she also played her public, and they have believed the Diana-Bible-Text she has supplied to this day.

Had she played the game a bit more wisely, she could be alive today, still married to Charles, looking forward to being Queen one day. Sad.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 01-20-2018, 02:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I think it takes two to tango though when it comes to Charles. He's just lucky it's not the 30's.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:01 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,744
Why? In the 30's there were no mad media (witness the way Wallis very existence was kept from the general public) wars and steps would have been taken to ensure the status quo was not upset. If she cut up rough she would have lost everything including her children. They were still locking up women in asylums for "immoral behaviour". Perhaps Diana would have been sent to Balmoral forever? Women had no power at all back then.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:25 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,199
Perhaps the doctors in the 30s would have put Diana on Mrs. Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound that was supposed to cure all women's problems. If you're not familiar with Lydia Pinkham's Compound, let me refer you to a later example. Lucy Ricardo doing the Vitameatavegamin commercal for one of the episodes of "I Love Lucy" of 1952. Its a classic.

Back in the 30s, the trials and tribulations of the Wales' marriage would never have reached the public ears. Charles, as the Prince of Wales would have trumped over anything and everything Diana had to complain about. Then again, if this all happened in the 30s, its very possible that Diana would have had a totally different mindset than she had.

We'll never know.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:18 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't think Osipi that she had reached any kind of equlibirum by the time of her death as regards Charles. I think that perhaps although she did want out of the RF, she maybe thought on one level that it would never actutally happen.
One has to be clear as to when Diana said what she said. We have very little from the 1980's. We have tons from the Morton book onwards. We need to work gingerly with the revisionist history Diana spun, always keeping in mind that Diana was in full-bore self-defense mode when she characterized Charles and the marriage in the 1990's. She was also in deep trouble after the Morton book. It was hard to envision how it all could be 'fixed' once it was all out-of-the-bag.

She may have said to one or three confidants that she wanted out of the marriage but I have never for an instant believed she really did. It was just a way of doing more damage, accentuating the spin of a 'trapped innocent' in a bad marriage (a situation so many women identified with, I think).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She was a volatile emotional person who I think had great potential but needed help to fulfil it..and I'm not sure she was getting that help.
She was being offered help all through the 1980's. Her response was to kick it down the road. But as so often happens, you pose the scenario as though she was a clueless someone who needed to be 'helped' rather than identify her as the strong, willful (even powerful) self directing (and very canny) woman she was. She may have had issues, but she was also all of that, too. Remember, she came up with the Morton book. That is pretty remarkable. That points to someone with amazing capabilities (that she used to serve herself, to great effect). Forget potential, she was a real genius handling her public story. Amazing demonstrated capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
But she had probably been told for years that "even if she was unhappy in the marriage, the marriage had to last for the sake of the monarchy", and I think perhaps she found it hard to believe it, when It DID actually happen and she hadn't adjusted. I think she was still hurt that Charles had essentially lost any feelings for hr and was now happily settled in an affair with Camilla, which might very well become a marriage. But I think she tired to "play nice" with him and to develop some kind of friendly relationship, but it wasn't easy.
She clearly thought she was untouchable. Just watch her in interviews in the late 1980's, she is overtly unpleasant towards Charles. She almost seems to snicker. She was feeling her oats and happy as could be. She was publicly idolized and was the mother of a future king. Her world was secure. She had a docile and devoted lover. She could do without Charles, and her behavior during that period confirms it. She was her own center of power. It was only with the deconstruct (that she initiated publicly) that we then hear of a miserable existence, as she tried to spin her defense for her unacceptable extra-marital dalliances.

One must place her comments in context to the timeline (when the comments were said, not when the events occurred). She was endlessly re-writing her own history, though it was hers to so re-write, though I think much of what she finally started spinning must have been incredibly painful/hurtful to Charles.

Anyway, it is a story that will endlessly fascinate far, far into the future, I predict. One of those drama-drenched footnotes in history that will be referred back to, to explain some BRF event yet to come 40 to 60 years hence.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:34 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: new-york, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
One thing to remember too is that at the time of her death, Diana had only been legally divorced from Charles for a year. That's a relatively short time in which she, according to you, would move on and get a grip on her emotions.

The cold, hard reality of a divorce takes time to sink in after the final decree. Up until then, there is always the odd chance that things will work out and the divorce canceled and its like being in limbo. Not really married yet not really single either.

One thing I have read many places is that by the time of Diana's death though, Diana and Charles were able to have a somewhat amicable relationship with each other and they were both moving forward in their lives.

By the time Diana passed she was not a 19 year old virgin anymore, she was THIRTY SIX YEARS OLD.

Adolescents comes to an end at 25 yrs. Women begin to mature at 25yrs. At 28 yrs a woman has to be in a position to bring her A game. Life is unkind, you snooze, you loose. I will grant Diana a 4 year extension. When I look at her life, I expected her to have figured things out by the time she was 32 years old, this is circa 1992!

Truth is, Diana was spoilt. She once slapped her father- when she was 16 yrs, he re-married and the kids were up in arms and she flounced into the drawing room or dining room and slapped him.

There are many women out there who have been treated badly by their spouses, some of them do not have a fraction of the priviledges Diana possessed. It is my opinion that by 1992 at the age of 31 ish, the focus should not have been on her, it should have been on the well being of her children. When she married into that family she did little to undestand the significance of the union. Even her grandmother warned about the Royal Family. She knew about Charles and Camilla but she thought she would triumph.


When she got engaged, she was given books on the Royal Family, on her predecessors (previous Princess' of Wales) but she didn't want to know. She would pop downstairs for hours on end to have a chat with servants. Some were uncomfortable, one even bluntly told her, she should be upstairs learning her craft'.

Unfortunately things fell apart. I agree Charles behaved badly but Diana had a responsibility to herself, her children and their legacy. She made everything about Charles to the point where she forgot to see the bigger picture. People tried to pull her back, her friends and family tried to advise but there was no telling her. At this point one realises that she was damaged way before Charles came on the scene- her parents marriage and subsequent divorce had left some deep scars. Charles exacerbated them.

The schism grew in 1984. She had 12 years to figure things out. She had ample time to wild out and then begin to make peace with her situation. It takes 7 years to get over somebody.. She should have been over Charles by the 7th year! Despite the affairs (hers) she was still allowing him to affect her. She just kept on careering from one crisis to another. She had numerous affairs, she secretly briefed the media, She 'wrote' the book, she confronted Camilla. People told her to chill but she didn't want to know. She fell out with her mates, fell out with her family- at the time of her death she was not on speaking terms with anyone of her immediate family members! The few genuine friends she had were shocked at the way she was carrying on, anyone who tried to raise their concerns was ostracised. There was no telling her.

She should never have done that Panorama interview in 1995. That was the stroke that broke the camel's hump. One may argue that she was driven to it but what about her children? Their heritage? Her Legacy? It had been 10 years since they had been together, 14 years since they married. By 1995 she should have
been working on her healing
been loving herself
accepted that Charles would never love her
recognised she had immense priviledge and children who loved her
taken stock of her gifts and worked towards harnessing them

Instead she continued waging this war of attrition. The Republicans rejoiced at the interview but thing is, she was not trying to be revolutionary, she didn't call for the end of the monarchy, she just said she would much prefer that the crown bypass Charles for William. How do you think that made William feel?

Goodness knows who Dodi was to her. Was he 'The One'? Was he a stooge? And then of course there was her latest pet project- the landmines- very controversial. She was warned.
I sympathise with her, however as an adult who has faced her share of challenges I think Diana became self indulgent. Had she played her cards differently she would have still managed to have a very fulfilling life
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I think it takes two to tango though when it comes to Charles. He's just lucky it's not the 30's.


LaRae
What ahas the 30s got to do with anything.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,199
While its true that people mature physically according to the chronological clock, its a totally different ball of wax when we talk of emotional and mental health. I would even wager that when Diana married at 19, she was quite a young 19 emotionally. From all accounts, she never had a serious relationship before Charles to the point that she knew how relationships work and don't work. She went into marriage by diving off the high dive into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim. There were many, many occasions that should have raised red flags with Diana even before she walked down that aisle.

She had a fixation on how things should be. She was a very insecure person seeking security with home and family but unfortunately, she had no real clue how to maintain one. She wanted to be cherished and doted on and cared for and married a man that never really experienced being the caretaker type. He was used to everyone doing for him and falling in line with his wishes. She was also very stubborn and stood her ground when she wanted something. As time passed, those fixations grew into the passionate need to blame everyone else for things not being as she thought they should be and did everything in her power to paint that kind of a picture. She was wronged, she was trod on, she was neglected, she was a whole lot of things that point to a deep case of the "poor little ol' me" syndrome. In other words, her reality check bounced and things got out of hand to the point where there was no turning back.

I don't get where it takes 7 years to get over somebody. Some people can walk away from a bad marriage and never look back once and move right along with their lives. Some people, after going through a very acrimonious divorce, never get past the anger and the hurt at all and carry those emotions with them. I do think Diana recognized that she had some serious issues to deal with and eventually did seek help along with a quest to find answers and healing in many places. What astounds me is that in 1989, Diana became the patron of Relate which was Britain's largest marriage counseling agency.

Diana was a very complex and unique individual that, I believe, just wanted to be loved but never really experienced a loving give and take relationship. Perhaps it would have been better should she have found a best friend in a man before looking for that grand passionate "Cartland" love affair. I don't know. I'm not Diana. I just know the biggest mistake she ever made was to air everything and anything in public and putting her own spin on things. Many people were hurt because Diana was hurting and needed to strike back.

Its said that what you put out into the world comes back to you threefold and I think Diana is a prime example of this.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:47 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
What ahas the 30s got to do with anything.
I was responding to the last part of the post right above my response. Did you read what Lady Nimue said?


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana's Engagements: 1981-1997, Complete List and Photographs royal_sophietje Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 348 05-30-2020 03:04 PM
Diana, Princess of Wales: Visit to Bosnia - August 1997 roseroyal Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 26 08-25-2013 07:20 PM
The Settelen Tapes maryshawn Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 41 05-13-2007 09:24 AM
Secret Royal Meetings Warren Royal Life and Lifestyle 1 10-04-2005 08:51 AM




Popular Tags
abdication america anastasia archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography bridal gown britain british royal family buckingham palace china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy dna doge of venice doll dubai duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii facts family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! intro italian royal family jack brooksbank japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince dimitri princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal ancestry royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech suthida taiwan uae customs united states of america wales wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×