Different Facets of Diana

[blauerengel]

That´s true,I believe that the deep emotions and feelings of sadness are often hidden and unseen by the public. Even if they do suffer they are doing well by not showing it publicly, it is much better to talk about sorrows and sadness with a dear friend or person close to you, the press only exploits a tragedy or emotional breakouts to produce a sensational story. William and Harry both have friends and people they can turn to when they are overwhelmed by their feelings or want to talk about their private life.
I agree with Missymew2, a dear person will never be forgotten, even if they have been dead for a long time. Of course you have to go on with your life and can´t stay in the past, but a loved friend or family member cannot be replaced,you only learn how to deal with not having them in your life.

Diana will remain a source of inspiration and guidance in the lives of her sons,they seem to have inherited her empathy and the ability to "touch" people in an emotional way. She always had this special gift of talking to people and making them feel special, no matter what background, social class or nationality they had. Especially children and people in difficult situations where happy to see her,they are often forgotten and most people act awkwardly around them because they can´t relate to individuals with physical or mental disabilities.

 

[Dman]

Diana was 'really spiteful to Charles and had no feelings for him or his family but now he has blossomed again', says Prince Philip's cousin Lady Pamela Hicks:
Princess Diana was 'spiteful to Charles but now he has blossomed again' says Lady Pamela Hicks | Mail Online

The kind of stuff that just make me think about William & Harry and pray for Diana. She was no angle and did and said things she shouldn't have but I feel like some has been disrespecting her memory in many ways.

 

[Al_bina]

It is the utter mauvais ton to give such statements. It may appear that Prince Charles runs a campaign to endear himself to future subjects. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was not a saint or angel. She was just a usual human with bad and good traits.

 

[Nico]

Princess Diana was 'spiteful to Charles but now he has blossomed again' says Lady Pamela Hicks | Mail Online

Well...
You have to take it with a grain of salt but for once it's a first-hand account from someone inside the BRF, after that, you like it or not.The Mountbattens were always very close to Charles, so this statement is not surprising.

 

[Tsaritsa]

It is the utter mauvais ton to give such statements. It may appear that Prince Charles runs a campaign to endear himself to future subjects. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was not a saint or angel. She was just a usual human with bad and good traits.

Beautifully put Al_bina and totally correct. There is probably SOMETHING of Diana in us all and all I can say of Lady Pamala Hicks view is that she is entitled to her opinion. Personally I find it somewhat biased.

 

[Dman]

No, the statements aren't surprising at all.

I can't even imagine the stuff Diana went through back in the day.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Personally, I do not believe any humans are saints or angels, but people still use those terms. I also don't think any one particular religious group has a monopoly on how others use the terms. One aspect of traditional sainthood is suffering, so it's not surprising that for some people who think saints exist, Diana would have worked her way up their list of "saints."

 

[wyevale]

At LAST, we have [from an absolutely trustworthy source] an insiders opinion on the poisonous damage 'St Diana' did within the family she married into [along with other families she affected [the Hoare's and the Carling's]

Although her many public good works were laudable as a private individual she cared nothing for the damage she might do in pursuit of her 'happiness'.

The more i learn of her the less i find to admire in her...

 

[Dman]

Everything is so one-sided that it's not even funny.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Diana was 'really spiteful to Charles and had no feelings for him or his family but now he has blossomed again', says Prince Philip's cousin Lady Pamela Hicks:
Princess Diana was 'spiteful to Charles but now he has blossomed again' says Lady Pamela Hicks | Mail Online

The kind of stuff that just make me think about William & Harry and pray for Diana. She was no angle and did and said things she shouldn't have but I feel like some has been disrespecting her memory in many ways.

What was the point of this article, seriously? Diana is dead, Lady Pamela. Your side "WON". Can you not let the unhappy woman rest in peace now?

Or if that is too much to ask, how about showing some consideration for the feelings of her two very much alive sons?

What a spiteful, pointless interview.

 

[Princess B]

What Lady Pamela has said may be true.

But what's the point in saying all this now?

Tomorrow Lady Sarah Mcquorcodale could write a book and malign Charles (not likely).

This must stop somewhere.

Diana is history!

 

[Al_bina]

Every party involved this ugly mess behaved and behaves like plebeians. Speaking ill of any dead is unacceptable. Lady Pamela has not got any notable achievements.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Well stated Al bina!

I am surprised at the so called well-bred "Lady" Pamela!

 

[vkrish]

Doesnt she have the basic common sense that any relative speaking against Diana will be seen as a smear campaign on Charles' behalf.. That too when all is going so well..
Anyways,I am not at all surprised by this "Lady". For a person who can bring out the juicy scandals of her own mother's infidelities to sell books, this is not at all a big deal..
So much for this "Daughter of the Empire"..I bet not even one single person in that "Empire", then or now..agrees with her self-styled ridiculous title..

 

[wyevale]

Anyways,I am not at all surprised by this "Lady". For a person who can bring out the juicy scandals of her own mother's infidelities to sell books, this is not at all a big deal..

Absolutely Vkrish - you hit the nail on the head - Lady Pamela is 84 years old, and has lived an aristocratic 'demi-mondaine' life since her earliest existence. She will care little [perhaps even be unaware] of the petit bourgeois prejudices of the readers of the Daily Mail {monogamous marriages etc.etc. are an absolute rarity in people of her class & age group !} Prejudices that are practically universal amongst the contributors to this page !


Her disregard of current public opinion is one of the reasons i believe in the truth of what she says.

 

[Binny2]

She's a historic figure. It's silly to say you can't speak of the dead in this situation.

 

[Al_bina]

To the best of my knowledge, TRF members are aware of somewhat unclean personal lives of old-school and modern aristocracy. I thought any discussion of private affairs in mass media outlets and interviews are a definite no-no for aristocrats. I guess my assumptions were wrong.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

She's a historic figure. It's silly to say you can't speak of the dead in this situation.

Of course you can speak of the dead-it's called history.

There is also such a thing as perspective, common sense and sensitivity. The marital strife of the Wales' and the death of Diana are still too fresh in the public memory...still too painful and controversial... for a peer like Lady Pamela to be publically holding forth about what a horrible person the late Princess was.

There are still people alive who loved Diana who could be hurt by her comments, like her children for example.

What point does it serve? Her comments aren't history..it's her personal opinion/condemnation of the tragically dead mother of the future king.

That's my "petit bourgeois" two cents.

 

[wyevale]

There are still people alive who loved Diana who could be hurt by her comments, like her children for example.

And are her sons incapable of defending their feelings for their mother ? Lady Pamela is as entitled as any 'Tom,Dick or Harry' to express her opinion of the behaviour of a woman she KNEW, an opinion that will interest many, many people. That it will not suit the hagiography of the late St. Diana will obviously distress many, but her opinions are valid nonetheless.

If the gutter press, {and the legions of writers who never knew her}, continue to add to the vast literature on the late princess why shouldn't Lady Pamela ?

 

[Ish]

Well put.

What's more is that Lady Pamela doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to the debate, she's simply confirming or agreeing with information about Diana that we - or at least those who read anything about her that isn't of the St. Diana calibre - already knew.

Far more interesting is, in my opinion, her comments regarding HM and the DoE.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If the gutter press, {and the legions of writers who never knew her}, continue to add to the vast literature on the late princess why shouldn't Lady Pamela ?

Simple. The "Lady" should not descend to the level of the gutter press and if she simply cannot resist, why can't she keep her opinions private?

It's absurd to continue to gripe about "the hagiography of St. Diana". It's non-existent, it doesn't exist and it hasn't since a few years after her death when the skeletons really started falling out of the closet with all the tell-all books, films, etc.

Just the opposite, it's been open season on her memory and her character ever since St. James Palace launched it's very impressive and successful p.r. campaign to clean up Prince Charles' image and that of Camilla Parker Bowles.

Everyone knows Diana was no saint and was a deeply messed up, unhappy and flawed person. But she is dead. Why are her detractors still so bitter and so eager to denigrate her??

Everything has worked out brilliantly for the people who disliked Diana, let her rest in peace!

 

[Ish]

Simple. The "Lady" should not descend to the level of the gutter press and if she simply cannot resist, why can't she keep her opinions private?

Why are you questioning her title?

Lady Pamela Hicks is the daughter of an Earl. Therefore she is a Lady.

 

[tdarlene]

Obviously The Daily Mail would only report about the bad side of Diana told by Lady Pamela, here is the link of the Vanity Fair article, the Diana part is on the 3rd page. I don't think she's bad mouthing Diana, she simply makes the difference between the private and public personna Diana was. The article gives you an insight of how lady Pamela and her sister grew up and what they learned , they seem very modern ladies even by today's standard of what people still think how nobility and royalty should behave, obviously she's a british lady with the known british humor, everyone can interpret they're words the way you want to and everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Royal In-Law: Princess Diana Favored “Disco-ing” to Married Life; Charles Has “Blossomed Again” With Camilla | Vanity Fair

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Why are you questioning her title?

Lady Pamela Hicks is the daughter of an Earl. Therefore she is a Lady.

No doubt that she has the title by birth, but her behavior is-in my opinion-not very ladylike at all.

She has her own truth and is entitled to it. But why now, coming only a few days after the anniversary of the death of the princess and all the sadness and controversy it conjures?

Would it have been simply impossible for her to just leave it alone?

Goodness, everyone has heard these things about Diana by now...about a hundred times!

It was not news, and it was not necessary. It's time to move on.

 

[Ish]

I can't help but feel that you've got this idea that Lady Pamela went out of her way to be quoted making a statement on Diana. Which isn't true at all.

The DM is reporting on an article in Vanity Fair that was written after an interview with Lady Pamela and her sister about their lives. It discusses their parents (and the open relationship that they had), their experiences with having met the Duchess of Windsor, their views of the DoE and HM, and then thoughts on Diana. They were doing an interview that was not about Diana, were asked a question about her, were likely pressed on it - the Vanity Fair article says that initially Lady Pamela was vague and positive - and then made a more intimate and negative comment based on what she witnessed.

The focus that the DM has, however, is that Lady Pamela is slandering Diana because hey it's Diana! And now she's being attacked because she gave an interview that wasn't specifically about Diana, got pressed on a Diana question when her initial answer wasn't satisfactory enough, and then said bad (but not inaccurate) things.

 

[Roslyn]

If the gutter press, {and the legions of writers who never knew her}, continue to add to the vast literature on the late princess why shouldn't Lady Pamela ?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to read Lady Pamela's opinions about Diana. As you point out, wyevale, actually KNEW her, and personally witnessed her effect on the Royal Family. Lady Pamela might not be saying anything new, but having confirmation from someone who is in a position to confirm is just as important, in my opinion. And William and Harry are quite capable of defending their mother should they wish to do so, and so is her brother.

I was also interested in what Lady Pamela had to say about her cousin.

Does anyone else want to tie Anthony Bond to a chair and not release him until he understands that it is Lady Pamela, and not Lady Hicks, and that when Prince Philip met Elizabeth she was a young Princess, not a young Queen?
.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If that was the context in which Her Ladyship was quoted then yes, you are correct Ish, and I agree with you.

The DM and VF have chosen to play up those particular remarks because of the attention they are bound to receive.

 

[Ish]

There's a link to the VF article in the DM one. It's actually a really interesting article overall. The VF doesn't play up the Diana stuff - it's like a paragraph near the end - but I do think they pushed for the comments because a Diana comment helps sell. They don't need to play up the comment itself, they know that people like the DM will do it.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Wow...thanks Ish.

It looks like I may have judged Lady Pamela unfairly. I guess I should have known better with VF...I am a subscriber after all!

 

[NGalitzine]

Extracts from 2 letters from Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire to her sister Diana. The Andrew she mentions is her husband the Duke of Devonshire. The first letter concerns a dinner party they were giving at Chatsworth.
2 July 1996
"Andrew got the impression she was sad. Well I expect she is. The trouble is she is mad. But she is a brilliant actress and manipulator and can twist and turn people with her little finger."

2 Sept 1997
"How strange it is, this adoration and beatification of the princess. If only they knew. It just shows how humans must have an icon and there she was, beautiful, elegant and charming and quite extraordinary with ill and old people - I've seen her at work and it was a case of touching the hem, almost unbelieveable. BUT "they" have no idea of the other side. She was mad of course."

The letters are part of the book "Letters between Six Sisters" which covers correspondence between the Mitford Sisters over about a 70 year period.