When did your opinion of Diana change and why?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

When did your opinion of Diana start to change and why?

  • Morton book (1990)

    Votes: 25 9.8%
  • War of the Waleses (starting 1990)

    Votes: 20 7.8%
  • Squidgygate (1992)

    Votes: 12 4.7%
  • Hewitt affair (1993)

    Votes: 17 6.7%
  • Charles' interview (1994)

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • Panorama interview (1995)

    Votes: 43 16.9%
  • Phone calls to Oliver Hoare (1994)

    Votes: 14 5.5%
  • Dodi al-Fayed (1997)

    Votes: 23 9.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 96 37.6%

  • Total voters
    255
Status
Not open for further replies.
my opinion of princess diana has not changed. she is a direct descendant of john churchill, older sister arabella put out for buckingham, first duke of marleborough. diana spencer married beneath her social class.

Diana married beneath her social class? Really? Then why did the Spencer family want so desperately to marry into the RF? Something they wanted to do for a number of generations IIRC. Last time I looked a HRH Prince tops an Earl. :D
 
.

Whatever her actions,Diana was used. She was used to obtain an heir and spare. She was used by her husband,who really didn't want anyone but Camilla. She was used by Camilla who wouldn't let go. The entire royal family knew what was going on,and willingly sacrificed a young woman. Her subsequent actions were to carve a place for herself,and eventually when she lost an unwinnable battle,an attempt to maintain her place in her children's lives and a useful role for herself.

We all loved Diana because she has made the Fairy tale seem like a whole. There was the Prince there was the beautifull girl, the wedding, the two nice children and a 'happily ever after' would have fit this enumeration.
Unfortunately we are not living in a Fairy-tale nor do the Royals. What happened to Charles, Diana and Camilla was rather 'common'. Life can create far more worse situations than theirs.
Was Diana a victim? Well, certainly she was, but doesn't everyone of us consider him/herself a victim? It's a matter of the point of view.
 
Whatever her actions,Diana was used.

Being used does not exonerate from all. We are all used for this and that, that's nothing special. Diana had her own agenda - she was pretty willing to produce an heir and spare. She was pretty willing to be a princess - the only thing she didn't want was to become part of a real family, wife to a real husband instead of the prince of her dreams. She used the RF, the media and the whole world as her playground and she lost the game in the end. That's pretty sad for some, I can understand that. But she was not an innocent bystander taken into a foul game, she was very much the player there. And only history will tell if she was not at the source of the foul game at all.

The Rf had a lot to loose if they only used Diana. being part of a family "firm" has much to do with take, that's right. But you have to give as much as you take. But for Diana, what she was given was never enough, it was simply never enough. No wonder Charles turned to somebody who prefered giving to taking!
 
Whatever her actions,Diana was used. She was used to obtain an heir and spare. She was used by her husband,who really didn't want anyone but Camilla. She was used by Camilla who wouldn't let go. The entire royal family knew what was going on,and willingly sacrificed a young woman. Her subsequent actions were to carve a place for herself,and eventually when she lost an unwinnable battle,an attempt to maintain her place in her children's lives and a useful role for herself.
I take it your opinion of Diana hasn't changed then. :rolleyes: Your statement that Camilla wouldn't let go, is of course only your opinion!

Could it be that far from Diana being used, she was the one doing the using. After all she got fame and fortune out of the alliance. :cool:
 
That still doesen't excuse his affair with Camilla...

Well, for me it was love, simply love. And I believe they tried to be as "good" as they could, but once you're entangled in a triangle with at least one vindictive partner there is not much to do to make it a clean operation. Charles and Camilla coped - somehow. Maybe they were not perfect but I believe that they did at least want to spare the kids.
 
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?
 
This Diana/Camilla/Charles situation is just not that complicated to me. It is not the first nor will it be the last time this has happened, including in the Royal Family.

Diana, to put it bluntly, was STUPID. She thought she could have it all, that this Prince on a white horse would "save" her from her big, bad, uggies dragons of life, he did not.

For some reason that still escapes me, this common girl thought she could take on the Royal Family IN THE UNITED KINGDOM of all places and win, obviously that was a mistake in judgment.

Diana thought being the mother of a future King would insulate her, another stupid assumption on her part. No matter what else, SHE WAS STILL AN IN LAW, NOT BLOOD. The same could be said for the late Queen Mother and the living Prince Philip. They MARRIED into that family, they were not BORN into it, BIG DIFFERENCE.
 
Being used does not exonerate from all. We are all used for this and that, that's nothing special. Diana had her own agenda - she was pretty willing to produce an heir and spare. She was pretty willing to be a princess - the only thing she didn't want was to become part of a real family, wife to a real husband instead of the prince of her dreams. She used the RF, the media and the whole world as her playground and she lost the game in the end. That's pretty sad for some, I can understand that. But she was not an innocent bystander taken into a foul game, she was very much the player there. And only history will tell if she was not at the source of the foul game at all.

The Rf had a lot to loose if they only used Diana. being part of a family "firm" has much to do with take, that's right. But you have to give as much as you take. But for Diana, what she was given was never enough, it was simply never enough. No wonder Charles turned to somebody who prefered giving to taking!

As I do agree with most of your post Jo, I don't think Diana was actually "refusing" to be part of the family. The fact that the RF isn't an "average" family was already a factor to Diana's sadness and unwillingness to integrate the RF, I mean by that that she should have been aware it wouldn't be the best cure to her search of comfort. Her own family was torn apart ; she should have looked for someone who would have time for her and willing to build something without any conditions.
 
As I do agree with most of your post Jo, I don't think Diana was actually "refusing" to be part of the family. The fact that the RF isn't an "average" family was already a factor to Diana's sadness and unwillingness to integrate the RF, I mean by that that she should have been aware it wouldn't be the best cure to her search of comfort. Her own family was torn apart ; she should have looked for someone who would have time for her and willing to build something without any conditions.

Do you really believe there is such a thing, I assume you mean unconditional love? Most adults understand that outside love novels, there is no such thing, it is romantic nonsense.
 
I take it your opinion of Diana hasn't changed then. :rolleyes: Your statement that Camilla wouldn't let go, is of course only your opinion!

Could it be that far from Diana being used, she was the one doing the using. After all she got fame and fortune out of the alliance. :cool:

I agree but the fame and fortune will never give you happiness :D.
 
Do you really believe there is such a thing, I assume you mean unconditional love? Most adults understand that outside love novels, there is no such thing, it is romantic nonsense.

No, what I meant was that she should have looked for someone who was like her : searching for the same thing.
 
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?

I can't speak for Jo, but I condone their affair. And I condone Diana's affair with Hewitt, too.

I think it was clear by 1986 that the marriage was over in all but name and that the parties were both desperately unhappy in a way that is probably impossible for us to comprehend. The situation is addressed in some detail by Dimbleby in Chapter 20 of his biography of Charles. At page 394 he writes: "Given the pressures to which they were both subjected by the demands of public life, theirs would have been an exceptionally testing partnership even if they had been able to stumble towards true companionship. However, the Princess's persistent and intense distress combined with his bafflement and exhaustion to make that modest ambition, which they both shared, impossible to realise. Thus, by 1986, their marriage had begun slowly to disintegrate in what were, for both of them, the most excruciating circumstances. That handful of their friends who knew and understood felt only compassion and pity for their shared predicament."

In November 1986 Charles wrote to a friend, "Frequently I feel nowadays that I'm in a kind of cage, pacing up and down in it and longing to be free. How awful incompatibility is, and how dreadfully destructive it can be for the players in this extraordinary drama. It has all the ingredients of a Greek tragedy....I fear I'm going to need a bit of help every now and then for which I feel rather ashamed. All I want to do is to help other people..."

Any other couple would have been able to separate and divorce without the world watching, but these two both thought they were stuck in this Hell for life. They both needed something the other couldn't provide. They both needed friends, and lovers. Charles turned to his old friends whom he had expelled at Diana's behest, and Camilla too. Diana turned to Hewitt for friendship and love. I don't hold the fact of their affairs against either of them.
 
I can't speak for Jo, but I condone their affair. And I condone Diana's affair with Hewitt, too.

I think it was clear by 1986 that the marriage was over in all but name and that the parties were both desperately unhappy in a way that is probably impossible for us to comprehend. The situation is addressed in some detail by Dimbleby in Chapter 20 of his biography of Charles. At page 394 he writes: "Given the pressures to which they were both subjected by the demands of public life, theirs would have been an exceptionally testing partnership even if they had been able to stumble towards true companionship. However, the Princess's persistent and intense distress combined with his bafflement and exhaustion to make that modest ambition, which they both shared, impossible to realise. Thus, by 1986, their marriage had begun slowly to disintegrate in what were, for both of them, the most excruciating circumstances. That handful of their friends who knew and understood felt only compassion and pity for their shared predicament."

In November 1986 Charles wrote to a friend, "Frequently I feel nowadays that I'm in a kind of cage, pacing up and down in it and longing to be free. How awful incompatibility is, and how dreadfully destructive it can be for the players in this extraordinary drama. It has all the ingredients of a Greek tragedy....I fear I'm going to need a bit of help every now and then for which I feel rather ashamed. All I want to do is to help other people..."

Any other couple would have been able to separate and divorce without the world watching, but these two both thought they were stuck in this Hell for life. They both needed something the other couldn't provide. They both needed friends, and lovers. Charles turned to his old friends whom he had expelled at Diana's behest, and Camilla too. Diana turned to Hewitt for friendship and love. I don't hold the fact of their affairs against either of them.
I understand both Charles and Diana had affairs but I don't condone it.

Coming from parents whose marriage also disintergraded and turned to other people for comfort, I witnessed first hand how affairs could make a marriage much more worse. After seeing the failures of my own parent's marriage, C&D's marriage and also the romantic relationships of my friends; I have realized that there is no point in staying in a relationship that cannot work.

Life is too short to stay in a troubled relationship, a year after the divorce Diana lost her life thats sad. She wasted 15 years of her life in that marriage.
I of course respect your opinion very much Roslyn.
 
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person. Even if it's just a look at attractive boy in the newspaper or a little daydream about that guy in the supermarket, we just aren't monogamous as a species and the sooner society drops all these ridiculous constraints around relationships and just lets what will be, be, the sooner we'd all be alot happier.
 
I understand both Charles and Diana had affairs but I don't condone it.

Coming from parents whose marriage also disintergraded and turned to other people for comfort, I witnessed first hand how affairs could make a marriage much more worse. After seeing the failures of my own parent's marriage, C&D's marriage and also the romantic relationships of my friends; I have realized that there is no point in staying in a relationship that cannot work.

Life is too short to stay in a troubled relationship, a year after the divorce Diana lost her life thats sad. She wasted 15 years of her life in that marriage.
I of course respect your opinion very much Roslyn.

And I respect yours. :flowers:

My attitude to their affairs is based on their particular circumstances. They both thought they were trapped for life. I don't condone affairs generally.
 
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person. Even if it's just a look at attractive boy in the newspaper or a little daydream about that guy in the supermarket, we just aren't monogamous as a species and the sooner society drops all these ridiculous constraints around relationships and just lets what will be, be, the sooner we'd all be alot happier.

Some of us certainly would :lol:, but are we really not designed to be monogamous? Surely the answer is on the internet.......

Yes it is! :D David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, has written a book about it with his wife, psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton: The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, published W. H. Freeman. The professor writes:

"Gorillas, despite their large bodies, have comparatively tiny testicles. Those of chimpanzees, by contrast, are immense. The reason for the difference seems clear: Gorilla males compete with their bodies, not their sperm. Once a dominant silverback male has achieved control over a harem of females, he is pretty much guaranteed to be the only male who copulates with them. Chimps, by contrast, experience a sexual free-for-all, with many different males often copulating in succession with the same adult female. As a result, male chimpanzees compete with their sperm, and they have evolved big testicles to produce large quantities of it. In most species, the ratio of testicle size to body size is a good predictor of how many sexual partners an animal is likely to have.

How, then, do human beings rate in this regard? The testicles of Homo sapiens are, relatively speaking, larger than those of gorillas but smaller than those of the champion chimpanzees. The most likely interpretation? Human beings are less certain of sexual monopoly than are gorillas, but are not as promiscuous as chimps. Another way of putting it: We are (somewhat) biologically primed to form mateships, but at the same time, adultery is no stranger in our evolutionary past."

Surprise, surprise!
 
At the end of the day, human beings aren't designed to stay with one person.

At the very end of the day, human being aren't designed. We evolved. And according to Roslyn's research here, we evolved to be somewhat but not totally monogamous. Or somewhat but not totally promiscuous, depending on how you prefer to look at it.

However, there's a difference between biological and social evolution. Even though humans aren't necessarily monogamous naturally, and early humans in their small tribes would have had a somewhat different social structure from modern humans, the property and inheritance issues characteristic of more modern societies have meant that monogamy has been encouraged and in many cases enforced, even if it isn't a natural instinct. There are a lot of natural instincts which might have worked to advantage in prehistoric human societies but aren't acceptable in the complex and densely populated societies that exist now.
 
I must agree with you Elspeth. It depends on the people and their maturity. It also, depends on their egos. Some need their egos massaged by many, others know when they have a good thing. Some think they entitled, other know what loyalty and love mean. Totally depends on the relationship and the people.
 
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).
 
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).

WELLLL, I have been monogamous to my gay mate since August 2003, I have been married to him since May 2005. :) I would NOT have it any other way. I expect that our marriage vows will be honored until one or both of us tells the other that a divorce is wanted. But maybe we are different?
 
Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.
 
On the mark, again, Beatrix Fan. Camilla is the "great loving mother" figure for Charles. The Mom he never had. Both Charles and Diana needed the same thing, which neither to give to the other.
 
Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.

I think age has alot to do with that as well. My mate was in his mid thirties and I in my later forties when we met. I certainly was looking for a total and permanent relationship and he was too. How do I put this delicately, at almost 52, I would rather post to this board or read a good book 99% of the time as opposed to being "private" with someone. LOL
 
Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there has to be fire in the bed, but she also panders to him. "Her greatest achievement was to love him" quote from the same tape. He needs to feel important, so did Diana. You're right. I don't think that Charles and Diana ever had anything really igniting their togetherness.
 
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).
I don't think Charles or Camilla needed 'adoration' from each other. What they wanted and what they got was a loving willingness to put the other person first. To compromise, but also to be 'there' for one another.

It is the same with the husband who comes home from work and tells his wife the sort of awful day he has had and by the telling, they can laugh about it and if they can't laugh it off, there is the absolute knowledge that at the very least, they have each other. The same husband takes the time to listen to what she has been up to.

Diana perhaps wasn't able/willing to compromise or understand that, her news was always going to be more important. She imagined that her life would now read like a Barabara Cartland book automatically. Marriage/partnerships take work from both sides, with both people aiming for the same goal. Far from either of them being insecure, they were both used to getting their own way. :flowers:

There is hope for you yet BeatrixFan, friends of ours met the partner of their dreams (each other) and are celebrating their 30th anniversary soon. They don't know it yet, but they are having a party rather than the quiet dinner they think they are coming for! :D
 
I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.
Novice! :D :flowers: definitely there has to be za za zu! :ROFLMAO:
 
Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.

Yeah, this is true and the "za za zu" is a funny way of putting it, but as I said, true. Or I buy it anyway. I do think that Camilla gives Charles a lot of nurturing, tenderness, and reassurance. But obviously, they have a great chemistry and fit together perfectly. I also remember from the Dimbleby biography, how they clicked immediately when they met, roughly in 1971, and they could almost instantly read each other's thoughts, finish each other's sentences, and always laughed hysterically at the same things for the same reasons. Dimbleby said they shared the same kind of "Goon Show" humor. They have that kind of enduring love where they can get through the bad days and enjoy the good ones.

As for the thing about insecurity mentioned in other posts, I have to say that I believe Diana was truly insecure. the thing is, insecurity combined with emotional/mental imbalance, I believe, caused all her inability to maintain a stable and loving marriage and happy life. When she could not deal with her lot in life, she coped with bulimia, and she even later talked about how she got the bulimia "high" and it made her feel all better, but it was a temporary fix.
 
Last edited:
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?

I'm neither god nor a judge of morals nor their child or Diana's. What have I to condone? I have an opinion, right. I have always stated that I believe that while Charles and Camilla were friends on the day of his marriage to Diana, they were not (maybe not longer) lovers. I have believed Charles when he claimed that his marriage was irrevocably broken before he started his affair with Camilla. I'm convinced that at that point in his life if he had been "Mr. Ordinary" he would have asked Diana for a divorce and married Camilla. That was not possible in his situation. But I'm sure he tried to talk to Diana and come to some sort of agreement. "For the sake of the country", maybe, but still. He never humiliated Diana in public as far as I know. Camilla never appeared in public as the "new love" as long as Charles was married to Diana.

So I believe they tried their best. Okay, they had an affair but what could they do under the circumstances? Charles, besides being a prince, is a human being and we all need love. Camilla obviously gave him that love and received his love in return. As for Diana... that conversation she said she had had with Camilla at Annabel Goldsmith' house comes to mind.

Camilla allegedly ask Diana what she wanted, as she had all:title, position, kids. And Diana answered: I want my husband.

Now - you can't get a human being only because you married the other. People have to want to stay with their spouse. So for me it sounds as if Diana wanted to own Charles and was not interested in what he had found with Camilla, she simply wanted her husband, as if she had bought him on a slave market. No wonder Charles prefered to make his own choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom