When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[tan_berry]

I voted other, but the truth is I have never changed my opinion on her. I think she was a victim, a child with a perfect reputation chosen to marry an older man who did not want really to marry her. She was a sacrified lamb. Have you ever see the picture of her reading a Barbara Cartland novel? Almost a child, and beyond that not any child, but one that had lived a traumatic and lonely childhood. She did not have, either, a supportive familly when she began needing it because she could not cope with all the stress she was facing. It was a very poor election of bride for the reluctant heir. She was healthy, aristocratic and pure, so that the press will not find anything when they begin to dig in her past. And they thought that was enough. So simple. I understand she was not a saint, but she was a nice person, a good one, a loving mother. She was not prepared to face the stress she found, and that needed to be evaluated for all the adults around this tragedy. My feeling toward her is one of compassion. I feel pity for all the sadness and loneliness in this troubled young life.

[jcbcode99]

tan berry--that was very eloquent and beautiful--but the image you are projecting of Diana is one of her early in the courship and marriage--what about later in her life? Was she still a victim? I guess that's what we're really discussing/debating here--

[tan_berry]

Yes, she was always a victim, I think, since the beginning. I tried to argue that she could not take that job, because of her age, her troubled upbringing, her kind of intelligence, not intellectual, but rather just normal. And I think that the adults surrounding this situation did not evaluate it accurately. So all that happened was the story of an announced tragedy. At the age she had when she died I was beginning to know myself and already had two adolescent children.

Do not finish well what starts badly. Spanish is my first language, so maybe sometimes I can not say properly what I think. I can not judge harshly a person so young and unlearned.

[wbenson]

She may have been a victim. She was certainly not the only victim, though, and she certainly created some victims herself.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by wbenson

She may have been a victim. She was certainly not the only victim, though, and she certainly created some victims herself.

She most assuredly did, wbenson, you are so right!

Diana was one of the most self destructive people and on a ongoing basis that I have ever studied. No matter what opportunity or advantage presented itself, she seemed to find a way to cut herself off at the knees on every turn.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

MRS. BLAIR’S DIARY: - "It always amazes me that the press picks up on [what Diana says] as if it were compelling genius insight of Aristotelian wisdom and Shavian wit, as opposed to the twitterings of a woman who, if her IQ were five points lower, would have to be watered daily." Under the headline IF HER IQ WERE ANY LOWER, SHE’D NEED DAILY WATERING.

Haha, was that written by Cherie? She didn't show much respect for the queen either. It seems the press turned quite sour on Cherie. Oh well, I guess she wasn't as smart as Diana in manipulating the press.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Far from Diana's antics being seen as damaging to the monarchy, once the media had turned on her as it had begun to, she would have fallen far from grace in the UK publics eye, thus strengthening Charles position.

It is unfortunate that the fall of Diana could be seen as strengthening Charles position and vice versa. Although Diana complained that nobody taught her how to be a Princess of Wales, I believe that Charles did because Diana was searching for a role model in her work, and who better to teach her by example than Charles? So I see Diana as Charles's protégé, and what reflects badly on her would reflect badly on him.

My opinion of Diana changed from seeing her as just wearing a lot of interesting styles, to admiring her for her work. She made a magnificient Princess of Wales despite the fact she may have had some character flaws. I can say the same about Charles -- he makes a wonderful POW, actually the best one Wales has had for hundreds of years. I also think it's a real shame he doesn't get more praise for the good work he does, instead of all the fatuous nonsense that gets written about him.

Both Diana and Charles went about their work in the same way -- they picked areas they had some passion for, and then were diligent, disciplined and gave it their all. They both were smart enough to use experts to help them and they did their homework thoroughly. Who can complain about that?

[jcbcode99]

I think it is a satirical piece and not written by Cherie Blair---

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Now, the comment about the country--that could very well be dead on target.

What a nice thing to say -- maybe I can communicate an idea afterall now and then Thanks.

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Of course, we all know I love Camilla and think she is magnificant...............

Well no, I didn't know you thought that. It's rather hard for me to have any opinion about Camilla since I don't remember her ever saying anything about anything, and I don't even know what she thinks about her charities or royal work, or even what her focus might be, if anything? Why doesn't she ever open her mouth and say something?

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by zhontella

What a nice thing to say -- maybe I can communicate an idea afterall now and then Thanks.


Well no, I didn't know you thought that. It's rather hard for me to have any opinion about Camilla since I don't remember her ever saying anything about anything, and I don't even know what she thinks about her charities or royal work, or even what her focus might be, if anything? Why doesn't she ever open her mouth and say something?

Perhaps HRH The Duchess of Cornwall has learned from other's missteps and views her role as supportive of the future King? To my understanding she has always conducted herself like a lady in public and I am certain she is grateful for the indulgences that HM Queen Elizabeth has shown her by welcoming her into the Royal Family. I cannot see Camilla saying or doing anything that would be even a potential embarrassment.

[CasiraghiTrio]

The sad result of the ten-year prolonging of Diana-conspiracy mania or whatever you will call it, is that the skeptics (those who were wary of Diana from the start and remained so throughout the marriage, divorce, and all that followed) are confirmed in their beliefs; the neutral's are simply so sick of Diana and everything related to her, they are ready for all the crap to be over; and the die-hard Diana fanatics are even more annoying than ever.

[sirhon11234]

Its not Princess Diana's fault that their are conspiracy theories surrounding her death, nor is she responsible for the inquest. The people who are responsible for this on-going Diana mania as you call it is the media and Muhammed Al Fayed.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Its not Princess Diana's fault that their are conspiracy theories surrounding her death, nor is she responsible for the inquest. The people who are responsible for this on-going Diana mania as you call it is the media and Muhammed Al Fayed.

As a son who has had the tragedy of burying his MOST BELOVED MOTHER, I know for me it would be very destructive to years afterwards to continue to be faced with questions as to how my mother's death happened and innuendo being made that foul play was afoot. I can only imagine the negative impact that these ongoing theories have on her two sons.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by zhontella

Maybe Diana did love the country at first, and then learned to associate with something unpleasant -- like maybe we three.......................

Diana at 19 must have known how the British aristocracy enjoys the countryside - her own family has a country estate as well and surely there were weekend invitations or house parties. She must have know the aristocratic idea of sports, of tea time and of formal dinners, all details of the lifestyle she appeared to be enjoying while she was engaged, but dropped as soon as she was The Princess.

For example: in order of getting a fright of horse riding she must have experienced how to ride a horse. The same way her dislike of country pursuits: I simply don't believe she experienced that for the first time while being engaged and developped her dislaike after the wedding.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by zhontella

It's rather hard for me to have any opinion about Camilla since I don't remember her ever saying anything about anything, and I don't even know what she thinks about her charities or royal work, or even what her focus might be, if anything? Why doesn't she ever open her mouth and say something?

You can read her speeches at the Prince of Wales' website. I think she cares deeply for the topics she talks about in public.

part of a private conversation between Charles and Camilla is enough to form my opinion of them and of their relationship (from the infamous Camillagate-tapes):

Camilla: I do love you and I'm so proud of you.
Charles: Oh, I'm so proud of you
Camilla: Don't be so silly, I've never achieved anything.
Charles: Yes you have.
Camilla: No I haven't.
Charles: Your great achievement is to love me.
Camilla: Oh, darling. Easier than falling off a chair.
Charles: You suffer all these indignities and tortures and calumnies
Camiila: Oh, darling, don't be so silly. I'd suffer anything for you. That's love. It's the strength of love. (End of quote)

Ever since the "non-achiever" Camilla accepted her darling as husband, she set out to achieve something because she realised that from then on, loving him was not longer enough to make him proud - she became a working princess in her own right. And she does a good job at it, the people she meets tend to praise her afterwards for her compassion and interest.
Plus whenever we are allowed another glimpse into her private life via the media, it turns out that she helped others in secret, without wanting or searching for the spotlight.

I like that lady, really I do!

Plus: if you can accept that these two were not telling each other some sweet lover's lies 18 (!) years ago but meant it, then maybe it's understandible that I believe not vindictive Diana was the victim but dignified and loving Camilla who never wanted something out of her relationship with Charles but the chance to spent a night alone with him and who did not dare thinking of a "happy" christmas because it hurt her too much (from the Camillagate-Tapes:)
Camilla: It would be so wonderful to have just one night to set us on our way, wouldn't it?
Charles: Wouldn't it? To wish you a happy Christmas.
Camilla: (indistinct) happy. Oh, don't let's think about Christmas. I can't bear it. (End of quote)

So I hope these two enjoy their christmases together these days...

To come back to Diana: around the same time, at christmas 1989, Diana phone her lover James Gilbey and told negative things about Fergie, was interested in her pictures in magazines, asked herself if she was beautiful enough etc.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zhontella

It is unfortunate that the fall of Diana could be seen as strengthening Charles position and vice versa

The remark was made to your comment (which you say came from a UK tabloid) "about how the queen planned to let the Royal warrants for Harrods lapse because the Royal Family were furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 41, which they believed further undermined the Monarchy". SHORTENED- Options must include exile". I was pointing out that far from her antics undermining the monarchy, they were allowing people to realise that Diana only cared for herself. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

Originally Posted by zhontella

Maybe Diana did love the country at first, and then learned to associate with something unpleasant -- edited.

Diana never loved the country, that is why she moved to London as soon as she could.

Surely if she disliked the country because Charles' friends were there, she was deceitful right from the start. If she loved him she would have wanted to be part of his group, she certainly kept up the pretense of enjoying all that Charles enjoyed while they were courting, it was only after that ring was firmly on her finger, that she dropped the pretence.

Originally Posted by zhontella

It's rather hard for me to have any opinion about Camilla since I don't remember her ever saying anything about anything,

She behaves as one would hope a member of the royal family would. It was an alien concept to Diana with her tell all + a bit, look at me, I'm a victim style.

[tan_berry]

Diana was emotional and psychologically frail, not the ideal person for such a delicate balance of emotions. When I feel pity for her, I do not dislike, blame or accuse Camilla of anything. This was a mature woman who could manage her environment and understand the rules of her social class. Besides, she and the prince had loved each other for a long time, they were living an impossible affair, and that is sad, too. In an ideal world, she would have divorced her husband and married Charles. Prince Felipe of Spain learned a lot of this story, I think, and decided to marry an experienced and intelligent woman, with both feet well put on earth.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

The people who are responsible for this on-going Diana mania as you call it is the media and Muhammed Al Fayed.

The media don't bother to write what people don't buy. IOW, there is a strong correlation between what the media writes and what people are interested in.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

................and the die-hard Diana fanatics are even more annoying than ever.

I'm not a die-hard Diana Fanatic, but neither am I a die-hard Diana Hater. It's refreshing to see a balanced view where people aren't seen as only heroes or villians, or as sinners or saints with no in-between allowed. Speaking of Borderline Personality Disorder, this is one of its definitions: people are viewed in extremes of pure goodness or pure evil, with no concept of any shades in the middle.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Camilla: I do love you and I'm so proud of you.
Charles: Oh, I'm so proud of you
Camilla: Don't be so silly, I've never achieved anything.
Charles: Yes you have.
Camilla: No I haven't.
Charles: Your great achievement is to love me.
Camilla: Oh, darling. Easier than falling off a chair.
Charles: You suffer all these indignities and tortures and calumnies
Camiila: Oh, darling, don't be so silly. I'd suffer anything for you. That's love. It's the strength of love.
Charles: Wouldn't it? To wish you a happy Christmas.
Camilla: (indistinct) happy. Oh, don't let's think about Christmas. I can't bear it. (End of quote)

I've heard that before -- in fact I know the game myself, it's one experienced lady seductress who tells the man exactly what he wants to hear.....etc. and it may or may not contain varying shades of truth. Poor dumb little Diana didn't stand a chance. So now why did Charles have a face of thunder with one nasty attitude in the last media observation of him?