When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[anbrida]

I was during the Panorama interview. There was more of her personality coming through during that interview than perhaps even she was aware. Besides the general attitude of victimhood, something that really got to me was her statement that "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." It seemed to me that she was discounting the work done by doctors and nurses and social workers and volunteers and pastors and concerned neighbours, etc. It was like she thought that she was the ONLY person who could smile and love and hug and care for people. If she were referring to the Royal Family and not society as a whole--perhaps they're not the most touchy-feely lot in the world, but they've given a great deal of support to endeavors of all sorts of people who help others--from the Armed Forces to the people who volunteer in second-hand shops or help out with children's playgroups.

I thought at times that she seemed to think very highly of herself indeed, inspite of her problems with self-hatred. Overcompensation perhaps? I don't know. But I do know that I felt differently about her after watching that interview. I got a glimpse of things that had previously been hinted at about her emotional problems.

I think "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." , "there" means the palace.

 

[georgiea]

I think "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." , "there" means the palace.

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Katherine Kent was certainly one member of the Royal Family who was "loving" before Diana came along. Sometimes people show love simply by showing up and being involved.

 

[ysbel]

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

I don't think the royal family is more touchy-feely; but then again, I didn't have a problem with the way the royals reached out to their subjects before Diana. I have a fond memory of the Queen during her Silver Jubilee chatting up a rather obese man with a bandana, beard, Harley-Davison jacket, and tatoos. It was priceless.

In my eyes, there was nothing wrong with the Queen and her relationship with her subjects in the years before Diana so Diana's influence has done nothing to alter my perception of the way that the Royal Family has interacted with the public.

I was surprised that the Queen invited some rock bands to her Golden Jubilee but I rather think that it was more the influence of her grandchildren, particularly Peter and Zara!

 

[anbrida]

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

The royal family are always what they are.

But, Georgiea, definitely Diana's life was not in vain. Why we only look for Diana's legacy in her sons, or the royal family or other people's life. Just look for it in youself. If she had an impact on your life or your mind to a better place, then there is her legacy. That is not arrogance, but contentment.

 

[sirhon11234]

The royal family are always what they are.

But, Georgiea, definitely Diana's life was not in vain. Why we only look for Diana's legacy in her sons, or the royal family or other people's life. Just look for it in youself. If she had an impact on your life or your mind to a better place, then there is her legacy. That is not arrogance, but contentment.

Well said anbrida, how right you are. Her legacy lives on through her sons, her work and the many people she touched in life and death

 

[Charlotte1]

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

There was no change at all in the Royal Family after Diana's death, they are certainly not more touchy-feely. As already mentioned The Duchess of Kent has always been demonstrative, famously putting her arm around tennis player Jana Novotna when Jana was crying as she had lost the Wimbledon final.

Princess Anne, remained Princess Anne. At a visit to a Save the Children project ( after Diana's death) the photographers asked her to hold a child for the photo op. Anne replied "me being photographed holding a child will make no difference to this child's life, it's the work that I do when I go back to London that makes the difference" So no touch-feely stuff from Anne! A royal journalist once wrote about following Diana and Anne on 2 difference occasions in visits to orphanages in 3rd World countries. Diana upon entering the orphanage went straight to the children, with the photographers and had her picture taken. Anne when entering the orphanage went straight to the people who ran the orphanage and started discussing what sanitation procedures they needed help on.

Edward in the lastest TV program called Monarch at Work was interviewed about his work. He said he didn't like emotive causes, he focused on youth and sports, so he's hardly touch-feely.

Andrew focuses on trade and investment, no touchy-feely stuff here either.

Neither the Queen or DoE have started putting their arms around the people they meet, the Queen still wears gloves when she shakes people's hands. No touchy-feely here, no direct contact either!

Charles is intellectual and his charities reflect that, youth employment, architecture, the sustainable environment, education, no real emotive touchy-feely stuff here either.

Camilla is personable but she's also not going around hugging children, throwing her arms around people type photo ops so there's no much touchy-feely happening with her either.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

There was no change at all in the Royal Family after Diana's death, they are certainly not more touchy-feely.

But why should they? I myself am not a very demonstrative person except with my closest circle and I would have hated it when someone like Diana came and hugged me and then went away again with leaving me behind, so I'd prefer princess Anne's approach when I was in need. Diana's way to actually touch people is not anybody's piece of cake so there is no need to ask people with other habits to change theirs.

 

[georgiea]

Guys, maybe the words I used touchy-feely on the royal family was wrong to use. After Diana, Princess of Wales death didn't the BRF get a PR machine to change there perception to their subjects and also start paying taxes? And the movie last year, "The Queen" didn't that movie show the beginning of a change for the BRF and how they react to their subjects? I thought the movie show the Queen learned something from Diana's death. Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

I believe Prince Harry when he matures and has more royal duties will be Diana's REAL legacy. And my opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales is that I am still her fan after all these years.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

She's actually Dame Helen Mirren - "Dame" is the female version of "Sir" which means that Helen Mirren was ennobled by the queen - she is now a part of British aristocracy, even though not born into it. A "Lady" is either the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl or the wife of a Baronet or a titled nobleman. A "Dame" is a female "knight" in her own right.

BTW - Andrew Parker Bowles' mother was a "Dame", too. Born Ann de Truffaut from a very old and noble family, she was herself enobled to the title of Dame. I wish I'd know what she did to be honoured that way? Social works?

 

[Skydragon]

Guys, maybe the words I used touchy-feely on the royal family was wrong to use. After Diana, Princess of Wales death didn't the BRF get a PR machine to change there perception to their subjects and also start paying taxes? And the movie last year, "The Queen" didn't that movie show the beginning of a change for the BRF and how they react to their subjects? I thought the movie show the Queen learned something from Diana's death. Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

I believe Prince Harry when he matures and has more royal duties will be Diana's REAL legacy. And my opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales is that I am still her fan after all these years.

The paying of tax had nothing to do with Diana, nor do any perceived changes, not that I see any. The film was not a documentary, it was a few facts mixed in with a great deal of fiction.

Not everyone likes to be hugged by strangers, like Jo, I reserve that sort of thing for family and close friends. How can any of the royals reach out to people, except in a superficial way. They can't say 'I know what you are going through', they can't even say 'I can imagine the problems you have', they can't.

 

[ysbel]

The movie the Queen was good but I don't think we can say its true to life. So simply because Helen Mirren depicted the Queen as learning something from Diana's death, that doesn't mean that the Queen did learn something from Diana's death. As far as the Queen's opinions of the movies, well she has greeted a lot of actors from a lot of movies and so its hard to tell. I think its safe to say that since she met Helen Mirren she didn't hate the movie but other than that I think its hard to say what she thought of the movie.

As an aside, Helen's title is correctly Dame but so many entertainers get knighted now that I'm seeing their titles are getting left off in normal reference. The only actor I continually hear of with the Sir before his title is the late Sir Laurence Olivier. Occasionally you'll see a 'Sir Elton John' but these are usually in articles about his sexual preferences so I always wondered about why the title is so important when discussing Elton's sexual preferences. To validate them? Its curious.

 

[georgiea]

The movie the Queen was good but I don't think we can say its true to life. So simply because Helen Mirren depicted the Queen as learning something from Diana's death, that doesn't mean that the Queen did learn something from Diana's death. As far as the Queen's opinions of the movies, well she has greeted a lot of actors from a lot of movies and so its hard to tell. I think its safe to say that since she met Helen Mirren she didn't hate the movie but other than that I think its hard to say what she thought of the movie.

As an aside, Helen's title is correctly Dame but so many entertainers get knighted now that I'm seeing their titles are getting left off in normal reference. The only actor I continually hear of with the Sir before his title is the late Sir Laurence Olivier. Occasionally you'll see a 'Sir Elton John' but these are usually in articles about his sexual preferences so I always wondered about why the title is so important when discussing Elton's sexual preferences. To validate them? Its curious.

The Queen I believe gave the title of Dame to Helen Mirren after she won many awards last year for her two movie roles as Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II. If the Queen did not like the movies, I don't think she would have given the "Dame title" to Mirren and invited her to the palace. Dame Mirren had to decline the invitation because she was in production of another movie and not in England at the time. I have read that she really wished that she could have met the Queen.

And what I got out of movie "The Queen" was that the BRF had to changed how they dealt with the public because of Diana and her death. I really believe that the BRF must have learnt something from Diana, Princess of Wales and how she successfully dealt with the public. I know I learnt. I became more aware of aids and landmines situations.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Damehood was given to Helen way before "The Queen".

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I really believe that the BRF must have learnt something from Diana, Princess of Wales and how she successfully dealt with the public.

This is a so-so situation. When there is so many bad feelings behind the scene it is difficult to think that one party learned from the other. But of course time moved on and thus the way people of the upper classes deal with the people they meet changes (don't know how to put that any other way...).
Diana could well have been a focus person who through her own example showed others how things were/are changing. But the expression of "to learn" is implying a teacher's role for Diana and I don't subscribe to that because there were so many things the RF would rather not have found out ...

 

[TheTruth]

Anyway, you can't please everyone in the public. Diana had many enemies and still does. Death soothed some people's feelings of despise toward Diana but she'll never do unanimity, like any famous person. She was admired but there was always something wrong in the eyes of some and it's very hard to bear such a judgement. The BRF knows that perfectly well so I doubt they took that lesson from her life. It would be more of the contrary ; her death proved how people can turn you into a puppet and ruin your privacy.

 

[Skydragon]

BeatrixFan is quite right and I'm sure awards have been given to many actors and actresses who appeared in films HM thought were terrible.

The BRF didn't have to change anything because of Diana or her death. Yes they returned to London earlier by a day or two, but after that minor concession, they have settled back into their tried and tested routine, softened of course by age and the times we live in. If they learnt anything, it would have been 'buyer beware'.

 

[Roslyn]

Diana upon entering the orphanage went straight to the children, with the photographers and had her picture taken. Anne when entering the orphanage went straight to the people who ran the orphanage and started discussing what sanitation procedures they needed help on.

My initial reaction is to say that this highlights the fact that Anne has been unfairly treated in the comparison with Diana because she was the real achiever, the one who had been working hard behind the scenes doing a real job to help the disadvantaged children, whereas Diana just swanned in, smiled, scooped up a child and had a photo taken, had a few words with the people running the establishment, smiled a lot for the cameras, and swanned out again moving onto her next project without doing anything of any real benefit. Well, I said it anyway because that is how I feel.

However I think I am being a bit unfair to Diana, because I do think she really cared but lacked the ability to do more than what she did. I've read that when she was young - I think it was in around her very early teens - she would visit nursing homes and help the residents, genuinely doing nice things for them and demonstrating real compassion. That's rare for young people, and it made me think Diana really had a good heart and cared. However I think she was limited by her intelligence and education to doing what she did. She wasn't a deep thinker and didn't take an intellectual approach to solving problems, and we know she didn't ask for advice. She thought hugging was important, and that if people were sad or sick you gave them a hug and that made them feel better. I am not a hugger, and when I'm sick I don't want to talk to nosy strangers about my predicament much less have them paw me. If I'm sick I want someone take steps to arrange for me to have the medicine I need to recover, but I think Diana really thought the hugging was a good idea and would help.

 

[Charlotte1]

Guys, maybe the words I used touchy-feely on the royal family was wrong to use. After Diana, Princess of Wales death didn't the BRF get a PR machine to change there perception to their subjects and also start paying taxes? And the movie last year, "The Queen" didn't that movie show the beginning of a change for the BRF and how they react to their subjects? I thought the movie show the Queen learned something from Diana's death. Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

The process for the Queen and Prince Charles to voluntarily pay taxes was put into place before Diana's death. Her death had nothing to do with them agreeing to pay taxes, they had already agreed long before she died.

I'm actually shocked that anyone would think that the movie The Queen is factual. Except for the basic events, Diana died, royals at Balmoral, Queen's speech at the end the rest is all from the scriptwriters' imagination. And some of the dialogue is just dreadful, taken it seems straight from the pages of the tabloid newspapers.

Helen Mirren received her Dame title in 2003, long before the movie was made and it had nothing to do with the movie. The Queen does not select who receives honours in the New Year's List of the Birthday List, the people are selected by the Prime Minister and the government of the day. So Helen Mirren was chosen by the government to get her 'damehood' not the Queen because she liked her performances.

 

[jcbcode99]

I'm actually shocked that anyone would think that the movie The Queen is factual. Except for the basic events, Diana died, royals at Balmoral, Queen's speech at the end the rest is all from the scriptwriters' imagination. And some of the dialogue is just dreadful, taken it seems straight from the pages of the tabloid newspapers.

Charlotte, I agree with you--the movie "The Queen" did not change the Royal family and it needs to be viewed for what it is--a movie. Unless it is a documentary (and those are quite slanted as well) it should not be construed as fact in any way. It was a good movie to watch, I enjoyed it, but that's all it is--a movie. I'm sure that is how HM felt as well.

 

[jcbcode99]

My initial reaction is to say that this highlights the fact that Anne has been unfairly treated in the comparison with Diana because she was the real achiever, the one who had been working hard behind the scenes doing a real job to help the disadvantaged children, whereas Diana just swanned in, smiled, scooped up a child and had a photo taken, had a few words with the people running the establishment, smiled a lot for the cameras, and swanned out again moving onto her next project without doing anything of any real benefit. Well, I said it anyway because that is how I feel.

However I think I am being a bit unfair to Diana, because I do think she really cared but lacked the ability to do more than what she did. I've read that when she was young - I think it was in around her very early teens - she would visit nursing homes and help the residents, genuinely doing nice things for them and demonstrating real compassion. That's rare for young people, and it made me think Diana really had a good heart and cared. However I think she was limited by her intelligence and education to doing what she did. She wasn't a deep thinker and didn't take an intellectual approach to solving problems, and we know she didn't ask for advice. She thought hugging was important, and that if people were sad or sick you gave them a hug and that made them feel better. I am not a hugger, and when I'm sick I don't want to talk to nosy strangers about my predicament much less have them paw me. If I'm sick I want someone take steps to arrange for me to have the medicine I need to recover, but I think Diana really thought the hugging was a good idea and would help.

Roslyn, really good post. I do agree with you about how Anne has worked diligently and hard getting to the problem and working on a solution. She is famously 'capable", and I find it to one of her best qualities. She is a fabulous combination of her mother and her father; dare I say it, she could have been an excellent Queen.
I also agree with your assessment of Diana basically getting her photo took--especially when her marriage was headed downhill and she needed something to help to portray that "Saint Diana" image amid the dirtyness of the War of the Waleses.
But, I do think that at the beginning of her marriage she was looking for her niche and I do think that she felt passionately about visiting the sick. I read somewhere where when she couldn't sleep she'd go to the hospitals and find a patient who couldn't sleep and keep them company. And, she really reached out to AIDS victims--so even if she couldn't quite figure out what to do from an administrative standpoint, she did try to comfort people in her own way. I always thought it was very touching and selfless---UNTIL I saw an interview with Bashir or someone and she was talking about how her "touch brought a little girl out of a coma"--and it "scared her to think she had those abiltiies" or something like that. I didn't like it so much after that --- words like that are a little too convenient sometimes, in my own humble opinion.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I also agree with your assessment of Diana basically getting her photo took--especially when her marriage was headed downhill and she needed something to help to portray that "Saint Diana" image amid the dirtyness of the War of the Waleses.
But, I do think that at the beginning of her marriage she was looking for her niche and I do think that she felt passionately about visiting the sick. I read somewhere where when she couldn't sleep she'd go to the hospitals and find a patient who couldn't sleep and keep them company. And, she really reached out to AIDS victims--so even if she couldn't quite figure out what to do from an administrative standpoint, she did try to comfort people in her own way. I always thought it was very touching and selfless---UNTIL I saw an interview with Bashir or someone and she was talking about how her "touch brought a little girl out of a coma"--and it "scared her to think she had those abiltiies" or something like that. I didn't like it so much after that --- words like that are a little too convenient sometimes, in my own humble opinion.

It's interesting to reread the Bashir-interview again, when it comes to that topic:

BASHIR: At this early stage in your marriage, what role did you see for yourself as Princess of Wales? Did you have an idea of the role that you might like to fulfil?
DIANA: No, I was very confused by which area I should go into. Then I found myself being more and more involved with people who were rejected by society - with, I'd say, drug addicts, alcoholism, battered this, battered that - and I found an affinity there.
And I respected very much the honesty I found on that level with people I met, because in hospices, for instance, when people are dying they're much more open and more vulnerable, and much more real than other people. And I appreciated that.
BASHIR: Had the Palace given any thought to the role that you might have as Princess of Wales?
DIANA: No, no one sat me down with a piece of paper and said: `This is what is expected of you.' But there again, I'm lucky enough in the fact that I have found my role, and I'm very conscious of it, and I love being with people.
BASHIR: So you very much created the role that you would pursue for yourself really? That was what you did?
DIANA: I think so. I remember when I used to sit on hospital beds and hold people's hands, people used to be sort of shocked because they said they'd never seen this before, and to me it was quite a normal thing to do.
And when I saw the reassurance that an action like that gave, I did it everywhere, and will always do that.

And a bit later - about her bulimia and her bouts of vomiting:


BASHIR: How often would you do that on a daily basis?
DIANA: Depends on the pressures going on. If I'd been on what I call an awayday, or I'd been up part of the country all day, I'd come home feeling pretty empty, because my engagements at that time would be to do with people dying, people very sick, people's marriage problems, and I'd come home and it would be very difficult to know how to comfort myself having been comforting lots of other people, so it would be a regular pattern to jump into the fridge.



I don't really undertsand what she is saying here: OTOH she says she created her role of "Saint Diana" herself and then she says she was bulimic because of all the comfort she gave to others and received none for herself. I mean, she need not have done all that or so much of it if it made her sich. Don't understand her, really. Same on reading the transcripts from the Morton-tapes: she is constantly interpreting the information she gives in order to make her appear a victim when OTOH she says herself that it was all her choice.


Another thing from the Panorama-interview:
You're effectively living separate lives, yet in public there's this appearance of this happily married royal couple. How was this regarded by the Royal Family?
DIANA: I think everybody was very anxious because they could see there were complications but didn't want to interfere, but were there, made it known that they were there if required.

And then:

BASHIR: The Queen described 1992 as her `annus horribilis', and it was in that year that Andrew Morton's book about you was published. Did you ever meet Andrew Morton or personally help him with the book?
DIANA: I never met him, no.
BASHIR: Did you ever personally assist him with the writing of his book?
DIANA: A lot of people saw the distress that my life was in, and they felt it was a supportive thing to help in the way that they did.
BASHIR: Did you allow your friends, your close friends, to speak to Andrew Morton?
DIANA: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
BASHIR: Why?
DIANA: I was at the end of my tether. I was desperate.
I think I was so fed up with being seen as someone who was a basket-case, because I am a very strong person and I know that causes complications in the system that I live in.
BASHIR: How would a book change that?
DIANA: I don't know. Maybe people have a better understanding, maybe there's a lot of women out there who suffer on the same level but in a different environment, who are unable to stand up for themselves because their self-esteem is cut into two. I don't know.
BASHIR: What effect do you think the book had on your husband and the Royal Family?
DIANA: I think they were shocked and horrified and very disappointed.
BASHIR: Can you understand why?
DIANA: I think Mr Dimbleby's book was a shock to a lot of people and disappointment as well.


I read it that even though the RF offered help, Diana did not take it. She knew that the RF would be "shocked and horrified and very disappointed" but because she had been shocked about the Dimbleby-book it was okay to collaborate - even though she still lies about the amount for collaboration she had given to the book. She says:

Did you ever meet Andrew Morton or personally help him with the book? DIANA: I never met him, no.
BASHIR: Did you ever personally assist him with the writing of his book?
DIANA: A lot of people saw the distress that my life was in, and they felt it was a supportive thing to help in the way that they did.

And when you read what she said about her tears and tantrums she trew, I think it's pretty clear why that marriage became a bit crowded by his lover and her lovers...

 

[Skydragon]

I read somewhere where when she couldn't sleep she'd go to the hospitals and find a patient who couldn't sleep and keep them company.

I thought that was the story she put about to cover first her infatuation and then affair with Hasnat Khan.

Whilst many people may have been comforted by her visits,I wonder how many AIDS patients were persuaded to have their picture taken with her, it was after all back in the dark ages when people tried to keep it hush hush!.

 

[jcbcode99]

I thought that was the story she put about to cover first her infatuation and then affair with Hasnat Khan.

Whilst many people may have been comforted by her visits,I wonder how many AIDS patients were persuaded to have their picture taken with her, it was after all back in the dark ages when people tried to keep it hush hush!.

Skydragon, you're brilliant. Of course she used it as an excuse to conveniently show up when Hasnat was there. Typical school-girl type infatuation maneuvers (we all are guilty in some way of these) but I never even thought of the AIDs patients-the photos, that is.
I'm not so sure I would want anyone hugging me and hanging out in my hospital room--I firmly believe in personal space, I'm not a hugger, nor a handholder (well, with my hubby I am )
so, I wonder how many people really wanted that type of intrusion regardless if she was the Princess of Wales? Of course, it was a genius marketing plan that helped futher the "Saint Diana" image.

 

[TheTruth]

Skydragon, you're brilliant. Of course she used it as an excuse to conveniently show up when Hasnat was there. Typical school-girl type infatuation maneuvers (we all are guilty in some way of these) but I never even thought of the AIDs patients-the photos, that is.
I'm not so sure I would want anyone hugging me and hanging out in my hospital room--I firmly believe in personal space, I'm not a hugger, nor a handholder (well, with my hubby I am )
so, I wonder how many people really wanted that type of intrusion regardless if she was the Princess of Wales? Of course, it was a genius marketing plan that helped futher the "Saint Diana" image.

Definitely. Although, most of the time she was presented to some really ill people who don't have much life left. These people are, globally, happy to see some well-known person ; it's like a nice surprise or at least an event that can only do you some good. I don't see many patients refusing to meet her but I understand the unease state you may encounter while shaking hands and being hugged.

 

[love_cc]

BASHIR: How would a book change that?
DIANA: I don't know. Maybe people have a better understanding, maybe there's a lot of women out there who suffer on the same level but in a different environment, who are unable to stand up for themselves because their self-esteem is cut into two. I don't know.
BASHIR: What effect do you think the book had on your husband and the Royal Family?
DIANA: I think they were shocked and horrified and very disappointed.
BASHIR: Can you understand why?
DIANA: I think Mr Dimbleby's book was a shock to a lot of people and disappointment as well.

thanks for the transcript, Jo of Palatine. I would never have patience to watch this interview again except the clips . I found some of her replies were notable as well. She did not answer whether she understood why the royals were shocked and horrified by Morton book but adding Dimbleby's book in this diaglogue. In a way, she found Prince Charles as the same position to justify her own behaviour.

 

[Queen Amina]

Hello, all I just found this thread and would like to post my opinion. I was never a fan of Diana's as I only became aware of her in 1992 in the middle of the whole 'War of the Waleses' and she seemed to me even then to be a bit disingenuous. I always saw her actions as manipulative and self serving. My mom, my grand mother and stp-grandmother all had horrible marriages and suffered a lot and so I saw her litte 'victim' act as disgusting because I knew people who were even in worse pain than she. Now with the benefit of growing up I have more sympathy for her situation but my general opinin of her hasn't changed. She seemed to just blame everyone else for her problems and even worse she seemed to be lying to herself as well and that I can never sympathise with. I think she tryed to manipulate the situation to her advantage with the help of selective reasoning and I believe it hurt her and her children in the end.

 

[MARG]

I loved the Royal Family and thought Prince Charles was a wonderful young man, albeit a little too serious, so it was not surprising that I bought into the whole "Fairytale" deal (merange wedding gown notwithstanding). I met them when they came to NZ along with Prince William and was stunned at how charasmatic Princess Diana was. I was also charmed by Prince Charles obvious adulation/infatuation with his wife. I am not quite sure when I my opinion started to change, but probably when she started to deliberately upstage Prince Charles. By the time the Morton book was released I thought she was a self-centered narcisist at best and an amoral nitwit at worst.

For all her "tragic wronged wife" routine she was totally indifferent to the hurt and betrayal she visited on the wives of the men with which she became infatuated. The fact that she was the "other woman" in Will Carling's divorce hardly helped with her image, only this time the scorned wife (Julia) also had an adoring public and publicly damned (justifiably) Diana for her hypocrisy. She had absolutely no pity for them and yet she expected her adoring public to forgive her every move.

Her constant whining about being a the product of a disfunctional family and the wounded child of divorce made my blood boil. There were thousands of children just like her except Diana's life was insulated by money and position, her standard of living didn't drop nor did she have to change schools or worse, leave her private school for a state school in a less than salubrious suburb.

Her contention that the BRF prevented her from realising her potential was a scream. The best she could have hoped for was to marry a man of title and to continue her life as a Sloan Ranger, doing lunch and cruising boutiques.

Strangely enough, Diana's life of luxury holidays, high profile affairs and distancing herself from the Press was starting to rebound on her. More than a few papers were running critical articles about her new lifestyle.

IMO most were probably motivated by the fact that Dodi's money ensured her more distance from the paparazzi than she had previously allowed (much the same as Aristotle Onassis did for Jaqui Kennedy). She bit the hand that fed her, so to speak, and they were starting to bite back.

Come the the news of the accident and subsequent death of Diana the media did a 180 degree turn showing clips from the Panorama interview with "Shy-Di" wanting only to be "Queen of Hearts". Overnight a Saint was born!

 

[Menarue]

I voted "other" because I found the book "Diana in Private" written by Lady Colin Campbell an eye opener and that was written some time before all the sentimentality cropped up after her unfortunate death. I was surprised also to hear that she failed all her subjects even though she was at a private school where distractions are at a minimum, she repeated them and failed them ALL again.
Then after her death I read another book called "Shadow of a Princess" written by her former private secretary and it showed what a difficult person she was. She knew how to capture the attention of photographers and courted them even when complaining, ironically I think that this fascination with being the object of attention led to her untimely death. She was unstable and the royal family just didn´t know how to deal with her. I think it was a shame that she married Prince Charles, she may have turned out completely differently if she had married someone else - but who knows.

 

[TheTruth]

Some posts on the eternal Charles/Camilla/Diana debate were deleted. I highly discourage people of starting any kind of fights ... or they will face the consequences. ​

Thank you.​

TheTruth
Diana, Princess of Wales subforum Mod.​