When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

She crossed invisible boundaries, but it's not that simple. She seems to have been aware the boundaries were there in some sense, because she knew she held the upper hand and could control the relationship and cut those people off by freezing them out, refusing to take their calls, or changing her phone number. She invited these people in and befriended them to a degree I think was quite inappropriate, lulling them into a false sense of security. By crossing these boundaries she was being selfish, I think, and I'm not entirely sure she wasn't knowingly taking advantage of the situation, doing it because she wanted playmates and knew she made the rules and could end it when they had ceased to amuse her because these people had no power.

I had been treated in the same way by one of my best friends. I did something (although very negligible in my opinion) irritating her. She didn't speak to me for a long time, didn't answer my calls at all. Even I wrote her several heartfelt letters to apologize, but the response was very cold. Even she made it clear that she doesn't want to be too close to me any more. I really believed the friendship was over. Before I always believed she was the last friend of mine who would do this to me. Among my friends, she was most passionate and generous one, the nicest one. It's really hard to imagine such kind of person could be so cruel her friends. This unexpected betraying really hurted me. At that time I thought she was the biggest calamity ever happened in my life. I was so unlucky to know this person. At the same time I even stopped liking Diana. I knew Diana had did the same kind of things to her friends.

The friendship would be probably really over, if I didn't pretend to be very sick in front her one day. She asked me whether I was okay. And after some exchanging of some greeting words, we were back on the speaking term.
Now I think I know the reason of her cruelty. My friend suffered depression for a long time. Ten years ago she almost killed herself. I have experenced her depression state, just like a person who's inner energy has drained away, then the pressure from outside make her collapse. Like a star burning out of energy would collapse by the pressure from its own weight. But since last year I've never saw her in deep depression state, but instead she became more and more easy to be angry with people. Once I discussed with her about the anger, she told me that if she was not angry then she felt depressed. But the feeling of anger was much much better than depression. So she chose to be angry. I think the anger was always there, in depression, anger lied buried beneath the despair. Depression is something called " the anger turns inward. Let the anger burst out MAYBE a way to release the tension inside. In fact, my friend had a clear sense of her anger problem. After the reconcilation, she confessed to me she didn't talk to me because she was very angry with me, but she wanted me to be patient with her, give her time to release that anger. I felt some fairness when I knew she was not in the speaking term even with her mother for a while. Well at least I was not the only one who "sufferred" from her anger. But if being the target of my friend's anger can release her depression, then my "suffering" is definitely worthy. The same thing may happen again, but I will take it much easier next time.

My opinion of Diana developed a lot. Especially my experiences in recent years with my troubled friend give me first hand knowledge. Like my friend, I think Diana was definitely not the easiest friend, but rather a very tough one. It need more energy and dedication to cultivate the friendship. However Diana could be a friend saved for the raining day. One thing I am quite sure is if her friends were in big troubles, she would come back to their sides to help. There were some posts suggest that the affection Diana showed to ordinary people was merely a tool to build her good image, the reason they use from the allegelation that she sometime could be quite cruel to those close to her. My experience tell me there is not causality between that. Although my friend can be cruel to us--her friends, she definitely was the one of the most genuine, compassionate person who always want to help, to a extent that I would have to question her sanity. One time, my friend suddenly bust into tears in front of me because of a story of a very poor boy in iraq she read from the internet. My feeling about her over-reaction waw nothing but interesting. "Wow, what a person." Now although she has nothing except for debts, she is still donating 30 bucks every month to a little boy in Bosnia for his education. It's a common phenomenan that those people who suffer depression would have more compassion than normal person. It's said that they have depression because they are too much insisting on fairness. They always wish to change all unfair things, but are incompetent about that, so feels hopeless with world and then get into depression. At least my friend is very much this case. When I discussed about the world, she main philosophy would always be the world was so unfair, and she hoped she had the power to change that. I didn't dare to talk to my friend. But I think if she can take care of her own self, it already does a big favor to the world.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

She crossed invisible boundaries, but it's not that simple. She seems to have been aware the boundaries were there in some sense, because she knew she held the upper hand and could control the relationship and cut those people off by freezing them out, refusing to take their calls, or changing her phone number. She invited these people in and befriended them to a degree I think was quite inappropriate, lulling them into a false sense of security. By crossing these boundaries she was being selfish, I think, and I'm not entirely sure she wasn't knowingly taking advantage of the situation, doing it because she wanted playmates and knew she made the rules and could end it when they had ceased to amuse her because these people had no power.

That is a very good observation, IMHO. You can find things relating to that in many of the inquest's transcripts. She froze people out but she knew exactly as other side of the coin what to do when she wanted to show people that they're in. Raine Spencer for example tells how Diana took her often out to lunch in a public place in order to show to all that Diana and Raine are again of speaking terms.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by zhontella

It could be that any normal, non-damaged person, any one of us, would have reacted the same as Diana, under identical circumstances. Try to consider for a moment the amount of provacation that Diana must have endured every single day.

I believe very much in the fact that most people act out of common sense because life is so much easier then, that they need an incentive to do implausible things. Of course, there are incentives enough but still, when it comes to bring a whole amount of people independently to do the same things, then they're either doing it out of common sense or because they all experience the same kind of incentive.

So IMHO in the beginning the whole RF and the whole court had a very high interest in helping Diana to fit into her new position as smoothly as possible. They all had an advantage if they did that, they were at an disadvantage if there was any provocation for problems. So I sincerely doubt that the whole bunch of problems started with Diana's surroundings.

But she already entered into the marriage with problems that led, as she herself stated, to an immediate outburst of bulimia and mood swings. She in addition believed that she could only overcome this psychologically difficult situation if she got much more attention then she did. But a marriage who happens to take place in public so much and who means so much for the RF and their court is not the place where you should introduce any kind of "games". I bet if Diana had been as surprised and shocked by her body's reaction to her new position as Charles probably was, she would have gone into medical treatment immediately - in the interest of all, of course, but foremost in her own interest. And I am convinced that she would have gotten all help possible to bring back the nice and loving girl that had captured enough of Charles' heart to make him believe she could be the woman to marry - believing back then that is was to be forever.

But she didn't till many years into her life as Princess of Wales, but used her situation instead to create problems. I believe the letters the DoE wrote to her in 1992 show that the family was always willing to help her, but that she was not willing to accept that help. As Rosa Monckton put in to the inquest - words by her friend (Q: the coroner; A. Rosa Monckton)

Q. The breakdown of a marriage is always a traumatic event
18 or one supposes it must be. Was she coping well with it
19 or not?
20 A. At that time she was not coping with it very well, no.
21 She was very emotional about it and could sometimes be
22 a little bit irrational. She found it difficult to see
23 things clearly, which is understandable when you are in
24 a marriage that is beginning to go wrong and in such
25 a public way. I think that was very, very difficult.

But her marriage had obviously reached a state where there was no help for a better outcome possible, as Rosa Monckton recalls:

Q. How did you become aware that the Duke of Edinburgh was
12 being supportive of her?
13 A. Because he wrote a letter to Diana -- and I think it was
14 in April of that year, of 1992 -- really offering to
15 help; you know, having witnessed them together, seeing
16 that the marriage was not going well and offering her
17 advice.

And she adds:
He was entirely supportive of Diana and was trying
2 to help her leading up to her separation from
3 Prince Charles.

So in April 1992 she was offered help by her father-in-law, but then there was the Morton-book which came out on June 16th (no doubt the RF had previous information about that), there was Squidgygate and in the end when it could not be helped, there was the formal announcement of the separation in Dec. 1992.

I doubt these events are all based in the wrong-doings of the Rf, sorry, that's so without common sense that I can't believe it.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zhontella

And to top it off, Charles Spencer demanded the return of the Spencer tiara. Obscene!

The Tiara belonged to the eldest son in the Spencer family, Diana knew this, it was something she would have know from an early age. Property (real estate?) & heirlooms all go to the eldest male, He allowed Diana the use of the Tiara, it was never his to gift to Diana!

[anbrida]

I really doubt what kind of substantial help the royal family could offer to Diana, if they could not make Charles leave Camilla.

[anbrida]

The royal family, on one hand, claimed to want to help to save the marriage, on the other hand, didn't want to intervene to make Charles give up his mistress. If I were Diana, I would not take this help sincerely. I guess Duke of Edinburgh offered some sympathies in his letter, or persuaded Diana to put up with the current situation and stay in the marriage for the behalf of the children and the country. But this can not cure the cancer in the marriage at all.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by anbrida

The royal family, on one hand, claimed to want to help to save the marriage, on the other hand, didn't want to intervene to make Charles give up his mistress. If I were Diana, I would not take this help sincerely. I guess Duke of Edinburgh offered some sympathies in his letter, or persuaded Diana to put up with the current situation and stay in the marriage for the behalf of the children and the country. But this can not cure the cancer in the marriage at all.

It takes two to make a marriage, the same two to break it. If the husband and wife give to each other everything they need, in the way of love, understanding and support, neither will feel the need to look elsewhere. This didn't happen within Charles & Dianas marriage and so they both turned to other lovers.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by anbrida

The royal family, on one hand, claimed to want to help to save the marriage, on the other hand, didn't want to intervene to make Charles give up his mistress. If I were Diana, I would not take this help sincerely. I guess Duke of Edinburgh offered some sympathies in his letter, or persuaded Diana to put up with the current situation and stay in the marriage for the behalf of the children and the country. But this can not cure the cancer in the marriage at all.

I think it depends on where you start to think. In my humble opinion Charles knew exactly what was on the stakes for him when marriage was concerned. I doubt he felt that deeply in love with Camilla or whoever when he started courting Diana. You don't fall in love on such a deep level suddenly, there is Amour Fou and passion for sure, but I don't think that's what happened between Charles and Camilla when they were young and I don't think it's what they share today. What foremed them was the mutual support IMHO, the mutual help through difficult times in their life.

I doubt Charles and Diana were ever friends, because I doubt Diana was able to have real friendships. Just to quote Rosa Monckton: "Radio Silence" - Diana worked with cutting off the connection completly once she had made others fall under her spell and I think this is one of the worst ways to control a relationship and to punish the other.

But if she had been able to offer friendship to Charles, he would never have searched that closeness with Camilla. That's what annoyed Diana so much, IMHO, that Charles found such a closeness and friendship with someone else. She saw no way to win Charles back, claims Monckton and reacted with anger instead of offering Charles what he obviously needed.

I think in 1992 she had shown enough of her character to convince Charles that there was no going back into a good marriage. But I'm still convinced the RF could have worked something out to let her keep her face in public. It worked with the Danish RF after all, even to the extend that both ex-partners are meeting with their new partners cordially, while the non-Royal wife was allowed to keep her place socially. I believe they tried to negociate a solution till Diana gave that Panorama-interview.

I just found that there was a precedence where two non male-line descendants of the Windsors were granted the title of princess of the UK and "Your Highness" by special order of the souverain (Ladies Alexandra and Maud Duff). So I believe it would have been possible to grant the mother of the future king the title of a peeress in connection with the title "Her Highness" if the queen had gotten the opinion that it would help the cause of the Rf. But I think Diana was not able to keep to her parts of a negociated contract and when "Panorama" happened, that was the end of it.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by anbrida

The royal family, on one hand, claimed to want to help to save the marriage, on the other hand, didn't want to intervene to make Charles give up his mistress. If I were Diana, I would not take this help sincerely. I guess Duke of Edinburgh offered some sympathies in his letter, or persuaded Diana to put up with the current situation and stay in the marriage for the behalf of the children and the country. But this can not cure the cancer in the marriage at all.

What else can Charles's parents or his siblings to do? They can force him to marry for the dynastic sake and kept the marriage for the children's sake and the dynasitc sake. But I cannot see how they can stop him from seeking and receiving comfort and consolance from people even ladies who are willing to offer during his lifetime. It is really quite ridiculious to think an adult can tell another adult whom he can see and whom he cannot see?Any adult has this freedom and ablilty to make his own decision.

I cannot see any faulty of Charles's parents and his siblings in it. As you are from China, I would use the saying"Jiang Shan Yi Gai, Ben Xing Nan Yi" to express my view. As long as Diana was unable or unwilling to change her way of lifestyles and her characters, I cannot see any hope of the Charles-Diana's marriage to be a happy and fulfilled one. It is not any help from Charles's family or anyone can hold a marriage, but Diana's own way of characters to do so. It is impossible, isn't?

I am quite touched by your friend's story and I think you are nice enough to take her back as your friend. However if I were you, I find probably I was unable to treat her with the same depth of friendships we had before the broke-up. We can be friends again but I would choose to keep her at the arm's length. The reason behind this is that depsite the forgiveness I had and the compassion I had for her situation, I am not willing to risk myself to be the victim of her emotional problems again. Therefore I understand the reasons of the way Prince Charles dealt with Diana in his later years of his first marriage: avoid Diana-avoid the hurts- avoid the fights. However Diana seemed to have no mind of reasoning to understand and was not concious of her own problemic behaviour to make things better . What a pity!

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I think it depends on where you start to think. In my humble opinion Charles knew exactly what was on the stakes for him when marriage was concerned. I doubt he felt that deeply in love with Camilla or whoever when he started courting Diana. You don't fall in love on such a deep level suddenly, there is Amour Fou and passion for sure, but I don't think that's what happened between Charles and Camilla when they were young and I don't think it's what they share today. What foremed them was the mutual support IMHO, the mutual help through difficult times in their life.

Excellent writing. I totally agree. The mutual support, the understanding, the trust and the loyalty between Charles and Camilla are really profound reasons for them to develop this kind of depth of feelings for the other person. It is very natural in my view.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I doubt Charles and Diana were ever friends, because I doubt Diana was able to have real friendships. Just to quote Rosa Monckton: "Radio Silence" - Diana worked with cutting off the connection completly once she had made others fall under her spell and I think this is one of the worst ways to control a relationship and to punish the other.

No true friends? This assumption was too much.

But I aggreed in some parts that it was really not easy to be Diana's close and long-term friends. In my opinion, to be her true friend, one must be very compassionate, understanding, and patient, who can love her not only for her good qualities, but as a flawed person, understand her hurted spirit beneath that dazzling glamour, and able to tolerate her unpreditable temper.

Although it is not easy but I think Diana had this kind of "true" friends. Rosa and Lucia Flecha de Lima were two of them, especially Lucia, very admirable person. When I read that Lucia woke herself up at 3am in order to give call to Diana when she got up, I was really moved. I understood why she did that. The morning time was the most difficult time for a depressive person.

These two ladies were not among those who defended Diana most violently, actually they gave, in a lot of occasions, favorous and understanding comments on Charles. I've never heard them badmouth Charles or Royal family. Just take the statements they gave to the juries for example, they were not in favor of Diana from the appearance, even some of posters cited them to attack Diana. And I don't think these two ladies were those kind of sycophants who only spoke these words after Diana died. When she was alive, i could imagine, for hundreds of time they had spoke some unfavorable words to Diana, but out of good purpose. Diana didn't dump them. They share long-term friendships. Diana was not clever, but not so dumb to tell who truely love her, care her. About those friends, Diana dumped, well we have already saw the true color of some of them. Some of them I think they would have recovered had Diana lived.

About Charles, he was as needed as Diana. It's quite possible they were never friends. But before Diana died, she said they were friends. I didn't know the attitude of Charles. My guess was, he didn't aggree, so he just shut up and say nothing. So I guess you are right.

About the help from Royal. You were right the marriage was not doomed from the very start. But the help was not offered from the start either. Actually it came when the marriage was dead. I don't think the Royal family were so blind that they didn't see anything wrong until the last minutes.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by love_cc

I am quite touched by your friend's story and I think you are nice enough to take her back as your friend. However if I were you, I find probably I was unable to treat her with the same depth of friendships we had before the broke-up. We can be friends again but I would choose to keep her at the arm's length. The reason behind this is that depsite the forgiveness I had and the compassion I had for her situation, I am not willing to risk myself to be the victim of her emotional problems again. Therefore I understand the reasons of the way Prince Charles dealt with Diana in his later years of his first marriage: avoid Diana-avoid the hurts- avoid the fights. However Diana seemed to have no mind of reasoning to understand and was not concious of her own problemic behaviour to make things better . What a pity!

Well of course when I first experienced the anger from my friends, it was very tough and hurting. But after I knew the reason, everything was justified. Now I am more than be glad to be the "victim", if I can might her anger out so that to release the stress. But do you think I would take this anger very serious any more after I know the reason?

Yes my friend has mental problem doesn't mean she is inferior to any one. Actually I am really proud of her. Because although she have so many problems she is more desire to help the less fortune than any normal person.

If you would keep a distance to your friend after you know her problem, you should not be called a "friend" at the beginning. If a husband avoid the wife after he knew her illness, he should not be called a "husband" from the start. That's all.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by love_cc

We can be friends again but I would choose to keep her at the arm's length.

Don't worry about the distance thing. I know this kind of person. They are more likely to dump you first.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by anbrida

If you would keep a distance to your friend after you know her problem, you should not be called a "friend" at the beginning. If a husband avoid the wife after he knew her illness, he should not be called a "husband" from the start. That's all.

Unfortunately, when you are in the public eye, the last thing you want is to have to deal with this sort of person when you are home.

As a friend you see a person for short bursts, as a spouse it is 24/7, there is no escape or letup from this behaviour. Friendship should work both ways and if you are afraid to say what you think for fear of sparking them off, it is no longer a friendship. Diana would use her friends and then drop them and expect everyone else within her circle to do the same, if they didn't, there was hell to pay, a few months down the line, she would meet them, be friendly and act as if nothing had happened. Not the sort of friend for me.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately, when you are in the public eye, the last thing you want is to have to deal with this sort of person when you are home.

As a friend you see a person for short bursts, as a spouse it is 24/7, there is no escape or letup from this behaviour. Friendship should work both ways and if you are afraid to say what you think for fear of sparking them off, it is no longer a friendship. Diana would use her friends and then drop them and expect everyone else within her circle to do the same, if they didn't, there was hell to pay, a few months down the line, she would meet them, be friendly and act as if nothing had happened. Not the sort of friend for me.

As long as it is out of good purpose, I dare to say anything to my friends. And I think my friends will know that finally. But I admitted that sometimes I did said something to my friends out of revenge, and I guess anyone had this kind of moments.

About Diana, I think she could tell what kind of words were out of good purpose or not. I don't think she would drop anyone who disagree with her.

It's normal that friends would sometimes argue with each other. If this happened, in my case usually the pattern was, didn't talk to each other for a while, until a suitable time came we reconciled and pretended nothing had happened. The difference is, usually it just took me one night to finish the whole process, but for some one it took much longer.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately, when you are in the public eye, the last thing you want is to have to deal with this sort of person when you are home.

As a friend you see a person for short bursts, as a spouse it is 24/7, there is no escape or letup from this behaviour.

This behavior? What other ways are possible to label this "behavior"? What was its source? What sustained it? Was it continued aggravation from the original source? When Charles could find no escape or letup from this terrible behavior on the part of his wife, were his chickens merely coming home to roost? Was he being forced to take the consequences of his own damaged behavior?

On a side note, I like Charles and think he makes a wonderful Prince of Wales. But I cannot put into any context about his really awful treatment of Diana ..............another great mystery??? Was Charles as usual, at that time, merely doing what he was told to do?

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Diana would use her friends and then drop them and expect everyone else within her circle to do the same, if they didn't, there was hell to pay...................

In Diana's position with all the risks she was facing including access to her children, I think you're making this sound fickle and frivolous and it was not. It had more to do with trust, and fear of what could happen with betrayal by these so-called friends.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zhontella

This behavior? What other ways are possible to label this "behavior"? What was its source? What sustained it? Was it continued aggravation from the original source? When Charles could find no escape or letup from this terrible behavior on the part of his wife, were his chickens merely coming home to roost? Was he being forced to take the consequences of his own damaged behavior?

As you probably know zhontella, I believe Diana's behaviour predated her marriage to Charles. If as you seem to be saying, it was all because of Charles, where are the childhood friends, the school friends, acquaintances, surely they or she didn't just abandon each other upon her marriage? It is all very well putting the blame for your behaviour on someone else, but ultimately you have to take responsibility for your mistakes.

On a side note, I like Charles and think he makes a wonderful Prince of Wales. But I cannot put into any context about him his really awful treatment of Diana ..............another great mystery??? Was Charles as usual, at that time, merely doing what he was told to do?

What really awful treatment, apart from the truth according to Diana? Who would be telling him what, exactly?

In Diana's position with all the risks she was facing including access to her children, I think you're making this sound fickle and frivolous and it was not. It had more to do with trust, and fear of what could happen with betrayal by these so-called friends.

It was IMO fickle, frivolous and controlling. You seem to be under the impression that this behaviour all started with the divorce, it didn't afaik. Nobody had spoken of not allowing her access to the boys, had they? Nobody was, afaik, even thinking about restricting access. For any judge to stop access, it would take more than a he said she said. Neither Charles or HM would have done that to the boys apart from anything else. I don't think they would have risk the public outcry either!

[anbrida]

The discussion of Diana's friends relations should really stop. Are we supposed to know all the friends Diana has. Are we supposed to know how she kept in contact with all her friends. Even if Diana didn't contact some of friends. It doesn't mean she dropped them. As we growed up, we would always made some new friends, and gradually contact fewer and fewer with the old friends. Actually for the last several years I didn't contact my childhood friends at all. I doesn't mean I don't like them anymore, I just didn't have chance to meet them.

I think Diana was "genius". It seems she had forseen some people would accuse her dropping her friends. So she made a tape for Andrew Morton. I read from "her true story", she said she hoped her friends could understand her, that she didn't drop them. She just didn't have time to play around with them... and so so. I forget the exactly words. If someone has that book(1997 version), they can find this in the last part of " in her own word" section.

Some might really have been dropped, like Simmon. But some were just losing contacts and being exaggerated to dropping. It is really naive to believe the newspaper or Charles' friends books would not exaggerate facts.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

If as you seem to be saying, it was all because of Charles, where are the childhood friends, the school friends, acquaintances, surely they or she didn't just abandon each other upon her marriage?

Last I knew her pre-marriage friends stayed in contact for many years.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

It is all very well putting the blame for your behaviour on someone else, but ultimately you have to take responsibility for your mistakes. What really awful treatment, apart from the truth according to Diana? Who would be telling him what, exactly?

It is all very convenient, Skydragon, when one is tormenting someone for a purpose or for no purpose to hide under the mantle that one has to take responsibility for their own responses. However, people, like animals, do respond in predictable ways to certain stressors. Since Charles bitterly complained about doing what everyone else demanded, I'm assuming that someone other than Charles was pushing the buttons.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

..............afaik. Nobody had spoken of not allowing her access to the boys, had they? Nobody was, afaik, even thinking about restricting access. For any judge to stop access, it would take more than a he said she said. Neither Charles or HM would have done that to the boys apart from anything else. I don't think they would have risk the public outcry either!

What does "afaik" mean? Successfully labelling Diana as "barking mad" could most definitely have restricted her access to her children.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zhontella

Last I knew her pre-marriage friends stayed in contact for many years.

Really, do you have a link, an old article, anything to suggest that she kept in touch with old school friends, friends from finishing school? When you are at boarding school together, these tend to be friendships for life.

It is all very convenient, Skydragon, when one is tormenting someone for a purpose or for no purpose to hide under the mantle that one has to take responsibility for their own responses. However, people, like animals, do respond in predictable ways to certain stressors. Since Charles bitterly complained about doing what everyone else demanded, I'm assuming that someone other than Charles was pushing the buttons.

Diana was not an animal though, she was a thinking adult. I hesitate to bring it up, yet again, but there was her admitted affair with Manakee, a married man and all her subsequent affairs. Are you suggesting that she bears no responsibilty for those, no responsibility for the pain she caused her sons? Who was tormenting her and for what reason. No people do not always react in the same way as animals, that is what is supposed to set us apart, is it not?

What does "afaik" mean? Successfully labelling Diana as "barking mad" could most definitely have restricted her access to her children.

As Far As I Know - You can't just label someone barking mad to stop them seeing their children. Tests would have had to be carried out, a psychological examination by a court appointed psychiatrist. Not on the hearsay of one or two friends, if that were the case the moment she started going to psychics and fortune tellers, custody would have been taken away.