When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[Iluvbertie]

Well said

but I do think she was that stupid actually. She said that she went to the school to talk to William about the Morton book and asked the staff to ensure that no copies of the book were in the school - and if either she or the school believed that then they really don't know much about boys and boarding schools - within hours of that book being published it would have been in the school and read by the other boys. The same with the Panorama interview - the boys would have been reading about it the next day if not sooner.

She didn't have to sit down privately with William and Harry and put down Charles to them - she did it to the whole world and thought that somehow her sons would be the only two people in the industrialised world that wouldn't know what she said within hours of her saying it.

The Panorama interview was even done on the 20th November - the Queen's wedding anniversary - what an anniversary gift from her daughter-in-law - tell the world that the eldest son of that marriage isn't up to the job that you have trained him to do since the day he was born.

[pgm1952]

I was too young to know anything about Diana when she died but since then I have gone from sympathy for her when I knew hardly anything about royals, to now where I think she caused a great many headaches to the establishment and her poor mother- in- law that were completely out of line for a Princess of Wales. The agrivation to the Queen includes upstaging Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales on several occasions and her handful of affairs. Correct me if wrong but Charles had only Camilla, Diana had several lovers in their marriage. My knowledge of her affairs changed my views of her. I used to think it was only Prince Charles who filandered.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by pgm1952

I was too young to know anything about Diana when she died but since then I have gone from sympathy for her when I knew hardly anything about royals, to now where I think she caused a great many headaches to the establishment and her poor mother- in- law that were completely out of line for a Princess of Wales. The agrivation to the Queen includes upstaging Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales on several occasions and her handful of affairs. Correct me if wrong but Charles had only Camilla, Diana had several lovers in their marriage. My knowledge of her affairs changed my views of her. I used to think it was only Prince Charles who filandered.

Charles had known Camilla since the early 70s and they've always been great friends. He's godfather to Camilla and Andrew's son Tom and they all were part of what we could call the "Highgrove set" that had common interests. Diana, I think, found herself in a situation where she had to fit in with these people and found out she had nothing at all in common with them and felt like a misfit. Perhaps that is one of the reason over the years Charles drifted away from some of his close friends he associated with (re: the Dimbleby book). This is just MHO but I still maintain that as much as Diana saw how comfortable and at ease Charles and Camilla were as friends, it was that intimacy she felt threatened by. She found friends in some men, and I do think some such as Manakee <sp> were just that. Friends. She started out as a 19 year old engaged to a royal prince with no idea of what a deep relationship was (remember she was virgin) and had sort of a "fairy tale" outlook on marriage where the husband has eyes for her only and kisses her feet kinda dreams. For a new husband to even have a woman as a close friend must have been threatening to her. And that's without adding in any emotional and/or physical ailments she suffered from.

I do think that as she matured and the marriage ended, she came to a lot of realizations. She was on her own for a while and found her stride. Agreed some of the moves she made were not wise ones but I do think that her relationship with Dr. Khan was the first real meaningful relationship that worked both ways and she was happy.

Anyhoo... these are just my thoughts.

[olebabs]

Yes in hinesight Diana was too young. But that being said, I get a little annoyed, when people talk about how she wasn't able to adapt to his lifestyle and didn't support his interests. Is a marriage not supposed to be supporting each other?

I recently watched the documentary about Charles 60th birthday, and it occured to me, that he is not a man capable of putting himself second. You very much get the impression, that it is his way or the highway. That can certainly not have been very easy at 20 let alone at my advanced age of 34. You do not have to love everything your partner does, but you show support and make an effort.

As I have stated before, it is such a shame they wheren't able to combine their assets, to make the most emminent powercouple of the BRF.

[Moonmaiden23]

The tragedy of Charles/Diana is that I think if Diana had come into the marriage the way she SEEMED to be at the end of her life...more secure, confident, sophisticated and worldly...she and Charles would have been able to make a go of it.

Toward the end of her life she seemed to have made a certain peace with Charles and they had begun to enjoy one another as co-parents to their children...there seemed to be a mutual appreciation and understanding.

In Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana, she states the Charles had toyed around with the idea of trying to save his marriage to Diana just before the divorce finalized...but was prevented from doing so by Camilla Parker-Bowles.

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

Well said I couldn't agree more. There were things that were lacking in both Charles and Diana that doomed the marriage, and you listed them all.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

The tragedy of Charles/Diana is that I think if Diana had come into the marriage the way she SEEMED to be at the end of her life...more secure, confident, sophisticated and worldly...she and Charles would have been able to make a go of it.

Toward the end of her life she seemed to have made a certain peace with Charles and they had begun to enjoy one another as co-parents to their children...there seemed to be a mutual appreciation and understanding.

In Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana, she states the Charles had toyed around with the idea of trying to save his marriage to Diana just before the divorce finalized...but was prevented from doing so by Camilla Parker-Bowles.

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

To me it's seemed that Charles and Diana's marriage could have gone either way. On paper they were very well matched in a lot of ways, in terms of upbringing, background, the circles they moved in - they had many similarities. I also think they truly cared about each other at the beginning and were both devoted to their children. Many very successful long term marriages have started with less.

What I don't think they could overcome was the fact that their personalities were very dissimilar except in a few unfortunate ways - they both seemed like they were prone to pettiness and often let their emotions overrule their good sense. (As an aside, I'm encouraged by the fact that Prince William seems to have more common sense than either of his parents ever did. He reminds me much more of his paternal grandparents than his mom and dad in that way).

I'm in my early 30s and by the time I was old enough to really start paying attention Charles and Diana were already into their fighting/separation/divorce period. I don't have clear memories of the so-called fairy tale that came before. OTOH I've seen Charles rehabilitate himself somewhat over the last ten or fifteen years and that's certainly increased my respect for him. I do wonder if Diana would have undergone a similar process had she lived.

[Moonmaiden23]

camelot23, I was there at the beginning and in my opinion there was NEVER any fairytale...the media and many in the public wanted it to be and took it from there.

Anyone with eyes and ears could look below the surface and sense that there was something "off" about the two of them as a couple.

I remember watching the wedding with a sense of excitement and anticipation for the spectacle and pageantry, but I didn't feel even a vague sense of romance.

William does seem more grounded, thank goodness.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by ysbel

As far as I can tell, we don't know what advice the Queen gave Diana. I do know that Diana was the only in-law that the Queen was willing to see without an appointment and she wasn't willing to do that even for her children. They did have quite a few private conversations

Diana was a distressed soul, something that was so obvious to a casual observer like myself standing in the street. My severest criticism of the RF and Diana's family had been that they 'did nothing' to reign in this young woman. It was a situation that caused me to experience increasing anger as the years wore on - but I now know I was mistaken. Given what I have learned over the past half year, one fact is glaring - that the RF and Diana's family absolutely were aware of Diana's problems, tried to help, tried to support, tried - but were undone by Diana's lies and wileyness.

When one has a fuller understanding of just how out-of-focus with reality Diana was, the Queen making herself available at any time to Diana is a red flag - and is a confirmation that the RF did indeed understand the situation with Diana. The Queen's availability would seem to be part of trying to work with what was a seriously problematic young woman. No other explanation fits IMO for such an unusual divergence from the norm for the Queen.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

What I don't think they could overcome was the fact that their personalities were very dissimilar except in a few unfortunate ways - they both seemed like they were prone to pettiness and often let their emotions overrule their good sense. (As an aside, I'm encouraged by the fact that Prince William seems to have more common sense than either of his parents ever did. He reminds me much more of his paternal grandparents than his mom and dad in that way).

Which is great imo. The Queen and Prince Philip are the most level headed in that family.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Tyger

Diana was a distressed soul, something that was so obvious to a casual observer like myself standing in the street. My severest criticism of the RF and Diana's family had been that they 'did nothing' to reign in this young woman. It was a situation that caused me to experience increasing anger as the years wore on - but I now know I was mistaken. Given what I have learned over the past half year, one fact is glaring - that the RF and Diana's family absolutely were aware of Diana's problems, tried to help, tried to support, tried - but were undone by Diana's lies and wileyness.

When one has a fuller understanding of just how out-of-focus with reality Diana was, the Queen making herself available at any time to Diana is a red flag - and is a confirmation that the RF did indeed understand the situation with Diana. The Queen's availability would seem to be part of trying to work with what was a seriously problematic young woman. No other explanation fits IMO for such an unusual divergence from the norm for the Queen.

Oh, please. first off the expression is 'rein in' secondly, there is no word such as 'wileyness'. If you are going to insult the memory of someone historically significant, at least get the grammar and spelling right. So glad you had a productive half year.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by scooter

Oh, please. first off the expression is 'rein in' secondly, there is no word such as 'wileyness'. If you are going to insult the memory of someone historically significant, at least get the grammar and spelling right. So glad you had a productive half year.

Sorry to have offended with a misspelling - it happens - and a creative use of the language - I do that a lot, I don't live by so many rules. Is this your way of refuting an opinion you disagree with, by ridicule of the person? Sadly, I have known and know young women who had and have Diana's affliction - it is not uncommon. What is a misfortune is when it is not recognized. There is no 'insult' here - Diana herself (I understand) was beginning to have a reassessment of her own actions and how she related in the past before her untimely death.

You are entitled to believe Diana was 'historically significant'. I will not argue the point. There is another perspective of her, equally legitimate.

Take care.

[sirhon11234]

I'm not trying to step into moderator mode, but we all have different opinions especially when it comes to the Princess, and they clash at times. But lets be respectful to each other no matter how different our opinions are.

[Zonk]

The "When did your opinion of Diana change and why?" thread has been open for over five years. It is now almost 14 years since the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales and with the discussion becoming very repetitive, the moderators believe that it is time to move on.

The thread is therefore closed.

The British Forum moderators
Warren, wbenson and Zonk