When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[Madame Royale]

yet how on earth could she have underestimated their power?

It would have seemed that both 'parties' underestimated the other. I think all were in for a surprise, myself. Certainly a very unhappy situation.

[Chimene]

It would have seemed that both 'parties' underestimated the other. I think all were in for a surprise, myself. Certainly a very unhappy situation.

Yes, she certainly surprised the "enemy", one she wanted to still be a part of.

[Incas]

It's surprising now how many people are viewing the Panoramic episode as a negative. Maybe the last twelve years have filled in a lot of context it took place. However, at the time, when Nicolas Soames described it as a toe-curdling performance, he was pretty much pummeled by the rest of the panel in a round-table analysis group, not to mention virtually all press and public the next day. As a foreshadowing of the reaction to her death two years later, if anyone held a negative opinion of the princess, it was not a good idea to publicly acknowledge it.

Personally, I was curious of the whole BRF for much of the 1980's. I started to be more interested in the Wales family when their marriage drama started. I think it was around Sept. 1987 when C&D were apart for about a month and the press where counting the days. There was a flood in Wales and the couple went to tour the affected area. I remember watching news clip of their visit. I was struck by how Charles appeared to be genuinely concerned by the devastation, and Diana was looking like she couldn't wait to get out of there. She only smiled once when someone presented her flowers. A few months later, during the couple's Australian tour, she purposely upstaged Charles with a piano performance. I think someone else have mentioned the same episode. While the press account of the incident made light of it, and showing how Diana blushed when the music teacher gave her a kiss for the performance, I just thought that was wholly uncalled for. It really made me wonder if she really is the loving devoted wife people seem to believe. Over the years, there were other accounts of how she would use her children in a petty game of one-upmanship. I think it was "The Housekeeper's Diary" by Wendy Berry that described how Diana would keep the children away from Charles even when they were at Highgrove together. Years before her using the press became obvious, there was a trip to Nevis with her mother and sisters in April 1990. There was a photo op on the beach with Diana in a leopard print dress. Several stories at the time described a curious thing, when the photographers were starting to leave after the photo op, Diana dashed inside and came back in a red bikini. There were photos of her lounging next to her mother in the sand from a long distance. It was just lots of little things that doesn't make sense if someone was intent on having privacy.

[sthreats]

First a person can have both an Axis I diagnosis-a mood disorder such as depression, bipolar, atypical depression etc. AND an Axis 2 diagnosis of a personality disorder such as borderline, histronic, narcisstic etc.. Since most people's mood disorders are cyclical a person can be an intelligent and functional member of society and Still have serious mental illness.In the book "Diana in Search of self" Bradford does an exhausative review of Diana's maladaptive and manipulative behaviors going back to middle school. She makes a good case for borderline personality disorder.It is clear that Prince Charles realized early in the marriage that she needed help. Many authors have documented that Diana was taken to many psychiatrists and was offered medication that she refused. NO SPOUSE can make one comply with treatment. Saying that Diana had a mental illness does not excuse her manipulative or hurtful behaviors. Rather I think it explains some of it. Ultimately it was her responsiblity to get help and take care of herself.ADD- Axis 1thru 5 diagnosis are found in the DSM-these categories help mental health professionals classify illness.

[Incas]

I don't understand the need to diagnose someone having any mental disorder. Almost everyone have had moments of pique and pettiness, due to jealousy, anger, frustration or just because. That some people carry those moments to the next level and make a habbit of seeing everyone else as their competitor or enemy don't make them mentally unstable.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Incas

I don't understand the need to diagnose someone having any mental disorder. Almost everyone have had moments of pique and pettiness, due to jealousy, anger, frustration or just because. That some people carry those moments to the next level and make a habbit of seeing everyone else as their competitor or enemy don't make them mentally unstable.

The difference is that you can help with a mental illness through medication nowadays - and those who let themselves be helped are normally much happier when taking their "happy pills" than they were before and are in most cases able to have a good family life again. But if it is a question of character (there are petty and nasty people around, you know) then no medication can turn these people into nice human beings. The mentally ill suffer from their disease while the nasty people enjoy their being nasty.

I'm not sure about Diana. Only she would have known.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Chimene

I was almost persuaded by the mental illness argument, when I decided to re-read the Bashir interview. She was all over the place that day and her answers were so cold and calculating. She even spoke of herself in the third person like some dictator.

There are even some academic papers on the net where the authors, communication analysts doing resear at university, decipher the system of "blaming" others during that interview. For anybody interested in language and rhetorics, well worth the read. Must see if I find the link....

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by sthreats

First a person can have both an Axis I diagnosis-a mood disorder such as depression, bipolar, atypical depression etc.

thanks for the explanation. Only one thing, I believe the author of "Diana In Search of herself" is Sally Bendall Smith not Sarah Bradford. Bradford is more explicitly sympathic expression about Diana, but Sally Bendall Smith is more neutural.

[sthreats]

To love cc. Thanks for the author clarification. So many books.... (smile)

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Incas

It's surprising now how many people are viewing the Panoramic episode as a negative. Maybe the last twelve years have filled in a lot of context it took place. However, at the time, when Nicolas Soames described it as a toe-curdling performance, he was pretty much pummeled by the rest of the panel in a round-table analysis group, not to mention virtually all press and public the next day. As a foreshadowing of the reaction to her death two years later, if anyone held a negative opinion of the princess, it was not a good idea to publicly acknowledge it.

Yes that was my memory too. Everybody thought that the interview was the best thing that Diana had done and wasn't the Royal Family such a pile of junk for treating her that way.

But I think the damage to Diana was more behind the scenes. Despite Tony Blair's seemingly chumminess to Diana's memory, I can't imagine that he was elated at the prospect of the wife of the heir of the throne doing a secret interview outside the knowledge of the royal family and all the government officials. Diana was still part of an institution that was part of the government.

So I think the damage to Diana was more to the fact that people inside the government realized that the government was going to be hampered if Diana continued to do stuff like that while she was part of the Royal Family. She did gain the reputation for being a loose cannon and the government hates loose cannons.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Yes that was my memory too. Everybody thought that the interview was the best thing that Diana had done and wasn't the Royal Family such a pile of junk for treating her that way.

Erm - not everybody...

But I must admit I was a bit surprised and more than a little discouraged that such a parade of spiteful, sneaky grandstanding had been received with such acclaim.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

There are even some academic papers on the net where the authors, communication analysts doing research at university, decipher the system of "blaming" others during that interview.

I'm not sure why it takes University Research to decipher a blame system . Most of us have it at one time or another in varying degrees. Diana had probably not yet fully realized her own power so was still blaming others more than she needed at that time.

[Emmily]

Originally Posted by georgiea

If Diana would have done treatment for her illness early in her marriage, she would still be married to Prince Charles. I just wish Charles would have made her do it.

I don't know that they would still be married. But I seem to remember reading that Charles DID try to get her help early in the marriage. Does anyone remember this?

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by sthreats

Many authors have documented that Diana was taken to many psychiatrists and was offered medication that she refused. NO SPOUSE can make one comply with treatment.

Thank goodness Diana did refuse the medication -- she may have had some behavioral problems, but they were not severe enough to warrant messing with her brain anatomy. There were also reports that Charles had a mental breakdown around the time he broke his arm -- his royal duties stopped for quite a time -- and Diana moved back in and stayed with him until he was better. That's kind of what I remember, with maybe some details off here or there. I think Charles refused any medication for his problem as well -- his expert advisors have correctly warned him about the dangers of mood medications or those little "happy pills" that aren't the safe panacea to all mental quirks that Big Pharma would like everyone to believe.

[zhontella]

Originally Posted by Incas

I don't understand the need to diagnose someone having any mental disorder. Almost everyone have had moments of pique and pettiness, due to jealousy, anger, frustration or just because. That some people carry those moments to the next level and make a habit of seeing everyone else as their competitor or enemy doesn't make them mentally unstable.

Very true, but there is no profit for big business in your assessment. There is even a pill for "housewife fatigue". It's a disease some wives get when after they get home from work, take care of the children, clean the house, and make dinner while hubby sits on the couch watching football, they are not "in the mood" later that night. There is a little happy, and very expensive, pill for that too! I kid you not!

[Incas]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

The difference is that you can help with a mental illness through medication nowadays - and those who let themselves be helped are normally much happier...I'm not sure about Diana. Only she would have known.

Based on everything I read about her, Diana doesn't struck me as having a mental problem. The fact that labeling her more extreme behavior as illness might it is easier for some to tolerate those behavior, but that doesn't make it true. On the other hand, if she was suffering from mental illness, I seriously doubt she would have known. While I do accept there are people suffering from mental illness, I do find it troubling for the prevelance of "happy pills" for everything.

[jcbcode99]

Pills are certainly never the answer and I am not a fan of medication at all--in Diana's case I think she really just needed a good, firm counselor/psychiatrist. However, being the Princess of Wales, it would be hard to find someone willing to take that role; also, whenever Diana did not get her way she would get rid of the person who, in her mind, was in the way of her happiness. So, even if she had a counselor who took the right approach with her about choices, behavior, etc...--if she got upset she would have said "toodles" and been on her way. I think she would have been very difficult to treat and we will never really know any of those details anyway because of patient/doctor confidentiality laws. Also, any counselor/psychiatrist would have recognized the act she skillfully played and would have called her on it; then she would have had to address it.
Honestly, I don't think she would have allowed herself to benefit from any type of therapy. I'm sure she had therapy, but it was probably more the type that encouraged to feel like a victim, etc...

[Chimene]

Diana had probably not yet fully realized her own power so was still blaming others more than she needed at that time.

Her so-called power was based, for the most part, on the superficial. In other words, she was very popular because she was a beautiful virginal bride, and she looked fantastic in clothes while performing her duties.

She was capable of showing great compassion for the less fortunate, but she did not invent the concept of charity. Although, in her effort to take advantage of and solidify her popularity, she along with her accomplices – the tabloid press – made it seem that Diana’s approach was the most worthy.

Selling Diana‘s great legs while performing her work was quite a profitable venture. Meanwhile, Charles and Anne in particularly, have been doing such for years. Alas, they are not very sexy and can’t sell papers.

The Diana effect on charity is her true legacy, if you ask me. Everyone nowadays think that unless you’re pointing a camera in the face of some poor people, you’re not charitable enough. It has become a mean to boost one’s image. An idea I vehemently reject.

I do believe in the power of ONE, but that would have required knowing what she was doing, and she did NOT. Case in point: while making a case to the world [who loved her = "her power"], she showed her true colors.

[sthreats]

I am also not an advocate of "a pill for everyone". Every case is unique. Diana also did not follow thru with the counsellors and kept switching. I only brought the medication issue up re Prince Charles being accused of not trying to help her.

[TheTruth]

Well I read that before summer 1997, she had been on sleeping pills for 5 years. A friend of mine was on "happy pills" for a month and he got serious problems caused by the side effects of the medication (it's even written that if you don't follow the indications, it may give you suicide ideas ... ... "happy pills", right )