When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[diamondBrg]

I would like to inquire about Prince Andrew's two daughters. When I go on the official Monarchy website, it says under his portion that his daughters do NOT undertake official duties?

Are they compensated with taxpayer money in some way, some verifiable way?

If not, WHAT BUSINESS is it of anyone, anywhere what those two young ladies do or do not do at any point in time?

Are the people of the UK under the impression that the entire Royal Family is their servant?

 

[ghost_night554]

Other as well.

I thought Diana was genuine in the beginning but by the panarama interview, i thought it was a giant act. Too much eye battering and looking to the side. Too rehearst. But I saw where she was coming from - revenge and yes bad marriage can happen to everyone.
A few years later and I was helping out with the media. We expected a lot of foreign media for the visit of Diana - we possibly got much more which is why I was drafted in.
A lot of the media had actually been personally invited by Diana herself, who promised them exclusive pics and such. The whole event was a whole organisation mess
Diana was adament to poses with as many children at the hospital as possible, for the benefit of the hospital she explained. They didn't understand who she was and why she was there. She simply came in posed with the kids and some of the adults, later meet with some of the support staff and left. I was told later that she was unhappy with some of the kids as they didn't look ill enough for the pic. A lot of things just seemed wrong. One of them was that in the middle of the visit she left so that her stylist could redo her hair so that is could look good for the photos. Most of the visit was private, instead Diana allowed the press in without the permission of the press. She also told the press that she was visiting AIDS orphans and people affected by AIDS. Which caused a problem as a politician's wife had been in there for heart problems and the South African tabloids ran with stories about both of them having AIDS.
The people at the hospital felt terribly used. They had hoped that Diana's visit would encourage foreign countries and investors to donate equipment to the hospital, instead it had became Diana's three ringed PR circus. She got her front page, the press got their headlines - the hospital is still waiting for their money.

I don't understand was this a person experience of yours or did this come from the media? I don't remember reading anything about this event.

Anyways my opinion of Diana has never really changed, I mean yes she had her problems she made her mistakes and I think alot of that she probably later regret, but we're all human and so was she, so I've always thought of her as a lovely woman who obviously as all of us made mistakes in her life.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I would like to inquire about Prince Andrew's two daughters. When I go on the official Monarchy website, it says under his portion that his daughters do NOT undertake official duties?

Are they compensated with taxpayer money in some way, some verifiable way?

If not, WHAT BUSINESS is it of anyone, anywhere what those two young ladies do or do not do at any point in time?

Are the people of the UK under the impression that the entire Royal Family is their servant?

Yes. Because to put it bluntly - they are. Beatrice and Eugenie live the life they do because of our money and therefore, if they won't do official duties then they have to get a real job - neither of them have a real job. If however, they take up Royal duties soon and earn their keep, then the criticism won't go away but they could earn themselves a Princess Anne like reputation which goes down well with we serfs.

 

[Elspeth]

Could we please keep this thread on topic? Feel free to ask and answer questions about the York princesses in this forum:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/

 

[Jo of Palatine]

so I've always thought of her as a lovely woman who obviously as all of us made mistakes in her life.

That's what annoys me so - she was beautiful or at least fotogenic and thus she could behave as she wanted while finding followers. And she knew this and she used it to her advantage.

 

[MARG]

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

I knew there was something I liked about Cherie.

By the time of the wedding if I had read one more article about her background, of the terrible travails caused by her parent's divorce I would have screamed. OK, I did scream. A very large percentage of children experience the same pain but their parents don't have the wherewithal to cushion the blows. Her standard of living and schooling were totally unaffected. A large percentage of children find their entire lifestyle gone. It still doesn't turn them all into terminal victims.

No really. My opinion was pretty set by the time she bailed out of the "coach" with her merangue all squished, looking like a fairy in deparate need of of tree! The dress said it all. I've made it, I've made it! Then, with a "Shy Di" nod (soon to be known as the 'Diana High Five') to the press, hied up the Cathederal steps to nail her title.

Nothing in her behavior after that impressed me greatly. She was a fabulous clothes horse and did wonders (initially) for the British Fashion Industry and nailed the tabloids! Di Mania was born.

To be honest, there were just too many things not to like about Diana. But to me her worst "crimes" were against her children. With them her hypocracy knew no bounds.

Her all-consuming passion with herself was nauseating. Engagement photo's in the country. House parties. Polo matches. etc. But very soon after her marriage suddenly she didn't like the country. She didn't like hunting, She didn't like polo. So it was of course entirely natural that her boys not get to spend much time in th countyside, be allowed to hunt or play polo (after all.....she might have had to go and watch).

Her overt courting of the media, her expose (Morton's potboiler), her constant need to be photographed with William and Harry doing "normal childhood" type things, which were very normal if you don't count the army of photographers etc. there to catch the staged moment. Just so we would know that she was the "good" parent, and by implication, Charles was the "bad".

Much ado about William going the Eton (normal?) school, followed closely by her wonderful interview, and there was poor William out on his own with photos of he and his mother supposedly telling him about the coming interview. For any non-royal, loved and cared for child separation is hard.......that sort of public humiliation on top of it must have been excrutiating.

As you may have guessed, I loathe people that use their children as weapons.

Actually, I think my opinion did change. From considering her to be a fairly innocuous, far-away Queen-In-Waiting, to an emotional vampire whose potential for harm was legend. It was like watching a train wreck.

 

[jcbcode99]

Nicely said, MARG! I had found it hyprocritical that Diana in the engagement photos just loved being outdoors, etc.... and then, all of a sudden, she hated the country; that and other things just makes one say, "talk about misrepresenting yourself!"

 

[zhontella]

Nicely said, MARG!

I disagree. It was a lot of vague generalities with nothing specific to back up anything. What is an emotional vampire anyway? Isn't that a vague misogynist term used to describe those who "steal souls" in response to powerful men who shatter spirits. I read some book about that at one time, but could never quite understand the fear and hatred that motivated the author of this book.

I had found it hyprocritical that Diana in the engagement photos just loved being outdoors, etc.... and then, all of a sudden, she hated the country; that and other things just makes one say, "talk about misrepresenting yourself!"

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

 

[jcbcode99]

I read some book about that at one time, but could never quite understand the fear and hatred that motivated the author of this book.


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

I don't think that fear and hatred motivates anyone on the topic of Diana--she was very complex and it is interesting how she stirs up feelings and emotions and opinions. I was on the GREMB (glilttering royal events message board) and it was the yearly gala where we all post photos of bejewelled royals and I saw some photos of her and intially my heart always goes out to her--so young, so happy, so vibrant--and lets' not forget that she was one of the first to embrace AIDS victims-that is admirable. But then I remember all the other stuff--and unfortunantly, while I still smile when I see her photo and her sense of humor, the other stuff more definitively defines her for me. I always tell children that our behavior is a choice that we make, an choices define our lives. Diana made a lot of choices that she never really learned from and thusly, for some, those choices have helped to define her life. It is complex and it is sad.

Now, the comment about the country--that could very well be dead on target. I saw a wonderful photo of Diana with her hair all big and flowing and I always wondered why she quite wearing it like that--it was very becomming after all--and it probably had something to do with Camilla having beautiful, flluffy hair as well--she was trying to distance herself from Camilla. Of course, we all know I love Camilla and think she is magnificant, but Diana was in her early 20's at this time and I can see how a little thing like that would let her determine her hairstyle--it seems silly now, but at that age and point in her life, it was a big deal--in my opinion. I may be way off target!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I voted "other" because my opinions about Diana have always been more complicated than a single reason. If Diana had been allowed to rest in peace after the beautiful thanksgiving service in August, my feelings now would be entirely different. But now we are into another year and still we have this Inquest to look forward to.

I don't know how to explain my feelings about Diana or how they have changed over the years beyond what I have already said many times in other threads.

 

[tan_berry]

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

 

[jcbcode99]

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

 

[tan_berry]

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

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

 

[wbenson]

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

 

[diamondBrg]

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

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

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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

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

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

 

[jcbcode99]

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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

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

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

 

[diamondBrg]

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


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

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

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

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

 

[sirhon11234]

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

 

[diamondBrg]

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

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

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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

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

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

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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

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

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

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

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

I like that lady, really I do!

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

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

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

 

[Skydragon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tan_berry]

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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

 

[zhontella]

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

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