Search results

I didn't think that was what Janet intended, either. From my original post on the subject, I wasn't attempting to assign blame to either Charles or Diana-or anyone else, for that matter-I was merely commenting that William's quoted remark appeared inarticulate. The post you quoted was a...

Fine. But, it isn't ALL Diana's fault, either. Their father raised them, too.

I've always found Charles to be a much stronger speaker when it is a subject he is passionate about. That's just my opinion. Diana's speaking style was hesitant and forced, but, at least, she never "um'ed" or "you know'ed" her way through. When she made the effort, she could get a point...

I don't think Diana intended them to take it this far.

What is RMAS? I take it that's a reference to his college education, but just curious about what the letters stand for. He may have just been nervous, but the "you knows", for me, were unexpected, given his background. His father speaks very well, and, even in her early interviews, Diana wasn't...

If Kate was involved in the planning of the concert, as the article states, then it would be extremely rude for William NOT to invite her to attend. It doesn't mean that he intended the invitation or that she acccepted it in any romantic sense.

They also sound barely articulate. PRINCE WILLIAM: Yeah I mean-- again just for my personal opinion, when you knew somebody or someone that important to you -- you always think about you know. I mean -- so after it happened we were always you know always thinking about it. And there's not a...

I think Al Fayed would be more of a sympathetic character if his claims of a conspiracy didn't defy credulity. Personally, I think his grief-and his conscience-have driven him over the edge. He seems to have lost some touch with reality. In the beginning, I had compassion for him, which has...

Well put. But, the Camilla fans will never accept this reality, and vice versa for the dedicated Dianaists. But, Diana could be a monster at times. I'm sure Camilla is no saint 24/7, either. They are and were just human beings, after all.

Well, I was referring to the tabloid print press, but you make a good point. The circular logic applies to the Internet, as well.

It is circular logic: if the public would stop buying the tabloids, the publishers wouldn't produce them. But, if the publishers didn't produce them, the public couldn't buy them. Decades ago, the world existed without tabloids. But, you can't stuff the beast back into the cage now.

You mean, Diana wasn't really a virgin when she got married? I'm stunned. :rofl:

They weren't, actually, taking pictures of the couple inside the car, once the car pulled away from the Ritz-which explains why they fell back. What they were doing, mainly, was following the car to Dodi's apartment-where they knew they could get good images of the couple emerging from the car...

Sounds, actually, like a good programme. I don't think they broadcast it here, but if they ever do, I'll watch it. I wonder why they changed their behavior? Dodi's decision? Diana's? All those witnesses prior to this who protested that Paul didn't appear to have been drinking-but now these...

That's right...it was a request. Not, as you originally stated, a demand to remove the entire programme from the air, but to edit a few pictures out. The Princes had the right to make the request, and the broadcasters had the option of refusing. Which they did, so censorship doesn't apply...

William and Harry didn't "demand the removal of (a) television programme[s]". They asked Channel 4 not to include pictures of their dying mother in the documentary. It was a simple request, not a demand.

Well, we could argue what Hewitt inferred endlessly, so let's just say that it is your opinion that he didn't infer it, and it is my opinion that he did. :rolleyes: < ed Warren >

The change in Hewitt's story, and his explanation that it was "agreed upon" that both he and Diana would say they began their affair in 1986 is obviously intended to hope people will 'leap' to the assumption that they began their affair earlier, and that he is possibly Harry's father. My point...

No, she took riding lessons from him in 1986. There a fairly likely possibility that Diana and Hewitt met several times socially between 1981-1986-palace circles being rather small...but that's not an affair, and it is the romantic liasion that he is insinuating began in 1981.

Am I missing something? Hypnosis proves paternity? :rofl:

Okay. But, again, Diana isn't alive to refute the claim, so we have only his word for it. Well, and Max Clifford, whoever that is. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Diana would have begun a love affair with Hewitt in 1981. The first part of the year, she was engaged. The middle part...

Which they probably expected. They are caught between the damned and the damning. If they don't make a statement, then they are criticized by press and public for not standing up for their mother. If they do make a statement, it doesn't change anything. They chose to stand up for their mother.

No, Hewitt hasn't claimed to be Harry's father. He's simply revised his timeline: he now says that he met Diana in 1981, as oppsed to his earlier claim that they met in 1986. Of course, he stated this after Diana died, so she couldn't refute it. The public is then supposed to infer that Diana...

What paternity test? There's never been any indication that one was even conducted. For that matter, WHY should the Royal Family reveal any results publicly? Simply because the press decided to doubt Harry's paternity? Charles is Harry's father-he has been from the day Harry was born. Legally...

Well. she also said that Prince Charles was planning to have both her and Camilla put aside so he could marry Tiggy Legge Bourke. Diana's astrologers also 'predicted' Charles' death numerous times. Sorry, but I just don't put that much stock in the undated note. The timing of the note IS...