Diana's Styles and Titles

[tiaraprin]

King Charles II and Barbara Villiers had several children, I do not deny this. However, James I was involved with a different Villiers...

Burke? I haven't a clue...


Yes, the Duke of Buckingham, the one from The Three Musketeers.

Barbara Villiers had six children, five of them were acknowledged by Charles II as his. Although there are some doubts...

Charles did not acknowledge all of Barbara's children--only the ones who could possibly be his because he had sexual relations with her at the time of the conception. He accepted her first daughter Anne as his own to give her a leg up in the world when it was more likely that she was Lord Chesterfield's daughter, but Charles could have been the father also.

When Barbara had a child by Henry Jermyn, she tried to get Charles to acknowledge him. Charles knew the child was not his for he had not visited Barbara's bed in nearly a year. Barbara turned into a fit of rage and told Charles he would accept any child she had whether it be his or not! Once she threatened to slam one of her children on the floor in front of Charles if he did not acknowledge the child was his!!

 

[emily62_1]

I'll tell u about the book , I'll have to find it, it's old, written by the housekeeper of Highgrove, who became the first confidante of Diana, quite be4e Burrell, she was a witness of the fall and of everything it happened there, even when once di broke cups, vases etc on Charles' head...... she and her hubby lived in the estate and their kids played with William and Harry, she describes very well Di's turmoil, and Charles' indifference and selfishness.

 

[emily62_1]

There is a certain doubt regarding whether Charles II was a father of all children acknowledged by him.


Do you mean Robert I (the Bruce), the King of Scots?

I think that's him.

 

[Mapple]

Charles did not acknowledge all of Barbara's children--only the ones who could possibly be his because he had sexual relations with her at the time of the conception. He accepted her first daughter Anne as his own to give her a leg up in the world when it was more likely that she was Lord Chesterfield's daughter, but Charles could have been the father also.

When Barbara had a child by Henry Jermyn, she tried to get Charles to acknowledge him. Charles knew the child was not his for he had not visited Barbara's bed in nearly a year. Barbara turned into a fit of rage and told Charles he would accept any child she had whether it be his or not! Once she threatened to slam one of her children on the floor in front of Charles if he did not acknowledge the child was his!!

O tempora, o mores!
BTW, Camilla is also a descendant of Charles II--the Duke of Richmond and Lennox, an illegitimate child of the King and Louise Keroualle, is counted among her ancestors.

I think that's him.

He was a grandson of one of the thirteen competitors for the Scottish Crown, which was left unclaimed after the death of Margaret 'Maid of Norway', the last monarch of Scots from the House of Dunkeld.

Robert the Bruce proved himself to be a great warrior and a good statesman who managed to defend the independence of Scotland from the English kings in a series of bloody wars.

 

[tiaraprin]

Robert the Bruce proved himself to be a great warrior and a good statesman who managed to defend the independence of Scotland from the English kings in a series of bloody wars.

Robert the Bruce lived at the time of William Wallace and fought for Scottish independence with Wallace. After Wallace's capture and execution (some say Bruce betrayed Wallace and never forgave himself), Robert the Bruce took up where William Wallace left off and gained independence for Scotland.

Scotland eventually ended up tied back in the English Crown in 1603 with the succession of James VI of Scotland AKA James I of England.

 

[Alicky]

well, Di herself said later that it had not been an accident, she was a very honest person, why should have been lying about it- was she taken to hospital or not- Charles did not even wait to c how was his wife doing and what had happened to the baby.

She was? She was a master media manipulator and anytime you read about her, you'll hear ten different versions on one account. She tended to tell a different story to everyone she met.

 

[tiaraprin]

She was? She was a master media manipulator and anytime you read about her, you'll hear ten different versions on one account. She tended to tell a different story to everyone she met.

Gee, was Charles completely honest? Were his sycophants completely honest?? The answer is a resounding NO. They manipulated the media as well feeding stories to make Charles look better to the public too. They threw mud too and don't forget it. Diana's 30th birthday comes to mind on that one with all of them feeding a media frenzy that Diana didn't want a party from her husband. Why should she?? He didn't care one jot and he would only have invited his stuffy friends!! Gee, how could he bare to take time away from Camilla?? He was glad Diana refused! He didn't have to do anything and his friends told the papers and exaggerated the events. That was a piece of master manipulation!

We will never know what happened that day when Diana fell. Thank God she and William were not harmed.

 

[emily62_1]

She was? She was a master media manipulator and anytime you read about her, you'll hear ten different versions on one account. She tended to tell a different story to everyone she met.

no, she was a hurt woman, that's all, not a media manipulator, anyway, I think u know what Charles told every1 about Diana, f.i. that she was crazy, a very ill woman. I believe her, she comes out bad of this- a preggy woman who tries to commit suicide? if she told media so, it was true, as she comes very bad out of this, why lying ?????????????????-

 

[emily62_1]

Gee, was Charles completely honest? Were his sycophants completely honest?? The answer is a resounding NO. They manipulated the media as well feeding stories to make Charles look better to the public too. They threw mud too and don't forget it. Diana's 30th birthday comes to mind on that one with all of them feeding a media frenzy that Diana didn't want a party from her husband. Why should she?? He didn't care one jot and he would only have invited his stuffy friends!! Gee, how could he bare to take time away from Camilla?? He was glad Diana refused! He didn't have to do anything and his friends told the papers and exaggerated the events. That was a piece of master manipulation!

We will never know what happened that day when Diana fell. Thank God she and William were not harmed.

as always I agree with u, totally !!!!!!!!!!!! yes, Charles was subtle, he made his friends and valets to speak out for him , Di spent her 30th b-day with Paul Burrel alone- he was the only 1 who stayed with her, my heart aches for her, not even her lovely mum was there, Charles ? he did not care a bit about his wife and her b-day.

 

[tiaraprin]

as always I agree with u, totally !!!!!!!!!!!! yes, Charles was subtle, he made his friends and valets to speak out for him , Di spent her 30th b-day with Paul Burrel alone- he was the only 1 who stayed with her, my heart aches for her, not even her lovely mum was there, Charles ? he did not care a bit about his wife and her b-day.

I believe the children were with their Mum on her 30th birthday.

 

[Warren]

Cups and vases

I'll tell u about the book... written by the housekeeper of Highgrove, who became the first confidante of Diana...she was a witness of the fall and of everything it happened there, even when once Di broke cups, vases etc on Charles' head.

Cups and vases eh? I trust they were the miniature vases, else Charles would have been knocked unconscious, suffered a fractured skull, or worse. I wonder what the public reaction would have been if it was Charles who attacked Diana with the Highgove crockery?
.

 

[tiaraprin]

Cups and vases eh? I trust they were the miniature vases, else Charles would have been knocked unconscious, suffered a fractured skull, or worse. I wonder what the public reaction would have been if it was Charles who attacked Diana with the Highgove crockery?
.

I have heard that Diana had thrown things at him but not hit him over the head!!

 

[Idriel]

Gee, was Charles completely honest? Were his sycophants completely honest?? The answer is a resounding NO. They manipulated the media as well feeding stories to make Charles look better to the public too.

I don't think Alicky was making a comparison of the two. Does it really has to be the War of the Wales forever?
But I find a bit sad that some people think they have to thrash Diana to make Charles look good. As far as I'm concerned, that's wasted. No amount of Diana-trashing will ever make me like Charles. And inversely, I don't despite Charles only or mainly because of his fail marriage. He is quite loaded on his own, IMO.

She was? She was a master media manipulator and anytime you read about her, you'll hear ten different versions on one account. She tended to tell a different story to everyone she met.

I have to agree with Alicky here. Though I love Diana very much, and I especially admire the way she used her position to accomplish a awesome job for AIDS and Landmines (among other things), she was also a very nevrotic and shadowy woman.
I am not arguing here about how and why she was so much troubled; the fact is that she was and did manipulate the media a lot. I can think of the way she would "anonymously" call tabloid newspapers (Richard Kay was a favourite) to tip them, or the way she did organised herself the famous "The Kiss" photoshoot, then complain about her privacy. And she did said quite a lot of versions of the facts in her life.
That does not make her a bad person for me, I still admire her. She was just a very complex woman, but an extraordinary one.
I never understood why some people can't accept criticism of Diana. It's not like she was a Saint.

We will never know what happened that day when Diana fell. Thank God she and William were not harmed.

Yes, for sure. Actually IMO, we will never know exactly what really happened for about everything in her life.

 

[Warren]

Agreed - we don't know

We will never know what happened that day when Diana fell.

Since we are generally agreed that we don't know all the facts of Diana's fall down the stairs maybe we can stop using it as an example of Charles's "cold indifference"?

The Australian author and TV presenter Clive James had an interesting story about Diana. In a Michael Parkinson interview he was saying she had always fascinated him as a media icon, as he was interested in the nature of fame in the modern world. Anyway they met, she invited him to lunch, and he found himself sitting with her directly by the window of a London restaurant. Paparazzi appeared, and he said he realised he had been "set up" as a photo opportunity for the Princess.

No big deal in the scheme of things, just another insight from someone who had first-hand experience.
.

 

[Idriel]

Since we are generally agreed that we don't know all the facts of Diana's fall down the stairs maybe we can stop using it as an example of Charles's "cold indifference"?

Well it's what Di wanted people to think IMO. That's why she turned this accidents into a suicide attempt. Well at least that's the way I see it.

The Australian author and TV presenter Clive James had an interesting story about Diana. In a Michael Parkinson interview he was saying she had always fascinated him as a media icon, as he was interested in the nature of fame in the modern world. Anyway they met, she invited him to lunch, and he found himself sitting with her directly by the window of a London restaurant. Paparazzi appeared, and he said he realised he had been "set up" as a photo opportunity for the Princess.

She did this kind of thing when she would bring William with her to incognito visits to homeless people. The paps would miraculously show up at the right place at the right moment.

 

[Roshanah]

I agree that they ought not to be so (as it seems) welcome towards Camilla in view of the aforementioned. Also William and Harry may be keeping up appearances in public but behind the closed doors is another story.

well, I studied Di's Royal lineage, believe me, her blood was far more Royal than QEII and her husband.... btw, every1 knows that QV was not really the daughter of the duke of kent, who could not concieve, he was ill and elderly, she was a german gentleman's daughter. Di had had some bulimia episodes, be4e her wed, but Camilla and charles affair drove her to insanity! I can't c why William and Harry never think of this when they hug and are so nice to Camilla and their father, if I were them, i could not help but thinking how those 2s had affected their late mum's serenity and happiness.

 

[Duchess]

no!! I did not mean to say Diana was insane, sorry, I used the wrong words, I meant she was driven to desperation, to binge on food and then vomit it, to anorexia, to trying to take her own life, like when she fell on purpose on the stairs , though she was pregnant with william, it makes me shiver when I think, as witnesses said years after, that charles just lokked at her, when she had fallen down the stairs, then, without a word, he lft to Camilla's House..... what kind of man can behave like that ?

ok I understand what you meant now

 

[Roshanah]

It was well documented that she threw things at him in fits if frustration towards him. Then again If you found that you'd been purposefully trapped in a loveless marriage, where you're only needed for your genes and won't be treated with an ounce of respect because you're 'spouse' desired to carry one his affair with said other throughout your married life regardless. Wouldn't you find the most impressive things to throw at him. He's fortunate that it wasn't elsewhere or else it might have gotten really unpleasant for him.

I have heard that Diana had thrown things at him but not hit him over the head!!

 

[Duchess]

Cups and vases eh? I trust they were the miniature vases, else Charles would have been knocked unconscious, suffered a fractured skull, or worse. I wonder what the public reaction would have been if it was Charles who attacked Diana with the Highgove crockery?
.

Well I don't know how seriously we can take this but, Paul Burrell (in his book) says that Charles threw something at him (I believe it was a phone book). Can't remember if it actually hit him or not though.

 

[Roshanah]

Well said! Also this shew that Camilla was able to dish it all those years ago at Diana but now she's on the receiving end of such negativity for years to come she can't take it.

Camilla had been known to be, how should one put it insensitive of others feelings. Even the way she married her first husband can testify to that. Also It is questionable as to whether or not she truely loved charles for one reason.

When she was securing her place as Mr Parker-Bowles wife, when Charles was single at that time she didn't do anything about it. Moreover she wanted something that was more secure (as it was reported by friends of hers) as she knew that she wouldn't be Princess of Wales.

So what made her desire to go after Charles when he married, unless there was something that hasn't been mentioned yet.

Diana is the mother of the future King. NOTHING Camilla says or does can change that. That portrait should not have been moved!! If she is "trying" to be sensitive by just being the Duchess of Cornwall, then she can jolly well deal with a portrait!

Just like Diana had to bear her, Camilla is going to have to bear that Diana is forever linked to the Windsors. She better deal with it, and perhaps learn of some of the pain Diana had to cope with?

 

[Warren]

Assertions, not facts

If you found that you'd been purposefully trapped in a loveless marriage, where you're only needed for your genes and won't be treated with an ounce of respect because you're 'spouse' desired to carry one his affair with said other throughout your married life regardless.

An extreme opinion, Roshanah, and one not supported by facts or evidence. I haven't heard anyone state Diana was "purposely trapped" up to now. Do you have evidence or souces for this assertion?
.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it sounds positively medieval. I mean, other women had said "no" to Charles, and in the tight-knit area at the top of Society, where everybody knows what everybody else is doing and the real sin is letting it go public so the rest of us get to hear about it, it must have been an open secret that Charles and Camilla were an item throughout the late 1970s. I have a very hard time believing that Diana was backed into some sort of corner where (a) she had no choice but to accept his proposal and (b) knew nothing about his recent past.

It seems to me much more likely that she was so seduced by both Charles's charm and his position and he was too indecisive to really think through what he was getting into, and they both went into the marriage with unrealistic expectations. If he found himself unhappy and they were unable to fulfill each other's emotional needs, then sooner or later he was going to turn to friends like Camilla, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Honestly, I think the real villain of the piece is Lord Mountbatten, not any of the three members of the triangle. In his attempt to pair Charles off with one of his own granddaughters, he apparently encouraged Charles to have affairs and to not settle down with the more "suitable" girls. He gave Charles advice about marriage that was straight out of the 19th century (to sow his wild oats and then settle down with a sweet young thing - preferably a Mountbatten sweet young thing). Considering the way Charles is said to have hero-worshipped Mountbatten, he might not have wanted to settle down with a girl who Mountbatten didn't approve of; after Amanda turned Charles down, I wonder if Mountbatten was trying to line up one of his other granddaughters for the job. It's interesting that Charles didn't actually get married until after Mountbatten died.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Well, it sounds positively medieval. I mean, other women had said "no" to Charles, and in the tight-knit area at the top of Society, where everybody knows what everybody else is doing and the real sin is letting it go public so the rest of us get to hear about it, it must have been an open secret that Charles and Camilla were an item throughout the late 1970s. I have a very hard time believing that Diana was backed into some sort of corner where (a) she had no choice but to accept his proposal and (b) knew nothing about his recent past.

It seems to me much more likely that she was so seduced by both Charles's charm and his position and he was too indecisive to really think through what he was getting into, and they both went into the marriage with unrealistic expectations. If he found himself unhappy and they were unable to fulfill each other's emotional needs, then sooner or later he was going to turn to friends like Camilla, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Honestly, I think the real villain of the piece is Lord Mountbatten, not any of the three members of the triangle. In his attempt to pair Charles off with one of his own granddaughters, he apparently encouraged Charles to have affairs and to not settle down with the more "suitable" girls. He gave Charles advice about marriage that was straight out of the 19th century (to sow his wild oats and then settle down with a sweet young thing - preferably a Mountbatten sweet young thing). Considering the way Charles is said to have hero-worshipped Mountbatten, he might not have wanted to settle down with a girl who Mountbatten didn't approve of; after Amanda turned Charles down, I wonder if Mountbatten was trying to line up one of his other granddaughters for the job. It's interesting that Charles didn't actually get married until after Mountbatten died.

Interestingly, I heard that Charles first noticed Diana and started to date her after she commented on how touched and sad she was seeing Charles at Lord Mountbatten's funeral.

 

[emily62_1]

I don't think Alicky was making a comparison of the two. Does it really has to be the War of the Wales forever?
But I find a bit sad that some people think they have to thrash Diana to make Charles look good. As far as I'm concerned, that's wasted. No amount of Diana-trashing will ever make me like Charles. And inversely, I don't despite Charles only or mainly because of his fail marriage. He is quite loaded on his own, IMO.
I have to agree with Alicky here. Though I love Diana very much, and I especially admire the way she used her position to accomplish a awesome job for AIDS and Landmines (among other things), she was also a very nevrotic and shadowy woman.
I am not arguing here about how and why she was so much troubled; the fact is that she was and did manipulate the media a lot. I can think of the way she would "anonymously" call tabloid newspapers (Richard Kay was a favourite) to tip them, or the way she did organised herself the famous "The Kiss" photoshoot, then complain about her privacy. And she did said quite a lot of versions of the facts in her life.
That does not make her a bad person for me, I still admire her. She was just a very complex woman, but an extraordinary one.
I never understood why some people can't accept criticism of Diana. It's not like she was a Saint.
Yes, for sure. Actually IMO, we will never know exactly what really happened for about everything in her life.

well, I only hope every1 will respect other ppl's members' feelings- as you don't want any trash on Charles, I can understand it, some ppl, like me, don't want to hear Diana was a media manipulator and a liar, and while Charles can still defend himself and his past doings , Di has no chance , not anymore.... that's the reality- as for me, yes, there is a war of the Wales, if u mean Camilla is a Wales herself, unfortunately, though Diana is beeing exploited by every1 whom she trusted in her brief life, I can't c ppl, not even her own relative, who are trying to defend her memory.

 

[emily62_1]

Interestingly, I heard that Charles first noticed Diana and started to date her after she commented on how touched and sad she was seeing Charles at Lord Mountbatten's funeral.

Camilla, Queen Mum and Charles chose Diana, she was to be the gullible bearer of Charles' kids, she was perfect, naive, 19 years old, not expert, very frail, no mother to fight for her etc.- she knew nothing of the real world, she was really waiting for Prince Charming....- she produced 2 sons, and that was it, she was only a nuinsance from then on- she asked Charles to have a baby girl, but after Harry's birth, the spare heir's, he refused to have sexual relationship with his wife.

 

[emily62_1]

I agree that they ought not to be so (as it seems) welcome towards Camilla in view of the aforementioned. Also William and Harry may be keeping up appearances in public but behind the closed doors is another story.

I read Camilla is close to William's G/f, they are to live in Clarence House , all 4 of them, who does she think she is, William's mother ? so, she approves, plz, don't tell me William really asked for her approval, 'cos I can't understand the whole siruation anymore. PS- do Harry and William sometimes visit Diana's grave ?

 

[emily62_1]

Since we are generally agreed that we don't know all the facts of Diana's fall down the stairs maybe we can stop using it as an example of Charles's "cold indifference"?

The Australian author and TV presenter Clive James had an interesting story about Diana. In a Michael Parkinson interview he was saying she had always fascinated him as a media icon, as he was interested in the nature of fame in the modern world. Anyway they met, she invited him to lunch, and he found himself sitting with her directly by the window of a London restaurant. Paparazzi appeared, and he said he realised he had been "set up" as a photo opportunity for the Princess.

No big deal in the scheme of things, just another insight from someone who had first-hand experience.
.

right, do we have to believe this M. Parkinson's words? Why ?? Have u ever seen pix of Diana's while she cries trying to have the photos back from the "paparazzo", what a horrible word, why doesn't any1 realize that that was a word used in Fellini's movie- La Dolce Vita- back in 1960, 45 years ago, and that kind of ppl don't exhist anymore, not that stupid word for them ? PS- I have , I passed by the famous gymn where she cried and begged the phtographer to give her the film, just a few months be4e dying, so I recalled it all.

 

[emily62_1]

Well it's what Di wanted people to think IMO. That's why she turned this accidents into a suicide attempt. Well at least that's the way I see it.

She did this kind of thing when she would bring William with her to incognito visits to homeless people. The paps would miraculously show up at the right place at the right moment.

ok, Charles was a Diana's , the evil, victim, Camilla, poor girl, was a victim, too, even her own son, William, was used or misused by Diana, I surrend, these are all wonderful ppl , who were fooled by a mean, nasty liar. Is that better ?

 

[Idriel]

ok, Charles was a Diana's , the evil, victim, Camilla, poor girl, was a victim, too, even her own son, William, was used or misused by Diana, I surrend, these are all wonderful ppl , who were fooled by a mean, nasty liar. Is that better ?

Nothing in my post was implying that. I did mention the suicide attempt thing to illustrate my opinion that Diana would sometimes manipulate the opinion. I did not mention Camilla and I don't understand why I should be faced by those two each time I say something negative about Diana.

For information I don't like Charles, I despite Camilla even more (as persons, not mainly because of Di) and I admire many aspects of Diana's life and personality. Still I don't feel the need t make Diana a Saint or to ignore her well documented (even by people of his own 'camp') ambiguous relationship with the media.
You ask why should we trust Parkinson's word. I ask why should we trust everything Di said?
You are reducing the debate IMO. It's not because I find Di flaws that I don't like her as a person and as a princess. Di was a complex woman, and that makes her more interesting to my eyes.

 

[emily62_1]

Nothing in my post was implying that. I did mention the suicide attempt thing to illustrate my opinion that Diana would sometimes manipulate the opinion. I did not mention Camilla and I don't understand why I should be faced by those two each time I say something negative about Diana.

For information I don't like Charles, I despite Camilla even more (as persons, not mainly because of Di) and I admire many aspects of Diana's life and personality. Still I don't feel the need t make Diana a Saint or to ignore her well documented (even by people of his own 'camp') ambiguous relationship with the media.
You ask why should we trust Parkinson's word. I ask why should we trust everything Di said?
You are reducing the debate IMO. It's not because I find Di flaws that I don't like her as a person and as a princess. Di was a complex woman, and that makes her more interesting to my eyes.

not a Saint, no without flaws, only a human being, who unfortunately is dead, I only wanted to show every1 that if we can't believe Di's word, why should we believe Mr. Parkinson? do u really think she was so mean to use her son to manipulate media, while visiting homeless? that's really a bit too much for me, can we also say she was a bad mother ?


I'd rather leave the thread. thanx to everybody.