Why didnt she like Princess Di?
Someone clue me in, I been living under a rock.
My Love http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/Devenir83/loves.jpg
Someone clue me in, I been living under a rock.
My Love http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/Devenir83/loves.jpg
From what I've read, the main complaint against Diana was she went public with personal matters from the Royal Family; namely her husband's relationship with his married mistress.
"What happens in the Royal Family stays in the Royal Family."
Diana did not share this attitude. She felt wronged and wanted the public to know the truth as she saw it.
Its not that she didnt like her....in her day, the Monarchy would not do such a thing. The Queen would never have went public about anything like that.
[deleted]
mhansen2 - What about all the affairs Diana had? Did she want those to be made public as well? At least Charles only had the one...
shareBoth Charles and Diana were wrong. I remember reading that the queen once did like Diana and sympathized with her, but I do understand how she could be turned off by what Diana did. She felt victimized and wanted everyone to know, unfortunately she didn't pay much attention to the people she hurt.
"... have mercy, for I've been bleeding a long time now"-Michael Jackson
Diana was in a catch-22 situation. She was in an abusive marital situation, and was told to shut up and put up.
She was used to keeping family secrets (her father was an alcoholic), and she kept the secret of her husband's affair for years. But secrets keep the abuse going, and she couldn't get out of the marriage without public blame unless she told the truth.
I'm not suggesting that anyone meant to be evil. The royals have their own upbringing, their own set of rules, and their own interests to consider. I don't envy the queen having to face the fallout of the public revelations. What I am suggesting that everyone did their best to deal with the mismatch, including Diana. And ultimately, Diana first responsibility was to Diana.
The fallout of the revelations? After some upheaval, both she and Charles were happier people, became friends, and had more to give to their children. And hopefully a lesson learned by the whole royal family that sacrificing one member for the sake of the family does not work. If one person is unhappy, everyone is unhappy.
mhansen2 - What about all the affairs Diana had? Did she want those to be made public as well? At least Charles only had the one...
Diana only made one basic mistake; she fell in love with the wrong man.
What she fell in love with was power.
The church may shout but Darwin roars
I disagree.
shareShe fell in love with an idea, of the handsome prince who would save her and love her obsessively and never leave her. She admitted that she had Charles' picture up in her boarding school room, she admits she pretended to share his interests when she hated them (horses, country living, shooting, Philosophy, etc), and then was really surprised when Charles didn't magically transform into the figure she'd created in her head, and Charles was shocked that his wife wasn't who she pretended to be. That marriage never stood a chance.
shareOh, that settles it, then. You disagree. Let’s alert the media. Dolt.
sharePrince Charles came sniffing around Diana's bed only to have another child. His regular appetites were satisfied by his married mistress.
Diana only made one basic mistake; she fell in love with the wrong man. Everything else sprang from that.
This is the utterly ironic thing - at the time of her death, Diana was a bit of a laughing stock with the general public. Her constant affairs, her interview with Martin Bashir - people were fully expecting her to top herself as she seemed to be so mentally unstable. The press were having a field day. Then she died. All the stupidness was forgotten and the masses suddenly went into their hysterical grief haggery. It was very strange. From slut to saint in a matter of hours.
One thing I cannot stand is intolerance.
that's how it tends to goes with the famous. Michael Jackson was the butt of jokes for years, and then he dies... all those jokes are a thing of the past now.
In this country, all Americans deserve equal rights… appletini.
Good point about Jackson.
It is exactly the same type of 180 difference of public opinion that happened when Diana died.
It depended on who you talked to or what articles you read in the papers. Some only saw her actions on the surface (Panorama, Dodi, etc), while others were aware of the reasons behind these actions.
Sometimes the "why" is more important than the "what."
The media was interested in Diana for one and only one reason--money. Articles about her and photos of her sold papers and magazines. It was all about the money. Twelve years after her death, it still is.
Just shows what vulture AS*HOLES the Press is. Those cyclists all deserved to be imprisoned for murder.
Well-sad, Hayley. The Queen didn't hold a grudge, but she disliked drama, gossip and tried to avoid the personal tangles of Diana and Charles. She was wise.
From slut to saint in a matter of hours.
Only some feel that way, others do not.
shareIt saddens me to hear Diana talked about in such a disrespectful and disgusting manner. We are all humans, and we all have fault. Diana was the first to admit she had problems, emotional problems, marriage problems, life problems, etc etc. But she helped a lot of people in her lifetime. Those who were aided directly through her charity work, and then the millions who were effected just by believing in her generous spirit. I believe she was a kind soul. Why call her a slut? Why can't we credit her for her kindness?
shareVery true, Park. How tangled lives are: I can see all too easily how Charles's love turned his head, how Diana's pain led to her own mistakes, how Elizabeth began with fondness for Diana, but eventually they fell away from each other like so many of the royals with Diana.
share"Why call her a slut?"
Bingo!
shareWhat would you call Charles? He wasn't faithful either.
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
She had numerous affairs while he at least was with one women.She knowingly knowingly slept with married men which resulted in several divorces all the while playing the victim.
shareYes she did because her husband abandoned her after Harry was born. She could have chosen to remain celibate, but she didn't. She was a healthy, vital woman. You didn't answer my question.
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Alright then, I would call him a coward for not standing up to his parents and marrying what he thought was a stable, nice girl he could live with. With that and, Diana was still a manipulative, mentally ill, hypocritical slut.
shareDiana was young and didn't know what she was getting herself into. She thought she had a real marriage but in reality she was only there to give some offspring. Women scorned do some of the most ridiculous things to get the attention of their lovers. We've all seen it.
What they should have done was sit her down and let her know from the beginning that this is how it's gonna be and this is how you need to act, so prepare yourself.
Whatever one feels about Diana, and however the Queen felt privately, you have to remember the impressions that formed Elizabeth's personality. She grew up watching her uncle David letting everything about his personal life hang out. The papers in the UK at the time weren't publishing the pictures until late the game, but he had not tried very hard to keep from being photographed in public with Wallace - there had been many pictures in foreign papers. His idea of being incognito was signing into a hotel as the Duke of Lancaster (this is not a joke). Elizabeth's growing years were honed on the monarchy's efforts to recover from the disaster of Edward VIII's abdication and the devasation of WWII.
When Diana died, it had been barely a year into trying to recover from the disaster of Charles and Diana's divorce (not to mention Andrew and Sarah's), and Diana had let her a lot of her personal hang out there too. The Queen had no way to win in this situation anyway; if she had on Day One jumped on the Spencer family's wishes to have a private funeral, she would have been criticsed for taking advantage of Diana's popularity (or notoriety, depending on who you talk to) to stage a pulbic performance to enhance "The Firm"'s reputation. Notice that the Spencer family quickly reversed gears when publicity built and suddenly it became the Royal Family's fault that Diana's funeral was going to be private.
But she did leave it too long, considering the public's reaction to Diana's death. Though as she says in the movie, that's the way she was brought up. To endure grief silently, to subsume your emotions in duty, besides her instinct to insulate her grandsons from exposure that could only have been traumatic to them.
I remember being on Yahoo Chat when this all happened, and people's overwhelming anger and indignation that Diana would not have a state funeral. I thought, Good lord, and tried to explain a few times the she would not have be entitled to a state funeral even if she were still married to Charles! But no one wanted to hear that. I was shocked and upset while waiting for news all that night after the wreck was announced - I was at work at first and people came into the store because they knew we had TV on, came in simply to stand together and wait for news. It was unlike anything we've ever seen or will again. Nobody knew how to react - how could the Queen?
Nobody knew how to react
And most people reacted in the wrong way and have continued to do so ever since. That is Diana's real legacy - the death of the British stiff upper lip. Suddenly we are a nation of whingers and professional victims. Broadcaster and travel writer Stuart Maconie put it better than I possibly could: -
[Since Diana]....we are that bit quicker to blub, quicker to take offence, quicker to shout the odds, quicker to complain, quicker to tell people exactly what we think of them. Every day, hours of the output of supposed news networks is given over to phone-ins in which the dim and bigoted, the ill-informed bore who nonetheless is 'entitled to his opinion', the single-issue nutter and the monomaniac fundamentalist vie to see who can shout the loudest. And when the shouting day is done, we watch TV shows in which people's dreams are dashed by sniggering juries. If you don't enjoy this shift, you are elitist, you are anti-democratic. Except this is not Democracy. It's Ochilocracy, as the Greeks called it. Rule by mobile vulgaris, the easily movable crowd, or, in short, the mob. - from "Adventures on the High Teas, in Search of Middle England"
The church may shout but Darwin roars
The core problem is the media in the midst of these emotional bores: look at those animals. They made Diana miserable and condemned her while claiming to love her, they chased her to her death, then they hounded her family and in-laws and acted like THEY treated her atrociously. Gee, why did Elizabeth want to keep things private again? Amoral, disgusting pigs.
share
Very good post.
______________________________________
The higher you fly, the faster you fall.
Could some of the difference lie in their approaches to parenting? It seems that Diana was a good mother who successfully raised her boys to be King and "2nd person." Can the same be said of the Queen and Prince Philip? It seems that the Queen and Philip's oldest son has not been a great success as a royal successor and that William, the product of Diana's rearing will be.
shareTalk about bias. Charles has grown to be a great man who does a great job in his charities and making things public he feels need to be discussed. He is smart, educated and is now happily married to the love of his life. The two things he did wrong was marry a girl he didn't know and then sleep with a married woman, all things he has remedied. Charles is definitely a son to be proud of; you also seem to forget that Charles had a hand in raising William and Harry and did so alone for half their lives.
I'm not reading your manifesto,keep your damn posts short!
The Queen might not be the warmest woman in the world, but she didn't deserve that type of treatment. I can distinctively remember the summer of 1997. The media was having a field day with Diana. If you want an honest interpretation of how Diana was viewed by the media think about Michael Jackson and Mel Gibson combined - that's pretty much how it was. They were obsessed with her. I can remember a front page story of the National Enquirer (for what its worth) and the title read "Di makes love!" She was in the ocean swimming in a bathing suit and there was a blurry picture of her and Dodi hugging by the looks of it. Strange, the media can never get a clear picture huh?
That was honestly a week before her death. Then I was watching Saturday Night Live when I heard the news broke. Honestly, I swear on my life I thought the news clip of Diana being "hurt" in a car crash was just a bit on SNL. I thought "man they really are going too far with her." Then I realized it was real news. I thought "ah, she probably just stubbed her toe, you know how the media overreacts." Then minutes later............Di is reported dead.
It was a shocking event. A moment that a generation never forgets. I woke up my parents and my sister from bed because this was news that just was THAT big.
But the phony media were at it the second she died. The same clowns who bombarded her and made up lies about her all of the sudden had an epiphany. Everyone wrote nice things about her, making you wonder why they didn't do this in the first place, you know, maybe she wouldn't be dead right now
Amen Jonathan! The media butchered both women, and as soon as they realized how attached the people were to Diana, they pedestalized her and made the queen their sacrificial goat.
share[deleted]
Exactly, and I can SO clearly see and appreciate both Diana and Elizabeth's points of view and situation. The queen did care about Diana's situation, but hated the poisonous media and what she knew they'd do with it.
shareImagine you have a borderline personality / a histrionic in your family that goes public with pretty much everything going on around in your home and you have tabloids / newspapers turning it into a daily soap and you are bothered with it 24 /7. And when you come to think of it, you realize there is nothing you can do about it.
I think the metaphor of that hunted deer not only applied to Diana - who CHOSE to be in the public eye - but also to the queen herself.
She and the rest of the monarchy hated her because she became more famous then the monarchy itself. Maybe it is envy and the fact that the country NO the whole world glorified her more then the royal family.
share[deleted]