hate for Diana


I have noticed some of the postings have spewed really personal hatred not of the movie but of Diana herself. Why? Some of it is just ugly and mean. What does she represent to you that you have to say such things? Yes, she was rich and she was famous, and not for anything all that great. She did try to do some good things and she made some bad choices. I think if she had realized what a bad deal she would have with Charles, she might not have married him.
Charles wasn't honest with Diana about what he wanted and he wasn't honest with the British people either. All the joy and celebration because he married a local girl and the truth was he didn't want her and he didn't have the spine to admit what he did want until after he was married. And then to expect Diana to just accept it and be quiet. So she rebelled and made a scene, big surprise. Not a reason to hate her, after all, how does this affect you personally? Would you have done any different?

reply

[deleted]

I agree as well. Thumbs up from me too.




reply

I'm glad you wrote this. Absolutely agree!

reply

The meanest and most unfair thing is that these ugly people, film critics included, have now transplanted their hatred of Diana on the movie and the most decent and talented actress Naomi Watts who played Diana in it, and collectively killed the otherwise excellently-made film.


reply

There is of course the possibility that this movie truly sucks, and that people too young to have 'known' Princess Diana just dislike the movie just for the movie itself. A movie which, by the way, is horrible.

reply

The critics have said they wanted a more epic detailed view of Diana particularly her failings. so this movie didn't give them what they wanted. Simple, sad, impossible love stories are a hard sell in today's action oriented market. This was a difficult subject for big screen treatment and probably would have been better received if it had been done for television. If you like the actors and accept the basic premise, you will like the movie. If you didn't like Diana herself or the actors or perhaps think of Diana as sacred or more epic. I doubt you will enjoy it. There seems to be a lot of projection onto Diana the person and Diana the movie that has little to do with the reality of what they are. A simple sad love story about a human being who made some poor choices and was pursued.

reply

People can't seem to step out of the way of their egos enough to recognize her as the extraordinary human being she was. But a lot of it comes down from the top too. The establishment hates nothing more than a political populist, a "hero of the people". Since they are so vastly unpopular themselves, they hope that you will see someone who martyred herself for the sake of humanity as being all messed up and basically more or less just like them - corrupt and selfish - and most people fall for it. They don't to be challenged by someone who was braver and more evolved than they are, and who lost her life because of it, so they just throw her in the trash with everyone else.


"Someone's got to go out there and love people and show it" - Princess Diana

reply

Diana's life was more than just a "tragic" love story...come on. She was a mother, a humanitarian, an ambassador, a leader, a friend, a sister, a hero.

It would have been better to make a film about the MANY aspects of her life and honor her as a hero like Martin Luther King, Gandhi, JFK, or Eleanor Roosevelt.

Her life was a bittersweet story of a hero who changed the world and who died too soon and is still honored today. It is a story where her loved ones, especially her sons carry on her fine legacy and her fine work today.

reply

This is a TV movie no matter how old you are. It's *beep* terrible beyond belief.

I've seriously not seen a movie this bad in a long time. How embarrassing for Naomi Watts to have acted in this. I don't even think she is acting. She gave up because she knew what a bomb this would be.

It's an awful film.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

I agree

reply

can't agree with more

reply

Agreed!
I love Diana. She was a good woman.

reply

Diana knew all about Camilla even before the engagement, but as Stephen Barry (Charles's late valet who was sacked by Diana in 1982 and who died of AIDS in 1987) once said, "She wanted Charles and she got him. He didn't stand a chance."
It was wrong of Charles to cheat, but the Princess took fifty percent of the blame for the breakdown of her marriage and she admitted as much in November 1985 to Panorama interviewer Martin Bashir. She also admitted that she had been unfaithful as well with James Hewitt, but she denied other affairs.

You have to be kidding to believe that Diana would not have married Prince Charles anyway. She walked up that aisle with visions of passion, hope, power and glory. She was jubilant and not a "lamb to the slaughter." And enormous pressure was put on the Prince to marry her lovely ladyship by both the media and the public.

Although Diana was a great humanitarian and an international icon, the North American media has put her to rest permanently. Marilyn Monroe and JFK are all the rage now. Next month, we will be inundated with endless stories about the assassination in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, and no doubt some journalists will be tasteless enough to mention the President's alleged affair with Monroe, which I don't believe happened.

On a brighter note, I wish to congratulate Kate and Wills on the christening today of their baby boy, who is lucky to have been born into such a historic dynasty, whose roots trace back to the Dark Ages more than fifteen centuries past. Among Prince Charles's ancestors was the great King Charlemagne of France, who was also murdered and whose murder (like JFK's) was never solved. I am so relieved that Diana's car crash never became as big as the Kennedy Assassination, which is ironic because they didn't have the internet back then, the global village, and hundreds of cable channels.

Baby Prince George is fortunate to have Prince Charles as a grandfather, a view Diana herself might have had had she lived to middle-age. She would have softened her views by now and been a wonderful grandmother.

reply

Neither she not Charles are innocent yet why such hate for her? By the way I am not kidding about Diana not marrying Charles, if she were better informed. I do think she might have been deluding herself about him. Also did he really have to marry her? He still got Camilla in the end and it doesn't seemed to have cost him anything that he wanted.

reply

It has cost him a lot in terms of public approval and acclaim, all of which went immediately to Diana once he married her. He has never recovered from the collective rejection and ridicule he received due to the amount of massive adulation Diana received for those sixteen years she was at the apex of international society. This is what destroyed their marriage and drove him into the arms of his mistress.

Even now, because he insisted upon marrying Camilla and making an honest Duchess of her, the people want the crown to skip a generation and be placed promptly upon William's head, something I'm certain Waity Katie wants as well even if she never says so except to herself.

There is not hate for Diana on my part, just disappointment. She knew Charles (like JFK) was well set in his ways, yet she wanted the power, fame, and glory of being a crown princess. When she became one, she was automatically elevated into the collective equivalent of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, and Princess Grace.

It was not surprising that this went to her head. The aura of the Windsor dynasty was as powerful for Diana as the Kennedy mystique was for the young Jackie Bouvier, who married JFK for his wealth and ultimate prospect of becoming First Lady. This does not mean that I think (or want anyone else to think) of the two most famous women of the last century any less than they should be remembered. They were only human after all, like Prince Charles and the morally challenged JFK.

But Diana would have been mad as hell if Charles hadn't proposed (even with Camilla hovering in the background), and according to many sources, the Catholic Jackie would have divorced the not-so-Catholic JFK if he hadn't become President in 1960.

reply

Ineresting comparison of Diana and Jackie. There do seem to be a lot of similarities.

reply

She might have been mad as hell but I think she would have recovered. The social circle Diana was in would have produced someone else, maybe Dodi or Hasnat a little sooner, (or not). Could Charles have married Camilla instead and would the British people respected him for doing it then? Jackie might have divorced JFK but as we saw she was a survivor and did make a life and career of her own.

reply

But Diana would have been mad as hell if Charles hadn't proposed (even with Camilla hovering in the background)...


Diana wouldn't have been "mad," but yes, she would have been disappointed and hurt, shedding loads of tears as she so easily did...then later realized that she'd saved herself a lot of heartbreak and pain.

So many tears Diana wept over Charles...just so many tears the sensitive Diana couldn't stop crying.

reply

Diana knew all about Camilla even before the engagement, but as Stephen Barry (Charles's late valet who was sacked by Diana in 1982 and who died of AIDS in 1987) once said, "She wanted Charles and she got him. He didn't stand a chance."


No, Diana was NOT an aggressive woman. Stephen Barry was a liar and bitter and Diana did NOT sack him; that's tabloid rubbish.

If anything once Charles wooed Diana and charmed her with quotes from poetry and cliches from philosophy, it was Diana who had a hard time standing her ground.

I hope you don't buy the old sexist myth of the woman "seducing" and "making" the man do things.



It was wrong of Charles to cheat, but the Princess took fifty percent of the blame for the breakdown of her marriage and she admitted as much in November 1985 to Panorama interviewer Martin Bashir. She also admitted that she had been unfaithful as well with James Hewitt, but she denied other affairs


Very courageous, wonderful interview. Yes, unlike Charles, who continued to blame others for his affairs and his cruel treatment of Diana (he made really cruel catty comments about her body and often made her cry so hard), Diana owned up to her mistakes and took responsibility for them.

The only one she really had the fling with was James Hewitt...Charles and his spin doctors and the tabloid lies made it SEEM as if Diana were having dozens of affairs and sleeping with twenty or so men during the marriage, which is a blatant lie.

Diana sure was frightened and had several nightmares the night before the interview and during the interview, had to swallow a couple of times, fought back tears twice, but courageously plowed on ahead with dignity and fortitude.


You have to be kidding to believe that Diana would not have married Prince Charles anyway. She walked up that aisle with visions of passion, hope, power and glory.


True, she did have visions of passion and hope, but not of power or glory; she was much too shy for that. She had dreams of a happy family life, raising wonderful children with a loving husband and of creating a new future for the Monarchy and putting the Monarchy back in touch with the people.

She deeply dreamed of making the world a better place with her husband there with her, of both of them improving the lives of people around them and putting a human face back on the Monarchy.

How crushing it was for her sensitive heart when she realized how shallow the man she so loved was and that he did not share that vision at all, but was too self-centered to understand her dream of reaching out to humanity.



Although Diana was a great humanitarian and an international icon, the North American media has put her to rest permanently.


True, she's at rest, but she is NOT forgotten...I live in the States and I see LOADS of articles and pictures of her almost every day.

This great lady will NEVER, NEVER be forgotten.




Baby Prince George is fortunate to have Prince Charles as a grandfather, a view Diana herself might have had had she lived to middle-age. She would have softened her views by now and been a wonderful grandmother.


What grandfather???? Charles has not been around much at all. Sure he visits from time to time, but when it comes to George and the coverage, Wills talks about his MUM much more than his dad.

Magazines showed dozens of pics of DIANA along with Wills, Kate, and George, but very FEW of Charles being this doting grandfather.

Diana DID live to middle age; she was THIRTY-SIX, not a young woman anymore. Her sons were nearly grown, not little boys anymore. Diana herself had developed a few brow and mouth lines in her middle age and was close to menopause.

And what "softened" views? Diana did have strong views about certain things, especially when it came to improving the plight of humanity and I am sure her legacy is passing this on to her grandson.

Her boys sure have carried on her legacy; her influence on them is visible and indelible. Diana was a fine hero in changing the Monarchy forever; Wills is a FAR different sort of husband and father than Charles ever was.

reply

There is much more coverage of JFK and Marilyn in the States than Diana, and the Naomi Watts film will bomb big time.

reply

I suspect the film will probably tank; agreed there...it's NOT an accurate portrayal of Diana at all. Of course there's more coverage of Marilyn and Micheal than of Diana.

Diana was not American; she was not a performer, and she was not of the Hollywood crowd like the other two.

Trying to compare Diana with either Marilyn or Micheal is like mixing apples with green beans...no comparison. Diana is mostly unique...but roughly, she's closer to the likes of Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt (although she lived full term), and Anne Frank.

We also shall see once the 25, then the 50th anniversary of Diana's death comes; those will be the milestones.

reply

Don't know why you would say she was a "Great Lady"
and people speak of her humanitarianism... she was paid a huge allowance, for that she HAD to take up some charities, it was her job so to speak.
People seem to think she did it out of the goodness of her heart, she did
it out of duty.

reply

Lots of reasons...first off, she actually was doing this humanitarian outreach work since she was a TEENAGER...LONG before she ever became famous.

The fact that the likes of MOTHER TERESA and MAGGIE THATCHER and the BLAIRS were good friends of hers is telling that her outreach work was NOT just some empty, hollow act.

Unless you want to totally try to discredit Mother Teresa, another great humanitarian and make us all laugh by implying the she was somehow "fooled" by any "act."

So face reality...Diana CARED about people.

reply


Pretty easy to sit and make up stuff isn't it?? She did not do humanitarian work
as a teenager! She "met" Mother Teresa, they weren't pals.
The Blairs? Margret Thatcher, of course, they were expected to kiss ALL
the royal asses. Get your head out of yours.

Diana was well paid for the charities that were required of her to take up.
It was her job.

reply

Taking up charities is one thing. Actually making a difference is quite another.

I remember very well when AIDS first came onto the scene and people were afraid that it could be spread through casual contact. A friend of mine came to me one day and told me he had AIDS and, when I hugged him, he started to cry, saying I was the only person who had done that. Princess Diana was the reason I had absolutely no qualm about comforting my friend, for in removing her glove to shake hands with an AIDS patient she made it clear that the disease was NOT spread through casual contact. How many people found themselves willing to comfort those in need thanks to the Princess's seemingly simple yet profound gesture, a gesture she was under no pressure to make and which she was actually advised not to do?

Like removing her glove, the walk through the cleared (hopefully) minefield in Angola was another example of the lengths Princess Diana would go to to promote causes she strongly believed in and your passing off her charitable work as just a job she had to do is more than mean spirited. It's ignorant.

reply

I'm sorry, I believe you are wrong. I have a story to tell you regarding Diana and Charles. My best friend, who grew up in London, worked at a children's hospital/clinic. One day, unexpectedly Charles and Diana got out of their car, with more cars filled with security. They both entered the hospital, but it was only Diana who went to visit everyone. Prince Charles lingered in the hallway waiting for Diana to return with his security detail nearby. He shook some Doctors and nurses hands but never visited any of the sick children. She talked to the children, and I really believed she loved children, this visit was not out of duty for the Queen or a role she had to play for becoming a royal. Since it was an unplanned stop there were no paparazzi around to take their photographs. They stayed for about 40 mins. I don't remember the year this happened but William was born, she was still carrying weight from the pregnancy and Harry wasn't and I don't remember the years they were born. But my BBF said she remember this beautiful little girl who had cancer and was dying, gave one of the flower arrangements to Diana. She kissed the little girl on the forehead and left to meet up with Charles. Diana was touched by the little girl and told Charles, look what one of the children gave me, Charles was irritated and said let's go. Yeah, he's a great humanitarian when the royal camera's and paparazzi are around to capture that moment on film, not so much when they aren't.

If she visited these various charities out of duty to the crown, then why aren't we seeing Charles and Camilla doing the same thing now? I could only find a few articles on their visits to children's hospital in a visit to the US, one in Maryland, NY and St Jude's hospital. So, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall has visited children's hospitals but not with the same drive and passion Diana had done. Prince Harry has picked up the same drive and passion from his mother. I'm sure William has as well. But, to say she only did it for her duty to the Queen, that's not true at all. When they divorce that duty was no longer an obligation to fulfill for Diana. She kept her title "Duchess of Wales" but no longer Her Royal Highness. Diana was President or Patron to over 100 charitable causes. But it was her work with land mines and her work on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients that I admired the most. She was the first celebrity to hold and hug an AIDS patient. Back in the mid to late 80's, there was still a lack of widespread education on how AIDS was contracted and many people believed that AIDS was contagious through casual contact. She broke down that stigma by holding an AIDS patient in her arms. That WAS NOT out of duty to the Queen nor was the land mines issue. Would the Queen have done the same? Of course not, Prince Charles? No, he hated every minute he spent at that children's hospital, he couldn't wait to leave and whining "let's go, Mother is expecting us." Some people are genuine for caring for others and just like Mother Theresa, Diana's was genuine. It wasn't about the cameras or the publicity.

reply

Yes, thank you, Scootergirl and Eileen!!! So true!!!!

Prince Fool Charles was the one who faked for the camera while Diana was genuine. Most people see thru Prince Fool's act, which is why he's bitter now.

reply

Diana DID live to middle age; she was THIRTY-SIX, not a young woman anymore. Her sons were nearly grown, not little boys anymore. Diana herself had developed a few brow and mouth lines in her middle age and was close to menopause.


You don't know what you are talking about... maybe if she lived in the middle ages, 36 is not middle aged. In the US, the death rate and age at time of death is about 85 years old or older depending on a person heritage, and from an article I recently read from the CDC, poverty/wealth (I questioned that but the article said that although we have Obamacare that doesn't necessarily means they get the same healthcare the wealthy can afford, clean living no drinking alcohol, drugs (both legal through abuse and illegal), smoking will shorten ones life. I don't know the stats in the UK but I can't believe they would be different than in the US.

Menopause? Not even close. Most women enter menopause in their very late 40's to early fifties. Diana had at least 15 more years before she hit menopause and she still could've had another child if she wanted another one. I liked her laugh lines, it gave her character and I would prefer that to botox injections and plastic surgery to retain her youthful appears. She was still beautiful when she passed away.

Nearly grown? William was 15 and Harry was 13, not even close to being an adult. They were still children.

reply

You don't know what you are talking about... maybe if she lived in the middle ages, 36 is not middle aged.


It’s at the beginning of middle age. Diana was no spring chicken fresh out her teens anymore; she had grown and matured and was raising two fine young men into young adulthood.




In the US, the death rate and age at time of death is about 85 years old or older…


True in England. It's especially true for women. Remember that women live longer than men on the average. Diana was a very healthy, healthy woman and had she not had the misfortune of her accident due to that incompetent bodyguard, she would have been one of those women who lived probably into her nineties.

I do agree that she died way, way, way too soon; Diana was NOT some frail thing, despite her high emotional sensitivity.




…depending on a person heritage…


It’s more than just merely heritage that determines one’s longevity. It’s a mix of luck, genes, lifestyle, how famous you are (the famous are at higher risk of assassination and accidents), your eating habits, your exercise habits, your access to affordable medical care, and gender.

Women, in general outlive men by about five to seven years; people who have easy access to affordable healthcare like Scandinavia, Canada, and England are likely to live longer because they can get preventive healthcare and treat illness early.

Many developed Asian countries enjoy great longevity because they have mostly healthy diets of fish and nutritional foods low in carbs, cholesterol and transfat.

I was reading an article on the oldest living person today and it is an Italian woman (in Italy) who is 116 and it made me smile.

If Diana had not had her misfortune, she could have been one of those people who lived to be 100 or so because she had access to healthcare in England, she mostly ate properly (she received treatment for her bulimia before it did any real damage to her skinny body), she exercised, she was a woman (very, very female with probably high estrogen) and by good genes, she had a very, very strong physical constitution.



Menopause? Not even close. Most women enter menopause in their very late 40's to early fifties.


MOST women…but not ALL women. Diana went through a late puberty in her teens…I’ve read that girls who start their periods later than average USUALLY go through an earlier menopause on average.

I know some women who started menopause as early as their late thirties. It’s not an overnight process and it’s NOT the same for every woman.

Diana most likely had not started menopause yet, but she was NOT that far away from the BEGINNING of menopause.

Like I say again…Diana was NOT a young ingénue fresh out of her teens.



Diana had at least 15 more years before she hit menopause…


Not likely…more like five or ten years...remember that menopause does not happen in one day; it slowly occurs over the course of a few years.




…she still could've had another child if she wanted another one.


Probably…but she wasn’t going to at this stage in her life. And she was certainly mature enough to avoid any accidental pregnancy with a man she had only been dating a few weeks.

Diana was NOT a teenager and she knew how to use birth control properly. Not to mention that she would not be foolish enough to accidentally bring a child into the world not having proper child care arrangement in place and not knowing what kind of a dad Dodi would make.




I liked her laugh lines, it gave her character…


Me too! Now there I agree with you. It’s silly when photographers like the one from Vogue try to airbrush her facial lines and wrinkles away.

I loved the wrinkles she had between her brows and on her forehead when she worried, cried, or was nervous.

Also loved the laugh lines around her mouth and huge eyes when she laughed or smiled…she had huge, Irish, rather almond-shaped eyes that revealed her emotions so vividly.

And I love that her rather thick brows developed the capacity to slant upward at the bridge of her long nose; that was so sweet.

It gets tiring when some people insist that she was this young spring chicken with “no” lines on her face.




I would prefer that to botox injections and plastic surgery to retain her youthful appears.


Me too! People who try to stay “young”-looking forever (like that bimbo Prince Fool Charles is now unhappily married to), end up looking fake and plastic.

I cannot ever imagine Diana spoiling her sweet, round, lightly freckled face that way…Diana was fashionable and lovely, but NEVER vain.

I love that despite her love of fashion, she was NEVER above allowing herself to get wet, wrinkles, rumpled, or mussed, especially when she was with her beloved sons.




She was still beautiful when she passed away.


She was still lovely when she died, that much is true, but it was more than that…she had a huge heart and deep compassion that made her so attractive worldwide.

I think even if her face had been positively homely, she still would have been considered very attractive, regardless of what she looked like physically.

And even with her fairly attractive features, she actually wasn’t “perfect”-looking physically; she had a flat chest, slightly bucked teeth, a huge, long nose, and a light snowfall of freckles on her cheeks and nose.

I think that fact that she was no imitation of Brigette Bardott or anyone like that made her approachable.


Nearly grown? William was 15 and Harry was 13, not even close to being an adult.


Wills was three short years away from young adulthood. Harry, true, was further away, but neither one of her sons were little boys anymore.




They were still children.


True, they were still children and were not quite grown yet, but they are not toddlers anymore either; they have vivid, happy memories of their mum, especially Wills. Both boys were TEENAGERS when Diana died.

There is a great difference between a ten-year-old and a fifteen-year-old; the boys' childhoods were ALMOST over.

reply

Me too! People who try to stay “young”-looking forever (like that bimbo Prince Fool Charles is now unhappily married to), end up looking fake and plastic.


Or desperate. the more celebrities try to hide their age and do all that desperate stuff, filling their lips with that crap such as Melanie Griffith which looks like she advertising she can suck a tailpipe and not feel a thing. But, she would come in handy if a boat was sinking, too bad she wasn't around when the Titanic sank. I get that Hollywood and being a celebrity brings and sometimes showcases someone's insecurities. Diana was a bit insecure (and I still think she had no idea what she was getting into), probably not at the end of her life, but certainly when she married Charles. But like in Melanie's case, it was like being hit by a brick flashing neon lights reading PLASTIC SURGERY. Many actresses such as Jamie Lee Curtis, Julianne Moore, Salma Hayek, Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster and Helen Mirren (I just watch her in Prime Suspect) are all very attractive woman who have aged gracefully and look natural, their aging and no matter how hard you try, you cannot stop time and those actresses know that. Lines and wrinkles gives them character and I prefer that to Nicole Kidman (enough with the Botox, you're aging and life suck) but she's still a beautiful woman, Meg Ryan, Renee Zellweger, Demi Moore, Madonna (no longer attractive or sexy like she once was) and the grand dame of plastic surgery the late Joan Rivers (who looked like a failed science project). Everyone ages, its how you deal with it and learn to accept it gracefully that I think is better. As Joan learned too late, everytime you go under the knife and you are put under there is a risk that you might not wake up.

Wills was three short years away from young adulthood. Harry, true, was further away, but neither one of her sons were little boys anymore.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me, they were still, very sheltered young boys who had to learn about their mom's death so openly for all the world to see. It still breaks my heart to see her coffin with Harry's letter/note to his mother "mummy." Too young to lose an important loving, openly affectation, caring mother. I have found in my life that people who are sheltered tend to be immature. I don't know either boys, but their grandmother is a very controlling woman and I'm not sure if that was a good thing or bad. Both of her sons turned out to be great men and I'm sure she would be so proud of them even in spite of Charles who was a wimp and weak and a domineering grandmother. Harry seems to be happy, has fun and was here this last week reliving fun memories to his mother when they went down the log flume. To me, Wills seems to have the weight on his shoulders. I would party with Harry he seems like a happy well adjusted young man but a helluva lot of fun.

She was still lovely when she died, that much is true, but it was more than that…she had a huge heart and deep compassion that made her so attractive worldwide.


And an embarrassment to the Queen. Hugging and showing open affection isn't her forte. Diana was Diana, if she loved and care for someone she openly let them know she cared and loved that person. Something that was foreign for Charles, his father and mother. Andrew was a bit more open then the rest of the family.

She was what my dad would say "attractive" she wasn't perfect her eyes were too close together and not symmetrical, but what was inside her soul reflected on her outside and that's is why she was so loved and admired.

I still have my doubts about Dodi. I think she loved that doctor she was seeing. It might've been what his father wanted but I don't think she loved him.

Whether or not the Queen liked her open affection or not, but her love and caring for other human beings change the way the monarchy will be because both Will and Harry are more like their mother then their father and grandmother. It's something that was so antiquated, from the 1,500's. I sit in my castle looking down at you, while Diana was walking among the people while the Queen was looking out a window. I'm glad that Wills married a commoner and Diana would have approved his choice.

reply

Or desperate.


Which is what Camplasticmilla is...she knows her marriage to Prince Fool Charles has now gone way south.




Many actresses such as Jamie Lee Curtis, Julianne Moore, Salma Hayek, Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster and Helen Mirren (I just watch her in Prime Suspect) are all very attractive woman who have aged gracefully and look natural, their aging and no matter how hard you try, you cannot stop time and those actresses know that. Lines and wrinkles gives them character and I prefer that…


How true! Diana would have also aged gracefully as well had she not had her misfortune.




Everyone ages, it's how you deal with it and learn to accept it gracefully that I think is better.


True...something Diana had accepted. I can NEVER imagine her ruining her sweet, round face with plastic surgery.




…Joan Rivers (who looked like a failed science project).


How true...so does Camplasticmilla. For me, they were still, very sheltered young boys who had to learn about their mom's death so openly for all the world to see.




I have found in my life that people who are sheltered tend to be immature. I don't know either boys...


No, they were NOT sheltered; Diana was the one who made sure of that.

Despite their privileged surroundings, Diana was a hands-on mum who made sure they were exposed to the "commoner" world, made sure they were able to mingle and get along with "commoner" people, including other children who were "commoners."

She often took them into hospitals and homeless projects to have them see firsthand all the people that were truly unfortunate, so they would NOT grow up sheltered in some Royal rosy glass bubble and would not be "immature."

Diana raised her sons with lots of love and warmth, but did NOT overindulge the boys or shelter them from life's hardships and setbacks.

She also taught them to clean up after themselves, despite the maids and servants; she never allowed them to be lazy or to take their luxuries for granted.

Diana raised her sons to be MATURE, responsible young men; she saw how immature and truly sheltered Prince Fool Charles and some other aristocratic people were and did NOT want her sons growing up that way.

Diana, who never took a long life for granted, actually taught her sons that early death sometimes happens and along with her siblings, prepared for that possibility.

She knew how high-profile she was and knew what had happened to Gandhi, JFK, and MLK and knew that she was not immune to such a misfortune.

Diana did lots of reading in her life...she also secretly sat down with her siblings, closest friends, and her mum and asked them to be strong and please look after her sons in the event of her premature death.

She updated her will and gave everyone copies...she knew that her ex-husband was truly sheltered and immature and might not be able to cope on his own with two grieving boys.

Her siblings, mum, and closest friends pledged on a copy of the Bible right there in one of KP's back kitchens

And trust me that the Queen did NOT "hate" Diana, contrary to popular tabloid hearsay...Diana and the Queen met privately also and Queen Elizabeth promised to help with the sons also.

At least you admit that you don't know Diana's sons unlike some people who pretend to "know" somebody.





...but their grandmother is a very controlling woman and I'm not sure if that was a good thing or bad.


Both...Queen Elizabeth was on Diana's side by the end of Diana's life.

Diana knew she could trust her former mother-in-law to be strong for her sons in the event of her death just as she could trust her beloved siblings and a set of dear friends.

Diana was NOT the lone, pathetic waif that some drama addicts like to romanticize her as; she had MANY allies and her sons knew it.

True, they were grief-stricken when she died and Wills needed a bit of sedation to get through the funeral, but they knew they were NOT alone with the immature Prince Fool Charles.





It still breaks my heart to see her coffin with Harry's letter/note to his mother "mummy."


Me also...but to me, it's bittersweet, especially now that her sons are able to talk about the great times they had with their mum and take with them the wonderful way she raised her sons.

It's especially heartwarming to see Wills as a father and husband today raising his children exactly the way Diana brought up Wills and Harry.

It's especially delightful that Kate has great admiration for her mum-in-law and is also mirroring many of her methods.





Too young to lose an important loving, openly affectation, caring mother.


I agree that both sons lost their mum far too young...Harry especially needed his mum...but they were not too young to have felt her influence and they can today take solace in the happy memories they have of their mum.

It's bittersweet for them, but they honor their mum as the hero she was...not endlessly lament her as this "tragic victim."





Both of her sons turned out to be great men.


Agreed there...and it's thanks to Diana's wonderful upbringing...so no, Diana's life was NOT a waste nor was she this "tragic," helpless waif.

She died prematurely like many other great leaders, but had LIVED and had many accomplishments in her life.

She did NOT die as this young ingénue fresh out of her teens; her sons, while they lost her way too young, were NOT infants or toddlers, and Diana was NOT this huge "tragedy" whose life was "wasted."

She is a fallen hero…NOT a “tragic” figure.




I'm sure she would be so proud of them even in spite of Charles who was a wimp and weak and a domineering grandmother.


I am sure Diana is proud of them from Heaven...Queen Elizabeth may have been domineering, but she grew to respect Diana toward the end of her life.

Queen Elizabeth kept her end of the promise and made sure that her grandsons were not left alone at the mercy of Prince Fool Charles' instability.

Thank Heaven Diana's sons spent most of their time away at school and did not live with Prince Fool Charles full-time.

And Prince Fool Charles had to move back in with his parents anyway after Diana died, so he was under his mum's roof once again, so when the sons came on weekends, the Queen was there.

Not to mention that Prince Fool Charles had no other option but to let Diana's siblings be part of Wills and Harry's lives also.

Diana was healthy and had a naturally strong physical constitution, but never took a long life for granted; she knew she was not immune to misfortune or being gunned down, so she planned well and prepared her family, including her sons.

Her sons were NOT sheltered or shielded from hardship...Diana was a very intelligent lady who planned well.




Harry seems to be happy, has fun and was here this last week reliving fun memories to his mother when they went down the log flume.


Yes, I've seen that...Harry has such happy memories of his beloved mum...he certainly doesn't think of his mum as this huge "tragedy" nor does he think of her life as any "waste."

So, let's follow suit and honor Diana in the same way. I am sure that's what Diana would want.




To me, Wills seems to have the weight on his shoulders.


Sometimes...he’s a LOT like Diana...quiet, introverted, and a bit shy. But he also has many fond memories of his mother.

I understand that he and Kate have told their children about their grandmother and are sharing the many videos they have of Diana. Wills definitely does NOT think of his mum as this forlorn, "tragic" figure with any "wasted" life.

He and Kate are celebrating and honoring Diana and her LIFE by raising their kids like Diana raised Wills and Harry.

And both sons and Kate are further honoring...NOT lamenting or bemoaning...Diana by carrying on her outreach work.

And an embarrassment to the Queen.

Not anymore. If anyone was and still is an "embarrassment" to the Queen, it is Prince Fool Charles and that airheaded Camplasticmilla.

The Queen today is quite proud of Diana and also her sons whom Diana raised well.





Diana was Diana, if she loved and care for someone she openly let them know she cared and loved that person. Something that was foreign for Charles, his father and mother.


How true...and the lack of affection Prince Fool Charles had been brought up with was alien to Diana.

Diana, despite the divorce and some tumult in her childhood, actually came from a mostly loving family.






She was what my dad would say "attractive" she wasn't perfect her eyes were too close together and not symmetrical, but what was inside her soul reflected on her outside and that's is why she was so loved and admired.


True...too many people focus on outside appearances and not enough on the person inside.

I'm glad though that you're not one of those who insists that Diana was this "perfect"-looking "model beauty."

I get tired of people carping on Diana’s looks without knowing who she was on the inside.




I still have my doubts about Dodi. I think she loved that doctor she was seeing. It might've been what his father wanted but I don't think she loved him.


Diana had actually moved on from Hasnat…she did not start her relationship with Dodi until several MONTHS after she and Hasnat parted ways.

Despite what the film depicts and contrary to popular tabloid folklore, Diana and Hasnat's parting was fairly amiable and quiet.

Sure there were tears shed, especially on the highly sensitive Diana's part, but unlike with Prince Fool Charles, there wasn't any loud drama or noise or bitterness.

Diana and Dodi were just starting out several months later and were testing the waters, so to speak.

They were not rushing into any commitment yet whatever Dodi's dad might have wished for. And they certainly were NOT racing toward marriage nor was Diana secretly "pregnant."

I hope you haven't been duped by the silly myth that Diana was allegedly "using" Dodi to "make" Hasnat jealous...because Diana was WAY too intelligent, mature, and kind-hearted for base, immature games like that.

She'd never have been mean enough to play with somebody's feelings and heart that way...she knew all too well what that was like when Prince Fool toyed with her heart with his immature games.






...her love and caring for other human beings changed the way the monarchy will be because both Will and Harry are more like their mother then their father and grandmother.


How true! And that's something to truly celebrate...that's very far from "tragic."




I'm glad that Wills married a commoner and Diana would have approved his choice.


Agreed...I am sure Diana is smiling down at them from Heaven. Without Diana, her sons wouldn't be in the wonderful place they are today and Kate, little George, and little Charlotte wouldn't be here today.

reply

I am sure Diana is proud of them from Heaven...Queen Elizabeth may have been domineering, but she grew to respect Diana toward the end of her life.


I said Charles was weak and the Queen was domineering because of an incident my best friend related to me. She was born and raised in London. When she was in her late teen’s early 20’s she worked at a clinic/hospital. One day a bunch of cars pulled up and out came Diana, Charles and their security detail. They entered the hospital, which was a children’s hospital, and Diana went to visit with the children. She didn’t think this was a scheduled stop. They stayed for about 40 mins. Diana visited every child and spent time with each one talking to them. Charles stood in the hallway, shook hands with doctors and nurses, but never went near one of the children, which she thought was weird and odd. Why come to a children’s hospital and not visit the sick children there?

There was this pretty little girl who had brain cancer and when Diana went to visit her I think she was taken by her. Beautiful blue eyes and no hair, who was a favorite of the nurses and staff there. The little girl had numerous flower arrangements and offered one to Diana.

As they were leaving Diana told Charles, look what one of the children gave me, they’re beautiful. She said Charles could’ve care less. As Diana was thanking the doctors and staff. She heard Charles say, let’s go Mother is waiting for us. She’s not sure when it happened but Wills was born because she still had some baby weight left.

That little girl did die a few weeks later, she was terminal. I thought it was a sweet story regarding Diana and not to flatting for loser Charles. Isn’t this a job or duty for being a royal? I’ve never thought he was attractive or handsome, for me he was a black American Express (is a credit card with no limit) with ears.

I hope you haven't been duped by the silly myth that Diana was allegedly "using" Dodi to "make" Hasnat jealous...because Diana was WAY too intelligent, mature, and kind-hearted for base, immature games like that.

She'd never have been mean enough to play with somebody's feelings and heart that way...she knew all too well what that was like when Prince Fool toyed with her heart with his immature games.


No never naive, I take nothing as fact. They are silly tabloids full of fake crap, stories made up and outright lies to sell papers. I was at the store yesterday and it’s been while since I’ve seen a story about Diana but right across the headline “DIANA’S SECRET DIARIES FOUND.” So retarded that 18 years after her death they still try to sell magazines and papers with her image on them. I wasn’t a big follower of Diana and Charles story but my mom loved Diana so she generally would pick up a People magazine when Diana was on the cover. I don’t buy tabloids and probably never will but you cannot go to a check counter without seeing a tabloid papers lined up in a row. Lately, mostly Kardashian crap so I was shocked to see a story regarding Diana.

So let me ask you, what happened to Charles and Camilla? I thought he pined for her for years? Not living up to the hype? Maybe they deserved each other. Two miserable people who belong together to make the other more unhappy.

Was Diana close to the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret? I read somewhere that she had a feud with Princess Margaret during the time of the divorce from Charles. I've always wondered if that was true?

It's really a shame that Charles couldn't see what a good thing he had when he married Diana. She may have been a silly girl when she married him, she was only 20 years old but she was good person and a wonderful mother who really cared about others and certainly changed peoples lives. He could've learned from her instead of mocking her.

reply

You sound really loony. 36 is hardly middle aged or close to menopause.

Pictures of a dead woman in a magazine with pictures of the family that survived her doesn't mean very much--the children don't know her and never will. They do however, know their grandfather and grandmother.

She can't pass on her legacy to anyone, she's dead. Are you for real?

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

It's MORE than merely pictures that Diana's family has to go on...there are videos and films of their grandma galore. Not to mention the wonderful tales Diana's sons can tell George and Charlotte of their grandma's anti-landmine walk and her humanitarian work.

Not to mention the PERSONAL pics and possessions the sons have of Diana's (NOT only magazine pictures); Diana's sons knew their own mother very well.

True that NOW Diana can't pass anything on, but her sons and her other loved ones are passing her legacy on. And yes, fortunately, the grandchildren also have another set of loving grandparents in Kate's parents, who dote on them.

Thirty-six IS close to menopause for SOME women...Diana was NOT any spring chicken fresh out of her teens.

I guess also, you could also shriek on that JFK's grandkids and Michael Jackon's and Princess Grace's grandkids will never really know them either.

reply

Thirty six is nowhere near to menopause. Try forty six.

So what if there are pictures and videos and films and whatever? I have all those things of my relatives and they're still gone. You make it sound like she's some freakish ghost hovering around and talking to them.

The only one shrieking here is you, dear.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

True, the shy little mouse still is physically gone from this Earth and will always be missed by her sons, siblings, and dearest friends.

But she could be a ghost speaking to her family and friends silently...we really don't know.

Ten years is also NOT too far away from menopause...I actually did have a friend who went thru menopause from THIRTY-EIGHT thru forty-two.

But I will give you this...Diana was a VERY healthy woman and had no allergies and was rarely ill...so in actuality, in many ways, her body was very young...younger and healthier than the average thirty-six year old body.

reply

Shy little mouse? Ghost hovering around her family? Why are you always taking about how much she cried and how often people made her cry?

I think you have some serious projection issues which you're placing on the head of a dead woman. Disgusting.

reply

Because Diana was a shy little timid mouse who was afraid of her own skinny shadow in this life. She cried lots...she was extremely sensitive.

This isn't projection; it's things I saw about our sweet Diana...she was a highly sensitive person or HSP for short. She's feeling better now in the afterlife...life on Earth frightened her.

reply

You're really sick. Disgusting.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

That Jinx is the understatement of the year. The posts are incredibly bizarre to the point that I believe that she has some sort of mental disorder. I initially thought she was a troll, but I cannot fathom a person dedicating there time to write those long rants and that maybe she was merely an insane Diana fanatic. I have a sneaking suspicion she has a shrine dedicated to Diana.

reply

It's creepy. I've seen a lot on IMDb message boards, but I've never seen anyone quite this unhinged.

They seem to believe they have some weird link with Diana, unfortunately I think they're mentally ill. An erotomaniac, only the object of their fixation is dead. Very sad.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

I was initially disturbed with her posts and at one point we had a back and forth dialogue that went nowhere. I tried to highlight the oddity in her writing but I forgot that crazy people usually don't listen to reason. After failing at that I just regard her posts as somewhat amusing, I mean, who writes stuff like this

Because Diana was a shy little timid mouse who was afraid of her own skinny shadow in this life. She cried lots...she was extremely sensitive.
lol, you cant make this stuff up.

reply

What drugs are you on? Or did you stop taking drugs you should be on?

reply

How true!!! Diana was a good, good soul and did do lots for this world...darling lady. Very quiet and shy. Very, very sensitive. Charles the toad didn't deserve her.





Christine + Mary Beth forever

Roseanne + Jackie forever

Daniel + Harry forever

reply

Charles the Toad's marriage to her made her a world-class historical icon for the ages. Not bad for a toad.

reply

She would have made it some other way if not with Charles. Diana was a strong, resourceful woman. She sure would have been saved a LOT of heartache had she been able to avoid Charles.

Diana was almost like Eleanor Roosevelt and MLK.

reply

Diana was a gorgeous privileged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant who married a crown prince. Eleanor Roosevelt (one of Di's distant cousins) was also an upper-crust privileged WASP, but she lacked Diana's beauty. Martin Luther King Jr. was a black man with an enormous amount of charisma who changed history. All three of them did, but the Princess of Wales had many advantages that the other two were not blessed with. And she had more power.

I don't think Diana would have amounted to much without the benefit of marrying into the Royal Family. She might still be alive today, however.

reply

I agree she wouldn't have been as famous. She might still have helped those charities she favored but on a smaller scale and maybe more hands on. It is difficult to tell because she did marry Charles and did become famous as a direct result.

reply

I agree she wouldn't have been as famous. She might still have helped those charities she favored but on a smaller scale and maybe more hands on. It is difficult to tell because she did marry Charles and did become famous as a direct result.


Diana WAS hands-on...she sat on patients' beds, held hands, hugged, kissed, and mingled among the people she was helping. She was NOT just standing at a distance above beds and above the kids just smiling at them.

That's what made Diana's work MORE than simply "charity" work; it was her lifelong outreach work; to her the people she was reaching out to were not "charity" cases; they were merely fellow human beings who needed a hand up or encouragement.

I think she also would have been involved with the UN had she not had the misfortune of being in that accident. She and Eleanor Roosevelt sure had a lot in common.

Her outreach work was very, very similar to Eleanor's. And had she not been in that accident, she would have lived to be an old, old woman because she was strong and very healthy once she recovered from her bulimia.

reply

Diana was a gorgeous privileged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant who married a crown prince. Eleanor Roosevelt (one of Di's distant cousins) was also an upper-crust privileged WASP, but she lacked Diana's beauty. Martin Luther King Jr. was a black man with an enormous amount of charisma who changed history. All three of them did, but the Princess of Wales had many advantages that the other two were not blessed with. And she had more power.

I don't think Diana would have amounted to much without the benefit of marrying into the Royal Family. She might still be alive today, however.



Diana was not gorgeous or this great beauty. She was mildly pretty. But her huge heart and outreach work made her attractive to millions.

In many ways, Eleanor and Diana's childhoods were very similar; Eleanor came from a privileged background very similar to Diana's; both battled shyness and low self-esteem.

And Diana's childhood was FAR from easy or that much fun; her parents bitterly divorced when she was six; her father badmouthed her mother repeatedly; her mother was denied custody and was forced to walk out on the kids.

And Diana was NOT this "beautiful" child; she was just as awkward as Eleanor in childhood and went thru a VERY late puberty. She also wore braces during her early teen years.

Maybe Eleanor might not have been as famous if she had never married FDR...so Diana did NOT, NOT have any "great" advantages over Eleanor Roosevelt.

But both Diana and Eleanor, if they had not married prominent men, would have amounted to something with all their outreach work. True, their fame would have taken longer to achieve and definitely Diana would be alive today, but do give Diana more credit.

Diana would have found a way to change history; she was a strong, intelligent woman.

MLK did have the extra challenge of coping with racism, especially living in the southern US of A and yes, unlike Eleanor and Diana, did not grow up privileged, but racism notwithstanding, MLK's parents were happily married and were loving parents to all of their children, so in a way, MLK did have that advantage that Diana and Eleanor lacked.

So give up the myth that Diana had this "easy" happy life or that she was this "great beauty" who skated by on just physical appearance alone.

I think if Diana had lived, she might have become active in the UN like Eleanor; those two women had LOADS in common.

reply

And Diana's childhood was FAR from easy or that much fun; her parents bitterly divorced when she was six; her father badmouthed her mother repeatedly; her mother was denied custody and was forced to walk out on the kids.


Well, yes and no. A year before Diana was born they had lost a son, John. That stress did cause the foundation of their marriage to start breaking but they did have another child, Charles. Her mother had trouble coping with the death of John and was eventually sent to a London clinic to try to find a cause to her "problem" although I could never find out what that problem was. But, her mother had an affair with Peter Shand Kydd, who eventually married, but was the cause of their divorce. She ran off with Peter Shand Kydd. Diana lived with her mother in London during her parents' separation in 1967. However, during Christmas holidays that year, Lord Althorp refused to let Diana and her brother Charles return to London with Lady Althorp. Lord Althorp won custody of Diana and her brother with support from his former mother-in-law, Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy. In 1972, Lord Althorp began a relationship with Raine, Countess of Dartmouth, the only daughter of Alexander McCorquodale and Dame Barbara Cartland. They married in London in 1976. Diana became known as Lady Diana after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer in 1975, at which point her father moved the family from Park House to Althorp, the Spencer seat in Northampton. I get that her father was mad at his soon-to-be ex-wife and wanted to hurt her emotionally, but it's the children who suffer the most and forcing them to chose between which parent. Diana was shipped off to various boarding or finishing schools, that she hated. Diana's father never seemed likeable to me.

reply

A year before Diana was born they had lost a son, John. That stress did cause the foundation of their marriage to start breaking but they did have another child, Charles.


True there...I think the son died a few years before Diana was born.




Her mother had trouble coping with the death of John and was eventually sent to a London clinic to try to find a cause to her "problem" although I could never find out what that problem was.


I read that it was alcoholism...and after Diana died, Frances had a brief relapse for a while.




But, her mother had an affair with Peter Shand Kydd, who eventually married, but was the cause of their divorce.


Frances' relationship with Peter was not the sole cause of their divorce; there were multiple causes of their divorce.




However, during Christmas holidays that year, Lord Althorp refused to let Diana and her brother Charles return to London with Lady Althorp.


It was after Christmas, but actually Frances had brought the kids to Althorp, but then Johnny insisted on keeping the kids after the New Year and forced Frances to leave without them.

Poor sensitive Diana was so frightened. She said that she never, ever forgot the sound of her mum's footsteps ringing out the door and rattling through the gravel into the chilly January night.

Diana remembered sitting at the top of the stairs, silently weeping and fearing that she'd lost her mother forever.

Thank Heaven Frances regain visitation and later fought back and regained even more liberal visitation, so Diana didn't completely lose her beloved mum.




Lord Althorp won custody of Diana and her brother with support from his former mother-in-law, Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy.


Later Frances fought back and regained liberal visitation, so actually during school breaks and weekends, Diana spent more time with her mum than her dad and stepmum during her teen years.




In 1972, Lord Althorp began a relationship with Raine, Countess of Dartmouth, the only daughter of Alexander McCorquodale and Dame Barbara Cartland. They married in London in 1976. Diana became known as Lady Diana after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer in 1975, at which point her father moved the family from Park House to Althorp, the Spencer seat in Northampton.


True there...initially, fearful Diana was spooked by the shadows of Althorp, then she and her brother grew to love that place.





I get that her father was mad at his soon-to-be ex-wife and wanted to hurt her emotionally, but it's the children who suffer the most and forcing them to choose between which parent.


True there...it's never fair for one parent to use the children to "punish" the other parent.

I was so glad to read that Frances fought back and did not allow Johnny to ban her from her own children's lives to "punish" her.

Diana was a girl who desperately needed her mother; no mother "substitute" would do.

I'm glad Diana was able to keep up a bond with her mum all of her life and that Frances refused to be cut off from Diana or her siblings.




Diana was shipped off to various boarding or finishing schools, that she hated.


Initially, Diana wasn't keen on the idea of going away to school since many HSPs are shaken by changes in their lives.

But once she knew that she'd be going to the same schools her two older sisters had attended and that her primary school allowed small pets, she adjusted actually pretty well and made good friends at her school.

She actually had a fairly stable school history and she and her siblings went to the same primary school, then later the same secondary school, albeit her brother went to the boys' school while Diana and her sisters went to the all-girls' schools.

As a highly sensitive child and with the divorce, Diana did have some hard times in her childhood, but her entire childhood wasn't all bad.

She loved both of her parents and her siblings and asked her siblings along with her closest friends to help look after her sons in the event of her premature death since she knew that neither her ex-husband or his soon-to-be new wife were not that stable or strong.

reply

Thanks. I didn't know all of that, only what I've found on the internet. I've never read any of the books written about her. I just thought they would be too sad for me to read, I'd cry too much. I do miss her and that warm bright smile.

The son, John died on the same day he was born in 1960.

I'm curious was Charles supportive to Diana when her father passed away? I'm just curious to know what type of husband was he to her in the middle of their marriage.

reply

Thanks. I didn't know all of that, only what I've found on the internet.


Be careful about what you read on the internet; there are lots of untrue things on the internet, including untrue things about Diana, especially those horrid tabloid “murder plot” lies.




I've never read any of the books written about her. I just thought they would be too sad for me to read, I’d cry too much. I do miss her and that warm bright smile.


It depends on what books you read on her. I often read children's books on her because those are more respectful of Diana.

I love to read about Diana...you should also even if they make you cry. Diana's life was NOT all bad...Diana was much more than just a tragedy.

Her sons talk about her and yes, sometimes weep over her, but they and most others would NEVER want her simply forgotten.

Think of people like Anne Frank, Martin Luther King, and JFK...would you avoid reading about their lives simply because they had the misfortune of dying young also like Diana?

Let's hope not. And remember that MLK and JFK were gunned down and it was very sad.

I am sure Diana also would NOT want her death endlessly mourned and would not want people remembering her as this "tragic" figure...her sons certainly do not want their mother depicted that way either.

Diana was MUCH MORE than just a "tragedy;" she was a courageous hero and her sons and siblings remember her as a hero, not some tragic victim.

I like to hear happy, funny memories of darling Diana.

Did you know for instance, that she had no allergies, had no foods she truly disliked, was musically gifted from a young age, was afraid of horses and Halloween, and loved to read?

Did you know that as a young girl, she had a guinea pig named Peanut?

Did you know also that in her primary school, she won a prize for taking the best care of her pet?

Did you also know that she was a morning person, had vivid, often scary dreams, and was a neatnick?

I sort of think of her life as a somewhat bittersweet tale...not a totally depressing one.

She truly lived long enough to make a difference, both in her family, the rest of the Royal family, and in the world.

Even Queen Elizabeth acknowledges this; she commissioned and founded a memorial park in Diana's honor.

Diana's life is sort of a combination of the films Always, The Lovely Bones, and Terms of Endearment. Ever see those films? Great poignant, yet mostly uplifting films.




I'm curious was Charles supportive to Diana when her father passed away?


Not really. By March of 1992, they were distant and Charles' affairs had been exposed. Prince Fool Charles never really got on well with any of the rest of the Spencer clan.

But for the cameras, Prince Fool Charles tried to put on this “supportive husband” act, but Diana, despite her tears, saw through it...so did most others.




I'm just curious to know what type of husband was he to her in the middle of their marriage.


Slowly deteriorating...by 1990, that marriage was kaput.

reply

She was a relentless self-publicist, I'll say that for her.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

reply

Very, very relentless. She married Charles primarily to become famous, but insisted that she did fall in love with him later. By that time he had become disillusioned with the marriage because Diana made huge demands of him and the household staff, always wanted her own way and refused to make compromises. He got tired of constantly caving in to her and went back to the one person who didn't beat him down, the horsey lady Camilla, the one person who still does love him for himself. Camilla is Charles's kindred spirit, something I don't think Dodi Fayed was for Diana.

Charles also had a hostile media to deal with and a cruel public which thrived on putting him down, mocking his speeches and Jug ears, and thoroughly kicking him in the gutter. Because the press and the populace both enjoyed rubbing his nose in it and elevating his beautiful wife to demigoddess stature, it is no wonder that the marriage foundered. I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that if Charles had only loved her, everything would have turned out perfectly happy. This is not true. Try imagining Diana happily married now to the aging Charles without wanting to have affairs of her own with more attractive men. I have never been able to see that. Even if he had remained true to her (with nothing to gain for it except the nurture of his two sons) the Princess would still have had those affairs and the public would have condoned them because both the media and the masses loved her so much. I have a 1987 article written by Katie Leishman for Vogue magazine that proved this point absolutely.The journalist quoted royal author Christopher Warwick, who boldly stated, "The British have updated their views. If her husband is the 'Wally' he sometimes seems, why shouldn't she have an affair as long as she keeps it to herself?" Wally is the British term for nerd.

And if Charles and Diana had remained happily married, the public would have lost most of its interest in her by the time she was in her thirties, and they both would have been uninspiring in the long run. She became an even greater icon because of the failure and collapse of her marriage, and her divorce made her the most eligible woman on the planet. I don't think Diana would ever have been happy out of the limelight even if she had a wonderful marriage to make up for it. She loved attention and liked making headlines every day. A happy marriage would have been boring for the media, although William and Kate seem to be having a ball with both the media and the public right now themselves, this was also true for Charles and Diana in the first three years of their marriage until after their second son was born in 1984. Things went downhill after that. But I don't think the same thing will happen with Kate and Wills. This is a marriage for keeps. Besides, if it fails, Kate will take the blame, not William. He is Diana's beloved son and she is the outsider in the Royal Family.

reply

Thank you, MJ for summing up the whole sorry mess better than I ever could.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

reply

Very, very relentless.


Sure is…Diana’s sensitivity was unstoppable…her tears were often just relentless, much to Charles and Philip’s disgust.

Poor Diana often felt as if her sensitivity was a “handicap” when it reality, it was also a gift, a blessing that enabled her to have deep compassion for others, especially the suffering of others and that enabled her to ease suffering and to help others get thru their pain.

This relentless sensitivity also enabled her to be a wonderful mother and raise her sons into fine, caring young men who are today carrying out her legacy. That sensitivity she had changed the Monarchy forever and her sons are carrying out the rest of those much-needed, long-overdue changes.

Interestingly enough, this extreme sensitivity forced her to build a great emotional strength and fortitude especially thru tough times…that was another blessing in disguise, something Diana began to realize near the end of her life.




She married Charles primarily to become famous, but insisted that she did fall in love with him later.


Untrue! Diana LOVED Charles from the start. Even one of her nannies, Mary Clark, I think says that Diana, as a teenager (she had not yet arrived at puberty yet) told Mary that she would never marry unless she was truly, truly in love with the person she planned to marry.

This was largely due to her own parents’ bitter divorce and the pain it caused the highly sensitive Diana; Diana was frightened of going thru the same thing that her parents went thru.

Diana never forgot the sound of her beloved mum’s footsteps gritting thru the gravel on that bleak day her father tried to drive Frances out of her own kids’ lives; by numerous biographical accounts, Diana sat on the steps, silently weeping as she listened to her mother’s retreating footsteps, then heard the car engine start, then fade off into the distance.

This might not upset some kids that much, but for the very sensitive Diana (HSP for short), it was devastating and very terrifying; she’s said that it was just about the most terrifying, traumatic time of her life. She feared that her beloved children would experience that same trauma that she’d gone thru.




By that time he had become disillusioned with the marriage because Diana made huge demands of him and the household staff, always wanted her own way and refused to make compromises.


Diana made no unreasonable demands; all she wanted was to be loved and respected by her husband and to be able to do the same for him. She wanted to raise and love a family and to be a good mother to her kids. Once she realized how dysfunctional the Monarchy was, she then wanted to change this and create a new, better Monarchy, something Charles just could not understand and felt threatened by.

Diana knew she was in a prominent position married to a prominent man, so she wanted to use that power for GOOD, to help others and to place the Monarchy back in touch with the people. And she wanted to pass this on to her sons, to raise them to be caring, loving, and responsible.

She was keenly conscious of the fact that she had the awesome, daunting task of raising the future king of England…so she knew she wanted to raise a king who was in touch with the people, who cared, and who had no false delusions of “superiority” over the “common” people.

She, better than either Charles or Philip, understood that with great wealth, privilege, and power came enormous responsibilities, especially to their people…and she used that power for good, to make this world better. And yes, she did use the media attention as well, but for the GOOD of the PEOPLE and to bring attention to the suffering, so the WORLD could be moved to help the suffering.

The thing Charles became disillusioned with was the fact that Diana proved to be an unusual, deep thinker who cared deeply about others. Diana did have her emotional problems also; I do give you that and Diana did often cry too much for others’ comfort…something else that yes, Charles became disillusioned with.

But instead of being supportive and encouraging Diana to accept her sensitivity and perhaps helping her seek a counselor she was comfortable with (instead of trying to pressure her to take pills to make her problems), Charles just pulled away and blamed her and became distant and cold.

Perhaps Charles’ failure to extend emotional support to Diana in her emotional troubles and bulimia was a result of issues of his own; he was raised in a very hands-off, aloof way.

It has been said that Charles rarely saw his own mum and when she did come home, he didn’t recognize her at first and ran to the wrong woman for a hug…and once he was led to his true mother, she just shook his hand, teaching her son not to be affectionate.

As a result, while Charles did love Diana in the beginning and also wanted to help raise a happy family, he simply lacked the know-how to be a good, loving supportive husband, especially thru the tough times.



He got tired of constantly caving in to her and went back to the one person who didn't beat him down, the horsey lady Camilla, the one person who still does love him for himself.


Lame excuses for adultery. Camilla was actually not “horsey.” Looks are really unimportant here; it was on the inside that counted. Camilla was FAR from Charles’ only mistress. Did you know that Charles also cheated on a woman named Kanga who I think was originally from Australia? Charles also cheated with one or two other women as well…a fact that he kept well-hidden and that his fans have been fooled by.

So, let’s not blame Diana for Charles’ affair….instead of challenging himself to find a good counselor that would teach him how to be a loving spouse for a highly sensitive person, he merely took the easy way out and had affairs.

He used Camilla (who was also MARRIED and cheating on her husband, Andrew Parker Bowles) to sound off complaints about Diana; I’ve read that he told her stories about Diana allegedly being “difficult” and “demanding.” He also lied about Diana, claiming that she “fired” staff members at will.

I’ve also heard (not from tabloids either) that Camilla also badmouthed her own husband and that one of her kids was so hurt by Camilla’s behavior that he numbed his pain with drugs and ended up in rehab.

Thank Heaven Wills and Harry had the strong, level-headed Diana to give them the strength to be strong and stable themselves so they were not in danger of winding up in the sad shape Camilla’s poor son was in.

Diana’s courage and fortitude in the face of her humiliation, emotional problems, bulimia, and pain was something neither Wills or Harry ever forgot; they are both fine strong young men today largely due to Diana. Diana definitely left her permanent legacy of caring, strength, responsibility, compassion, and fortitude on both of them forever…something that even her untimely death could not erase.



Camilla is Charles's kindred spirit, something I don't think Dodi Fayed was for Diana.


In a twisted way, Camilla and Charles fit each other…they aren’t happy now together, but in an odd way, they deserve each other. I have read that they’ve both been unfaithful to each other and that they have noisy rows in private.

We really don’t know enough about Dodi to know if he would be one of Diana’s kindred spirit, but even if they’d lived and he turned out not to be one of the kindred spirits in Diana’s life, Diana had LOTS of kindred spirits in her life that she cared about and who cared about her, so even without Dodi, she was not lonely as some drama junkies claimed she was.

In her Bashir interview, Bashir does ask her how she feels about no longer being with Charles and if she ever felt “alone” or “lonely” without a man in her life and she said no. I think initially, Diana feared separation because yes, she did fear that she’d be lonely and miserable.

Initially, yes, Diana was miserable in those first few months after they’d separated; she cried oceans of tears, but after those first few bad months, Diana’s heart wasn’t so heavy, especially since her outreach work fulfilled her inside; she EARNED the emotional support and love of loads of people, and she began to realize that she did not need a man to be happy in her life.

As she told Bashir, she had her boys, her work, her friends to sustain her and keep her from becoming too lonely; these people in her life (along with her three siblings and mum) were ALL her kindred spirits and she was a kindred spirit for them as well.

She was still often sad and still cried lots and had nightmares, but she knew she was never truly alone. She understood true life and true relationships with others better than Charles ever did.

Diana, to her relief, discovered that being divorced did NOT have to ruin a life and began to see that she did have the strength, despite her high sensitivity, to survive the pain of divorce without ending up in a mental hospital or rehab.

Despite her pain and own suffering, she continued her outreach work, her deep caring for others and also continued to raise her sons and be the good mother she always was.



Charles also had a hostile media to deal with and a cruel public which thrived on putting him down, mocking his speeches and Jug ears, and thoroughly kicking him in the gutter.


Charles was FAR from the innocent victim you are claiming he is. Not ALL the public or media were “cruel.” Yes, I do agree that mocking someone’s physical appearance or speeches is uncalled for, but Charles was FAR from the only victim of the media or of public ridicule.

Lots of the media and some of the public were also pretty cruel to Diana at times; they mocked Diana’s speeches also; they spread the horrible rumor that she was allegedly “stupid” because she was poor at math and struggled with tests in school and was rather stuttering, blushing often, and timid in front of large crowds, especially when she had to give a speech.

Some of the public and media were cruel enough to mock Diana’s bulimia and crying spells. As Diana stated in the Bashir interview, some media attention is all right, but often it was crossing the line and invading her privacy; some cameras were getting too close to her and making cracks just to make her blush or cry, so they could laugh and get her picture in her distress. That is media cruelty as its most base and vile.

I do hope you are not going to find a way to blame Diana for this; Charles was fortunate enough to seldom have to deal with cameras following him to his car or taunting catty little cracks about his ears or his features.

If lots of the media criticized Charles’ handling of the failing marriage, his treatment of Diana and his affairs (yes, more than just Camilla), Charles EARNED most of that criticism of his ACTIONS there.

The media did NOT let Diana off scot-free for her own TWO affairs (she was NOT sleeping with “dozens” of men as Charles tried to accuse her of doing); the media was just as relentlessly cruel about Diana’s fling with Hewitt and Squidgygate as they were about Camillagate and Kangagate.

Let’s try to have a single standard here, ehhh? Both Charles AND Diana erred here; they both were equally guilty, so don’t condone Charles and make excuses for him, then turn around and condemn Diana for the same actions. And do stop blaming Diana for Charles’s actions.




Because the press and the populace both enjoyed rubbing his nose in it and elevating his beautiful wife to demigoddess stature, it is no wonder that the marriage foundered.


Diana really was not physically that beautiful, so let’s dispense with the drama here…the press also was often mean to Diana and rubbed her huge nose into her Squidgy humiliation and her crying spells. Often they’d push a camera close to her face while she was crying and upset her even more.

Then amongst the populace, there are haters like you who see the images of the weeping Diana, who accused Diana of “faking” her distress and of “playing” to the media for “sympathy. People like you are amongst those who’ve been cruel to Diana.

The marriage failed for LOTS of reasons; it’s not that simple. Diana was quiet, shy, deep-thinking, highly sensitive (perhaps too much for Charles), introverted, and compassionate.

She wanted to place the Monarchy back in touch with the people and reach out to the suffering. Here she did court the media to raise public awareness of the AIDS crisis and of AIDS victims who’d been shunned by cruel narrow-minded people, to raise public awareness of problems like poverty, landmines, and children suffering from horrible diseases.

As Diana said in her Bashir interview, people often feel threatened by change…and Diana was changing the Monarchy and in her quiet, yet powerful way, she was making changes in many areas of many people’s lives and also challenging the rest of the Royal family to look outside their sheltered, privileged existence and reach out to the people and to raise their future children differently.

Charles couldn’t deal with these changes; he was one of those who felt threatened by change and new ways of thinking. He was also jealous of the respect his wife was EARNING worldwide and even inside some of the Palace members with her hard work, intelligence, humility, and kind heart, so he lashed out at Diana and used Camilla and Kanga as an escape route.



I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that if Charles had only loved her, everything would have turned out perfectly happy. This is not true.


True that it would not have been that simple. Charles did love her in the beginning just as Diana loved Charles…but Charles could not understand Diana’s sensitivity and felt threatened by the changes Diana was quietly making to Palace life and to the world and to yes, her emotional problems.

The cold way Charles was raised and the callous indifference much (not saying all here) of the Royal life had toward the suffering and often to their own children and their staff was alien to Diana and shocked her.

She was stunned that the Palace wanted her to leave the then-infant Wills behind in the care of impersonal nannies and fly off the Australia as if Wills was no more than a computer or a lamp and to not feel anything; she could not understand why maternal love and caring seemed alien to them.

She was quite shocked to discover that many of the Royal houses never dropped a word of support or encouragement to each other or to any staff. She mentions this in the Bashir interview; she says she never heard anyone tell others Well done for good work or kindness or show concern by asking Was that all right?

The rigid divisions between people also upset Diana; she was not raised to see people in rigid “types.”

All this distressed the highly sensitive Diana, so she knew she wanted her children to grow up with a far different upbringing and to change this awful Palace “tradition” of cold indifference and being so out of touch with the people that they would be indifferent to suffering.

From Charles and his parents’ perspective (Queen Elizabeth did come around and came to respect Diana toward the end of her life), they were shocked at Diana’s raw emotions, her open caring, her naked concern for the emotional well-being of people, even “lowly” maids and butlers.

Charles and his aides wondered why Diana seemed so attached to her siblings and parents in such a raw, open way; why her Spencer side, despite the Earl titles of some of its members, hugged, cried, joshed each other, bonded so tightly, cared so much about the “commoners,” and insisted on being a big part of her sons’ lives.

These differences are a large part of why the marriage failed; it was a huge clash of different value systems.




Try imagining Diana happily married now to the aging Charles without wanting to have affairs of her own with more attractive men. I have never been able to see that.

Even if he had remained true to her (with nothing to gain for it except the nurture of his two sons) the Princess would still have had those affairs and the public would have condoned them because both the media and the masses loved her so much.


And try as I might, I cannot imagine Charles remaining truly faithful to an aging Diana, especially since we know that had she not had the misfortune of dying in her late 30’s in her accident, Diana would have gained much-needed weight in her middle age, her blond hair would have turned white; her round, sweet face would grow even rounder and gain more wrinkles; shed need her glasses more often as she grew older…I just cannot imagine Charles having the maturity to cope with this.

Sure, Camilla’s aging also, but Camilla’s as shallow as Charles is and has had cosmetic surgery and dyes her hair to look younger.

Diana had a couple of affairs like Charles did, but what earned Diana the respect and love of the masses is that UNlike Charles, Diana owned up to her mistakes and acknowledged that she erred and took responsibility for her own actions. Never once did Diana make excuses for herself or ever try to blame anyone else for her mistakes.

Charles, on the other hand, made excuses for himself and blamed his mistakes, especially his affairs, on Diana….just like you are so desperately trying to do.

Diana did not try to lie about or hide her flings while Charles never really came clean about all his affairs; other than Camilla, he tried to hide his affairs and put on this phony front of being “faithful” to Camilla (while still married to Diana).

Diana, blushing and sometimes swallowing, came clean to the people about her mistakes while Charles never did; he just donned on his phony front and continued his lies to and about Diana to the people…which is why the masses and media gained respect for Diana and lost respect for Charles.

reply

As a result, while Charles did love Diana in the beginning and also wanted to help raise a happy family, he simply lacked the know-how to be a good, loving supportive husband, especially thru the tough times.


On this I disagree with you. I never thought he was ever in love with her. Diana was chosen by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip, mostly for her pedigree, age and the ability to have children. I read that a few days before the wedding, Charles went to his parents and said he couldn't do it, he wasn't in love with her. They forced him into the relationship to begin with and then forced him to marry her. I had hoped he would eventually love her the way the "People" did, but it always seemed he resented her for her popularity, but I don't think it ever happened. I always saw it as an arranged marriage on the part of the Queen and Earl Spencer. It just seemed to quick, when most of Charles' girlfriend and their relationships were plastered across the tabloids. I was young then but I don't remember seeing them Charles and Diana in picture or stories during "their romance" in the papers or tabloids and I have no recollection of a romance between them until it was announced in that interview where she shows off the ring. She was the "perfect" virginal bride, future Queen and mother to his children. I do believe she loved him though. But, come on, who calls their ex-girlfriend on their wedding night from a ship? Not someone who is in love with their new bride. My mother was enthrall by Diana and her story, which my mother thought was romantic, something out of a Disney movie. Every girls fantasy of marrying a handsome Prince (well Prince for Charles). My mom woke me up at 4 am to watch their wedding, when all I wanted to do was sleep and catch it later when it was repeated for the 100th time. I think the royal family resented her popularity with the "people." That is supposed to be for the Queen who is the popular one and why I think they never understood her ever but the people did. She was 20 years old, still a naive young woman who may have believed the fantasy as my mom did. She took her popularity and put it to good use, used the media to her advantage to showcase her charitable causes. That I admired her for and putting up with the Windsor family for as long as she did, but you know she resented them just as much as they resented her and she was a very angry person during the end of their marriage. Diana was far from perfect, but no human being is, but her mistakes in life were plastered across the tabloids for all to see and who would want to live in that small fish bowl of the royal family. I would feel claustrophobic living the way she had to under the thumb of a woman who didn't like her very much and thought was she childish, frivolous and immature, she was 19 and 20 years old when she met and married him! Did they have anything in common with each other? I doubt it.

reply

Let's not forget, though, that Diana was living on her own and working and self-supporting as a kindergarten teacher, so I disagree that the marriage was "arranged" at all, least of all, by Diana's dad.

Diana would never have accepted any "arranged" marriage; she once told her nanny that she could never enter into any "arranged" marriage; she stated that she'd have to be truly in love with the man she married.

I do think INITIALLY, Prince Fool Charles loved Diana, but was confused and not very mature...I agree that it was inappropriate for him to be ringing one of his SEVERAL mistresses on his own honeymoon.

Camvapidmilla was FAR from his only mistress; in fact, part of the reason Prince Fool Charles' parents were pressuring him to marry soon was because whispers were leaking out about Prince Fool Charles's sexual escapades.

Charles' parents did NOT want him embarrassing his family and the British Monarchy by gaining the reputation as a womanizer.

Prince Fool Charles, however, was too immature to take care of the deep love Diana has for him and foolishly wasted the chances that he had with Diana...he went chasing the elusive "greener grass" elsewhere, including with the MARRIED Camvapidmilla and ruined his own marriage.

I suspect Charles thought he was getting a British Marilyn Monroe in Camvapidmilla...after all, Camvapidmilla does have quite a bit in common with Marilyn Monroe.

But now belatedly, Charles has discovered that being married to Camvapidmilla is no bed of roses; both he and Camvapidmilla have belatedly discovered that the "greener grass" they were chasing tastes absolutely PUTRID.

True, though, that Prince Fool resented her popularity, which Diana had EARNED though her outreach work and her genuine caring...but not the entire rest of the Royal family.

Queen Elizabeth was initially put off by Diana's deep emotions and deep thoughts, but toward the end of Diana's life, came to respect Diana, especially once she saw all the good Diana was doing for the world and how well Diana had raised the sons.

Diana was not using the media to HER OWN advantage; she used the media for the advantage of the people she was helping like the landmine victims.

I remember reading that when Diana went to Angola, she was rather upset because the cameras and media were too focused on HER and not on the landmine victims.

She was on the brink of tears as she pleaded for the media to please not make this about herself, but about the landmine issue and the landmine victims.

That's why she insisted on having the media get to know the VICTIMS themselves rather than go on a narrative on what Diana herself was doing and on her own life.

True, Diana and Prince Fool Charles didn't have much in common at all. Prince Fool has more in common with Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber.

reply

I suspect Charles thought he was getting a British Marilyn Monroe in Camvapidmilla...after all, Camvapidmilla does have quite a bit in common with Marilyn Monroe.


I just threw up in my mouth when I read that. Dragon lady, which is what I called her, because she's about as attractive as a dragon's butt. Sexy, maybe if your looking at someone standing behind her or the horse Charles was riding. Marilyn was beautiful and very sexy and even if the dragon lady had a 1000's surgeries she would never come close to being a Marilyn. What do they have in common? "Pills, booze, sex? i just threw up in my mouth again. I don't follow the royal family anymore a have no interest for Charles or Dragon lady. I no longer buy tabloids like People, Entertainment Weekly, etc any more, not since Diana's death. To tell you the truth I don't miss them either.

True, though, that Prince Fool resented her popularity, which Diana had EARNED though her outreach work and her genuine caring...but not the entire rest of the Royal family.


So, who was most like Diana in that family? Andrew always seemed nice and a descent person. I always had a feeling that the Queen and Prince Phillip resented her popularity with "the people" especially Prince Phillip. Am I wrong there?

Queen Elizabeth was initially put off by Diana's deep emotions and deep thoughts, but toward the end of Diana's life, came to respect Diana, especially once she saw all the good Diana was doing for the world and how well Diana had raised the sons.


Two women, very much different in the ways these women were raised. The Queen was to never show any emotion in public. Whereas Diana was from a broken family. Her sisters were much older than she was, so her closest companion was her little brother Charles, who simply adored her. His eulogy at her funeral was the most moving for me and I loved that little zinger he put in... she doesn't need a title to be in peoples hearts or something like that.

Diana was not using the media to HER OWN advantage; she used the media for the advantage of the people she was helping like the landmine victims.


Definitely not at the end of her life but certainly during the divorce and the consensus was the public was more behind Diana then Charles, at least here in the States. In the beginning, she looked terrified by the paps, almost breaking down sometimes. I've been around some paparazzi's and they are not nice people. They shout out disgusting comments to get arise out of a celebrity it is gross and disgusting. So, I cannot image how a 20 year old young woman heard them shouted out at her. I'm not going to say what they yell because it's disgusting. But, I looked at one and said you're pathetic and disgusting. Diana certainly had a target on her back for most of her adult life, knowing wherever she went there would be a bunch of people taking pictures of you when you want privacy with your children. I still believe they were responsible for her death. The driver wouldn't had had to speed to get away from them, if he had driven normally I think they all would have lived. They cut someone's life short who had so much to give to the needy, sick and two young boys who still needed their mother.

True, Diana and Prince Fool Charles didn't have much in common at all.
Prince Fool has more in common with Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber.


I, unfortunately met Paris Hilton one time when I was in LA. I have seen rocks that had more intelligence than she does. Not only does the elevator not go to the top. It's permanently dead in the basement. Her sister certainly was more intelligent (and smart because she doesn't show up for the red carpet and leave before the movie starts anymore). She's was so desperately wanting her picture taken and doing her stupid poses and when they were shooting other celebrities and guest she constantly said, hey I'm here. She was so pathetic, so desperate for attention. No one knew who she was back then.

reply

I just threw up in my mouth when I read that.


Yeah…the thought of Prince Fool Charles fancying Camplasticmilla as a British Marilyn Monroe made me barf in my mouth also…especially when we know the sordid life and death Marilyn Monroe led.

None of us really knows if she overdosed by accident or was killed by drug lords.

Dragon lady, which is what I called her, because she's about as attractive as a dragon's butt. Sexy, maybe if you’re looking at someone standing behind her or the horse Charles was riding.

Today, yes…Camplasticmilla’s had so much cosmetic surgery on her face she looks fake…she looks today like a Halloween-ish caricature of Marilyn and a blond post-cosmetic surgery Michael Jackson.




Marilyn was beautiful and very sexy and even if the dragon lady had a 1000 surgeries she would never come close to being a Marilyn. What do they have in common? Pills, booze, sex?


True, Marilyn was much more beautiful physically than both Camplasticmilla and Diana, not that it did her any good. But other than that, Marilyn had LOTS in common with Camplasticmilla.

Pills, booze, sex, adultery, dysfunctional relationships to name a few. Both Camvapidmilla and Marilyn Monroe had affairs with prominent men that they KNEW were married. Both Camplasticmilla and Marilyn (Marilyn was unfaithful to her third husband) were unfaithful to their husbands.

Both of them felt that the “needed” a man in their lives to be complete. Both were rather spoiled. Both were rather conceited.




I just threw up in my mouth again. I don't follow the royal family anymore a have no interest for Charles or Dragon lady. I no longer buy tabloids like
People, Entertainment Weekly, etcetera any more, not since Diana's death. To tell you the truth I don't miss them either.

I don’t buy tabloids either…but Prince Fool Charles and Camplasticmilla, much to their disgust, do not make up the Royal family anymore.

Today it is Diana’s sons, Kate, and Diana’s grandchildren along with the Queen. Even the Queen has distanced herself from Prince Fool Charles; she’s fed up with his antics.

I also understand that this second marriage of Prince Fool Charles and Camplasticmilla is far WORSE than their first marriages, even though they are trying to hide it from the public.

Prince Fool Charles has even indirectly badmouthed Wills and Kate’s family to the press and a couple of years ago, Prince Fool also landed himself into an embarrassing catfight with Russian President Putin that disgusted the rest of the Royal family.

No, not to worry, you won’t see too much of either Prince Fool Charles or his vapid wife, Camplasticmilla these days; they are NOT popular anywhere in the world.





So, who was most like Diana in that family? Andrew always seemed nice and a decent person. I always had a feeling that the Queen and Prince Phillip resented her popularity with "the people" especially Prince Phillip. Am I wrong there?


Partially. Philip, yes, was also jealous of Diana and so were some of Prince Fool Charles’ yes-men.

But there were many in the Royal family that stood by Diana and even after the divorce, she remained on good terms with Andrew, Fergie, Princess Anne, Princess Margaret, and several others.

Queen Elizabeth also came around and was supportive of Diana, especially once she saw all the good Diana was doing for the world and once she saw the fabulous job Diana was doing raising the two sons.





Two women, very much different in the ways these women were raised. The Queen was to never show any emotion in public.


True…one of the rare times she displayed emotion in public…..? When Diana died.





Whereas Diana was from a broken family.


Divorced parents are NOT “broken” families; my own parents are long divorced, but we are a loving intact family.

So, you really shouldn’t label those of us with divorced parents as having “broken” families; it’s only the parents’ marriage that breaks up, not the entire family.

Parents do not divorce their children along with their spouse nor do the siblings divorce each other.

Diana and her siblings remained siblings and neither of Diana’s parents divorced the kids. Even though Frances was driven out of Park House, she fought to remain part of her kids’ lives…she divorced ONLY Johnny, not her kids.





Her sisters were much older than she was, so her closest companion was her little brother Charles, who simply adored her.


That much is true. But Diana still had a loving relationship with all of her siblings...despite the divorce, actually the Spencers were mostly a warm family that did not stifle emotional expression...so Diana was raised to be comfortable letting her frequent tears out and with expression her emotions openly.





His eulogy at her funeral was the most moving for me and I loved that little zinger he put in…she doesn't need a title to be in people’s hearts or something like that.


How true…he and Diana’s sisters truly loved her. They were also fed up with Prince Fool Charles and the shabby way he treated their sister.




Definitely not at the end of her life but certainly during the divorce and the consensus was the public was more behind Diana then Charles, at least here in the States.


No, the public was behind Diana at the end of her life also, which was why she was mourned worldwide.

MOST people in MOST countries, including England were behind Diana all her adult life. She saw the good she was doing for the world and how down-to-Earth she was and what a wonderful mother she was to her boys.

Americans were NOT the only people who loved Diana. It was the MAJORITY of the BRITISH people who demanded that the flags be lowered to half-mast and that Diana be given the state worldwide respectful funeral she deserved.

And there was nothing an indignant Prince Fool or Philip Imbecile could do to change this.




In the beginning, she looked terrified by the paps, almost breaking down sometimes. I've been around some paparazzis and they are not nice people.


The highly sensitive, introverted Diana was always overwhelmed by the paps…I remember being so frightened of the paps...poor shy mouse.

They also loved to make her blush also…poor Diana blushed so easily and cried so easily…they also loved to have pictures of her crying.





They shout out disgusting comments to get arise out of a celebrity it is gross and disgusting. So, I cannot image how a 20 year old young woman heard them shouted out at her.


Me either…particularly a very, very sensitive, shy woman like Diana.





I'm not going to say what they yell because it's disgusting. But, I looked at one and said
you're pathetic and disgusting.

Lots of them are…I’m glad I’ve never had to deal with them. I’d never want to be famous because of the paps.





Diana certainly had a target on her back for most of her adult life, knowing wherever she went there would be a bunch of people taking pictures of you when you want privacy with your children. I still believe they were responsible for her death.


Not fully…but they did play a part. Yes, poor sweet Diana as an HSP (highly sensitive person) was the paps favorite little toy...some of them had fun making her blush and making her cry at times.

Thank Heaven Diana did not live in the States, especially Hollywood...I understand the paps there are FAR WORSE and more vicious than the ones in most of Europe.




The driver wouldn't have had to speed to get away from them; if he had driven normally I think they all would have lived.


No, the driver did NOT “have to” speed…he was also a bit drunk. Also, had that bodyguard done his job and made sure they were all wearing seatbelts, Diana would have easily survived even if they had still crashed.





They cut someone's life short who had so much to give to the needy, sick and two young boys who still needed their mother.


They helped cut the lives of three people short, not just Diana’s life. So yes, they are partially responsible…but I still do not buy that the driver and bodyguard were totally innocent.

The driver should NOT have been speeding, regardless of the paps. It was negligence that killed Diana in the first place, not the initial crash.

Had they not dilly-dallied taking pictures and basking in being seen with the Princess of Wales, they would have rushed her to the hospital immediately and saved her life.

Remember that Diana was a very strong woman, not a weak delicate one, so even with the crash, she could have easily survived had it not been for serious negligence on the part of the bodyguard, who should have INSISTED on backup and a sober driver, and on the part of the driver, who should not have been speeding.





I, unfortunately met Paris Hilton one time when I was in LA.


Yuck. I don’t envy you there.





I have seen rocks that had more intelligence than she does. Not only does the elevator not go to the top. It’s permanently dead in the basement.


Yes, I’ve read that from people who’ve had the misfortune of meeting her. Camvapidmilla so reminds me of Paris Hilton…Camvapidmilla’s elevator is also dead in the basement and Prince Fool’s elevator doesn’t go much higher either.

I think that Camvapidmilla and Prince Fool would fit in far better in the Hollywood zoo with the likes of Paris and Justin Bieber than in England where the majority of the people in their own country have long lost respect for those two bozos.





She’s was so desperately wanting her picture taken and doing her stupid poses and when they were shooting other celebrities and guest she constantly said, Hey I’m here. She was so pathetic, so desperate for attention. No one knew who she was back then.


Also, even now Paris had done nothing to better the world nor has she even had any real roles in any films or anything…she’s just mainly taking up space…a lot like Camvapidmilla and Prince Fool Charles today.

I also laugh because when Wills and Kate and the then-newborn George were getting most of the media attention and all through George’s christening, then the Diana film, Prince Fool Charles very conveniently posed for an issue of Time Magazine that late October, advertising himself as the “forgotten prince.”

In the article, Prince Fool Charles yammered on and on about “serious issues” and indirectly badmouthed his own son, the Middletons and then even took a potstab at his own mother.

He blamed his mother for “chucking out a jewel among the rubbish” then rambled on about how “frivolous” his own son and Kate were and how he was “concerned” about “serious” issues in alleged “contrast.”

Really, Prince Fool Charles, like Paris and Camvapidmilla, did nothing to earn their time in the limelight; notice that we rarely, if ever see Prince Fool Charles really taking action to improve the world, despite his nattering on and on about “serious” issues.

One thing that was admirable about darling Diana…she was a quiet woman of few words who really had little to say, but she in her quiet way, took ACTION to make the world a better place.

reply

Americans were NOT the only people who loved Diana. It was the MAJORITY of the BRITISH people who demanded that the flags be lowered to half-mast and that Diana be given the state worldwide respectful funeral she deserved.

And there was nothing an indignant Prince Fool or Philip Imbecile could do to change this.


The news reports from American news networks and cable outlets kept speculating why it took Queen Elizabeth so long to even acknowledged Diana's death. i get it was a private matter and she was trying to help her grandsons understand and come to terms with Diana death but Americans show respect by lowering the flags to heads of states (which was what Diana was, the face of the modern royal family, even if she no longer held her title), Presidents, Governor's, well-known politicians and Presidents cabinet members, General's and most heads of the armed forces. When a Broadway star/actor passes away, all the theaters turn their lights off to show respect. It just seemed a little perplexing that our banks and government buildings put our flags at half staff in acknowledgment of her passing but the royal family did not. She was still the mother of a future King.

Lots of them are…I’m glad I’ve never had to deal with them. I’d never want to be famous because of the paps.


Me either. My dad worked in the entertainment industry (NY which is a lot better then CA) but some celebrities are just pampered, spoil brats and because of his job, I've met a lot of actors/celebrities. The newer ones are generally not nice people, rude even nasty but I loved meeting older Broadway and film actors, they generally would stop, talk and were more respectful to fans. So I'm not impressed by them.

But, I can understand now a little bit why some celebrities hit/punch paps. I just thought Sean Penn was a hot head and quick to anger. Knowing back in the 80's Madonna loved the attention and knowing she needed that attention to feel famous and wanted, she would put herself in these situations, wanting "her" man to defend her. They were like water and oil.

Also, even now Paris had done nothing to better the world nor has she even had any real roles in any films or anything…she’s just mainly taking up space…a lot like Camvapidmilla and Prince Fool Charles today.


OMG, you haven't heard, she now has her own line of hair extensions. She's gonna change the world. Let's face it she's really not that smart or motivated to look for a "real" job. She lives off of her grandfathers inheritance, goes to clubs in LA and gets paid for her appearance. A bonus if she brings other celebrities with her. She takes up too much air. She cannot act unless it's stand over there, don't talk, don't say a word and look pretty, OK show me your pout. Her parents own one of the largest real estate firms in the US. Americans generally despises her for being a pampered Princess and her belief she's entitled because of her last name, which was why so many were happy when she got into some legal trouble a few years ago. She was sentence to jail time, got angry at her lawyer because he couldn't get her off for not appearing in court when the judge ordered her too and blew it off. She spent all of 45 minutes in a jail cell, away from the general population all by herself. Boo Woo. She was supposed to be in there for a few for days, but for "good behavior' and "over crowding" she was released to her lawyer.

She's not motivated to use her celebrity for a good or noble cause. She's famous for being famous and that is all. She doesn't visit sick children in hospitals or use her celebrity to bring a disease or help find a cure for a disease. We did hear her say once "Eeew, sick people make me sick." Again, struck in the basement. The Hilton/Richard's family are just people who feel entitled. But her mother does do a lot in fundraising for one of the children's hospitals in LA.


I also laugh because when Wills and Kate and the then-newborn George were getting most of the media attention and all through George’s christening, then the Diana film, Prince Fool Charles very conveniently posed for an issue of Time Magazine that late October, advertising himself as the “forgotten prince.”


How pathetic? Look at me. I have a feeling that Charles will never be King but I could see Will jumping in line. Is it Princess Camilla?

Really, Prince Fool Charles, like Paris and Camvapidmilla, did nothing to earn their time in the limelight; notice that we rarely, if ever see Prince Fool Charles really taking action to improve the world, despite his nattering on and on about “serious” issues.


I hope the reporter asked what "serious" issue are you referring too? Can you elaborate? He would become a stuttering fool.


Okay, let me ask how accurate was the movie "The Queen" with Helen Mirren? I think she did an amazing acting job playing QE.

reply

Americans show respect by lowering the flags to heads of states (which was what Diana was, the face of the modern royal family, even if she no longer held her title), Presidents, Governor's, well-known politicians and Presidents cabinet members, General's and most heads of the armed forces. When a Broadway star/actor passes away, all the theaters turn their lights off to show respect. It just seemed a little perplexing that our banks and government buildings put our flags at half staff in acknowledgment of her passing but the royal family did not. She was still the mother of a future King.

And what country was she the Head of State for? At that point she wasn't even royal and if she was it still didn't matter as the flag only flew when the Queen was in was there. The flag never flew half mast for anyone, not even a dead sovereign. So why was Diana so special to receive such an honor that no other royal previously had. She was the ex wife of Prince Charles and not longer a official member of the Windsor household.I also do not recall anyone in america lowering there flags for her as she was not an American and had nothing to do with us.

reply

I have a 1987 article written by Katie Leishman for Vogue magazine that proved this point absolutely. The journalist quoted royal author Christopher Warwick, who boldly stated, The British have updated their views. If her husband is the “Wally” he sometimes seems, why shouldn't she have an affair as long as she keeps it to herself? Wally is the British term for nerd.


Katie Leishman and Vogue are your sources of “facts”? That’s a huge laugh. And it’s a laugh that they consider Charles this nerd and you seem to have fallen for their half-truths.

I think Vogue is also the one that had this airbrushed, highly touched up photo of Diana’s face…her true blemishes, freckles, and wrinkles had been airbrushed away in a lame attempt to convince gullible people that she was this great “beauty.”

I and many others prefer to see the REAL Diana as she was…playing with and loving her sons as a mother, talking and having tea with her friends, going about her outreach work with her REAL face as is…which was expressive, vivid, and so true…wrinkles, freckles, and all.

With that true not-beautiful, but mildly pretty face of hers shining thru, we could connect with her the way she wanted us to…in her real, untouched pictures, blemishes and all, we can picture her as the People’s Princess who laughed, cried, peed, blushed, coughed, belched, woke up with her gold hair a stringy mess, sometimes had to clear her throat, sometimes gulped, sometimes tripped over a dog at home, lounged back on the sofa with her sons or friends with her stomach upward, etc, etc. That’s how most of us prefer to remember her, the real person Diana was.





And if Charles and Diana had remained happily married, the public would have lost most of its interest in her by the time she was in her thirties, and they both would have been uninspiring in the long run.


Probably so…and Diana would have continued her outreach work and maybe much later in life, gained public respect when she won humanitarian awards and the Nobel Peace Prize. She most likely would have become closely involved with the U.N.

Oh, if only Charles had been mature enough…he would have learned so much from Diana and as a result, been in a much better position both in public and in private than he is now.

Right now, he is uninspiring, rather insipid, and desperately trying to grasp at media attention in a lame attempt to compete with his own son and grandson and even his daughter-in-law.

Even the Queen has edged Charles to the sidelines, much to Charles’ indignation.





She became an even greater icon because of the failure and collapse of her marriage, and her divorce made her the most eligible woman on the planet.


Partially true…you’re right in that the media loves drama and strife. The media sure loved getting photos of the weeping Diana, the downcast, struggling, humiliated Diana. They sure enjoyed catching Diana blushing in shame as her problems were made public and as she was slandered so cruelly by the man she had loved, by the father of her two sons.

Charles was using the media to spread his vile lies about her allegedly being “unbalanced” and having a “borderline personality disorder” (How pretentious is that? As if Charles had any psychology degree???) thru his spin doctors.

So the cameras sure rolled when Diana’s tears spilled over, when she trembled, and when she blushed…focusing on her darkened, troubled eyes, the deepening vertical lines between her tight brows, her painfully thin body, and her tight, sad mouth to see if they would get a good show of her cracking up and going mad right there in front of them so they could grab their headlines and pictures.

Diana was intelligent with this…she suffered, but then knew she had to rise above this, so now that the media genie was out of the bottle and couldn’t be put back, she decided to make the best of it and use the media to draw attention to hidden world problems like AIDS, the hungry, and to landmines.

She realized that good things could come out of her position and even her public pain. The media were rather surprised by this strength and intelligence from her that they didn’t expect, especially since it was rumored falsely that she was supposedly “thick as a plank.”

And many were heart warmed by her courage and strength and also pain positive publicity for themselves by helping this strong, big-hearted lady promote her outreach work and her efforts to involve the masses in making the world better.

That’s largely how she ended up such a huge icon. And many of us love triumph over pain and hardship stories…Diana’s story is certainly that; even in her death (which was heroic in and of itself), she died happy and triumphant over her problems.





I don't think Diana would ever have been happy out of the limelight even if she had a wonderful marriage to make up for it. She loved attention and liked making headlines every day.


I think she did want to continue to yes, stay connected to the media to continue her outreach work…but remember what a shy, sensitive woman she was.

She told Bashir how uncomfortable it made her when she and Charles did walkabouts and the media would focus on her…Charles was the one who resented having to share the spotlight and hated not being the center of things; he gave poor Diana so much grief over it.

Charles right now sure is unhappy about not being the center of attention; judging by his desperate bid for attention by hamming it up for last month’s Time magazine (he even brazenly ends his interview by claiming that he was “wider” than the “narrow” media “made room for”…talk about shamelessly, relentlessly self-publicizing).

It’s very fascinating and amusing that now Kate and Wills with little George are the center of media attention, something I know, that had Diana been fortunate enough to survive her accident, would not object to and would actually be relieved with since it would take some of the media pressure off her, Charles conveniently placed himself in the widely-read Time.

Even now the Queen is gaining more attention than she used to since she has been changed by Diana’s caring and is now supportive of her grandson and granddaughter-in-law, much to Charles’s consternation.

Even more telling is that this bit on Charles conveniently comes out right before the Diana film, however off on the true Diana is released in the States….very convenient timing Charles displays here. Telltale sign of an attention-grabber who is resenting not being the center of attention.





A happy marriage would have been boring for the media, although William and Kate seem to be having a ball with both the media and the public right now themselves, this was also true for Charles and Diana in the first three years of their marriage until after their second son was born in 1984. Things went downhill after that.


True…and Wills and Kate have earned their time in the limelight for a while. Diana in the afterlife, I am sure has smiled down on them and is very happy for them. Diana’s wish for a changed, more caring and less shallow Monarchy has come true.

Wills and Kate are continuing what Diana started; like Diana’s sons, George was also born in a real hospital birthing center and George is lucky enough to have caring, loving, hands-on, REAL parents.

It is largely because of Diana’s courageously doing battle with the old establishment dysfunctions and with Philip and even Charles at times and due to her sacrifices that her sons are now free to choose wives of any lot in life and that Wills was free to select Kate as a wife from a “commoner” family…something that would not have been possible without Diana’s influence and courage.

Because Wills was free to marry a woman who he could be truly happy with and who loves him freely back, this marriage will be much better than Charles and Diana’s was. Wills and Kate’s family now knows freedom and peace thanks to Diana’s sacrifices.

What a wonderful new tradition Diana started with a very old establishment…a truly great legacy she has indeed left behind.





But I don't think the same thing will happen with Kate and Wills. This is a marriage for keeps.


How true…largely because of Diana’s courage and sacrifices. Diana made it possible for her sons to have the freedom to select truly compatible partners and to not rush into a hasty, ill-thought-out marriage of convenience to the richest aristocrat about.






Besides, if it fails, Kate will take the blame, not William. He is Diana's beloved son and she is the outsider in the Royal Family.


Thanks to Diana’s knocking down the barriers that kept people divided in the Windsor house, Kate won’t be such an “outsider” especially since Wills and Queen Elizabeth have welcomed Kate’s parents and sister with open arms into their home.

And Wills is a frequent guest with Kate’s parents and sister…oh, thanks to Diana, her grandson is going to have a much broader, more varied, and deeper upbringing. Today, there is not the rigid “class” division in Wills and Kate’s new family; no one in that family is an “outsider.”

Diana sure broadened and deepened her sons’ world….what a hero Diana was. She actually SAVED the Royal family of England. Diana…your wish has come true, darling lady.

I wonder if you can broaden your own mind to accept a princess who is also a hero.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Good that you deleted that lie...I suspect it was a lie that came out of Charles' slanderous, vile mouth through his spin doctors.

He had a smear campaign against Diana and one of his biggest lies was that she supposedly had a million affairs.

reply

It's just another tabloid/Charles lie that was made up; that's why there is NOTHING on any "Simon Lebon." Some lies that Charles and his spin doctors helped along was that Diana allegedly had twenty or thirty "affairs." The liars list every single man that Diana knew as "lovers."

Good that you're with me in countering these lies.

reply

[deleted]

Charles is too wrapped up in fighting with Camilla and fretting over no longer being in the spotlight than anything his spin doctors are doing.

And since Diana died, most of the negative press and Charles' spin doctors dispersed anyway.

Charles had already earned his sons' wrath long ago. Sure, he loves them, but it's distant and cordial.

And Charles is bitter and jealous because now Wills, Kate, and George are center stage now.

Diana's sons already have done wonders to counter any negative press on their beloved mum; while they can't actively censor the media, they still honor their mother by telling the public about their warm memories of her.

And all the people Diana reached out to in her life...most of them have come forward with good compliments on their hero to counter the few hacks and spin docs left who still try to slander her.

Right now, her sons and siblings are working to counter the "murder" lies that still are circulated from time to time.

Most of us want Diana remembered as the hero she was, not caricatured into some lame gangster "murder victim. "

reply

She was a relentless self-publicist, I'll say that for her.


So was Charles...now he's peeved because Wills and Kate are now getting most of the spotlight. Even the Queen now is getting more press time and attention than Charles and that ticks Charles off big time.

That's a large part of why he used one of last month's issues of Time magazine to promote himself, trying to push himself into the spotlight in the hopes of claiming center stage against his own son.

In the Time article, he ends the interview by complaining (and getting his cronies to join in) that the media "didn't make enough space" for him because he's allegedly "bigger" than the media.

I say the media made more than enough space for him...but he chose to waste these opportunities instead of using the media attention to bring truly good changes to humanity the way Diana did.

In learning that he might be bypassed by the Queen for the king position because of he and Camilla's shameful lies and behavior that brought disgrace and embarrassment to the Royal family, he advertises to Time quite glibly, If you chuck away too many things...you end up discovering there was value in them.

This is an exact self-advertising (as if he thinks he's this priceless jewel to the world and his own son is not) quote that came right out of his huge mouth right to the magazine. Talk about a relentless self-publicist.

He's now resentful, jealous, and competitive with his own son. How pathetic and petty is that?

reply

Charles the Toad's marriage to her made her the most famous human being alive, eclipsing JFK's glorious widow Jackie Onassis in the collective imagination. If he didn't deserve her, as you say, he certainly made her legend possible. Now that she's been dead for sixteen years. she has been largely forgotten outside the U.K. Now JFK and Jackie are being celebrated and worshipped again by the mass media fifty years after the tragedy in Dallas.

And you are mistaken if you believe that a happily married Prince and Princess could have changed the world together. As soon as the ring was on Diana Spencer's finger, the public put H.R.H. on the back burner and media kicked the crap out of him because he wasn't "a Jack to her Jackie."

reply

No, it didn't...in fact, Charles was jealous of the attention Diana got and tried to smear her in a vicious campaign and tried to turn people against her.

Charles in NO WAY helped her get where she was. Sure being married to Charles may have sped up her climb into fame, but Diana was a smart, resourceful lady, despite what haters like you say about her.

I live way outside the UK in the US of A and where I live, Diana is FAR, FAR from "forgotten." There was an article about Diana along with Wills and Kate on THIS MONTH, NOVEMBER 2013 issue of Hello! magazine and I see tons of articles on her almost daily right here in the US of A.

Wills and Harry still talk about her quite frequently and with admiration.

The reason Charles lost the respect of much of the public is because of the way he treated Diana and the way her trashed her to the media, calling her "unstable" and mocking her bulimia and depression.

Charles put himself on the back burner with his disrespectful attitude unfit for any HRH. Jack Kennedy made his mistakes with Jackie, but the reason he along with Jackie remained respected is because, unlike Charles, he took responsibility for his mistakes and NEVER trashed Jackie in public and NEVER blamed her for his actions.

True, because JFK's been dead for 50 years, they are having lots on him and Jackie now...but wait until Diana's 50-year anniversary rolls around.

I can tell you're a Diana-hater, but much to your dismay, she will NEVER be "forgotten." Her legacy will be more low-key due to her quiet, shy nature (which is how she'd prefer it), but the memory of her will live forever.

reply

[deleted]

Sure you hate Diana...you're putting all the blame on her alone for the media intrusion into their lives.

In reality, the media has ALWAYS been deeply involved in the lives of the Royal family.

Most of us are well aware of the whole Edward/Wallis affair where the media was intensely involved.

And Edward was NOT discreet about his dramatic step down from the throne VERY PUBLICLY declaring to the media his love for Wallis.

So...you could allegedly "read" Diana's mind and could tell she "thought" he was "beneath her socially"????

What gives...you have no proof of this.

It was the other way around actually...Prince Fool Charles often mocked Diana's shyness and her open emotional displays...if anything, he was the snobbish one.

You're quite incorrect about Diana allegedly "inviting" the media into their lives.

That was Charles’s doing...but he was much sneakier about it...he went through his Palace staffers and encouraged and even bribed some of them with special perks to SUBTLY leak to the media that Diana was allegedly "unstable" and other unfounded negative accusations against Diana.

Charles was foolish enough to be caught by an astute reporter seeing other mistresses.

When empty-headed Camvapidmilla opened her huge mouth to brag (she also was FAR from blameless) about being "in love" with the Prince of Wales, Charles deviously tried to cover it up by accusing Diana of adultery and had some of his staff drop hints TO THE PRESS that Diana was allegedly having "multiple" affairs with "many" men.

Prince Fool Charles didn’t have the courage or guts to face the media directly; he had his staff and "friends" do his dirty work FOR him, so he'd come off clean.

Charles was cowardly in failing to own up to his actions...I along with MOST people, don't admire cowards.

I think that cowardice and sneakiness was what cost Charles the respect of most of the world rather than the adultery.

Had Charles been adult enough to own up to his errors and had been direct, he would not be so hated today.

Diana made her mistakes also and yes, at times let the media in, but she had the HONESTY and COURAGE and guts to be DIRECT and STRAIGHTFORWARD...there was NO nonsense with her using her staff to do her dirty work; she was willing to do her own work, even dirty work and NOT hide behind staff or "friends."

I suspect that's why Diana is so admired today...NOT because of any physical "beauty" or charm, but because of her HONESTY and STRAIGHTFORWARD manner.

I more pity Charles than "hate" him...he's done himself in through his own stupidity...his own sneakiness backfired on him hugely and now he's reaping the bitter fruit of his own irresponsibility and his own cowardice.

reply

I HAVE JUST LOST A FAMILY MEMBER AND SO CANNOT APPEAL TO YOUR HATE-FILLED RANTS. GOODBYE FOR GOOD.

reply

My condolences...goodbye then. Diana could have offered you loving support.

reply

there is just so many things wrong in this post.

reply