Different Facets of Diana

[Jo of Palatine]

I object to your accusation that I am the specific reason why people are tired of commenting in these threads.

Next we'll hear that we all "ganged up" against those "poor" Diana-fans.

 

[sirhon11234]

I think we agree that there are no pure saints around or if they are, they are likely to be overlooked by the public. Because to attract attention you need to be both: appearing good while you are inhabiting a position that needs to be defended at all costs. Even Mother Theresa is said to have been quite unpleasant at times when she ruled her order to her own specifications.

I found that once you love a person, you tend to become blind or at least willing to overlook the negative threads but of course there a re alot of people who don't love Diana. So they see and take into account what has been documented beyond any doubt about her "dark side". I just read Brandreth's "Charles & Camilla"-book and I was really shocked at how Diana's action led to worsen and damage Camilla's life. This is something rarely discussed when talking about Diana, but for me it is a proven fact that while she had good sides, she revenged herself without any qualms at Camilla, using her public position as a means to get the people to support her. And really, that can turn you off...

Diana never took the time IMHO to reflect on how her revenge would hurt others in the process. She didn't care for anyone but herself, not even for her children. Yes, I think she did a great job supporting charities, but she would never have gotten an invitation to dinner at my house!

Well both Camilla and Diana damaged each other's lives. Neither women are saints IMO of course.

 

[tan_berry]

I do not think you are a cynic, Skydragon, but a passionate Diana´s hater and you do not make a good service to the Duchess of Cornwall having her as your avatar. Probably Harry was referring to people like you when he said in an interview about all the bad things are said about his mother.

Everybody has a dark side, and I think Diana´s was small. It is precisely to that size of the dark side that we refer to when we think a person is or not an evil one.

It is necessary in a debate to avoid the triangle thing (triangularización in spanish, help Glittering Tiaras!), to triangulate, what means when a person talks about a theme is trying to construct a triangle, if you are not with me, you are against me, trying to absolutely devaluate any different position.

 

[milla Ca]

I do not think you are a cynic, Skydragon, but a passionate Diana´s hater and you do not make a good service to the Duchess of Cornwall having her as your avatar. Probably Harry was referring to people like you when he said in an interview about all the bad things are said about his mother.

You can criticize and dislike Diana without being ´a passionate Diana hater´.
I know Skydragon for some years now and i think it´s absolutely not fair to entitle her this way!

 

[Elspeth]

Ordinary workers would not have spent a great deal of time with her and many of them would perhaps feel so special that a princess, any princess had spent time with them, 5 minutes or not. Then you have the ones in charge who almost fall over themselves to be seen.

I think I was born an old cynic, whilst I can see the good in people, I can also see the bad. Some of which I can overlook but sometimes the bad just seems to be overwhelming and I can't understand why 'others' can ignore or excuse it. It is similar to saying a man tortured and murdered 5 children, but was a good father.

Yes Diana did a lot of good for a variety of charities, but also 'hurt' an awful lot of people in the process of staying in the limelight.

Yes, but it's like getting blood out of a stone for you to admit that there was any good in Diana, and most of the time it's a backhanded compliment, like "yes she did seem to be compassionate but there were always cameras around weren't there." In other words, it was just an act for the cameras. People who spent time around her and really didn't have a lot of of good to say about her have said that, as far as they could tell, her compassion was genuine and it didn't just switch off when the cameras went away. Yes, she had a lot of faults, including some dangerous ones, but at least give her credit for what seems to be pretty universally agreed were her strengths. This isn't a zero-sum game - her faults are just as bad even if she did have some good points as well, and the same goes for Camilla and Charles.

 

[Elspeth]

I found that once you love a person, you tend to become blind or at least willing to overlook the negative threads but of course there a re alot of people who don't love Diana. So they see and take into account what has been documented beyond any doubt about her "dark side". I just read Brandreth's "Charles & Camilla"-book and I was really shocked at how Diana's action led to worsen and damage Camilla's life. This is something rarely discussed when talking about Diana, but for me it is a proven fact that while she had good sides, she revenged herself without any qualms at Camilla, using her public position as a means to get the people to support her. And really, that can turn you off...

The same is equally true about Camilla. There are people in these conversations who appear to be ready to fight to the death to defend Camilla from any breath of criticism that any of the problems in Charles and Diana's marriage had anything to do with anyone other than Diana. Just as some of the more extreme Diana fans will say in one breath that "yes Diana had her faults" and then in the next breath blame those faults on Charles and Camilla (Diana was too naive, too trusting, too in love to see how she was being abused by these wicked evil people), thus really saying that she didn't have any faults after all, the more extreme Camilla fans will blame everything on Diana (Camilla was only being loyal, she was simply a true friend, she only wanted what was best for Charles, she was too selfless, Charles was really in love with Diana, he couldn't be expected to love someone as worthless as Diana, he couldn't communicate with Diana because she was too stupid, his adultery doesn't count because Diana had lovers too, etc etc).

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. All of them were caught in a web not entirely of their making, and all of them behaved somewhat less than perfectly in the process. It's really frustrating watching these discussions devolve into armed camps defending their champion to the death against all comers, and giving the impression that no torture would be bad enough to elicit a breath of genuine criticism of said champion, when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that all three of them were all too human and had their human failings as well as their human strengths, and that they weren't caricatures of pure good and pure evil depending on which side you support. And honestly, it makes your case stronger if you can support someone while genuinely acknowledging their less good points and genuinely acknowledging the good points of the person on the other side.

 

[Skydragon]

I do not think you are a cynic, Skydragon, but a passionate Diana´s hater and you do not make a good service to the Duchess of Cornwall having her as your avatar.

I don't think I have ever hated anyone in my entire life, it would take more than anything Diana did or said to do that.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, but it's like getting blood out of a stone for you to admit that there was any good in Diana, and most of the time it's a backhanded compliment, like "yes she did seem to be compassionate but there were always cameras around weren't there." In other words, it was just an act for the cameras. People who spent time around her and really didn't have a lot of of good to say about her have said that, as far as they could tell, her compassion was genuine and it didn't just switch off when the cameras went away. Yes, she had a lot of faults, including some dangerous ones, but at least give her credit for what seems to be pretty universally agreed were her strengths. This isn't a zero-sum game - her faults are just as bad even if she did have some good points as well, and the same goes for Camilla and Charles.

Yes indeed, but I recall a poster telling how she asked for a sicker looking baby, for the cameras and another who complained about a supposedly private visit, where she arranged for a member of the press and a cameraman to suddenly arrive. I am one of those strange people that remembers such things and finds it hard to imagine that other people can just disregard or wipe it from their memory.

Yes I concede that she could be caring and compassionate, but that really wasn't why I asked the questions that I did. As I have said time and again, ysbel, sirhon and TheTruth have altered my perception of Diana, but when I ask certain questions, some posters become quite aggressive and resort to personal attacks. Yes Charles and Camilla have faults, it's just nobody has yet raised the ones that really aggravate me, well apart from that blooming scarf!

 

[Elspeth]

Next we'll hear that we all "ganged up" against those "poor" Diana-fans.

It isn't funny, Jo - this is exactly what the moderators have been hearing for a long time. Part of the reason for TheTruth's posts here today is that yesterday I received yet another PM complaint from Diana fans who feel they can't say anything about Diana without being jumped on by a group of Camilla supporters, even in threads in the Diana forum, and I cc'd the PMs and my responses around the whole British moderation team.

The moderators are trying to maintain an atmosphere where fans of Diana and supporters of Charles and Camilla all feel they can participate without being chased away by a concerted attack by other members backed up by biased moderators. From the point of view of the moderators, it's really frustrating to see just about any positive comment about Diana being subjected to the sort of slash-and-burn reaction that might be more appropriate for an infestation of cocroaches. It's equally frustrating to see the same thing happen when someone points out how much happier Charles is looking these days and a group of Diana fans take mortal offence.

People are entitled to express opinions like that without being put through the wringer for it. I know there's a fine line between just leaving things alone when you disagree with them and wanting to correct what you see as an error of fact or of judgement, but the atmosphere in some of these threads has really turned poisonous, and the moderators are getting PM complaints by people on both sides, and, more worryingly, people who don't really care one way or the other but are just flat-out too intimidated by the strong supporters on both sides to feel comfortable posting.

The moderators would really appreciate a bit of tolerance by people on both sides of this issue before we lose too many more participants.

 

[Skydragon]

The moderators would really appreciate a bit of tolerance by people on both sides of this issue before we lose too many more participants.

Noted, I for one will leave the Diana threads alone if it is causing that much angst.

 

[Boris]

Thank you very much Elspeth for this IMO very accurate and balanced statement on the prevailing, sometimes regrettable situation of the TRF British Forum.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes indeed, but I recall a poster telling how she asked for a sicker looking baby, for the cameras and another who complained about a supposedly private visit, where she arranged for a member of the press and a cameraman to suddenly arrive. I am one of those strange people that remembers such things and finds it hard to imagine that other people can just disregard or wipe it from their memory.

On the other hand, there are enough people who did praise her compassion and reported that it continued after the photographers had left to suggest that in this, as in so many other things, she wasn't always completely consistent. You don't have to disregard some of the reports that she played up to the cameras (and I don't think anyone would disagree with you there) to also acknowledge that that wasn't the sum total of what she did.

Yes I concede that she could be caring and compassionate, but that really wasn't why I asked the questions that I did. As I have said time and again, ysbel, sirhon and TheTruth have altered my perception of Diana, but when I ask certain questions, some posters become quite aggressive and resort to personal attacks. Yes Charles and Camilla have faults, it's just nobody has yet raised the ones that really aggravate me, well apart from that blooming scarf!

Well, feel free to raise them yourself sometime...

What blooming scarf?

 

[Skydragon]

On the other hand, there are enough people who did praise her compassion and reported that it continued after the photographers had left to suggest that in this, as in so many other things, she wasn't always completely consistent. You don't have to disregard some of the reports that she played up to the cameras (and I don't think anyone would disagree with you there) to also acknowledge that that wasn't the sum total of what she did.

I said I would avoid these threads, but Yes, she was very complex and she really seemed to care about some issues, (look blood from a stone)!

I am sorry to all the nice posters I may have driven off.

------ the more extreme Camilla fans will blame everything on Diana (Camilla was only being loyal, she was simply a true friend, she only wanted what was best for Charles, she was too selfless, Charles was really in love with Diana, he couldn't be expected to love someone as worthless as Diana, he couldn't communicate with Diana because she was too stupid, his adultery doesn't count because Diana had lovers too, etc etc)..

Me again, I have never said any of the above, the only thing I vaguely agree with, is if you are screaming at Charles or Camilla for their adultery, it is only fair to remember that by the same token, Diana was also having affairs.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The same is equally true about Camilla. There are people in these conversations who appear to be ready to fight to the death to defend Camilla from any breath of criticism that any of the problems in Charles and Diana's marriage had anything to do with anyone other than Diana. Just as some of the more extreme Diana fans will say in one breath that "yes Diana had her faults" and then in the next breath blame those faults on Charles and Camilla (Diana was too naive, too trusting, too in love to see how she was being abused by these wicked evil people), thus really saying that she didn't have any faults after all, the more extreme Camilla fans will blame everything on Diana (Camilla was only being loyal, she was simply a true friend, she only wanted what was best for Charles, she was too selfless, Charles was really in love with Diana, he couldn't be expected to love someone as worthless as Diana, he couldn't communicate with Diana because she was too stupid, his adultery doesn't count because Diana had lovers too, etc etc).

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between.

You're right in that. But I have yet to see a quote from a source at least a bit reliable that Camilla actually got public with her view of Diana. Yes, there have been those "camps" but the original sources I have read about in the more reliable books always claim that Camilla did her best to avoid commenting on the situation and tried her utmost to stay in the shadows, while Charles genuinely suffered and tried to navigate in a positive way while being caught in the situation. Even the most ardent Dianaista-biographers show Charles as weak, unsupportive and self-centered but never as vindictive.

So IMHO, after reading a lot about this topic, I dare say that the spite and venom came from one corner. I mean: why must Diana have shared her views on Charles' abilities in bed with first her friends and then with Morton and Settlen? I have never read anything about Diana's abilities and needs from a source within the Charles' camp. Yes, he complained about her and her behaviour, yes, he was unhappy but he never applied to the lowest instincts of the common folk like some of the things Diana leaked to the media did.

Call me old-fashioned but things like that turn me off. It is simply not done. Full stop.

The things that led to my judgment of Diana are things that in my book are beyond the pale. That's that, unfortunately.

 

[tan_berry]

English is not my first language, so I absolutely agree with Elspeth.

I was trained in psychology and we try to understand and never be judgemental.

In personal matters, my parents divorced when I was 12 and my three younger brothers and I suffered a lot, because they had a love-hate thing going around. Yes, I happened to have a stepmother but she never dared to ask us a fifteen days in advance notice for us to visit our father, or anything similar. My parents divorced because there was another woman involved, not the one he later got married to thanks God.

So, there are many things involved in one opinion, but I have never attacked the Duchess of Cornwall or Prince Charles in any thread. I try, as difficult as it is for me, to understand them.

 

[ghost_night554]

I think I'll put my input into this, while as I've stated before we will clearly never know the full story, I will acknowledge thought that Diana had a bad side to her, and I will say Diana that as far as we've heard she seemed to be a genuinely compassionate person, of course I will admit she probably played with the cameras a few times but I truly believe that she was just as compassionate when the cameras turned off. As for the marriage, I say both parties messed up badly, Charles had Camilla, and Diana had her lovers, therefore I don't tend to favor one party when it comes to that argument. I don't know about everyone else but the more I learn about Diana the more I find her fascinating, she was so complex and yet for years no one really knew. I definitely still admire her charity work but obviously that doesn't excuse her wrong doings.

 

[kimebear]

One facet that stands out among all the others is that Diana was a very loving mother. You can just see the sheer joy in her eyes in the photos of her with her sons. I think that after the difficult relationship she and her siblings had with her mother, who in turn did not have the best relationship with her own mother, Diana seemed determined to be the best mother that she could be to her own children and it showed. For all of her other strengths and weaknesses, this is the one aspect of her personality that impressed me.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I've been reading back in this thread for about two or three pages with great interest. I've never seen myself as a fanatical Diana fan, and I certainly don't buy into the whole "sacrificial lamb" aspect that she presented to us during the 90s. She could be vindictive and gossipy about the most intimate aspects of her life, and incredibly manipulative. On the other hand, during her first few years of her Royal career, she was a fine Princess of Wales and managed to keep the darker sides of her personality hidden from public view. There are people who have been inspired by Diana to do charitable work, and for that we must be thankful. There are areas in which people simply have to agree to disagree agreeably, and I think that the Diana subject--as with religion and politics--is one of them. I don't like forums where Diana is 'worshipped', nor do I like forums where she's seen as a totally destructive wacko. For the most part, I find this form to be fairly balanced. Not every poster agrees with my viewpoint, and that's okay with me.

 

[Russophile]

Jo, is it possible to start a thread in Camilla about the things that were done to her? I find that highly interesting.
Thanks!

Despite all her faults, Diana left a lasting legacy, a power house, if you will. She impacted so many lives, for good or otherwise, I just don't think we'll see that again in my lifetime. . .

 

[Elspeth]

You're right in that. But I have yet to see a quote from a source at least a bit reliable that Camilla actually got public with her view of Diana. Yes, there have been those "camps" but the original sources I have read about in the more reliable books always claim that Camilla did her best to avoid commenting on the situation and tried her utmost to stay in the shadows, while Charles genuinely suffered and tried to navigate in a positive way while being caught in the situation. Even the most ardent Dianaista-biographers show Charles as weak, unsupportive and self-centered but never as vindictive.

So IMHO, after reading a lot about this topic, I dare say that the spite and venom came from one corner. I mean: why must Diana have shared her views on Charles' abilities in bed with first her friends and then with Morton and Settlen? I have never read anything about Diana's abilities and needs from a source within the Charles' camp. Yes, he complained about her and her behaviour, yes, he was unhappy but he never applied to the lowest instincts of the common folk like some of the things Diana leaked to the media did.

Call me old-fashioned but things like that turn me off. It is simply not done. Full stop.

The things that led to my judgment of Diana are things that in my book are beyond the pale. That's that, unfortunately.

Yes, but it's only those things that are beyond the pale; it doesn't mean that she had no good points at all. In terms of the way she and Charles used the press, she was a lot more cruel and ruthless. However, it's a bad misuse of inductive reasoning to say "this aspect of her personality was bad and therefore she was bad through and through, and she had no good qualities at all and never did anything good." You can acknowledge that she genuinely cared about children, old people, and little furry animals even though her dealings with Charles, Camilla, and the press left a lot to be desired. You can even acknowledge that she had some genuine reasons to feel aggrieved while saying that her methods of addressing those grievances were largely deplorable.

The thing that's really getting to a lot of people is that some members have decided that certain aspects of Diana's behaviour were deplorable (and the exact same thing goes for the people who feel this way about Charles and Camilla) and that therefore everything positive that's written about her must be challenged. Doesn't matter if it's in a thread in the Diana forum about whether she looked better in pink or purple, the Diana detractors have to show up and say she looked ghastly in both colours and that she was a vain empty-headed fashion plate. Doesn't matter if it's a post in a current-events thread about Camilla visiting a riding school, some Diana fan has to show up to make a completely irrelevant joke about Camilla looking like a horse. I've sat here amazed sometimes by the lengths some people will go, and the mental contortions they'll put themselves through, to argue that Diana (or Charles/Camilla) has no good points whatever and it doesn't matter how many times you say "but she was so good with children" they're going to sit here and say NO SHE WASN'T!!!! until you give up and go away because they can't allow a single positive comment to go unchallenged regardless of what it's about.

And sometimes it looks to me (and I'm not the only one who's noticed it) that some of this is being done deliberately, again by fans of both sides. There are things being written that appear to have no other purpose than to set off the fans on the other side and then sit back and have a good snigger while watching them boil over. As if the genuine fighting wasn't bad enough, it's adding insult to injury for us to be having to deal with deliberate needling.

This is really damaging the forum - all the moderators have received complaints, often from people who don't have a dog in the Diana-Camilla fight, that they're fed up to the back teeth of pages of battles to the death over comparatively minor topics because one side can't admit that Diana (or Camilla) had any good points and the other side can't admit that she had any bad points. It's completely idiotic, and it doesn't say much for the common sense of the people who are fighting like this.

 

[MARG]

One facet that stands out among all the others is that Diana was a very loving mother. You can just see the sheer joy in her eyes in the photos of her with her sons. I think that after the difficult relationship she and her siblings had with her mother, who in turn did not have the best relationship with her own mother, Diana seemed determined to be the best mother that she could be to her own children and it showed. For all of her other strengths and weaknesses, this is the one aspect of her personality that impressed me.

It is strange how each of us can view a particular facet of Diana's life and "see" the complete opposite of each other.

For me, Diana's worst traits came to the fore in her behavior toward her children, who, when they were young, gave her all the unconditional love anyone could ask for. It's when they got a little older that things got a little more tricky.

I well remember the photo of Diana arriving back on board Britannia with her arms outstretched to her boys. She knew the cameras were all madly snapping away and it didn't really matter because the actions of all would have been just the same if they had happened away from the world.

But, and it is a big but, Diana was not above using or manipulating them to suit herself.

She insisted they be treated as ordinary children at ordinary schools (or at least as ordinary as it gets at Eaton) and yet, within weeks of having metaphotically turfed William out into harsh "real life", she followed it up with the most embarassing and hurtful Panorama programme that must have caused him a lot of pain and shame. Kids are cruel at school and he must have had his share of tears.

Polo. Both William and Harry play exceptionably well, and we could be forgiven for thinking that they had played it all their life. They didn't as Diana wouldn't allow it. Whether it was because she would have been obliged to attend their games when she hated it or, because she would have had to mix with the "country" set as opposed to the sophisticated London set which she far preferred is anyones guess. To me it was selfish to deny her sons their heritage.

Shooting/hunting. Ditto.

All in all it had more to do with Diana's preference than the boys love of sports. So we had Carribbean holidays in the sun and Skiing with the trendy set in winter. The boys mostly missed out on what their school contemporys were doing . . . . polo, hunting, shooting, fishing with a little international skiing to round out their education.

That last holiday on Dodi's yacht must have been really awful for them. Cruising with your mother's latest lover is not the sort of holiday that young boys dream of. I though Diana would have taken a lesson from her own childhood and done a lot better by her boys.

 

[Madame Royale]

Yes, but it's only those things that are beyond the pale; it doesn't mean that she had no good points at all. In terms of the way she and Charles used the press, she was a lot more cruel and ruthless. However, it's a bad misuse of inductive reasoning to say "this aspect of her personality was bad and therefore she was bad through and through, and she had no good qualities at all and never did anything good." You can acknowledge that she genuinely cared about children, old people, and little furry animals even though her dealings with Charles, Camilla, and the press left a lot to be desired. You can even acknowledge that she had some genuine reasons to feel aggrieved while saying that her methods of addressing those grievances were largely deplorable.

The thing that's really getting to a lot of people is that some members have decided that certain aspects of Diana's behaviour were deplorable (and the exact same thing goes for the people who feel this way about Charles and Camilla) and that therefore everything positive that's written about her must be challenged. Doesn't matter if it's in a thread in the Diana forum about whether she looked better in pink or purple, the Diana detractors have to show up and say she looked ghastly in both colours. Doesn't matter if it's a post in a current-events thread about Camilla visiting a riding school, some Diana fan has to show up to make a completely irrelevant joke about Camilla looking like a horse. I've sat here amazed sometimes by the lengths some people will go, and the mental contortions they'll put themselves through, to argue that Diana (or Charles/Camilla) has no good points whatever and it doesn't matter how many times you say "but she was so good with children" they're going to sit here and say NO SHE WASN'T!!!! until you give up and go away because they can't allow a single positive comment to go unchallenged regardless of what it's about.

And sometimes it looks to me (and I'm not the only one who's noticed it) that some of this is being done deliberately, again by fans of both sides. There are things being written that appear to have no other purpose than to set off the fans on the other side and then sit back and have a good snigger while watching them boil over. As if the genuine fighting wasn't bad enough, it's adding insult to injury for us to be having to deal with deliberate needling.

This is really damaging the forum - all the moderators have received complaints, often from people who don't have a dog in the Diana-Camilla fight, that they're fed up to the back teeth of pages of battles to the death over comparatively minor topics because one side can't admit that Diana (or Camilla) had any good points and the other side can't admit that she had any bad points. It's completely idiotic, and it doesn't say much for the common sense of the people who are fighting like this.

And this is surely one of the reasons why you are an administrator!!! Amen, E...

 

[Skydragon]

And sometimes it looks to me (and I'm not the only one who's noticed it) that some of this is being done deliberately, again by fans of both sides.

Coming from an administrator, I object to this sort of accusation. First in this thread the seemingly personal accusations from a moderator, then the personal comments from another poster were allowed, with not a murmer. The conversation was to me, going great guns and to some extent I was begining to understand, then suddenly the swoop. You apparently see the quest for information as deliberate needling.

 

[Elspeth]

Coming from an administrator, I object to this sort of accusation. First in this thread the seemingly personal accusations from a moderator, then the personal comments from another poster were allowed, with not a murmer.

We've been trying to let people express their opinions and feelings in the hopes of maybe coming to some sort of resolution, so in this thread we've left posts that we might not always leave. In the Sources thread, where the conversation is also going on, I deleted several posts by another moderator yesterday after a discussion turned personal in the heat of the moment.

The conversation was to me, going great guns and to some extent I was begining to understand, then suddenly the swoop. You apparently see the quest for information as deliberate needling.

No, I don't. I hope I'm not that lacking in understanding. What I'm saying is that sometimes there are posts which seem to have no purpose other than to throw fuel on the flames. I'm not talking about the "now hang on a minute, exactly where is Charles supposed to have said that?" followed by "well, if Richard Kay is the source, you'll have to excuse me for not being impressed" followed by "so he got it from Morton's book, but is there any evidence that doesn't come from a Diana partisan?" sort of request for information. I'm talking more about the sorts of comments where Charles is being praised in the current-events or charity thread for something like his work with organic farmers or disadvantaged youths, and someone shows up with an off-topic and quite irrelevant comment along the lines of "what a pity he never showed a tenth of that interest in his first wife," or where Camilla's work with her regiments or charities is being discussed and someone lobs a grenade along the lines of "finally we have a Princess of Wales who isn't a total waste of space." I mean, you can just imagine what the result of those comments will be if the mods don't get to them first.

 

[kimebear]

It is strange how each of us can view a particular facet of Diana's life and "see" the complete opposite of each other.

For me, Diana's worst traits came to the fore in her behavior toward her children, who, when they were young, gave her all the unconditional love anyone could ask for. It's when they got a little older that things got a little more tricky.

I well remember the photo of Diana arriving back on board Britannia with her arms outstretched to her boys. She knew the cameras were all madly snapping away and it didn't really matter because the actions of all would have been just the same if they had happened away from the world.

But, and it is a big but, Diana was not above using or manipulating them to suit herself.

She insisted they be treated as ordinary children at ordinary schools (or at least as ordinary as it gets at Eaton) and yet, within weeks of having metaphotically turfed William out into harsh "real life", she followed it up with the most embarassing and hurtful Panorama programme that must have caused him a lot of pain and shame. Kids are cruel at school and he must have had his share of tears.

I have to disagree with you. Because of the very unique situation the Wales family has always found themselves in, I don't believe that we, as private citizens, can always truly grasp the intent and circumstances that they have had to deal with. However, with the enormous amount of divorces that occur everywhere everyday, I think it is reasonable to say that the children are always the losers in these situations no matter what their parents do.

I can't fault Diana for insisting that her sons be treated as "ordinary" at school. IMO, it would have been much harder on them in the long run to put on airs in an environment full of other privileged young men. Being treated as precious and not required to abide by the same rules as their peers would have won them no favors. As far as the Panorama interview goes, I certainly would have preferred it had she never given it but, that being said, the boys being at school may have actually have been the safer place for them during this time. Their friends at school were mostly the sons of members of their parents inner circle and would have already known about the goings on long before, unlike the rest of us as members of the public. I would also be willing to wager that some of them had already found themselves in the middle of the messy divorces of their own parents. Kids can certainly be cruel if not over this, then some other thing certainly if the children in question were so inclined to be cruel towards them in the first place.

Polo. Both William and Harry play exceptionably well, and we could be forgiven for thinking that they had played it all their life. They didn't as Diana wouldn't allow it. Whether it was because she would have been obliged to attend their games when she hated it or, because she would have had to mix with the "country" set as opposed to the sophisticated London set which she far preferred is anyones guess. To me it was selfish to deny her sons their heritage.

Shooting/hunting. Ditto.

All in all it had more to do with Diana's preference than the boys love of sports. So we had Carribbean holidays in the sun and Skiing with the trendy set in winter. The boys mostly missed out on what their school contemporys were doing . . . . polo, hunting, shooting, fishing with a little international skiing to round out their education.

I think it is a little extreme to say that Diana "denied her sons their heritage" because she did not allow them to play polo, if that is even truly what happened. It may have been more a case of being fearful of her sons being on horseback than the boredom of the games. You may remember that she was thrown as a child. Ditto for the shooting/hunting. In my family of hunters, the boys (and girls) are not given their first guns until they are sixteen.

That last holiday on Dodi's yacht must have been really awful for them. Cruising with your mother's latest lover is not the sort of holiday that young boys dream of. I though Diana would have taken a lesson from her own childhood and done a lot better by her boys.

Aside from what the tabloids have said, we don't really know if they enjoyed this holiday or not. As I mentioned earlier, divorce is always hardest on the children and I think you would be hard pressed to find children who do not spend time with one of their parents and the new person in their lives. It is a bit naive, IMO to think that they would be always shielded from the man in Diana's life. As she only had them during holidays and not regular Mondays through Fridays, that would most certainly include vacation time.

 

[Skydragon]

---snipped---- I'm talking more about the sorts of comments where Charles is being praised in the current-events or charity thread for something like his work with organic farmers or disadvantaged youths, and someone shows up with an off-topic and quite irrelevant comment along the lines of "what a pity he never showed a tenth of that interest in his first wife," or where Camilla's work with her regiments or charities is being discussed and someone lobs a grenade along the lines of "finally we have a Princess of Wales who isn't a total waste of space." I mean, you can just imagine what the result of those comments will be if the mods don't get to them first.

Well, at least I can't be accused of comments like those! For the record, I don't believe Diana was a total waste of space now. She did bring a lot of much needed attention to a host of charities. My dislike of her as a person are for personal reasons and have very little to do with the C/C/D saga.

 

[Skydragon]

I can't fault Diana for insisting that her sons be treated as "ordinary" at school. IMO, it would have been much harder on them in the long run to put on airs in an environment full of other privileged young men. Being treated as precious and not required to abide by the same rules as their peers would have won them no favors. As far as the Panorama interview goes, I certainly would have preferred it had she never given it but, that being said, the boys being at school may have actually have been the safer place for them during this time. Their friends at school were mostly the sons of members of their parents inner circle

Some perhaps, but by no means all. It is one thing to be teased because your parents have/are divorcing, as you say it is the norm but to have your mother appear on the BBC to inform the world how awful everyone was, must have been absolutely humiliating. I can't imagine the terrible distress that must have caused them. If you want your sons to be respected as members of the RF, you can't pretend they are normal rich kids, that is probably why so many in the UK are looking at becoming a republic.

I think it is a little extreme to say that Diana "denied her sons their heritage" because she did not allow them to play polo, if that is even truly what happened. It may have been more a case of being fearful of her sons being on horseback than the boredom of the games. You may remember that she was thrown as a child. Ditto for the shooting/hunting. In my family of hunters, the boys (and girls) are not given their first guns until they are sixteen.

I was fearful of many of the things my children engaged in, but as a parent you just take a deep breath. 16 is pretty late to be given your first gun IMO, 9 is the accepted age here.

 

[Empress]

Frankly, I don't think that anyone should be given a gun before they are too old to effectively hold the damn thing, thus negating the issue in the first place. But barring that, I think that it's ridiculous that a person would give a gun to someone who is too young to vote, drink, have a drivers license or be the military, whatever the family tradition is.

 

[kimebear]

That is just my point though, Skydragon. Diana made decisions for her children as she thought best, like most parents do. Perhaps 9 is an accepted age for you and your friends, but that does not make it accepted for Diana or a host of other people. It doesn't mean that you are wrong, or she was wrong, just that parents decide what they want for their own children and what is "accepted" does not necessarily have to apply. You would be hard pressed to convince me that Diana was not a loving mother because she did not allow her sons to participate in certain sports.

We are also never going to come to a satisfactory understanding about the effects of the interview. As I have already admitted that it was not the best decision she had ever made, it does not lessen my opinion that she was a loving mother. She was not perfect. Neither am I, nor are you.

 

[Skydragon]

Frankly, I don't think that anyone should be given a gun before they are too old to effectively hold the damn thing, thus negating the issue in the first place. But barring that, I think that it's ridiculous that a person would give a gun to someone who is too young to vote, drink, have a drivers license or be the military, whatever the family tradition is.

I should have said, the gun is sized down and I am talking mainly about shotguns for country shooting. If you teach and supervise the children, they normally have a better respect for it. Here it is illegal to have your guns, any guns in anything other than a government approved cabinet. These cabinets are normally checked by the police for security and althought they might not stop the criminal from getting hold of them, they certainly stop unsupervised youngsters. Your reasoning would be strange to many, as England and Scotland have different age limits for drinking and smoking and in the near future possibly voting. They can of course sign up to the British army at 16/17, they just won't be sent to fight. Cadets in all of the arms enjoy many a week learning to handle and fire a gun.