Reasons for disliking Diana?

[Incas]

If everyone let her go to a peacefull rest than the everything would be fine.

It's a great sentiment, however, since some of the things she did had a nasty habit of lingering on. The things she may or maynot have given to Burrell and others contributed to his trial, and dragging Charles, William and Harry into it. The tape of alleged rape led to more unkind coverage of Charles. Not to mention her letters to Hewitt and allegation of harm to her car,etc, etc. Her behavior as a grown woman, is more appropriate coming from an impulsiving two year old who wanted different things from moment to moment, without any concept of consequence.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

It's true Diana had an ugly side to her personality. She could be irrational. The Panorama interview was a very bad idea. That episode of her life was horrible. She should not have done that interview. Not only was it in poor taste and hurtful to those closest to her, but the interview itself was a disaster. Diana came across seeming like a crazy person! I don't say that to be mean because I adored her. She was a big-hearted woman, but I'm sorry, in that interview, she seemed like a crazy person!

Yes, Diana was at many times irrational and impulsive. Her son Harry takes after her in a sense.

Diana's first mistake was marrying Charles. Her second mistake was staying married to him for so long, hoping he would miraculously change or take pity on her or something. But I suppose even when she must have realized he would never change his heart or forget Camilla or whatever, she probably stayed because of the kids and she didn't want a divorce like her parents.
These are all glaring flaws, but nonetheless all of her mistakes were understandable. They could've happened to anyone.

 

[Idriel]

She should not have done that interview. Not only was it in poor taste and hurtful to those closest to her, but the interview itself was a disaster. Diana came across seeming like a crazy person!

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

 

[ysbel]

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

Interesting that you say that, Idriel.

Andrew Morton, who I don't necessarily believe all the time, said that Diana was not unusually conniving - not because she was too honest to be cunning but because she never thought too far in advance.

He said her attitude at the time of the book was that her life was so horrible, things could not get worse and she had to do something, so she wanted the book published. Again with the interview, she wanted people to understand and sympathize with her hurt and she succeeded wildly but that apparently was as far as her thought processes went.

She apparently didn't think of the implications of some of her statements in the interview. When talking about James Hewitt, she mentioned that after Hewitt's book came out, William brought a box of chocolates to her and said, "Mummy, I think you've been hurt"

At that time, William was a teenager at Eton, an all boys British boarding school and undoubtedly the other boys must have teased him mercilessly about giving chocolate to his Mummy. Yet ironically Diana and Charles had insisted that their children go to Eton and not to Gordonstoun because Charles had been bullied so much by other boys at Gordonstoun.

So she was apparently concerned with other boys bullying her sons in school, but she apparently forgot that when she shared with the world her story about William giving chocolates to Mummy.

That's just one example but there are several.

 

[Idriel]

Andrew Morton, who I don't necessarily believe all the time, said that Diana was not unusually conniving - not because she was too honest to be cunning but because she never thought too far in advance.

Yes I totally agree with that statement.
I think her lack her foresee was due to inexperience during her youth, then to the very complicated life she lead afterward. She had to much things going on to really have time to sit calmly and think about the consequences of her acts.
He main problem was that she needed the drama, and if it would not create by itself, she would provoke it and thus get involve with people and in situations she would later regret (those holidays with Dodi -the most boring man on earth by all accounts- are a classic example).

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

On the contrary, that interview was a blazing success in regard of her campaign to sell her 'Poor Diana' image. With time, and with what we now know of her personality and of the consequences this interview had on her life, it IS a disaster, but at the time, she had the most positive coverage, which was the aim.

How different was my reaction at the time from yours! I watched it when it was live. I remember exactly where I was, in New York at some friends' apartment for holidays, don't remember the exact timeframe, Thanksgiving? and I remember thinking she seemed like she was sedated or on some other drugs!

 

[ysbel]

How different was my reaction at the time from yours! I watched it when it was live. I remember exactly where I was, in New York at some friends' apartment for holidays, don't remember the exact timeframe, Thanksgiving? and I remember thinking she seemed like she was sedated or on some other drugs!

I think what Idriel meant was that the interview was very successful at selling the 'poor Diana' image with the media and with the general public.

I had mixed reactions from it. It seemed rehearsed. I expected more spontaneity from Diana. I was surprised that she denied any compatibility issues between herself and Charles and I was dumbstruck when she mentioned William bringing her the chocolates. I couldn't believe that as concerned as she was with sheltering her sons from too much publicity that she would divulge a mother-son confidence.

If she had acknowledged the compatibility issues though, it may have lessened the sympathy that she gained from the media and the public. Or maybe she just didn't see them herself.

 

[corazon]

the interview was a bad idea, I dont know why exactly she do it, may she was desesperate, Diana look ''to the defensive'', was a interview .......mmmmm......rare for my. Diana said ''her'' true, charles have a interview similar in 1994 but diana was more...crude

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I think what Idriel meant was that the interview was very successful at selling the 'poor Diana' image with the media and with the general public.

I had mixed reactions from it. It seemed rehearsed. I expected more spontaneity from Diana. I was surprised that she denied any compatibility issues between herself and Charles and I was dumbstruck when she mentioned William bringing her the chocolates. I couldn't believe that as concerned as she was with sheltering her sons from too much publicity that she would divulge a mother-son confidence.

If she had acknowledged the compatibility issues though, it may have lessened the sympathy that she gained from the media and the public. Or maybe she just didn't see them herself.

I just remember feeling embarrassed for her. I do not think she was a druggie but she just seemed so out of it the entire interview. I don't think it was good judgement. It may have impressed the Diana-is-a-goddess people, adding to her "poor Diana" image, but it made her look very strange to me. If a member of the royal family (as she still was at that time; she wasn't divorced yet, I don't think?) is going to do a TV interview, I think they need to find the time and luxury to work out everything and do it right. And doing it with Martin Bashir on Panorama? No. It should be done more like Charles did it, with a biographer selected by the Palace Guard, someone you trust completely.

 

[WillowDawn]

I thought she was manipulative and vindictive. A bit of a brat. She needed attention and knew how to work the people. She did do a lot of help even if there were alterior motives though. She was a bit of a nut job. She did think she could heal people and that God talked to her. I think she lived in her own imaginary world sometimes. Anyway, if she wastn so keen on getting back at people who "hurt" her and didnt try tactics to get the people on her side I would like her a lot more. She still did a lot of good work though and I admire her for that.

I think this is my feelings as well.

 

[emily62_1]

Not doubting that you did infact meet Diana and others associated with/ working alongside her, but I find your comment about Diana turning to sick children and asking if there were any sicker ones she could have her photo taken with quite hard to believe (of course not saying it did'nt happen).

"MII"

As for me, I think it's really unlikely, this is the sort of gossip we have read or heard about since Di got married to Prince charles, what it matters is that no1 who has been following her life, since 1981 to her death, will ever believe such a thing.

 

[Idriel]

How different was my reaction at the time from yours! I watched it when it was live.

I did not see the interview, I was quite young and had no interest whatsoever in Di at the time.
I was referring to the reaction of the majority of the public, which was to pity her and take her side, and to the media coverage which ensued the airing of Panorama. The headlines were universally positive (for her that is). The 'Poor Diana' campain was succesful, now she was going to pay a fine price for it. I think it at that time the Charles and Camilla heinous coverage reached its high (?).

 

[Incas]

I watched that interview as well. The broadcast was announced on Charles' birthday and actually aired on the Queen's wedding anniversary. The timing seemed to cause maximum hurt to the RF. I thought that alone was vicious. Much of popular press was riding the wave of pro-Diana sympathies at the time. So the coverage of the public reaction was also one-sided. It always struck me that some of the reporters covering the royals felt they were the Queen-makers, for discovering Diana, they needed to show support for their pet project. The fact the tit-for-tat in the run-up to the interview and subsequent divorce helped to sell loads of newspapers was a plus.

 

[Warren]

It always struck me that some of the reporters covering the royals felt they were the Queen-makers, for discovering Diana, they needed to show support for their pet project. The fact the tit-for-tat in the run-up to the interview and subsequent divorce helped to sell loads of newspapers was a plus.

I think also the press was agog that a senior member of the Royal Family would wash their dirty linen in public. They were in no mood to dissuade the Princess from this course of action, and were probably hoping for more of the same. It was certainly sensational at the time, a media proprietor's dream come true.

 

[una]

Andrew Morton ........said that Diana was not unusually conniving - ......because she never thought too far in advance.
.... she wanted people to understand and sympathize with her hurt and she succeeded wildly but that apparently was as far as her thought processes went.

I think she was thinking about how to get out of her marriage for a long time. The timing of the Morton book and Panorama interview are interesting. I wonder (just fantasizing) if after she went to the Queen in 1986 about getting out of the marriage, there was an informal schedule for ending the marriage. For example, if they (the Queen, the palace) said that they wouldn't consider a separation until the boys were older, say until William was 10 years old. And that there had to be another 3 years before a divorce. That would make sense of the timing.

The Morton book was published in June 1992, 10 years to-the-month from Williams birth. Was it because she wanted to nudge the Queen/palace into granting the separation as agreed, knowing the Queen would be reluctant? Or because she knew it was coming, and wanted to get the public on side before the inevitable storm.

The separation announcement was in December 1992, and the divorce announcement in December 1995- 3 years to-the-month later. Diana seemed to provoke the event by doing the Panorama interview a few weeks before. To get the public on side to strengthen her position during the divorce negotiations? [It's striking how blatantly she flatters the public in the interview.]

 

[Count Von Schonborn_Wiesentheid]

I do not like or dislike Princess Diana, for the reason that I never really knew her well. Most people were upset that she tried to change the Monarchy, and also challenged Her Majesty Elizabeth II publicly. A lot of people are very traditional when it comes to Monarchy, and they did not like what she was doing to the Monarchy, even though it helped bring it closer to the people. A lot of people just like the Monarchy how it was before Princess Diana entered the scene.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

It kind of annoys me that popular culture hails her as "Queen of Hearts," because she never said she wanted that title. What she said was, and I quote her exactly, "I want to be a queen in people's hearts." Those are two very different things, in my opinion.

 

[Idriel]

I think she was thinking about how to get out of her marriage for a long time.

I really doubt she wanted a divorce. I think she was pretty happy with the situation: living a totally estranged life from her husband while remaining a full member of the royal family.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I really doubt she wanted a divorce. I think she was pretty happy with the situation: living a totally estranged life from her husband while remaining a full member of the royal family.

And full access to her sons. I remember how hard it was for her to be separated from them at Christmas because, as ex-wife, she couldn't be at Sandringham. I'm glad the Queen found a way around that problem for Sarah Ferguson, obviously, but it's unfortunate the same situation couldn't be worked out for Diana.

 

[Enya]

Diana was my fairy tale princess from the very beginning. I loved everything about her, her smile and her style, her being so young, shy, kind...And then, the book (I could not believe the suffering she went through) and the interview came out. It changed my opinion of her completely. Saying – there were three of us in the marriage. Full of tears complaining that her lover of five years (what was his name, the redhead one?) betrayed and left her (that would make four in the marriage, right?). Repeating constantly “my husband” and bashing him at the same time. No, she doesn’t want to divorce, it’s him, not her and he doesn’t want to be the king anyway.. What a show! Poor Diana, the world did her so wrong, while she wanted nothing but to be our Queen of Hearts (read: us, the silly, common people who don’t know her personally). She was so lonely, despite having two sisters, a brother, parents, friends, her children…????

After that interview - ever since – to me she was just another vindictive, rich woman, with very little education and no style.

I was sorry when she died, but more sorry for the kids with such parents.

 

[corazon]

Diana was my fairy tale princess from the very beginning. I loved everything about her, her smile and her style, her being so young, shy, kind...And then, the book (I could not believe the suffering she went through) and the interview came out. It changed my opinion of her completely. Saying – there were three of us in the marriage. Full of tears complaining that her lover of five years (what was his name, the redhead one?) betrayed and left her (that would make four in the marriage, right?). Repeating constantly “my husband” and bashing him at the same time. No, she doesn’t want to divorce, it’s him, not her and he doesn’t want to be the king anyway.. What a show! Poor Diana, the world did her so wrong, while she wanted nothing but to be our Queen of Hearts (read: us, the silly, common people who don’t know her personally). She was so lonely, despite having two sisters, a brother, parents, friends, her children…????

After that interview - ever since – to me she was just another vindictive, rich woman, with very little education and no style.

I was sorry when she died, but more sorry for the kids with such parents.

a person can have ALL in the life but in self be alone. diana help with the book and accepted the interview because she was deseperte,(she have a constant sentation of persecution-if this exist i can said), the interview was a bad idea (william was very angry with the interview), the book not, the monarchy never listened her.
and I have a question, if diana was so bad person 8bad for cahrles, for her sons, for the mnarchy and for the people), and the public was common, what so many people cry por her? why so people (I cant said ALL british people because many people was happy or indifferent to diana's death) placed flowers for her, in UK and the rest of the world, why so people see the funeral for tv? etc etc.
She not was perfect but she not was So bad, she was a women like any other women. but she was a princess and the love loved, not all but many yes,

 

[branchg]

Much of popular press was riding the wave of pro-Diana sympathies at the time. So the coverage of the public reaction was also one-sided. It always struck me that some of the reporters covering the royals felt they were the Queen-makers, for discovering Diana, they needed to show support for their pet project. The fact the tit-for-tat in the run-up to the interview and subsequent divorce helped to sell loads of newspapers was a plus.

The press later turned on her and started printing the other side of the story. Her weapon of mass destruction later caused her own self-destruction, including a factor in the accident that killed her.

 

[corazon]

The press later turned on her and started printing the other side of the story. Her weapon of mass destruction later caused her own self-destruction, including a factor in the accident that killed her.

I not understand, you can explain to me?

 

[Enya]

I am not saying Diana was bad and don’t really want to go into broadcasting weddings and funerals discussion (BBC makes money out of it, I believe). All I’m saying – to me, she seamed to be vain, a bit of a brat, vindictive and selfish. In that interview she accused plenty of different people for her personal suffering (a brat), while portraying herself as a victim (vain), not thinking as a parent, how it may damage her children on a long term (selfish) and knowing the impact of the interview could be lethal for Charles in his future Royal duties (vindictive).

Of course she had plenty of good traits, did lots of charity work. So did Princess Anne. Not that anybody cares. I have seen Princess Ann on many occasions, there was never a camera.

 

[ysbel]

The press later turned on her and started printing the other side of the story. Her weapon of mass destruction later caused her own self-destruction, including a factor in the accident that killed her.

When a public person opens their private details to the public and presents only one side of the story, eventually the press and the public will try to fill in the details from the other side of the story.

The Royal Family got negative publicity after they sold the public the fairytale marriage and the press found out it wasn't true.

Diana got negative publicity after she tried to convince the public that she was the sole victim in the marriage and the press later looked into all the details of her life, and found that parts of her story were lacking.

 

[branchg]

I remember how hard it was for her to be separated from them at Christmas because, as ex-wife, she couldn't be at Sandringham. I'm glad the Queen found a way around that problem for Sarah Ferguson, obviously, but it's unfortunate the same situation couldn't be worked out for Diana.

That's not true. In fact, Diana had a standing invitation from The Queen and Prince Philip, with the full agreement of Prince Charles, to join the rest of the family for Christmas at Sandringham. This was the case both after the official separation as well as the divorce.

Diana chose to spend the day on her own, but always called or wrote the Queen to thank her for the invitation. Sarah was not allowed to join the rest of the family at the main house for years, but has done so in the last two years after the death of her mother.

 

[branchg]

I really doubt she wanted a divorce. I think she was pretty happy with the situation: living a totally estranged life from her husband while remaining a full member of the royal family.

I am not sure if Diana herself always knew what she wanted. On one hand, she was adamant there was no divorce, but yet often did things (like Panorama) that pushed the situation to a point of no return where even John Major recommended a divorce for the sake of the monarchy.

 

[una]

I really doubt she wanted a divorce. I think she was pretty happy with the situation: living a totally estranged life from her husband while remaining a full member of the royal family.

After the separation, the palace still controlled the purse strings for staff, holidays etc. She wanted control of her life.

Diana would never admit she wanted a divorce or separation in public because it might reflect badly on her and affect her divorce settlement. She also had a "pathological fear of being blamed" according to Gilbey, which might have come from her mother's experience of divorce. Di wouldn't want to be labelled a "bolter" like her mother. She wanted to appear to be the innocent party.

 

[corazon]

After the separation, the palace still controlled the purse strings for staff, holidays etc. She wanted control of her life.

Of course, she wanted to live her own live like a free women.

 

[corazon]

After the separation, the palace still controlled the purse strings for staff, holidays etc. She wanted control of her life.

Diana would never admit she wanted a divorce or separation in public because it might reflect badly on her and affect her divorce settlement. She also had a "pathological fear of being blamed" according to Gilbey, which might have come from her mother's experience of divorce. Di wouldn't want to be labelled a "bolter" like her mother. She wanted to appear to be the innocent party.

diana have a trauma later her's parent divorce, is a thing very common. diana not was guilty or innocent, the was part of the story.