When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[MARG]

Well the tapes were made in 1992 when exactly in 92 I do not know but alot of her relationships changed by 1997. Diana and Raine's relationship improved greatly. . . . . . . . . . . .

Those tapes were private showing Diana venting out her anger. It wasn't meant to be public but it was released for the sole purpose of making money.

They may have been private but what a window to the person behind the photographs.

Trying to rationalise the sweet, innocent, unworldly "child" that married Charles with the dominant personality exposed by publication of these tapes is mind blowing.

Slapping your father across the face? That is the action of a person totally in control and assured that there would be no "payback", no returned backhand across her face. What sort of father/daughter dynamic did that expose. Who was in control and who had the upper hand?

To actually be able to push someone down a flight of stairs and to still be revelling in it years later is just plain chilling. She could have killed her and yet there was no hesitation when she did it and no remorse all those years later. There can be no excuse and "sorry" just doesn't cut it.

Whichever way you slice or dice the tapes, they speak for themselves or, more accurately, Diana speaks for herself about who and what she really was.

The tapes may indeed have just been Diana venting her anger but, it doesn't alter the fact that she was telling what she did and how she felt about it. Their publication must have been a nightmare to those who knew what was on them and a moral dilemma to those who loved her.

 

[Vita]

On the one hand I understand where you are coming from on the other hand I also feel that Diana's issues were a lot deeper than any of could ever know and painting her as this evil psychopath is not all the way on the money either. I honestly believe had Diana been a teenager today, with all the wealth of information we have about mental health and it not having the stigma attached to it as it did then, she probably could have overcame some of those issues.

Even so, once you reach a certain age you have to take responsibilty for your actions and I believe Diana was starting to get there and Raine-no matter what has been said about her-was gracious enough to forgive her so mayhap she felt Diana was sincere.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I believe so. Her life would still have been difficult, because those tendencies would still be there; but I think that she would have been more integrated--that is, more the same person in public and in private--and would have known herself better than to have taken on the marriage that she did.

I honestly believe had Diana been a teenager today, with all the wealth of information we have about mental health and it not having the stigma attached to it as it did then, she probably could have overcame some of those issues.

 

[sirhon11234]

Yes, I believe so. Her life would still have been difficult, because those tendencies would still be there; but I think that she would have been more integrated--that is, more the same person in public and in private--and would have known herself better than to have taken on the marriage that she did.

Its quite an achievement imo how far treatment for mental illness has come. I remember reading that in the 80s people didn't know or fully understand what anorexia was until Karen Carpenter died, and finally we had a person and an image of how deadly that mental disease could be. I don't even think much was known about bi polar disorder around that time. Today I feel going to see a counselor or a psychiatrist doesen't have the stigma as it did years ago. Maybe for some but not all.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I agree entirely that Diana could of been helped nowadays, and that her mental health problems were not her fault. That said, I'm sick of The Royal Family being painted as monsters because of this. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone on here, just talking about the general "Diana was wronged!" attitude. Diana's problems might not have been her fault but this doesn't change how difficult she would of been to handle, and how much she could of hurt a member of The RF. The situation was not her fault or theirs. It was the result of cultural ignorance.

 

[COUNTESS]

She was difficult to handle, because she had the "stupid" idea tha her husband should not have a girlfriend. She was insecure and that pushed her over the edge. In the and selfishness won, she is dead and he married the mistress.

 

[Aliza]

My opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales has only increased in respect, admiration and affection as time passes.

Others, who have changed their opinion to the negative side of the spectrum, need to take under consideration the fact that almost no one has had their personal life put under the microscope anywhere near as publicly as Diana's has been since her death, mainly due to Mr. Al Fayed's conspiracy theories. Secondly, (and rather obviously) Diana is no longer able to defend herself against the slurs against her character.

She had a certain "magic" (I had the honour of seeing her in public a few times and in private three times, as a "friend of a friend" at KP) that will never be duplicated. Regardless of her missteps, she was a very young nineteen when she betrothed herself to Prince Charles, she was nothing but a brood mare for him, and she raised two fantastic children who do NOT behave as the pre-Diana Windsors, to put it mildly.

I think her best epitaph was provided by Christina Lamb who travelled with Diana to Angola and spoke to a girl who was dying from a land-mine inflicted injury after Diana had spent quite a bit of time with her. The dying girl asked Ms. Lamb, a hard-bitten wartime foreign correspondent, just who was the lady who had spoken with her, was she an angel? That says it all. (On another note, the changes the BRF have made in the wake of her death and the reaction to it have done nothing but raise the esteem in which the UK and the rest of the world holds them. It's tempting to speculate where the BRF would be now if they had nurtured Diana and listened to her before her death made clear the love and high esteem in which the British Public held her. She would have made a magnificent Queen.)

As for the rest, especially the salacious details which may or may not be true, it's time to let go of all of them. Let the dead rest in peace and in the memories and actions of the two wonderful sons she left to the UK, Commonwealth, and indeed the rest of the world.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't necessarily believe that Charles was still sleeping with Camilla after he married Diana. It is possible that this is true, but from what I have gathered over the course of my reading is that he ceased sleeping with her but refused to give her up entirely; and because he used to sleep with her Diana assumed that he still was even when he wasn't. There is also the possibility that though they were not physically intimate that Charles didn't try to hide that he was in love with her; and for some reason didn't think this would upset his wife.
As for Diana slapping her father and pushing Raine down the stairs, it just makes me question the parenting skills of those who raised her.

 

[Kataryn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza
My opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales has only increased in respect, admiration and affection as time passes.

Very well said. I agree with you completely.

IMHO it is okay to remember Diana as the icon she was, to delight in the good times and to miss her.

It's different though as soon as due to one's image of Diana one blame other people for things they haven't done, or not done in the manner Diana claimed. Because once one want to accord blame and start to judge like some do on these forums, one need in my opinion to view the historic person who was Diana Spencer and that definately puts a lot of things in perspective.

But as long as you just want to feel good and take delight in her memory: enjoy.

 

[olebabs]

However she was in private did not affect her public life and all the good she did. And that is, IMHO, the only thing we, who were not close to her, can make a judgement on.

 

[Kataryn]

However she was in private did not affect her public life and all the good she did. And that is, IMHO, the only thing we, who were not close to her, can make a judgement on.

I agree with most of what you posted, but at this point please allow me to have a different opinion: the things she said about Charles and Camilla (or Tiggy) that were proven to be wrong but ended up slandering these three people's reputation are part of her "public" persona.

Because a lot of Diana's followers still believe that eg Charles slept with Camilla the night before his wedding to Diana (and quote Diana's famous sentence: there were three in the marriage...) or believe that Tiggy at one point was Charles' mistress alongside Camilla (because Diana claimed that).

When it comes to Charles, not only the private Diana has done something to him, but the public as well. And whatever you think about justified or unjustified retaliation on Diana's side, you need to evaluate her claims based on her personality.

So the public Diana had her dark sides, too - and this should be recognised, even if one's personal judgment is overall positive.

 

[olebabs]

You are right, Kataryn.

All I was trying to say, is thay "we the people" ONLY knew her via the media, and as such have no idea weather half of what was written were true. The only things we have of either speaking in public is the interviews they both made. (An PLEASE, I'm not openeing that can of worms!!!) As for the rest, well I believe that one actually have to have known the person before passing a judgement of thier true character.

My grandmother had a good saying: "You only know someone up to the teeth" - meaning that you can never really know what people are really thinking or really are like.

 

[Warren]

Posts not addressing the thread topic have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[EIIR]

I've just turned 26 this year so I don't really remember any of Diana's charity work etc. I really only remember her death and all the al Fayed shenanigans. I suppose my generation is the first for whom Diana is a somewhat distant figure. In that sense my opinion on her hasn't really changed. I just remember the utterly embarrassing national 'meltdown' the nation seemed to have when she died.

One thing I do vaguely recall is the Panorama interview. I remember her publicly doubting whether Charles had it in him to be a good king. That was completely unforgivable in my view. It was an attempt to undermine the monarchy as a whole and a completely inappropriate public attack on her children's father. My opinion on that has never and will never change.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I agree. She spat in the face of The Monarchy when she doubted the ability of an heir as longstanding as Charles, and on another level, I wonder how her sons felt about that.

 

[COUNTESS]

Actually, it is obvious that her sons adore her. The ring given to Katherine shows that. Sorry, but she "spat" into an institution that glorified hypocrisy. Charles was a philanderer, but he was the POW. Most of the stuff pushed, today, is by an organization that villifies her, and lauds the established heir. A dead person cannot reply. So a wonderful guy, and now, married to a woman who has a living husband and has had numerous relationships. Sorry, but they are a sorry lot. Family values. Ha, Ha, Ha.

 

[EIIR]

I don't care what did or did not happen during the marriage. I don't know what went on, in fact other than the people immediately involved no one does.

However, even I know that divorcing parents should never ever criticise one another in front of their children. No matter what Charles did or did not do, Diana owed it to her children to behave like an adult and acknowledge that her children loved their father and that any attack on him would be, by extension, an attack on them. She failed comprehensively to do so.

 

[Aliza]

And YOU know that Diana vilified Charles to William and Harry by exactly what means? Did Diana lie when she said on Panorama that she told William that if he found someone to love to hold onto it and to protect it? Did she lie about telling them that Mummy and Papa still love each other but can't live together anymore? Did Paul Burrell lie when he claimed Harry asked "who is Camilla?" when the the boys were watching a show on the Monarchy with the Princess and that Diana then distracted Harry and hustled him to bed?

Of course, these could all be lies; especially Burrell. But the point is how do you have information that you claim others can not possibly be privy to?

Only William and Harry can answer how Diana handled the question of Camilla and Charles with them and I do not see either of them breaking their silence now or in the future.

I know I'm new here, but this is my opinion, and I believe it is a valid point.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I've just turned 26 this year so I don't really remember any of Diana's charity work etc. I really only remember her death and all the al Fayed shenanigans. I suppose my generation is the first for whom Diana is a somewhat distant figure. In that sense my opinion on her hasn't really changed. I just remember the utterly embarrassing national 'meltdown' the nation seemed to have when she died.

One thing I do vaguely recall is the Panorama interview. I remember her publicly doubting whether Charles had it in him to be a good king. That was completely unforgivable in my view. It was an attempt to undermine the monarchy as a whole and a completely inappropriate public attack on her children's father. My opinion on that has never and will never change.

Thanks EIIR...it's interesting to get the perspective of someone who is young enough to have missed the Diana Years...they were very special indeed.

I also thought the "national meltdown" was embarrassing to watch.(believe me, it was here in the U.S. as well) I hated the way HM was badgered and bullied by the public, egged on by the Press, to get out and "show some emotion" instead of going into seclusion with her grandsons which was her initial-and in my opinion perfectly appropriate- response.

It must be hell being a public figure in the Age of Oprah.

 

[EIIR]

And YOU know that Diana vilified Charles to William and Harry by exactly what means?

By going on national television and telling the entire world that she thought her children's father was inadequate. That he didn't have it in him to be King. By trying to sow in the minds of his future subjects that Charles would be incapable of performing that role. That is nothing less than an incredibly public attack on the father of her sons. She knew exactly what she was doing.

I have no doubt that the princes saw their mother's interview on Panorama, and even if they didn't personally, I'm sure their schoolmates would have taken great pleasure in recapping it for them. Surely Diana cannot have been so stupid as to imagine she could slander Charles in that way and imagine the boys would not have seen it?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well said

but I do think she was that stupid actually. She said that she went to the school to talk to William about the Morton book and asked the staff to ensure that no copies of the book were in the school - and if either she or the school believed that then they really don't know much about boys and boarding schools - within hours of that book being published it would have been in the school and read by the other boys. The same with the Panorama interview - the boys would have been reading about it the next day if not sooner.

She didn't have to sit down privately with William and Harry and put down Charles to them - she did it to the whole world and thought that somehow her sons would be the only two people in the industrialised world that wouldn't know what she said within hours of her saying it.

The Panorama interview was even done on the 20th November - the Queen's wedding anniversary - what an anniversary gift from her daughter-in-law - tell the world that the eldest son of that marriage isn't up to the job that you have trained him to do since the day he was born.

 

[pgm1952]

I was too young to know anything about Diana when she died but since then I have gone from sympathy for her when I knew hardly anything about royals, to now where I think she caused a great many headaches to the establishment and her poor mother- in- law that were completely out of line for a Princess of Wales. The agrivation to the Queen includes upstaging Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales on several occasions and her handful of affairs. Correct me if wrong but Charles had only Camilla, Diana had several lovers in their marriage. My knowledge of her affairs changed my views of her. I used to think it was only Prince Charles who filandered.

 

[Osipi]

I was too young to know anything about Diana when she died but since then I have gone from sympathy for her when I knew hardly anything about royals, to now where I think she caused a great many headaches to the establishment and her poor mother- in- law that were completely out of line for a Princess of Wales. The agrivation to the Queen includes upstaging Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales on several occasions and her handful of affairs. Correct me if wrong but Charles had only Camilla, Diana had several lovers in their marriage. My knowledge of her affairs changed my views of her. I used to think it was only Prince Charles who filandered.

Charles had known Camilla since the early 70s and they've always been great friends. He's godfather to Camilla and Andrew's son Tom and they all were part of what we could call the "Highgrove set" that had common interests. Diana, I think, found herself in a situation where she had to fit in with these people and found out she had nothing at all in common with them and felt like a misfit. Perhaps that is one of the reason over the years Charles drifted away from some of his close friends he associated with (re: the Dimbleby book). This is just MHO but I still maintain that as much as Diana saw how comfortable and at ease Charles and Camilla were as friends, it was that intimacy she felt threatened by. She found friends in some men, and I do think some such as Manakee <sp> were just that. Friends. She started out as a 19 year old engaged to a royal prince with no idea of what a deep relationship was (remember she was virgin) and had sort of a "fairy tale" outlook on marriage where the husband has eyes for her only and kisses her feet kinda dreams. For a new husband to even have a woman as a close friend must have been threatening to her. And that's without adding in any emotional and/or physical ailments she suffered from.

I do think that as she matured and the marriage ended, she came to a lot of realizations. She was on her own for a while and found her stride. Agreed some of the moves she made were not wise ones but I do think that her relationship with Dr. Khan was the first real meaningful relationship that worked both ways and she was happy.

Anyhoo... these are just my thoughts.

 

[olebabs]

Yes in hinesight Diana was too young. But that being said, I get a little annoyed, when people talk about how she wasn't able to adapt to his lifestyle and didn't support his interests. Is a marriage not supposed to be supporting each other?

I recently watched the documentary about Charles 60th birthday, and it occured to me, that he is not a man capable of putting himself second. You very much get the impression, that it is his way or the highway. That can certainly not have been very easy at 20 let alone at my advanced age of 34. You do not have to love everything your partner does, but you show support and make an effort.

As I have stated before, it is such a shame they wheren't able to combine their assets, to make the most emminent powercouple of the BRF.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The tragedy of Charles/Diana is that I think if Diana had come into the marriage the way she SEEMED to be at the end of her life...more secure, confident, sophisticated and worldly...she and Charles would have been able to make a go of it.

Toward the end of her life she seemed to have made a certain peace with Charles and they had begun to enjoy one another as co-parents to their children...there seemed to be a mutual appreciation and understanding.

In Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana, she states the Charles had toyed around with the idea of trying to save his marriage to Diana just before the divorce finalized...but was prevented from doing so by Camilla Parker-Bowles.

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

 

[sirhon11234]

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

Well said I couldn't agree more. There were things that were lacking in both Charles and Diana that doomed the marriage, and you listed them all.

 

[camelot23ca]

The tragedy of Charles/Diana is that I think if Diana had come into the marriage the way she SEEMED to be at the end of her life...more secure, confident, sophisticated and worldly...she and Charles would have been able to make a go of it.

Toward the end of her life she seemed to have made a certain peace with Charles and they had begun to enjoy one another as co-parents to their children...there seemed to be a mutual appreciation and understanding.

In Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana, she states the Charles had toyed around with the idea of trying to save his marriage to Diana just before the divorce finalized...but was prevented from doing so by Camilla Parker-Bowles.

I do not believe that Charles never loved her(Diana). I do not believe he was the bad guy. But I also don't believe Diana was an evil misfit.

It was a combination of circumstances...upbringing, character, maturity and expectations and TIMING...that ultimately doomed the two of them as a couple.

To me it's seemed that Charles and Diana's marriage could have gone either way. On paper they were very well matched in a lot of ways, in terms of upbringing, background, the circles they moved in - they had many similarities. I also think they truly cared about each other at the beginning and were both devoted to their children. Many very successful long term marriages have started with less.

What I don't think they could overcome was the fact that their personalities were very dissimilar except in a few unfortunate ways - they both seemed like they were prone to pettiness and often let their emotions overrule their good sense. (As an aside, I'm encouraged by the fact that Prince William seems to have more common sense than either of his parents ever did. He reminds me much more of his paternal grandparents than his mom and dad in that way).

I'm in my early 30s and by the time I was old enough to really start paying attention Charles and Diana were already into their fighting/separation/divorce period. I don't have clear memories of the so-called fairy tale that came before. OTOH I've seen Charles rehabilitate himself somewhat over the last ten or fifteen years and that's certainly increased my respect for him. I do wonder if Diana would have undergone a similar process had she lived.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

camelot23, I was there at the beginning and in my opinion there was NEVER any fairytale...the media and many in the public wanted it to be and took it from there.

Anyone with eyes and ears could look below the surface and sense that there was something "off" about the two of them as a couple.

I remember watching the wedding with a sense of excitement and anticipation for the spectacle and pageantry, but I didn't feel even a vague sense of romance.

William does seem more grounded, thank goodness.

 

[Tyger]

As far as I can tell, we don't know what advice the Queen gave Diana. I do know that Diana was the only in-law that the Queen was willing to see without an appointment and she wasn't willing to do that even for her children. They did have quite a few private conversations

Diana was a distressed soul, something that was so obvious to a casual observer like myself standing in the street. My severest criticism of the RF and Diana's family had been that they 'did nothing' to reign in this young woman. It was a situation that caused me to experience increasing anger as the years wore on - but I now know I was mistaken. Given what I have learned over the past half year, one fact is glaring - that the RF and Diana's family absolutely were aware of Diana's problems, tried to help, tried to support, tried - but were undone by Diana's lies and wileyness.

When one has a fuller understanding of just how out-of-focus with reality Diana was, the Queen making herself available at any time to Diana is a red flag - and is a confirmation that the RF did indeed understand the situation with Diana. The Queen's availability would seem to be part of trying to work with what was a seriously problematic young woman. No other explanation fits IMO for such an unusual divergence from the norm for the Queen.

 

[sirhon11234]

What I don't think they could overcome was the fact that their personalities were very dissimilar except in a few unfortunate ways - they both seemed like they were prone to pettiness and often let their emotions overrule their good sense. (As an aside, I'm encouraged by the fact that Prince William seems to have more common sense than either of his parents ever did. He reminds me much more of his paternal grandparents than his mom and dad in that way).

Which is great imo. The Queen and Prince Philip are the most level headed in that family.