|
Post by kueifei on Aug 15, 2022 6:57:19 GMT
Diana never really was smart. As mother of a future king, she should have agreed that she needed security. She should have been adult enough to be grateful that people cared about what she was up to and she had people who cared about her feelings and her well being. She is at long last being held responsible for her actions. She wanted all that status, but she didn't want to pay the very simple price. I am sure former American Presidents would like to drive or no longer have security, but they know that they have to be guarded all the time because of their level. Diana had a habit of always trying to get back what she threw away. She threw her life of undemanding privilege away, then missed it. She threw her marriage and former position of public service away, but missed it and spent her life looking for a man of Charles' caliber. This has nothing to do with Camilla, but everything to do with how Diana shredded Charles publicly and then decided to demand that she have a status she had no legal right to after a divorce (HRH Princess of Wales) and then there is the fact that she had serious delusions that she should be able to live a life of undemanding anonymous privilege on the taxpayer dime. Diana didn't seem to 'get' that the reason her family funded her while she was young was because she was expected to marry the best she could get and remain married. She never did 'get it' that trust fund kids are never fully supported by their families indefinitely since after all, either trusts are provided for their husbands pay for them. It's not like Diana was entitled to live off her family money for the rest of her life and not pay any dues. It's not like Diana's family would have wanted to have her on their hands financially and Diana never did realize that after shredding Charles' reputation, the ones she wanted, in fact, would not want her.
She was still young and attractive and she had a fat bank account via her divorce, but she had just left her marriage fresh after shredding her husband's reputation, she was terribly under-educated, and she was borderline clinically delusional. She really did think that she 'deserved' a formal role despite her lack of qualifications (something that makes me seethe) and she really did think she would serve as some global therapist. She couldn't see that the only role that gave her stature was the one she threw away with both hands. Despite Camilla's machinations, the palace wanted her to stay in the marriage and use her status for civic duty and public service despite the personal struggles and failings. Every single royal and aristocrat has done that and while if the man is beating up the wife of course the wife should bolt, but as far as I know it hasn't come to that.
In the Tina Brown book, Diana is described as being modern and needed 'more' than what she all already had. The love she wanted was the love of an unbalanced personality and she was someone who basically was unstable enough to demand such from her son. I read a biography of Andrew Cunanan and it describes who the rejected wife turns to the 'golden son' who has to provide her with the love that her husband is not able to provide. She turns him into a co-adult. Diana's all consuming 'need for love' was also combined with a personality that fractured and was prevented from healing because of Diana's self destructive choices. It is NOT normal to fall apart over something that happened as a six year old and her 'childhood trauma' is largely made up. Her mother left a wife beater and that is all.
It is known that her life was idyllic and charmed and so were her teens and then she married a prince and then she ended up making up some kind of new reality where she lived a life of deprivation and she was suddenly someone who had never known her mother and her stepmother was an ogre. Then in her mind she was married to a man who was the opposite of what he is known to be and while Camilla was out of control, Diana was not without resources or cast into a literal gutter. What unnerves me is how she was allowed to get away with all this by a culture that celebrated her every self destructive act. She was sick, but it was a personality disorder and not Borderline; she would not have had the active life that she is. To me, it wasn't fame that was her drug, it was drama.
I know Charles was cheating, but I do not think it was early on during the engagement and I do not think he was cheating early on in the marriage. I view Tina Brown's interpretation as faulty and far too used to pop culture. Charles was someone who needed positive support and encouragement to break away from Camilla and I think he did want a genuine marriage, but he was not equipped to deal with a dependent spouse and he was not equipped or prepared to sexually groom Diana. Diana regrettably did not see it like this and she should have gone to an expert to help deal with the issues she was having. I know I have been unsympathetic, but Diana didn't quite see that she had all the advantages. Charles might have viewed her as a brood mare to an extent, but Diana wasn't being treated as a sidepiece. Diana was the feminine centerpiece and didn't appreciate the fact that she was not being maltreated. Like a lot of sheltered types, she hadn't experienced a lot of the hard knocks of a woman of the world and was not facing the facts that she had landed the best catch of her generation. She never knew how hard the world was and never would. So her sense of proportion was of course messed up, like any spoiled brat. She had Charles and a position, threw it away, then resented having to work to rebuild her 'brand' and justify why certain charities should want her around. She tossed off a ton of charities out of spite and refused to accept that it was her own doing, not that of anyone else. Her main problems were self inflicted and she was cheated on, but then she had lovers too.
If she hadn't done Panorama, if she hadn't done Andrew Morton, Charles would not have done his book or that Dimbleby interview. Charles was mainly reactive and I defend Charles because I know what it is to be the 'duty child' and to be subject to stuff that he was subjected to.
Diana went through life wanting things out of people that they do not have it in them to give. She wanted Charles to abandon his interests and abrobs hers, she wanted Hoare to leave his wife/daughter for her, she wanted Hasnat to abandon his passion for medicine and wanted to marry a Pakistani Muslim, despite the fact that she did not have the temperament for a Pakistani Muslim life and she was not part of their tribe of people. He loved her, but Hasnat did not respect her and resented the fact that Diana wanted to march in and rearrange his life.
Her ultimate tragedy wasn't the palace, it was HER and it wasn't a seat belt that killed her, it was a refusal to accept that life was never going to be completely on her terms. Her tragedy was her own making. If Diana had stuck to the original schedule, she would not have ended up dead. If she just for once in her life respected the timelines of others, she would have avoided a terrible premature death.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Aug 27, 2022 22:18:01 GMT
Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization gets more coverage:
People: Princess Diana’s ghost will haunt Prince Charles forever, lol
Princess Diana’s predictions of her death by car crash dismissed by investigator
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 27, 2022 23:04:07 GMT
Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization gets more coverage:
People: Princess Diana’s ghost will haunt Prince Charles forever, lol
Princess Diana’s predictions of her death by car crash dismissed by investigator
The only people left who are milking the Victimization are the Cambridges, Middletons, and even the Sussexes. It's their morbid bread and butter - the rest of us just want some peace and sanity.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Aug 29, 2022 0:12:37 GMT
Our Lady of Perpetual Victimization gets more coverage:
People: Princess Diana’s ghost will haunt Prince Charles forever, lol
Princess Diana’s predictions of her death by car crash dismissed by investigator
The only people left who are milking the Victimization are the Cambridges, Middletons, and even the Sussexes. It's their morbid bread and butter - the rest of us just want some peace and sanity.
As of late, I am so sick of hearing about her and she taught her sons to think that they were victims of privilege and during the 90's that mindset was considered fashionable. The film Titanic is basically a hit film that centered on that theme, that being rich and privileged and young is something to run away from rather than embrace and make something amazing of one's life. I mean really, Diana's delusion of 'normal' somehow being easier is a huge slap in the face to those who didn't have her privileges and the current economic collapse reconfirms that resentment. I am not caring anymore about Camilla in the context of Diana, I am focusing on Diana's pi$$ poor attitude towards much of her privileged life.
She had been subjected to a divorce as a kid, but it is nothing major or special since a lot of her generation saw divorce in their homes. My view of her preference for socioeconomic predestination, manifested in her expectation that the accomplishments of others translated onto her and it didn't. Her ancestors got lucky in regards to the ability to get ennobled after getting filthy rich and then shark their way up. Winston Churchill brought huge kudos, but oddly Diana was unappreciative of the realities that ruthless service to the nation would have brought Churchill a dukedom if he had accepted it. Pity Diana did not grasp the lesson that had she stayed on and fought in a smarter way, she would have earned the respect she so wrongly demanded.
She raised her sons to believe a lot of things about themselves and life that isn't true. She raised them to think that their status is a hardship (it isn't) and she raised them to think that 'normal life' has a place for them and it doesn't. Diana herself never knew since she always had endless resources and support. Diana was stupid to think that she would waltz into post-royal life with no complications, despite the fact that she had no clue how to develop any kind of real life of her own. She really did think that her previous level of respect that she saw as her natural right should not diminish and she never did think that her own development had been messed up due to the protection she always had. A lot of people watch TV because they do not have the resources to enjoy lavish travel and a lot of people wait in line because they have to, not because it is 'fun.'
Neither William or Harry ever saw the raw side of social discrimination or the unlikable side of the middle class mainly since they were able to have their taxpayer funding viewed as socially acceptable because of their royal status. Diana never experienced social interactions with the middle class because she was the epitome of their aspirations. She never experienced the inability to rely on anything other than kindness and she and her moron sons never saw how the middle classes oddly never have time to volunteer in a genuinely full time way. Diana never saw how the middle classes had plenty of money for her charities, but never enough for working class or welfare/homeless people. She never saw how middle class kids gravitate towards their own socially or try for higher, never 'lower' and Diana never did see how a lot of her celebrity acolytes strangely never did full time charity work or donated little more than a few thousand to even her own organizations. Diana never did see how her entertainment industry 'friends' were oddly tolerant of things they would not tolerate out of even their own staff. Or how her rich lovers were not wooing a decent working woman who would appreciate a tropical vacation.
Neither William or Harry were taught to be cynical about people so that way they would spot users, especially the middle class ones who are practically drilled by their parents to appeal to the ones on the upper levels. Had she become more adult and taught her sons accordingly, she would have protected them better. Diana NEVER should have exposed her kids to possibilities that were always out of their reach. Aside form the usual struggles of life, there is no way that either William or Harry would have easily lived a middle class life or even working class. Neither are very smart and neither are willing to work and get on with things. Both literally cannot comprehend the struggles that normal people have and both were born at the top of the heap. I will never believe that Diana taught them how to accept a life of duty mainly since Diana herself brainwashed them to believe that they even belong in an anonymous life. Had Diana raised them to value their position and the opportunity to do sincere good, much would have been different, but regrettably gratitude was something that was not in Diana's temperament.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 14:17:29 GMT
The only people left who are milking the Victimization are the Cambridges, Middletons, and even the Sussexes. It's their morbid bread and butter - the rest of us just want some peace and sanity. As of late, I am so sick of hearing about her and she taught her sons to think that they were victims of privilege and during the 90's that mindset was considered fashionable. The film Titanic is basically a hit film that centered on that theme, that being rich and privileged and young is something to run away from rather than embrace and make something amazing of one's life. I mean really, Diana's delusion of 'normal' somehow being easier is a huge slap in the face to those who didn't have her privileges and the current economic collapse reconfirms that resentment. I am not caring anymore about Camilla in the context of Diana, I am focusing on Diana's pi$$ poor attitude towards much of her privileged life.
She had been subjected to a divorce as a kid, but it is nothing major or special since a lot of her generation saw divorce in their homes. My view of her preference for socioeconomic predestination, manifested in her expectation that the accomplishments of others translated onto her and it didn't. Her ancestors got lucky in regards to the ability to get ennobled after getting filthy rich and then shark their way up. Winston Churchill brought huge kudos, but oddly Diana was unappreciative of the realities that ruthless service to the nation would have brought Churchill a dukedom if he had accepted it. Pity Diana did not grasp the lesson that had she stayed on and fought in a smarter way, she would have earned the respect she so wrongly demanded. She raised her sons to believe a lot of things about themselves and life that isn't true. She raised them to think that their status is a hardship (it isn't) and she raised them to think that 'normal life' has a place for them and it doesn't. Diana herself never knew since she always had endless resources and support. Diana was stupid to think that she would waltz into post-royal life with no complications, despite the fact that she had no clue how to develop any kind of real life of her own. She really did think that her previous level of respect that she saw as her natural right should not diminish and she never did think that her own development had been messed up due to the protection she always had. A lot of people watch TV because they do not have the resources to enjoy lavish travel and a lot of people wait in line because they have to, not because it is 'fun.' Neither William or Harry ever saw the raw side of social discrimination or the unlikable side of the middle class mainly since they were able to have their taxpayer funding viewed as socially acceptable because of their royal status. Diana never experienced social interactions with the middle class because she was the epitome of their aspirations. She never experienced the inability to rely on anything other than kindness and she and her moron sons never saw how the middle classes oddly never have time to volunteer in a genuinely full time way. Diana never saw how the middle classes had plenty of money for her charities, but never enough for working class or welfare/homeless people. She never saw how middle class kids gravitate towards their own socially or try for higher, never 'lower' and Diana never did see how a lot of her celebrity acolytes strangely never did full time charity work or donated little more than a few thousand to even her own organizations. Diana never did see how her entertainment industry 'friends' were oddly tolerant of things they would not tolerate out of even their own staff. Or how her rich lovers were not wooing a decent working woman who would appreciate a tropical vacation.
Neither William or Harry were taught to be cynical about people so that way they would spot users, especially the middle class ones who are practically drilled by their parents to appeal to the ones on the upper levels. Had she become more adult and taught her sons accordingly, she would have protected them better. Diana NEVER should have exposed her kids to possibilities that were always out of their reach. Aside form the usual struggles of life, there is no way that either William or Harry would have easily lived a middle class life or even working class. Neither are very smart and neither are willing to work and get on with things. Both literally cannot comprehend the struggles that normal people have and both were born at the top of the heap. I will never believe that Diana taught them how to accept a life of duty mainly since Diana herself brainwashed them to believe that they even belong in an anonymous life. Had Diana raised them to value their position and the opportunity to do sincere good, much would have been different, but regrettably gratitude was something that was not in Diana's temperament.
I am so DONE with this ongoing melodrama and the glorification of the Memory of St. Diana it's not even funny. Yes, it's very sad that she wasn't able to live out a complete life and her passing was tragic, but the ongoing USE of this as a permanent crutch/justification of her sons' actions and RIGHTS to everything they demand/want/expect is clearly not. It's annoying, selfish, unnecessary, unwarranted, demented and just plain ghoulish, IMO. Enough. Enough already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She was a celebrity figure who got better press than she deserved, and at least some of us are tired of having to play to the tune of the fickle public and what they determine is important or not. Let's glorify Diana as it's the upcoming 25th anniversary of her passing? Does grief or recognition of a human life/human worth more important if it's trending on Twitter? Was Diana such an uncanningly tragic or put upon figure so maligned and mistreated that her last moments on earth have to replayed over and over again? Like every human being ever born, she was a flawed, imperfect being who suffered too from her own mistakes and errors in judgment. She didn't walk on water and shouldn't be almost beatified just because she knew how to con and play the media like a violin. Is Elton John going to re-release Goodbye, English Rose and a message about how her loving, valiant sons and their peachy wives are living Diana's Dream? How they deserve "privacy" at this time, and oh, to think that Diana's "grandchildren" are going to be sprinting across Windsor Park with his two children? Oh, my heart beats faster. George is SO her. ![O_o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/browraise.png) Or new photo compilations from the gruesome Middledooms about how sweet, wonderful, perky and beyond beautiful and perfect PRINCESS CHARLOTTE ® is as the exact replica of "her" grandmother Diana and every family member save Charles/Anne/Andrew and how she is the hope for a pure Spencer/Middleton royal tomorrow? Oh, sure Camilla Tominey, Dan Wootton, and Angela Levin are wetting themselves in anticipation. I wonder what kind of statement Champagne Charlie and the rest of the Spencers will make? How Diana changed the entire course of the world? Take a look around the planet, Charlie - much better, more accomplished and selfless individuals are trying to change the world for the better. Your sister wasn't a saint and it's high time to get a little more realistic about what she actually accomplished in her life. In a lot of ways, her tragic end should and would be a warning to perhaps not follow a self-centred, hedonistic course and play and use people like cheap kleenex? To not manipulate and just to be more self-reflective? To not engage the press to malign and bully perhaps innocent people or those who don't have the power or ways to defend themselves? I'm just putting this out there. Pardon my stone cold cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 14:57:15 GMT
Hmmm, an item I found.
Why did Elton John and Diana have a falling out? John said that Diana was "fabulous company, the best dinner party guest, incredibly indiscreet, a real gossip: you could ask her anything and she'd tell you." The friends had a falling out about a year before her death when Princess Diana pulled out of contributing to a book for charity that John had organized.Dec 30, 2021
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 15:07:02 GMT
www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1661705/prince-william-news-queen-loyalty-princess-diana-prince-harry-latest Prince William echoes Diana's 'loyalty to the Queen' by taking reins on touching projects PRINCE WILLIAM echoes Princess Diana's "loyalty to the Queen and monarchy" as part of her legacy, according to the Princess of Wales's former protection officer. By ALICE SCARSI 08:28, Mon, Aug 29, 2022 | UPDATED: 08:28, Mon, Aug 29, 2022The Duke of Cambridge carries on part of his mother's legacy, 25 years after her death, Princess Diana's former bodyguard Ken Wharfe believes. Asked how he describes the princess' legacy in 2022, he said: "It was her unfailing loyalty to the Queen, to the monarchy, and a commitment to making life better for ordinary people, for the homeless, the dispossessed." Aside: Gee, do we NEVER forsee all of this nonsense? ![](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/prince-william-news-queen-loyalty-princess-diana-prince-harry-latest-1661705.webp?r=1661758129021)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 15:10:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 15:11:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2022 15:12:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Aug 30, 2022 2:30:38 GMT
Diana did change things for the worse, not the better. She reinforced the mantra of her generation from certain types of hedonism being okay only on the sly, to being socially acceptable and reinforced it as much as she could. She celebrated walking out on her nation, she celebrated messing with one man after another without thinking about how her sons were perceiving it. She celebrated mooching off of the taxpayer as being okay since she was titled and from a privileged background; she couldn't possibly downgrade and get practical skills and go into a concrete profession. She celebrated ripping someone out of their family life (overthrowing Charles) and celebrating shredding someone's reputation and celebrated waltzing around like a bought and paid for tramp and called it sexual empowerment. She talked about a career being better than a man, but activism is not a profession. She could have legitimized developing a full life during marriage, continuing her education/training, and she could have easily done the same after her divorce. I will never be forgiving for her refusal to make the utmost of her position and lift as many as she could. If she had had better support in dealing with Camilla and been less focused on her image and dealt with her issues like an adult, she would have been able to stay in her marriage and she would have been able to thrive and she would have been helping so many others. Can you imagine the impact she could have had with mental health if she had completed therapy and continued with therapy and started to 'come out' as mentally ill? It would have done the same as Gianni Versace did for homosexuality when he came out in that tiny publication. Diana would be gearing up as Queen Consort and bringing in a hugely amazing step up and brought so many up with her.
As for the BRF, Diana handed them a media and cultural empire and HM blew it big time. They should have done what American political families do to mistresses who step out of line. Diana as the wife should have been placed first and protected and Camilla banished. Diana did marry with the sincere intention of spending her life in civic duty/public service and she really, really, should NEVER have had to deal with the mistress acting as hostess at Highgrove.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2022 14:17:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Aug 31, 2022 22:29:25 GMT
I think it is sad that she never found 'specialness' within herself and her family. She was special to her sons, she was special to the BRF in the context of being a Princess of Wales and eventual Queen Consort, and she was special to the press who got rich off of her. She was special to the people afflicted with AIDS that she advocated for and she was special to gays who struggled to find a real place of their own in the mainstream community. She was special to people who were bulimic, but lived in fear of reporting their illness and had she chosen to handle certain things differently, she could have done so much for mental health. Imagine if she had fought against Camilla for the sake of saving her marriage, but had done so publicly. If Diana had reached out publicly to the nation, telling the nation that she needed help in fighting for her husband, the entire nation would have burned Camilla out of the nation. If she had appealed to American family values organizations and advocacy, surely she would have had the entire American press and those organizations driving Camilla into either exile or the ocean. Her fatal flaw was her preference to be taken care of as a dependent, but still demanding respect and to have it all her way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 1, 2022 12:38:47 GMT
Aside: I hate it when writers ignorant of any and all royal history do this. There is a major difference between "aristocratic" and "royal", and no, they are not one and the same. And just to be picky, how is comparing alleged descendance from a 17th century King and one of his very untitled and common mistresses make one more royal from a prince whose family lineage carries back to royalty going many, many centuries back? William and Harry better understand (though they of course don't) their "royal blood" and rights and privileges they take for granted today, come from their father and father alone. www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/princess-diana-prince-charles-royal-27821844#comments-wrapper Princess Diana was 'more royal' than Prince Charles thanks to historic family Princess Diana was a member of the aristocratic Spencer family and could trace her family's heritage directly back to King Charles II - but what about Prince Charles?| COMMENTS Princess Diana 's tragic death - 25 years ago today - sent shockwaves around the world and thousands of heartbroken admirers joined the royal family in mourning. The princess was only 36-years-old when she died, but she achieved incredible things in her short life including raising awareness for challenging issues including AIDS and landmines.
She also changed the royal family forever, with her personable approach to duties proving extremely popular with the public. Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles in a fairytale wedding at St Paul's Cathedral in July 1981 after just a handful of meetings. Their union had been one based on their similar aristocratic backgrounds, rather than their personalities or compatibility.
Even though Prince Charles is descended from centuries of royalty, it was actually Diana who was considered to be the more aristocratic of the two.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Sept 2, 2022 4:33:49 GMT
Aside: I hate it when writers ignorant of any and all royal history do this. There is a major difference between "aristocratic" and "royal", and no, they are not one and the same. And just to be picky, how is comparing alleged descendance from a 17th century King and one of his very untitled and common mistresses make one more royal from a prince whose family lineage carries back to royalty going many, many centuries back? William and Harry better understand (though they of course don't) their "royal blood" and rights and privileges they take for granted today, come from their father and father alone. www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/princess-diana-prince-charles-royal-27821844#comments-wrapper Princess Diana was 'more royal' than Prince Charles thanks to historic family Princess Diana was a member of the aristocratic Spencer family and could trace her family's heritage directly back to King Charles II - but what about Prince Charles?COMMENTS Princess Diana 's tragic death - 25 years ago today - sent shockwaves around the world and thousands of heartbroken admirers joined the royal family in mourning. The princess was only 36-years-old when she died, but she achieved incredible things in her short life including raising awareness for challenging issues including AIDS and landmines. She also changed the royal family forever, with her personable approach to duties proving extremely popular with the public. Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles in a fairytale wedding at St Paul's Cathedral in July 1981 after just a handful of meetings. Their union had been one based on their similar aristocratic backgrounds, rather than their personalities or compatibility. Even though Prince Charles is descended from centuries of royalty, it was actually Diana who was considered to be the more aristocratic of the two.
Diana was more English (Spencer ancestors) and Scottish (Stuart lineage) than Charles, but Charles comes from the family that is on the Throne. Diana was stupid to think that just because she had a more ancient connection to England and Scotland, that she was 'better' than the Windsors. Diana made the bad choice to treat her position as social rather than ancestral. Diana was a lot like the Queen Mother who thought that the sun rose and set on her family ancestry and regrettably it is clear that Diana wasn't as smart as the Queen Mother. Diana had everything going for her but the smarts to know that everything she had going good in her life was the result of her marriage. For all her flaws, the Queen Mother was smart not to undermine her marriage or the rep of the BRF. Diana stupidly didn't think to face the realities of her position and why her husband's reputation was important to maintain.
Charles was the royal and the Windsors were on the throne. Diana never really did want to learn that Charles was the one who was better connected to the wider world and Charles had already proven himself through stints in boot camp, plus highly demanding boarding schools that were merciless to him. He didn't have to answer to Diana Spencer of Althorp and Coleherne Court. Charles does have a silly persona, but he is surely far more seasoned and ruthless than he is given credit for. Men of the world are far more ruthless than they present themselves and second, everyone knows exactly how vicious American politicians are despite their benign faces and smiling grins. We all know what happens to mistresses of politicians. If Diana had pulled with an American politician what she pulled on Charles, she would have either been clapped in a nuthouse or would have been dealt with in any other way. Diana was stupid and that was her downfall.
As much as I hate violence and I hate viciousness, you do NOT mess with people who have a lot to lose. You do NOT mess with people who have proven their stamina in certain areas or have a huge record of either work or public service. Diana bought the ethos of her own era and they are not good ones. While I think HM should have abdicated or given Charles control over the family at least, Diana was wrong to delude herself into believing that the offices of HM or Charles 'needed' her direction or control. As silly as I think HM's offices are run or that Charles should not be mixing with the Highgrove set, it is their prerogative and Charles does have a good set of loyalists and Charles is entitled to that. Second, neither HM or Charles owed Diana a single thing. Diana's biggest flaw was her determination to remain helpless and childlike. She would not engage in and participate actively in her own mental health treatment.
I think Diana did suffer from a malady similar to that as was described by Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) was someone who would be prone to fits of hysteria and it was not the same affliction as George III, it was something that was once described by an author as being a reaction against developing into a fully matured adult. A kind of reaction against developing adulthood that is not the same as epilepsy or a schizophrenic episode. It was something else entirely. Diana was someone who seemed determined to drag out her childhood for as long as she could and it is clear that she was warped long before the engagement. Sally Bedell Smith theorizes that Diana started her bulimia at age sixteen and combined with the way she was getting away with acts of physical violence (slapping a nanny and putting pins in seats/shoving Raine down steps) and psychological abuse/stalking (silent phone calls, poison pen letters at too young of an age directed towards Raine) it is clear that Diana was well on her way with a bad attitude early on in life.
It is NOT NORMAL for a kid to engage in acts of harassment and it is not normal for physical violence to be directed at an elderly stepmother. That is NOT normal and it would have ended up triggering criminal charges if Diana had not been privileged. Then there is the way she harassed the Hoare family. NOT normal or okay.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2022 14:20:38 GMT
Aside: I hate it when writers ignorant of any and all royal history do this. There is a major difference between "aristocratic" and "royal", and no, they are not one and the same. And just to be picky, how is comparing alleged descendance from a 17th century King and one of his very untitled and common mistresses make one more royal from a prince whose family lineage carries back to royalty going many, many centuries back? William and Harry better understand (though they of course don't) their "royal blood" and rights and privileges they take for granted today, come from their father and father alone. www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/princess-diana-prince-charles-royal-27821844#comments-wrapper Princess Diana was 'more royal' than Prince Charles thanks to historic family Princess Diana was a member of the aristocratic Spencer family and could trace her family's heritage directly back to King Charles II - but what about Prince Charles?COMMENTS Princess Diana 's tragic death - 25 years ago today - sent shockwaves around the world and thousands of heartbroken admirers joined the royal family in mourning. The princess was only 36-years-old when she died, but she achieved incredible things in her short life including raising awareness for challenging issues including AIDS and landmines. She also changed the royal family forever, with her personable approach to duties proving extremely popular with the public. Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles in a fairytale wedding at St Paul's Cathedral in July 1981 after just a handful of meetings. Their union had been one based on their similar aristocratic backgrounds, rather than their personalities or compatibility. Even though Prince Charles is descended from centuries of royalty, it was actually Diana who was considered to be the more aristocratic of the two. Diana was more English (Spencer ancestors) and Scottish (Stuart lineage) than Charles, but Charles comes from the family that is on the Throne. Diana was stupid to think that just because she had a more ancient connection to England and Scotland, that she was 'better' than the Windsors. Diana made the bad choice to treat her position as social rather than ancestral. Diana was a lot like the Queen Mother who thought that the sun rose and set on her family ancestry and regrettably it is clear that Diana wasn't as smart as the Queen Mother. Diana had everything going for her but the smarts to know that everything she had going good in her life was the result of her marriage. For all her flaws, the Queen Mother was smart not to undermine her marriage or the rep of the BRF. Diana stupidly didn't think to face the realities of her position and why her husband's reputation was important to maintain. Charles was the royal and the Windsors were on the throne. Diana never really did want to learn that Charles was the one who was better connected to the wider world and Charles had already proven himself through stints in boot camp, plus highly demanding boarding schools that were merciless to him. He didn't have to answer to Diana Spencer of Althorp and Coleherne Court. Charles does have a silly persona, but he is surely far more seasoned and ruthless than he is given credit for. Men of the world are far more ruthless than they present themselves and second, everyone knows exactly how vicious American politicians are despite their benign faces and smiling grins. We all know what happens to mistresses of politicians. If Diana had pulled with an American politician what she pulled on Charles, she would have either been clapped in a nuthouse or would have been dealt with in any other way. Diana was stupid and that was her downfall.
As much as I hate violence and I hate viciousness, you do NOT mess with people who have a lot to lose. You do NOT mess with people who have proven their stamina in certain areas or have a huge record of either work or public service. Diana bought the ethos of her own era and they are not good ones. While I think HM should have abdicated or given Charles control over the family at least, Diana was wrong to delude herself into believing that the offices of HM or Charles 'needed' her direction or control. As silly as I think HM's offices are run or that Charles should not be mixing with the Highgrove set, it is their prerogative and Charles does have a good set of loyalists and Charles is entitled to that. Second, neither HM or Charles owed Diana a single thing. Diana's biggest flaw was her determination to remain helpless and childlike. She would not engage in and participate actively in her own mental health treatment.
I think Diana did suffer from a malady similar to that as was described by Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) was someone who would be prone to fits of hysteria and it was not the same affliction as George III, it was something that was once described by an author as being a reaction against developing into a fully matured adult. A kind of reaction against developing adulthood that is not the same as epilepsy or a schizophrenic episode. It was something else entirely. Diana was someone who seemed determined to drag out her childhood for as long as she could and it is clear that she was warped long before the engagement. Sally Bedell Smith theorizes that Diana started her bulimia at age sixteen and combined with the way she was getting away with acts of physical violence (slapping a nanny and putting pins in seats/shoving Raine down steps) and psychological abuse/stalking (silent phone calls, poison pen letters at too young of an age directed towards Raine) it is clear that Diana was well on her way with a bad attitude early on in life.
It is NOT NORMAL for a kid to engage in acts of harassment and it is not normal for physical violence to be directed at an elderly stepmother. That is NOT normal and it would have ended up triggering criminal charges if Diana had not been privileged. Then there is the way she harassed the Hoare family. NOT normal or okay.
Thank you for this - these should really be in a book, IMO. The narrative of Diana being the eternal victim of circumstances beyond her control needs to be countered with some cold, hard facts about what her actions and character cost her and others. Diana certainly had her issues that probably were never properly addressed, and due to her media manipulation and popularity with the lay, unsuspecting public, probably never were going to be. At least not in the public domain. Emboldened by that, she never had to step back and do any real soul-searching about what she was doing to her own life or others. Anything she did or said was just played upon/ignored and she figuratively ran with that. Who was going to really criticize the "People's Princess?" Abuse of others, the sly, covert harassment calls, etc, does not suggest a stable person in any way, shape or form. She needed help, but those around her maybe didn't understand, know what to do, or perhaps even care? She was the Princess of Wales - she was the most privileged person on earth. Who was going to really do or say anything? And her sons are just carrying on her damaged/dysfunctional legacy in that they are unable to see or be told that their own actions, poor marital choices, not breaking the sick family cycle of woe-is-meism/high-pitched drama is, quite literally, destroying their own reputations/lives/families. They cannot escape from their mother-inspired stunted outlooks and see things from a non-biased perspective. Hence, Charles will always be the bad parent, and pure hell will always break out whenever they, Wasty, Carole or Meghan, don't get what they want, WHEN they want it. St Diana cannot be criticized!!!!!!!!! And boy, have we seen how outsiders have worked on Billy and Harry in keeping up the sense of victimhood. A dead woman, as a permanent life-long crutch and reason one's own actions cannot be criticized? I don't think so, but too many do not want to rock the boat. The drama will continue...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2022 14:23:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2022 15:54:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Sept 4, 2022 22:43:30 GMT
She was deranged; she wanted Hoare to leave his rich wife (who funded his career) and daughter and run off with her. Then there is the fact that she thought Hasnat should leave his practice/work colleagues/patients to run off with her to her fantasy version of existence. Diana also fantasized about getting an "HRH" back from her son that wasn't hers. I sometimes think the biggest bad choice was how she wanted all the men to just drop everything that they wanted to give her a life that was never meant to be hers. She was never meant to be "THE HEIR" and she was never meant to be a politician or diplomat and it's not like she had any real place in any area of work. She wanted so much, but she regrettably made a terrible choice to refuse to make an effort that would require her to set aside her grand image of herself. She would never be "HRH Princess of Wales" since she would not be the legal wife of the heir and it is clear that she would not accept that William wouldn't be able to give her that "HRH" back. Diana never would have been Queen Mother because she never would be queen and she kept writing herself out of any place since she was not willing to to the non-public work that would result in a real place for herself. Diana didn't want to get an education and formal training and she did not want to dedicate herself to anything other than her own glorification.
|
|
|
Post by india on Sept 4, 2022 23:59:33 GMT
All the Spencers are a little delusional and crazy.
|
|