|
Post by kueifei on Sept 5, 2022 0:07:59 GMT
All the Spencers are a little delusional and crazy.
And out of control; and violent. A long stream of wife beaters and it is clear that Diana had an out of control temperament. You can spot things about people as they move up; they reveal more of themselves as they go along. It's not like Diana didn't lose control of herself as she grew older and in many ways, more delusional. By the time of her death she was insane enough to think she was a geopolitical equal and was out of control in her spirals; she was pretending that she could be a kind of non-royal queen and was out of control in the area of men. She was attempting to derail Hasnat and she was psychotically going after Hoare, and she was losing one round after another in terms of getting involved with Fayed and the dirty jokes were rampant about her. If she had lived, she would have ended up hitting a wall by forty and just a sideshow along the lines of Lindsay Lohan and she would have continued to humiliate her sons and do all she could to antagonize her ex-husband. She was in reality Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor and she would have ended up soiling the title Princess of Wales more with her bad choices. Notice how her brother continues to lose wives and all his next wives are increasingly pathetic.
Thing is, that I think Diana's death liberated William even if he didn't yet see it that way and certainly, the public did not. Diana living would have continued to keep William in a vicious cycle of being affected by Diana's bad choices and escalating scandals that were becoming criminal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 19:17:37 GMT
Clink the link for the rest of the article.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Sept 27, 2022 21:46:41 GMT
Clink the link for the rest of the article.
Much of this started once the press for some reason lost all self control; another huge problem came from the BRF letting the press into their personal lives and it unloaded the minute Diana and Charles started leaking majorly personal stuff to the press. Then the Highgrove set started leaking like crazy and made an impossible situation worse. the biggest problem is that the BRF does not think ahead. There has never been NDA agreements until recently and now the real issue is that even though it is clear that girlfriends leak, the princes are too stupid to see that and basically refuse to face facts that they are getting involved with all the wrong people. Diana was a victim of the out of control press at first and at nineteen the press was officially feral, but go figure, later in life she played it like a maestro, but still failed to accept that she needed to do her part to stop exposing herself and her sons. Thing is, that the press is not really in a position to bargain with the people they cover. The press is not a player and should NOT be pretending that they are people who actual heads of state 'need' to negotiate with. The other major problem is that the BRF relies on image and not on the substance of accomplishment and they do not focus on making sure that their family situation is straight and stable. The final problem are the royals themselves. Throughout WK's engagement Sophie made a public fool of herself and Diana would leak nonstop and even get into cars with favored reporters like Richard Kay; even entertainers know (or learn quickly) NEVER to speak directly with the press unless it is through a formal interview or giving a gossip tip to a columnist, but NEVER get into the car with a press personality and NEVER inform the press directly from a home or office line. Never do that. She also empowered certain members of the press to believe that they were more than just there to record or observe. Diana had no real comprehension to handle a press that was utterly insane. When the press got to be too much, for a member of the press to reach out and leave a note shows how the press was crossing the line from professional to personal. Diana was nineteen and unequipped to cope with the attention and for the press to mouth off to the daughter of an Earl goes to show how out of line it is.
It's the equivalent of the press harassing the daughter of a governor or senator, that is a line that should not be crossed. Up until Diana knitted celebrity into the BRF for good (started with the BRF long before Diana came along to be fair to Diana) there were lines that should have been respected. Stalking Diana despite the fact that Diana was not a celebrity was out of line and even still, boundaries are supposed to be maintained. One other frightening facet is how a lot of entertainers really do think that they have 'right of access' to everything. Elton John should not have been allowed to maintain a 'friendship' with the princes after Diana's death because it would be important for the princes to heal and be around others age appropriate and make sure the princes are moving on beyond their mother's death healthily. Stalking her on her honeymoon was out of line. Diana's saying "What have they ever done for me" is a good question since the press didn't ultimately choose her, Charles did and it is clear in my view that the press didn't get it that Diana answered to her husband and Sovereign, not the press. It wasn't until Panorama and Andrew Morton that the press was fully empowered. Diana doing Andrew Morton and Panorama validated the media in a way that it hadn't before. I do not believe that Diana ever did get it that she did something horrific when she did those two stunts. She made the press powerful in a way that they never should have been. She then gave the press a new whip when she suggested that Charles be passed over and the press has never let up on Charles since. What scares me is how she encouraged through her actions to convince the press that they were some kind of guardians of the princes and it is clear that the press columnists really do think that they are more than just outsiders paid to observe and record. I do not think that William knows how to differentiate between reality and what the press covers and that is likely the same as Harry.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 14, 2022 13:26:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 16, 2022 3:30:30 GMT
I know I have been Diana's harshest critic on this forum, but it is clear that Diana should be prepping for crowning, not Camilla. The difference between a mistress and a wife is that the mistress does not have the responsibilities of a wife. Mistresses do not look after husbands the way that wives do, mistresses do not have the responsibility of consorts, and Camilla was snug at her home in the shires while Diana was being sent out to various time zones (putting up with the vaccinations is tough enough) and dealing with having to be 'on' all the time. Diana should be prepping for the coronation, should be prepping to wear the jewels of Queen Consort, and should be prepping to be known as Queen Diana of the UK and Commonwealth. Diana should have been sitting next to Charles on the throne of Queen Consort and should have been there helping Charles navigate the changed circumstances. Diana was so into service to her nation in her role as consort that she had "I Vow to Thee My Country" at her literal wedding hymn. That was sincere dedication and all the BRF had to do was make adjustments with a good attitude. Diana in my view came in both respectful and positive and if the older members of the BRF were in fact more intelligent, they would have seen the media and pop cultural empire that Diana handed to all of them on a platter the minute the engagement ring on her finger was set. Not one member of that family appreciated it.
Whatever it is that I have said about Diana, I do know fully the contributions and sacrifices she WANTED to make. Even Jephson points out that Diana didn't set out to rebel and most importantly, biographies never deviate from the fact that she was working and out and about throughout the years of her marriage. There is not one biographer that can say that Diana was lazy or unwilling or took years to 'figure out' her agenda. Diana never stopped doing her part and she did all she could to make those around her happy. She bore two sons of undoubted parentage and submitted to the constrictions of earning more and more freedoms in areas instead of it just being handed to her.
Diana deserved respect, not attitude and least of all, NOT attitude from staff or courtiers. The older staff would not see Diana as anything other than a silly girl and she was eager to be a good wife and mother, and if Camilla hadn't gotten away with antagonizing Diana, Diana would have settled in, thrived, and would have been a fantastic consort beyond just the superficial public appearances. She wanted to be a wife, mother, and did all she could to try to please Charles, but Camilla would not let up and for some deranged reason, Camilla was not forcibly removed from Charles' life and shown just how vicious the consequences are to what she was doing. Most men would have seen just how much Diana was bringing and would have arranged for the mistress to be in Paris instead of the wife driven out. We ALL know what happens to politician's mistresses when they (mistresses) cross certain lines. I am appalled that a smutty mistress got the ring and jewels and respect that Diana should be wearing, trying out really. Diana should be trying out the crown jewels, Diana should be overseeing preparations for the coronation and I sincerely believe that if Diana were Queen Consort right now, the coronation ceremony alone would be loaded with all the ancient rituals and be spoken about with respect. There is also no way that either Meg or Kate would be married to either prince and Kate would be just another face in the crowd while Meg would be who knows where.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 0:32:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 25, 2022 23:34:20 GMT
I sometimes wonder how different Diana's life would have been if she hadn't married Charles. She wouldn't have been famous, she wouldn't have been as rich, but thing is, that she never would have stepped outside of the bounds of her privileged life. I 'get it' that she was in over her head, but her very temperament was unexceptional and the only exceptional aspect of her personality was her ability to destroy. I resent how she spent much of her life refusing to work on anything other than her looks and media coverage. After a few years of it, she should have been settled in press coverage and should have been satisfied with her material blessings and coming to terms with her situation in regards to her husband. All she had to do was cultivate her mind and mental health and she would have ended up winning her husbands respect and a lot of love would have flown from that. She could ave realized that she had the mythical 'all' and could have added more than just drama or a narcissistic narrative. In my own temperament, I would have enjoyed the material goods to the full, but I would have cultivated a more functional skill set, wormed by way into working for a promoting the Prince's Trust, and would have promoted the work of the other charities as well of the other members of the BRF. That is the point of all that money and flexibility, to continuously improve her entire self and then after so many years as Princess Consort of Wales, step to being a fully well rounded Queen Consort and fill in the areas where her husband was admittedly lacking. She failed big time to take being a princess to a better level, but blew it. Tina Brown mentioned that Charles was 'just a collector of flowers' without realizing that he wasn't, he was a seasoned and experienced philanthropist who brought substance to the role of Prince of Wales that had been lacking for generations. Then there is the fact that she had time, money, and support.
I am not going to like seeing Diana's whining again, I know that much.
I get sick of hearing how Diana would have still been special without Charles, but I find that lacking and I find that difficult to believe. Without Charles she would have been just another debutante and would have married well, been well cared for, and would have been living in an eternal bubble of privilege.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 18:32:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 29, 2022 14:42:59 GMT
I figured something out and I want to share it. The reason Diana was lionized by her culture, it wasn't because of what she made of her position, but what she came from. At nineteen she was too young to have proven herself as capable of functioning outside of a safe space and yet, the press and culture worshiped her unconditionally. Diana came from a huge ancestral estate, she came from wealth, she came from a noble title that was far back enough to impress people, and she was someone who didn't have to work or make any kind of an effort to obtain wealth and looks and social status. She lacked worldly experience and that was VERY much so the culture of that particular generation, of her generation. The culture of the eternal ingenue has been very 'in' for decades and we all know what that has resulted in. She embodied the 'virtues' of Boomer culture and so as a result, she was worshiped. Like Marie Antoinette, it was about where she came from, where she started out in life. Much of the culture was the same since her generation was not at all required to struggle all that much to set up a life since much had been defended and developed by the Greatest Generation. All the Boomers had to do was 'be' and take. Diana was the embodiment of this.
Diana's tiresome dependency was considered socially appropriate because she came from affluence, she did not at all work for it and she reinforced a lot of cultural mindsets that the better off your start, the more 'okay' it is to be dependent and infantile well past infancy. The less you come from, the more you have to 'toughen up' and work hard to prove yourself worthy of being helped. She made choices to make things harder for women who didn't just come from moderate means, but were sincere about being truly independent and self sufficient. Diana never experienced this flip side to her own culture, but a lot of other women did.
Diana also had the luck to be born and raised and grow up and die in a culture that maintained this dominance.
Point being, that had Diana come from a working class family and worked her way through school, she would have been treated as a walking human social disease by her middle class fans and would have ended up knowing what real problems were. I wonder if Diana knew that deep down, but I doubt it.
The culture is thankfully changing and now it is more about what one makes of oneself in one's twenties and early thirties before marriage rather than one's socioeconomic status at birth.
It explains why Diana was always seeking a 'new beginning' throughout her life. What I find amusing is how she kept running into 'normal life' along the lines of daily mundane day to day living and couldn't cope with it. She always got her 'new beginning' even at an age where she should have been settled in. She was definitely someone who (along with her fan base and culture) saw nothing wrong with 'moving on' after shredding Charles' reputation or breaking up the Carling marriage, or breaking up the engagement between Kelly Fisher and Dodi Fayed and then there is the fact that she herself used up and discarded James Hewitt.
The only time she didn't get what she wanted was from Oliver Hoare and she reacted just as she always did with Charles, screaming at him and trying to rip his life apart, but she failed after Hoare recorded the abuse and went to the police. It was only then that she backed off and it should have been instructive to her fan base that she had been doing this to Charles for years. Then there is the fact that even then, her press and fans felt sorry for her. She still had sympathy and still had people wanting to help and coddle her. her 'new beginning' was her hitting a wall in regards to her status and her actual qualifications. I can only imagine that Charles himself felt liberated after having to live with her domestic dysfunction for nearly two decades and he was rebuilding his reputation easily enough.
Diana came from money and prominence and felt entitled to be coddled and cared for even past thirty. She 'felt' that no one gave her enough or did enough or even wanted to help or give her enough and the problem with 'feelings first' is that in order to develop and maintain good maturation into adulthood, thinking and analyzing is important since that is what separates adults from children and the mature from the immature.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2022 15:47:56 GMT
I wish I was a humanitarian at 25, self-proclaimed, too?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2022 16:32:55 GMT
I figured something out and I want to share it. The reason Diana was lionized by her culture, it wasn't because of what she made of her position, but what she came from. At nineteen she was too young to have proven herself as capable of functioning outside of a safe space and yet, the press and culture worshiped her unconditionally. Diana came from a huge ancestral estate, she came from wealth, she came from a noble title that was far back enough to impress people, and she was someone who didn't have to work or make any kind of an effort to obtain wealth and looks and social status. She lacked worldly experience and that was VERY much so the culture of that particular generation, of her generation. The culture of the eternal ingenue has been very 'in' for decades and we all know what that has resulted in. She embodied the 'virtues' of Boomer culture and so as a result, she was worshiped. Like Marie Antoinette, it was about where she came from, where she started out in life. Much of the culture was the same since her generation was not at all required to struggle all that much to set up a life since much had been defended and developed by the Greatest Generation. All the Boomers had to do was 'be' and take. Diana was the embodiment of this.
Diana's tiresome dependency was considered socially appropriate because she came from affluence, she did not at all work for it and she reinforced a lot of cultural mindsets that the better off your start, the more 'okay' it is to be dependent and infantile well past infancy. The less you come from, the more you have to 'toughen up' and work hard to prove yourself worthy of being helped. She made choices to make things harder for women who didn't just come from moderate means, but were sincere about being truly independent and self sufficient. Diana never experienced this flip side to her own culture, but a lot of other women did.
Diana also had the luck to be born and raised and grow up and die in a culture that maintained this dominance.
Point being, that had Diana come from a working class family and worked her way through school, she would have been treated as a walking human social disease by her middle class fans and would have ended up knowing what real problems were. I wonder if Diana knew that deep down, but I doubt it.
The culture is thankfully changing and now it is more about what one makes of oneself in one's twenties and early thirties before marriage rather than one's socioeconomic status at birth. It explains why Diana was always seeking a 'new beginning' throughout her life. What I find amusing is how she kept running into 'normal life' along the lines of daily mundane day to day living and couldn't cope with it. She always got her 'new beginning' even at an age where she should have been settled in. She was definitely someone who (along with her fan base and culture) saw nothing wrong with 'moving on' after shredding Charles' reputation or breaking up the Carling marriage, or breaking up the engagement between Kelly Fisher and Dodi Fayed and then there is the fact that she herself used up and discarded James Hewitt.
The only time she didn't get what she wanted was from Oliver Hoare and she reacted just as she always did with Charles, screaming at him and trying to rip his life apart, but she failed after Hoare recorded the abuse and went to the police. It was only then that she backed off and it should have been instructive to her fan base that she had been doing this to Charles for years. Then there is the fact that even then, her press and fans felt sorry for her. She still had sympathy and still had people wanting to help and coddle her. her 'new beginning' was her hitting a wall in regards to her status and her actual qualifications. I can only imagine that Charles himself felt liberated after having to live with her domestic dysfunction for nearly two decades and he was rebuilding his reputation easily enough. Diana came from money and prominence and felt entitled to be coddled and cared for even past thirty. She 'felt' that no one gave her enough or did enough or even wanted to help or give her enough and the problem with 'feelings first' is that in order to develop and maintain good maturation into adulthood, thinking and analyzing is important since that is what separates adults from children and the mature from the immature.
Great analysis!!! Thankfully, culture IS changing, and I remember those times fairly well. I remember Diana being touted as the refreshing new ray of sunshine for the stodgy BRF. And then, of course, the slow drip drip drip of the deterioration of the marriage and the public acting out and tit for tit by both sides. I even remember feeling badly for Charles at points, as it's in my nature always to back those who are or appear to be picked on a bit. Culture is always going to gravitate towards the so-called "beautiful" people and all that concerns them and what they are supposed to represent. Anybody with a working class or hard background truly is going to have a very hard climb back up. Nothing is glamourous or interesting if one lived in government housing, or came from a truly broken home or one where the parents weren't handed everything by way of their rich ancestors. Oh, no - true accomplishment, hard work, character, or merit coming the unwashed public just isn't going to do! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Ancestral homes, being daft in school, and going out clubbing and drinking is fun! Thankfully, culture is changing (very, very slowly at times) but there are still those who will kick and pout and go down screaming if you want to counter their old stand-by belief that their chosen beautiful people/celebrity sense of victimhood matters. Even those who weren't alive/born/aware during the Time of Charles & Diana want to hang onto some idea that they are experts on the era just because they buy into the notion of Diana being the eternal victim. We have all gotten older (obviously) and the people we were in the 80's and 90's have grown up and moved on. We look back, we analyze our lives, we have either become more stubborn and stuck or have evolved and become much more forgiving. Why some, like the above not alive/born/aware as mentioned, want to continue live in this past is beyond me. Move on, for crying out loud. I don't care if your father was friends with Diana, or you imagine them or some other person to have been best buds with her, or whatever - move on, already. Being stunted and locked into some notion of how things were is not psychologically normal or healthy. I want to shake some sense into these types, but have to be happy with just getting in some online zingers at them. Just get over yourselves, kiddies.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 29, 2022 16:57:31 GMT
I figured something out and I want to share it. The reason Diana was lionized by her culture, it wasn't because of what she made of her position, but what she came from. At nineteen she was too young to have proven herself as capable of functioning outside of a safe space and yet, the press and culture worshiped her unconditionally. Diana came from a huge ancestral estate, she came from wealth, she came from a noble title that was far back enough to impress people, and she was someone who didn't have to work or make any kind of an effort to obtain wealth and looks and social status. She lacked worldly experience and that was VERY much so the culture of that particular generation, of her generation. The culture of the eternal ingenue has been very 'in' for decades and we all know what that has resulted in. She embodied the 'virtues' of Boomer culture and so as a result, she was worshiped. Like Marie Antoinette, it was about where she came from, where she started out in life. Much of the culture was the same since her generation was not at all required to struggle all that much to set up a life since much had been defended and developed by the Greatest Generation. All the Boomers had to do was 'be' and take. Diana was the embodiment of this.
Diana's tiresome dependency was considered socially appropriate because she came from affluence, she did not at all work for it and she reinforced a lot of cultural mindsets that the better off your start, the more 'okay' it is to be dependent and infantile well past infancy. The less you come from, the more you have to 'toughen up' and work hard to prove yourself worthy of being helped. She made choices to make things harder for women who didn't just come from moderate means, but were sincere about being truly independent and self sufficient. Diana never experienced this flip side to her own culture, but a lot of other women did.
Diana also had the luck to be born and raised and grow up and die in a culture that maintained this dominance.
Point being, that had Diana come from a working class family and worked her way through school, she would have been treated as a walking human social disease by her middle class fans and would have ended up knowing what real problems were. I wonder if Diana knew that deep down, but I doubt it.
The culture is thankfully changing and now it is more about what one makes of oneself in one's twenties and early thirties before marriage rather than one's socioeconomic status at birth. It explains why Diana was always seeking a 'new beginning' throughout her life. What I find amusing is how she kept running into 'normal life' along the lines of daily mundane day to day living and couldn't cope with it. She always got her 'new beginning' even at an age where she should have been settled in. She was definitely someone who (along with her fan base and culture) saw nothing wrong with 'moving on' after shredding Charles' reputation or breaking up the Carling marriage, or breaking up the engagement between Kelly Fisher and Dodi Fayed and then there is the fact that she herself used up and discarded James Hewitt.
The only time she didn't get what she wanted was from Oliver Hoare and she reacted just as she always did with Charles, screaming at him and trying to rip his life apart, but she failed after Hoare recorded the abuse and went to the police. It was only then that she backed off and it should have been instructive to her fan base that she had been doing this to Charles for years. Then there is the fact that even then, her press and fans felt sorry for her. She still had sympathy and still had people wanting to help and coddle her. her 'new beginning' was her hitting a wall in regards to her status and her actual qualifications. I can only imagine that Charles himself felt liberated after having to live with her domestic dysfunction for nearly two decades and he was rebuilding his reputation easily enough. Diana came from money and prominence and felt entitled to be coddled and cared for even past thirty. She 'felt' that no one gave her enough or did enough or even wanted to help or give her enough and the problem with 'feelings first' is that in order to develop and maintain good maturation into adulthood, thinking and analyzing is important since that is what separates adults from children and the mature from the immature.
Great analysis!!! Thankfully, culture IS changing, and I remember those times fairly well. I remember Diana being touted as the refreshing new ray of sunshine for the stodgy BRF. And then, of course, the slow drip drip drip of the deterioration of the marriage and the public acting out and tit for tit by both sides. I even remember feeling badly for Charles at points, as it's in my nature always to back those who are or appear to be picked on a bit. Culture is always going to gravitate towards the so-called "beautiful" people and all that concerns them and what they are supposed to represent. Anybody with a working class or hard background truly is going to have a very hard climb back up. Nothing is glamourous or interesting if one lived in government housing, or came from a truly broken home or one where the parents weren't handed everything by way of their rich ancestors. Oh, no - true accomplishment, hard work, character, or merit coming the unwashed public just isn't going to do! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Ancestral homes, being daft in school, and going out clubbing and drinking is fun! Thankfully, culture is changing (very, very slowly at times) but there are still those who will kick and pout and go down screaming if you want to counter their old stand-by belief that their chosen beautiful people/celebrity sense of victimhood matters. Even those who weren't alive/born/aware during the Time of Charles & Diana want to hang onto some idea that they are experts on the era just because they buy into the notion of Diana being the eternal victim. We have all gotten older (obviously) and the people we were in the 80's and 90's have grown up and moved on. We look back, we analyze our lives, we have either become more stubborn and stuck or have evolved and become much more forgiving. Why some, like the above not alive/born/aware as mentioned, want to continue live in this past is beyond me. Move on, for crying out loud. I don't care if your father was friends with Diana, or you imagine them or some other person to have been best buds with her, or whatever - move on, already. Being stunted and locked into some notion of how things were is not psychologically normal or healthy. I want to shake some sense into these types, but have to be happy with just getting in some online zingers at them. Just get over yourselves, kiddies.
Culture will do what you said, but the difference is, that I loathe hate and despise how marketing is being touted as more important than qualifications or genuine self sacrifice.
Diana spent the last year or so of her life drifting around aimlessly and glomming onto stuff that she hadn't worked or done real research on or who knows what else, but she didn't have qualifications to get involved in. Why did she get to spend time with heads of state while others who slave their guts out get shunted aside? Or how someone is good at a potential job, but since they can't market themselves effectively, they miss out. Then there is the fact that Charles was the one that enabled her ot move up in the world, not the other way around, but Diana didn't think that Charles should be respected. Then there is the fact that Diana and her little cohorts didn't see anything wrong with trying to take Charles' life's work away from him, but succeeded in destroying his carefully built up and maintained reputation to bits over infidelity, despite the fact that Diana herself was rutting with almost every man she met.
There are people like myself out there who LOVE the minuet of daily routine and work and crave domestic stability and a sincere profession, but go figure, people like Diana just crave coming and pretending that yanking us our of our hard built lives is 'liberating' us. I cannot get over how Diana didn't see how Hasnat was at his happiest with his patients and colleagues and how he was happy helping people in genuine need, in genuine pain and then there is the fact that Charles genuinely loves helping those in need or he wouldn't have founded and truly dedicated himself to the Prince's Trust. Hasnat LOVED salving his guts out at the hospital mainly since it is a labor of love and then there is the fact that the Prince's Trust is in fact a labor of love for Charles.
She never understood that because she never grew up and she never grew up because she refused. She wouldn't put her feelings second and the facts first.
I find it mystifying that she was anti-establishment since she was born into and grew up in the establishment. Typists from Brixton were not doing hobby jobs at 19.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2022 17:49:41 GMT
Great analysis!!! Thankfully, culture IS changing, and I remember those times fairly well. I remember Diana being touted as the refreshing new ray of sunshine for the stodgy BRF. And then, of course, the slow drip drip drip of the deterioration of the marriage and the public acting out and tit for tit by both sides. I even remember feeling badly for Charles at points, as it's in my nature always to back those who are or appear to be picked on a bit. Culture is always going to gravitate towards the so-called "beautiful" people and all that concerns them and what they are supposed to represent. Anybody with a working class or hard background truly is going to have a very hard climb back up. Nothing is glamourous or interesting if one lived in government housing, or came from a truly broken home or one where the parents weren't handed everything by way of their rich ancestors. Oh, no - true accomplishment, hard work, character, or merit coming the unwashed public just isn't going to do! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Ancestral homes, being daft in school, and going out clubbing and drinking is fun! Thankfully, culture is changing (very, very slowly at times) but there are still those who will kick and pout and go down screaming if you want to counter their old stand-by belief that their chosen beautiful people/celebrity sense of victimhood matters. Even those who weren't alive/born/aware during the Time of Charles & Diana want to hang onto some idea that they are experts on the era just because they buy into the notion of Diana being the eternal victim. We have all gotten older (obviously) and the people we were in the 80's and 90's have grown up and moved on. We look back, we analyze our lives, we have either become more stubborn and stuck or have evolved and become much more forgiving. Why some, like the above not alive/born/aware as mentioned, want to continue live in this past is beyond me. Move on, for crying out loud. I don't care if your father was friends with Diana, or you imagine them or some other person to have been best buds with her, or whatever - move on, already. Being stunted and locked into some notion of how things were is not psychologically normal or healthy. I want to shake some sense into these types, but have to be happy with just getting in some online zingers at them. Just get over yourselves, kiddies. Culture will do what you said, but the difference is, that I loathe hate and despise how marketing is being touted as more important than qualifications or genuine self sacrifice.
Diana spent the last year or so of her life drifting around aimlessly and glomming onto stuff that she hadn't worked or done real research on or who knows what else, but she didn't have qualifications to get involved in. Why did she get to spend time with heads of state while others who slave their guts out get shunted aside? Or how someone is good at a potential job, but since they can't market themselves effectively, they miss out. Then there is the fact that Charles was the one that enabled her ot move up in the world, not the other way around, but Diana didn't think that Charles should be respected. Then there is the fact that Diana and her little cohorts didn't see anything wrong with trying to take Charles' life's work away from him, but succeeded in destroying his carefully built up and maintained reputation to bits over infidelity, despite the fact that Diana herself was rutting with almost every man she met.
There are people like myself out there who LOVE the minuet of daily routine and work and crave domestic stability and a sincere profession, but go figure, people like Diana just crave coming and pretending that yanking us our of our hard built lives is 'liberating' us. I cannot get over how Diana didn't see how Hasnat was at his happiest with his patients and colleagues and how he was happy helping people in genuine need, in genuine pain and then there is the fact that Charles genuinely loves helping those in need or he wouldn't have founded and truly dedicated himself to the Prince's Trust. Hasnat LOVED salving his guts out at the hospital mainly since it is a labor of love and then there is the fact that the Prince's Trust is in fact a labor of love for Charles. She never understood that because she never grew up and she never grew up because she refused. She wouldn't put her feelings second and the facts first. I find it mystifying that she was anti-establishment since she was born into and grew up in the establishment. Typists from Brixton were not doing hobby jobs at 19.
Yes, totally agree about the marketing, too! The marketing, social media hype and campaigns, etc - I dislike how these types latch onto the work and efforts of others. I remember when Diana took on the cause of landmines - well, there were many others who rather quietly and steadily worked behind the scenes with little if no fanfare. They weren't promoting themselves. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/landmines-ban-treaty-20-years-1.3822868canadianlandmine.org/the-foundation/board-of-directors/lloyd-axworthy/I think it's disgusting how the efforts and life's work of anybody gets negated because it's not deemed important or gets lost in the frenetic need to worship latter day celebrity or social media hyped latchers-on. Diana's efforts were never that outstanding or noteworthy. Sorry if some of her fans will never see that.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 29, 2022 18:45:25 GMT
Culture will do what you said, but the difference is, that I loathe hate and despise how marketing is being touted as more important than qualifications or genuine self sacrifice.
Diana spent the last year or so of her life drifting around aimlessly and glomming onto stuff that she hadn't worked or done real research on or who knows what else, but she didn't have qualifications to get involved in. Why did she get to spend time with heads of state while others who slave their guts out get shunted aside? Or how someone is good at a potential job, but since they can't market themselves effectively, they miss out. Then there is the fact that Charles was the one that enabled her ot move up in the world, not the other way around, but Diana didn't think that Charles should be respected. Then there is the fact that Diana and her little cohorts didn't see anything wrong with trying to take Charles' life's work away from him, but succeeded in destroying his carefully built up and maintained reputation to bits over infidelity, despite the fact that Diana herself was rutting with almost every man she met.
There are people like myself out there who LOVE the minuet of daily routine and work and crave domestic stability and a sincere profession, but go figure, people like Diana just crave coming and pretending that yanking us our of our hard built lives is 'liberating' us. I cannot get over how Diana didn't see how Hasnat was at his happiest with his patients and colleagues and how he was happy helping people in genuine need, in genuine pain and then there is the fact that Charles genuinely loves helping those in need or he wouldn't have founded and truly dedicated himself to the Prince's Trust. Hasnat LOVED salving his guts out at the hospital mainly since it is a labor of love and then there is the fact that the Prince's Trust is in fact a labor of love for Charles. She never understood that because she never grew up and she never grew up because she refused. She wouldn't put her feelings second and the facts first. I find it mystifying that she was anti-establishment since she was born into and grew up in the establishment. Typists from Brixton were not doing hobby jobs at 19.
Yes, totally agree about the marketing, too! The marketing, social media hype and campaigns, etc - I dislike how these types latch onto the work and efforts of others. I remember when Diana took on the cause of landmines - well, there were many others who rather quietly and steadily worked behind the scenes with little if no fanfare. They weren't promoting themselves. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/landmines-ban-treaty-20-years-1.3822868canadianlandmine.org/the-foundation/board-of-directors/lloyd-axworthy/I think it's disgusting how the efforts and life's work of anybody gets negated because it's not deemed important or gets lost in the frenetic need to worship latter day celebrity or social media hyped latchers-on. Diana's efforts were never that outstanding or noteworthy. Sorry if some of her fans will never see that.
One thing I DO know is that the minute Diana bridged royalty and celebrity, that is when it got real bad. Royal life has always been one of dedication, service, and doing dirty work on behalf of one's nation and Diana trapped her sons into being expected to fulfill a narrative. William was trapped into the role of 'good son' and Harry was trapped into the role of 'bad son/naughty prince/fun uncle' and Diana showed a complete disregard for the humanity of her own sons. She decided that she would strip Charles of the culmination of his life's work and burden William not just with the responsibility, but with the requirement to be the 'dream prince' or risk losing his ancestral birthright. She shot her mouth off to the press so much that she let the press think that the press were also members of the BRF and that they had some kind of bond with the princes. Neither prince was friends with Elton John and I find it CREEPY that EJ actually went to the weddings of two princes who are both an entire generation away from him. Harry was stuck in a role as a 'bad prince' despite his many good traits and those were never really appreciated. William had pressure put on him to be eternally good and to marry someone lower on the social scale despite the fact that most people prefer an equal or 'better.' I do think that had Diana not done what she did by marketing William as the ultimate egalitarian prince, William would have married his own kind and would have likely been in a happier marriage.
The problem with the way William was marketed, is how he was marketed as a prince who would remain non-threateningly wholesome and he would always be outside of duty/tradition and would never want to just settle into life and would always strive to be young and hip forever. He was assigned the role of the anti-establishment darling of the boomers and how he would never want to truly have fun appropriate to his age and how he would NEVER want to date/court/marry a genuine social equal. William was marketed and regrettably fell into the role of a perfect suburban prince for a perfect suburban woman. William fell into it and he was miserable ever since. The only time William stepped out of that narrative was in 2007 and the culture went nuts on him and he 'fell back into line' and was rewarded with getting good press again. If William had stuck it out, it would have upset something that should have been out anyway, that is, a role in a narrative. Preassigned by his own mother of all people. No wonder William is such an angry, frustrated, repressed mess. He is living with a woman who is too stupid to focus on her basic dynastic responsibilities and she is lazier than anything. He is struggling under a role that has infested his personal mental health and it is clear that he literally cannot cope with the life he is miserable living, but stuck in since he followed that preassigned narrative that Diana foisted on him.
Diana then took Harry's simple high spirits and let the press tag him as the 'naughty one,' without realizing that by letting the press get personal, the press took it personally upon themselves to refuse to see and respect Harry as the maturing young man who was trying to develop beyond that narrative and regrettably Diana let the press into her personal family life and so Harry never had a real place to go and redevelop in stable quietness. Then William married Kate and Kate brought that role assignment into his home life even more. Diana let the press get way too over-involved and stupidly would not see that the press were predators, not pals. She never developed that basic adult reserve that she should have and she refused to develop it as a way of handling media attention. Allowing her second son to be assigned the role of the ''bad boy' before he was out of childhood is something that was a huge failure in her role as a mother. She let her youngest son be turned into a sex symbol at TOO YOUNG of an age and it is any wonder he struggled so badly and couldn't handle much of anything at such a young age and has become such a mess right now?
Diana has had a lot to answer for and I hope she was made to do so the minute she died and faced her final judgement. She didn't just fail as a mother, she refused to even try to be responsible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2022 3:54:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 31, 2022 5:57:11 GMT
I wonder how different it would have been if Diana had decided to grow up instead of determinedly being childlike. I hold the view that Gianni Versace made a huge mistake when he broke the boundary between fashion and celebrity and Diana in my view wrecked the royal way of life by mixing celebrity behavior and a middle class mindset. She was a horrific snob in so many areas and at the same time, let entertainers into areas of her life (like mixing them with her children and not making sure that each knew where the boundaries were and respected) and while Charles partied with entertainers, he would never have married one. What irritates me is how Diana wasn't THINKING about all the decent people she ignored along the way. Diana ignored Nobel Laureates, she ignored military veterans, she ignored civil servants who were entitled to pampering. She never brought her children to meet respectable people of moderate means, but honest lives and she never befriended hospital workers and did anything for them. In my view she enjoyed being a pampered guest herself, but disliked being expected to do the same. If she had made the trades fashionable, she would have enabled millions to make a solid living and get a degree along the lines later on. She could have campaigned to have Nobel Prizes awarded in Britain and she could have encouraged Nobel Prizewinners to develop academic programs in British/Commonwealth schools. Imagine how different her sons would have been if they had been steered in that direction.
What irks me is how she blew chance after chance to make a real marriage; if she had conformed to the Balmor@l routine and brought a truckload of friends and been determined to make Charles happy, she would have been better off and the marriage would have stood more than just a chance. If she had asked to become ambassador to the Prince's Trust and been hostess to all the related events, she would have likely developed appreciation from Charles and if she had volunteered full time in his offices she would have earned his respect. If she had put a good face on the times when Charles would talk about stuff he liked, she would have charmed him into wanting to spend more time with her with the belief that she appreciated his interests. With the right attitude, she could have cleverly moved Camilla into the position of former mistress instead of a current one. Charles might have been unfaithful with flings, but Diana was made of the same stuff as her ancestors who coped with marital infidelity if she had only been honest with herself about who she was. It's not like she didn't have charisma up the wazoo. If she had been willing to find out and fill in the cracks of his psyche, she would have inserted herself so far into his mind that she would have been the 'non-negotiable.' Charles by all accounts was a brooding type that like slapstick humor and if she had just given him at least the facade of interest in his interests, she would have been able to maintain a psychological hold over her husband that Camilla admittedly did.
Looking after a husband is a wife's job and that is something that Diana was not doing. If I had been married to Charles, I would have seduced him in the flower garden or would have sweetly asked him to assign me some light reading material so I could ease myself into his literary interests. He would have likely obliged and I would have found out what Camilla was up to and asked a few powerful contacts to 'have a talk' with her about backing off of Charles; heck, I would have informed every single political wife and asked the wives to ask their husbands (order them really) to find a way of 'dealing' with Camilla. Decisively. While my political contacts would be 'dealing' with Camilla I would then spend time asking Charles to really spend time showing me his new garden plants or talk about possible flor@l arrangements and asking about setting up a vertical farm or orchard to supply my favorite fruits. I also think Diana should have spent hours asking for Charles to give his views on my wardrobe. That alone would keep him occupied for hours. I would have dressed more modestly as well in public. She should have saved her best for her husband in private. The more the public slipped out about her sexual beauty, the less he was interested in her. She should have taken his wishes and preferences into consideration and should have really, really conformed. This isn't 'woke,' but public figures need a wife who is not vulnerable in certain areas. All Diana had to do was look after her husband in ways that she knew he needed. the more she had the world thirsting after her, the more undignified she behaved. Most men do NOT want half the wife's breasts sticking out for the world to see. Plus she had sons. SONS who were developing their idea of a good woman via how their mother behaved.
|
|
|
Post by nyetochka40 on Oct 31, 2022 14:27:48 GMT
I wonder how different it would have been if Diana had decided to grow up instead of determinedly being childlike.
What irks me is how she blew chance after chance to make a real marriage; if she had conformed to the Balmor@l routine and brought a truckload of friends and been determined to make Charles happy, she would have been better off and the marriage would have stood more than just a chance. If she had asked to become ambassador to the Prince's Trust and been hostess to all the related events, she would have likely developed appreciation from Charles and if she had volunteered full time in his offices she would have earned his respect. If she had put a good face on the times when Charles would talk about stuff he liked, she would have charmed him into wanting to spend more time with her with the belief that she appreciated his interests. With the right attitude, she could have cleverly moved Camilla into the position of former mistress instead of a current one.
Don't forget that Diana was very young woman with mental health issues who gave birth to 2 boys in a very short time. After extensive therapy she might have solved her issues and made her marriage stronger, but it was too late.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Oct 31, 2022 15:13:31 GMT
I wonder how different it would have been if Diana had decided to grow up instead of determinedly being childlike.
What irks me is how she blew chance after chance to make a real marriage; if she had conformed to the Balmor@l routine and brought a truckload of friends and been determined to make Charles happy, she would have been better off and the marriage would have stood more than just a chance. If she had asked to become ambassador to the Prince's Trust and been hostess to all the related events, she would have likely developed appreciation from Charles and if she had volunteered full time in his offices she would have earned his respect. If she had put a good face on the times when Charles would talk about stuff he liked, she would have charmed him into wanting to spend more time with her with the belief that she appreciated his interests. With the right attitude, she could have cleverly moved Camilla into the position of former mistress instead of a current one. Don't forget that Diana was very young woman with mental health issues who gave birth to 2 boys in a very short time. After extensive therapy she might have solved her issues and made her marriage stronger, but it was too late.
Diana was also a young woman who was loaded with money and help. She never even worried about bills and not because she was on public assistance like SSDI recipients, but she was on a 'socially correct' form of public assistance as a royal. She was lauded for her 'achievement' despite being supported by the taxpayer. The only difference is that the form of welfare the princes were born on is one that was considered 'appropriate' by the mainstream. Diana's welfare and early marriage and coming from family money were all counted as virtues by her generation because of where she came from. If she had not come from money and title, she would be considered a loser who should get and keep a job and pay her own way. Yet because of the values of the Boomers and her good looks, it was 'okay' for her to be on public money. Perhaps this is something that should be discussed more, why it is that royals are in fact considered a 'socially correct' form of welfare despite the fact that it is just a mere matter of LUCK that they were coming out of a womb that was lauded for things that less well off women are condemned for. We all know this, but for some reason this is never discussed by the wider world. Two healthy children and she was unhappy. Limitless wealth and she was unhappy, and dazzling looks and being able to afford a couture wardrobe and she was unhappy. A genuinely cultured prince who wanted to make his marriage work and she was unhappy. Limitless homes and people to turn to, and she was unhappy. Jewels up the wazoo and many of them ancestral, and she was unhappy.
I have schizoaffective disorder, a combination of the less severe form of bipolar and schizophrenia and I have worked hard on myself to get and stay better. The only thing stopping her from getting better was her own unwillingness to grow up out of childhood. At twenty with all that wealth and the world at her feet cheering her on as she made the most of it, she should have dropped her childhood and should have made steps to stop making herself sick. She had every resource to make her marriage work and she had a world who gave her every pass and excuse in the world. She even had people excusing her own adultery and her destructive determination to ruin her husband.
After her divorce, she had her precious freedom and she had her precious 'independence' and she had even more taxpayer money and palatial palace quarters. She was NOT someone who was in want or someone who was condemned for living off of other people's money. Even feminists were cheering on her milking her nation for more money. Everything was on her at that point in time and she blew it even then. Charles wasn't to blame for her messing with Will Carling, or Oliver Hoare, or Dodi Fayed (he was engaged to Kelly Fisher) and she had no real right to whine about losing her "HRH" or being downgraded in terms of treatment. She wasn't Charles' legal wife anymore and she was certainly not entitled to anything that she had had and everything she threw away. Second, the cost of freedom is losing certain types of protection. After the palace let her go, they were not required to care for her as they used to and even Charles was glad to see her go. She supposedly wanted to do a joint announcement of the finalization, but Charles was done with her and her drama and just told her to get out.
Same with Prince Philip. Prince Philip dealt with far worse and knew the drill and paid the price and couldn't understand why Diana wouldn't pay it like he did. It was never easier for Philip who had no family ties and who had no real home before his marriage. If Philip ever lectured her about anything, it was out of trying to help her see things through the focus of a mature adult. Tina Brown was wrong to think that Philip should have talked to Diana from the heart and not the head, Philip was trying to get Diana to look at the situation beyond her self centered feelings. Tina never did grasp that the world should not have to argue or explain things in a way that suited only Diana. No one owed Diana explanations only from Diana's way of how Diana felt. The world is not about Diana, just like duty is not about Diana or Diana's way of doing things. Diana never saw this because Diana would not see beyond her own pain and she never saw beyond her own pain because she did not want to. If she had wanted to she would have been able to dig herself out of her self-inflicted malaise and she would have been able to grow and develop and she would have been able to end up be a better mother and maybe have saved her marriage. This has nothing to do with modernity. If a 'normal' woman these days treated her husband the way Diana did and decided to behave the way Diana did after her divorce, she would be condemned by society.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Nov 7, 2022 6:55:13 GMT
This just hit me and I have to get it out: What if Diana was the one who never loved Charles? The reason I think this is because no woman who loved her husband would have done what Diana did. No woman screams abuse, or smears the reputation of a man that she loved or loves. Diana had EVERYTHING to gain by a match with Charles and regrettably she did not at all do a decent enough job in being a loving, supportive, interested wife. She insulted him, was unfaithful and blamed him, and she was sometimes blatantly flirtatious with other men in front of his face. I do not think Diana loved him that much if she was blase about his flings, but agitated at Camilla specifically. There was something about Camilla that set Diana off and I think it was because Camilla was a version of her that Diana was unwilling to try to become. Diana could have become more mature and seasoned if she had made an effort, but with Camilla there were things that were effortless for Camilla. Why was Diana blase about flings if she loved Charles so much? What if Diana had not had lovers herself? Women who love their men make a genuine and sincere effort and it is clear that Diana didn't even want to try to engage his interests or hobbies or sometimes even his preferences. Diana wouldn't have done all that and then the Morton book, the Panorama interview, and then trying to over throw Charles.
Diana accused Charles of never loving her, but that was not true at all. By many accounts he was someone who has cared and did continue to love Camilla. Who did Diana love? Certainly not Hewitt and certainly not Hoare or Hasnat Khan. If she had loved Hewitt, she would not have cruelly dumped him and if she had loved Hasnat Khan, she would have respected his profession and not tried to derail him. If she had loved Hoare, she would not have stalked him or attacked his wife.
So who didn't really love who in this situation?
|
|
sanka
Count/Countess
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 280
|
Post by sanka on Nov 7, 2022 7:52:27 GMT
I never thought about it that way kueifei but I think you are on point and right. So many people are quick to blame Charles but there is certainly another story.
I don't think the marriage should have gone ahead as they were not suited to each other but it could be that Diana never loved Charles. Her actions certainly demonstrate that she didn't really love him with the affairs and certainly later with the Morton book, the interview and trying to overthrow Charles.
When you think about it if she really loved Charles she would not have done those things or at least tried to work on the marriage.
Diana growing up was around Sandringham and Andrew and Edward. So maybe Diana's interests were in Andrew more than Charles.
|
|