|
|
Post by kueifei on Apr 28, 2021 16:35:14 GMT
A lot of wasted potential - making it about her failed marriage and not how absolutely perfect she had it elsewhere - opportunity, acclaim, attention, super privilege, family, friends, never having to struggle or want for anything, etc. And yes, she was essentially a high school dropout/trust fund baby who slacked off. To have a smidgeon of what she was handed...I cannot understand the whining and self-destruction. She had choices and in some cases, blew them big time.
I blame her for every bit of this recent attempt to overthrow Charles. Not just the Midds, but William specifically. I don't give a tinker's arse about the press, their views are not relevant, but I blame her for inventing the idea that people don't 'deserve' certain positions that are supposed to be iron-clad inviolate. I blame her and her cultural values she chose to embrace while growing up. Don't like school, discard it and 'move on.' Don't like the fact that her lover has professional obligations, ask him to either drop his profession (that is often his passion) or drop them and 'move on.' The idea that the Heir to a throne is 'not good enough' because she herself didn't see the value in his work (which is also his passion) is a complete slap in the face to anything that is supposed to be respected and treasured in almost any culture. Diana just loved to use and discard and if she didn't see the value in people, she just cuttingly dropped them and treated them like they were garbage. Charles proved year in and year out that he did care about making a concrete difference in the lives of lost youth and he has done just that. Princess Anne created and sustained "Save the Children" and still continues and it is clear that this is her sincere passion. She epitomized this chew up/spit out culture that has left kids abandoned, long time pets abandoned, young adult kids being told by their parents that they are not wanted anymore since the new spouse resents their presence and it is clear that her lack of THINKING over feeling first resulted in the destruction of a reputation that took decades to build. Since being Prince of Wales at age five or so Charles has had to really make choices and take the consequences and Diana was not raised to go in one direction or another, she was allowed to muddle along screwing up the lives of others around her. She completely smashed the foundations built over centuries and she brainwashed her nitwit sons to believe that just because it didn't mean much to them, that it meant the same to others. Neither son was at all raised to accept that there are places/areas in life where they will never truly belong and this is the result. William playing at being middle class and Harry playing at being half-in, half-out and it is clear that neither would have married either of their current wives if they had been raised with the reality that they were not, are not, entitled to even TRY to have it both ways. Diana herself never knew what it was like to struggle to pay bills or even have to budget. She was hopelessly coddled materially during years where most are learning how to just handle things like material sacrifice and realism. I am p!$$ed beyond all reasoning that she was so determined to make Charles pay for what was going on inside her head, that she refused to see that it was HER head that the problems were coming from. For all that Charles was unfaithful, Diana herself was not short of lovers and she was, after her separation and divorce, moving on to the beds of married men, devastating the wives. She did just as much dirt as Charles, as any other upper class woman did, but she didn't THINK (that special word again) that she had to face her own flaws as well. She spouted about being a flawed person all the time, but she sure as anything didn't give the same flexibility to Charles or too many others. I also believe that if I had been monarch, I would have refused to let her use William as a human shield and stripped her of any royal styles/titles and just had her known as Lady Diana Windsor and left it at that. The media would never have been a consideration at all. I would have also explicitly stated that after all she's pulled, that she would be forbidden to reside on ANY of the royal estates and I would NEVER have allowed her to have unsupervised visitation with her sons. She brainwashed her SON against his own family and seeded the current situation that is currently blowing up. If Charles is overthrown, if the monarchy is disbanded by the politicians as a result of all of this, it rests squarely on HER. There was NEVER any justification to destroy Charles' reputation and seed the destruction we are watching play out now. I will never feel anything for her other than disgust and I don't care how many episodes of "The Crown" that are played out. I am SICK to the backteeth of her victim narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2021 17:24:36 GMT
A lot of wasted potential - making it about her failed marriage and not how absolutely perfect she had it elsewhere - opportunity, acclaim, attention, super privilege, family, friends, never having to struggle or want for anything, etc. And yes, she was essentially a high school dropout/trust fund baby who slacked off. To have a smidgeon of what she was handed...I cannot understand the whining and self-destruction. She had choices and in some cases, blew them big time. I blame her for every bit of this recent attempt to overthrow Charles. Not just the Midds, but William specifically. I don't give a tinker's arse about the press, their views are not relevant, but I blame her for inventing the idea that people don't 'deserve' certain positions that are supposed to be iron-clad inviolate. I blame her and her cultural values she chose to embrace while growing up. Don't like school, discard it and 'move on.' Don't like the fact that her lover has professional obligations, ask him to either drop his profession (that is often his passion) or drop them and 'move on.' The idea that the Heir to a throne is 'not good enough' because she herself didn't see the value in his work (which is also his passion) is a complete slap in the face to anything that is supposed to be respected and treasured in almost any culture. Diana just loved to use and discard and if she didn't see the value in people, she just cuttingly dropped them and treated them like they were garbage. Charles proved year in and year out that he did care about making a concrete difference in the lives of lost youth and he has done just that. Princess Anne created and sustained "Save the Children" and still continues and it is clear that this is her sincere passion. She epitomized this chew up/spit out culture that has left kids abandoned, long time pets abandoned, young adult kids being told by their parents that they are not wanted anymore since the new spouse resents their presence and it is clear that her lack of THINKING over feeling first resulted in the destruction of a reputation that took decades to build. Since being Prince of Wales at age five or so Charles has had to really make choices and take the consequences and Diana was not raised to go in one direction or another, she was allowed to muddle along screwing up the lives of others around her. She completely smashed the foundations built over centuries and she brainwashed her nitwit sons to believe that just because it didn't mean much to them, that it meant the same to others. Neither son was at all raised to accept that there are places/areas in life where they will never truly belong and this is the result. William playing at being middle class and Harry playing at being half-in, half-out and it is clear that neither would have married either of their current wives if they had been raised with the reality that they were not, are not, entitled to even TRY to have it both ways. Diana herself never knew what it was like to struggle to pay bills or even have to budget. She was hopelessly coddled materially during years where most are learning how to just handle things like material sacrifice and realism. I am p!$$ed beyond all reasoning that she was so determined to make Charles pay for what was going on inside her head, that she refused to see that it was HER head that the problems were coming from. For all that Charles was unfaithful, Diana herself was not short of lovers and she was, after her separation and divorce, moving on to the beds of married men, devastating the wives. She did just as much dirt as Charles, as any other upper class woman did, but she didn't THINK (that special word again) that she had to face her own flaws as well. She spouted about being a flawed person all the time, but she sure as anything didn't give the same flexibility to Charles or too many others. I also believe that if I had been monarch, I would have refused to let her use William as a human shield and stripped her of any royal styles/titles and just had her known as Lady Diana Windsor and left it at that. The media would never have been a consideration at all. I would have also explicitly stated that after all she's pulled, that she would be forbidden to reside on ANY of the royal estates and I would NEVER have allowed her to have unsupervised visitation with her sons. She brainwashed her SON against his own family and seeded the current situation that is currently blowing up. If Charles is overthrown, if the monarchy is disbanded by the politicians as a result of all of this, it rests squarely on HER. There was NEVER any justification to destroy Charles' reputation and seed the destruction we are watching play out now. I will never feel anything for her other than disgust and I don't care how many episodes of "The Crown" that are played out. I am SICK to the backteeth of her victim narrative.
 Wow! |
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Apr 29, 2021 21:58:56 GMT
Thanks. You know, it steams me mad that people think Diana lived a life of disadvantage and deprivation. Thing is, that if not for her wealth, if not for her connections, she would be no different than any other loser who ended up in the gutter due to dropping out of school and indulging in one self destructive act after another. She didn't feel like completing her education or completing her marriage so she threw both away and didn't even feel like improving herself after her marriage to a man who enjoyed reading and other cultural cultivation. If she had made an effort at self improvement that she did at whining and self destructiveness, she would not have had that divorce and eventual accident. She ushered in the era of whining about one's lot being acceptable for hyper-privileged royals and how EVERYONE i supposed to commiserate with their lot in life. A lot of wasted potential - making it about her failed marriage and not how absolutely perfect she had it elsewhere - opportunity, acclaim, attention, super privilege, family, friends, never having to struggle or want for anything, etc. And yes, she was essentially a high school dropout/trust fund baby who slacked off. To have a smidgeon of what she was handed...I cannot understand the whining and self-destruction. She had choices and in some cases, blew them big time.
Now that I have time to think on it, I wonder what it would be like, to be so young and have all that accessible privilege. To be seventeen and be able to move to London, a plush area no less, and have a hobby job and go travel, clubbing, and also just plain play around. She then went to dinner parties on vast aristocratic ancestral estates, went to balls/parties on her own, and also wore very nice clothes and perhaps even expensive family jewels. Then the familiarity with the BRF and then the ease of waking up knowing that the good things in life will always 'be there' and living with childhood chums and having a good time just breezing through life and getting away with just about everything. Then there would be the knowledge that at some point she would be snapped up by a well off man and live a life of undemanding ease for the rest of her life and always, always have things brought to her or made available in abundance. She had so much and for some reason, decided to stick a knife into all of it, all because she wanted an obligation-free life.
What gets me, is that before Charles, she was just another upper class debutante who had not had a debut, but was already well known and just plain one of many anonymously privileged kids. Before Charles, she was fundamentally a nobody, no matter how grand a view she had of her family ancestry or herself. Thing is, that for the self-appointed grandeur, her family were just a bunch of sheep farmers who got rich for raising sheep and I sometimes would not brag about being a descendant of one of MANY mistresses and not just of Charles II. It's not like the Norfolk/Howard family, who are descended from people who fought battles, charged ongoing cavalry, survived rebellions, engaged in rebellions, and basically lost their heads for various causes. The Spencers came about around the time after monarchy was more settled and not at all half the fighters that the ducal houses are. Back on topic, Charles GAVE her 'life.' She had a life after marriage, a real one and one that had meaning and purpose and direction. If not for that title and the accompanying platform, there is no way that her AIDS work would have had the same high level impact and there is no way that heads of state would receive her on a red carpet. Why would they? What had she done as a 'Lady.' Then after the divorce, she 'had her life back,' but she started the usual muddling around, running with men who were basically no better than the types that usually infest Hollywood, and she ran with them because they paid her travel/shopping bills, and pretended to take her angst seriously, and then proceeded to get what they could out of her 'physically,' if you get my drift. Heads of state still received her, but only as an indulgence and quite honestly, I wonder if they would have continued to receive her after a few years of her drifting, grifting, and generally bad choices. She had no real 'life' before Charles and the 'life' she was living was one that was going to end badly one way or another. I wouldn't brag about going on one sunny vacation after another on my ex-husband's dime or stalking/harassing a married paramour. I also would not brag about playing around with who knows how many men or who knows how else.
|
|
sanka
Count/Countess
Posts: 295
|
Post by sanka on May 1, 2021 5:39:36 GMT
Both posts - well said keuifei. Certainly sums it up well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 1, 2021 18:19:22 GMT
A lot of wasted potential - making it about her failed marriage and not how absolutely perfect she had it elsewhere - opportunity, acclaim, attention, super privilege, family, friends, never having to struggle or want for anything, etc. And yes, she was essentially a high school dropout/trust fund baby who slacked off. To have a smidgeon of what she was handed...I cannot understand the whining and self-destruction. She had choices and in some cases, blew them big time. Now that I have time to think on it, I wonder what it would be like, to be so young and have all that accessible privilege. To be seventeen and be able to move to London, a plush area no less, and have a hobby job and go travel, clubbing, and also just plain play around. She then went to dinner parties on vast aristocratic ancestral estates, went to balls/parties on her own, and also wore very nice clothes and perhaps even expensive family jewels. Then the familiarity with the BRF and then the ease of waking up knowing that the good things in life will always 'be there' and living with childhood chums and having a good time just breezing through life and getting away with just about everything. Then there would be the knowledge that at some point she would be snapped up by a well off man and live a life of undemanding ease for the rest of her life and always, always have things brought to her or made available in abundance. She had so much and for some reason, decided to stick a knife into all of it, all because she wanted an obligation-free life.
What gets me, is that before Charles, she was just another upper class debutante who had not had a debut, but was already well known and just plain one of many anonymously privileged kids. Before Charles, she was fundamentally a nobody, no matter how grand a view she had of her family ancestry or herself. Thing is, that for the self-appointed grandeur, her family were just a bunch of sheep farmers who got rich for raising sheep and I sometimes would not brag about being a descendant of one of MANY mistresses and not just of Charles II. It's not like the Norfolk/Howard family, who are descended from people who fought battles, charged ongoing cavalry, survived rebellions, engaged in rebellions, and basically lost their heads for various causes. The Spencers came about around the time after monarchy was more settled and not at all half the fighters that the ducal houses are. Back on topic, Charles GAVE her 'life.' She had a life after marriage, a real one and one that had meaning and purpose and direction. If not for that title and the accompanying platform, there is no way that her AIDS work would have had the same high level impact and there is no way that heads of state would receive her on a red carpet. Why would they? What had she done as a 'Lady.' Then after the divorce, she 'had her life back,' but she started the usual muddling around, running with men who were basically no better than the types that usually infest Hollywood, and she ran with them because they paid her travel/shopping bills, and pretended to take her angst seriously, and then proceeded to get what they could out of her 'physically,' if you get my drift. Heads of state still received her, but only as an indulgence and quite honestly, I wonder if they would have continued to receive her after a few years of her drifting, grifting, and generally bad choices. She had no real 'life' before Charles and the 'life' she was living was one that was going to end badly one way or another. I wouldn't brag about going on one sunny vacation after another on my ex-husband's dime or stalking/harassing a married paramour. I also would not brag about playing around with who knows how many men or who knows how else.
Bravo, KF - this is so spot on!!! I am going to comment on this because you brought up some other points that I would love to respond to. Let me just work on something awhile...lol |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 1, 2021 18:19:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by india on May 1, 2021 18:24:58 GMT
He had better be on alert about what the damn Middletons are up to.
|
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 1, 2021 22:02:58 GMT
I wonder what it will reveal.
Will it reveal that Charles hurt her feelings over choosing time at the office instead of sitting in bed cooing over Diana? Will it reveal that she had a bulimic episode over a chipped nail? A new paramour who had a wife/kids wait at home while Diana demanded his attention? Or will it announce that Diana felt let down over someone who chose their own life over Diana's existential crisis? Or maybe another revelation over how she got excited at the thought of Charles, the father of her children, getting killed in an accident as so 'accurately' predicted by her astrologers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 4, 2021 12:58:11 GMT
www.celebitchy.com/712021/tatler_what_would_princess_diana_have_been_like_at_the_age_of_60/Tatler: What would Princess Diana have been like at the age of 60? May 04, 2021 By Kaiser Princess Diana, Royals In the June issue, five writers celebrate Diana’s many legacies and imagine who she would have been now and what she would have achieved.
Tina Brown writes, ‘Who would Diana have been at 60? I think she would have achieved it all. She was an obsessive communicator – her Instagram account’s numbers would have rivalled the Pope’s. The world has moved decisively in her direction since she died. Everything she said then about the Royal Family’s need to modernise is being reinforced post-Meghan. Everything she felt about the need to promote more empathy and responsiveness is a defining social value today.’
Emma Elwick-Bates reports on the fashion legacy of Diana, Princess of Wales: ‘In what would have been her 60th year, Diana’s style legacy remains colossal, inspiring ingénues; the Starbucks-and-gym trinity in their cycling shorts and oversize sweatshirts; legions of fashion designers; and, of course, the rest of us. She was our princess, and all around us, her fashion hits are on repeat.’
Omid Scobie says that, ‘While Harry and William have lived more of their lives without their mother than with her, the influence of their upbringing by Diana is still evident in both today. She always encouraged those around her sons – be it palace staff or family members – to allow their unique attributes to shine.’
Vivienne Parry talks about Diana’s dedication to charitable work and where she could have been today: ‘It’s interesting to speculate what Diana would have been doing at 60. She could have become a globe-trotting celebrity à la Elizabeth Taylor. But I think she was about to become a significant global presence. I think she would have ended the use of landmines. She would be involved in mental-health causes. She would be a contented grandmother. And, above all, just as her own mother did for her, she would be telling her grandchildren that with privilege comes responsibility. ’
[From Tatler]
|
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 5, 2021 4:50:31 GMT
My perception is different and always will be, but I wonder if Tina Brown 'gets it' that Diana was not making good choices near the end of her life. She never knew how to handle non-royal life since that was her life during her formative years and after the divorce, she was in fact living an aimless life and trying to get back in the good graces of an Establishment that she had taken a bazooka to. She had issues with making good choices and she had no sense of 'reality' as we know it since she lived a life so such hyper-privilege that she woke up in bed-sets that likely cost more than my SSDI. She was trying to make Hasnat Khan jealous in the worst possible way (toying with Dodi) and likely would have continued to make bad choices in men. Tina doesn't realize that the geopolitical landscape has changed drastically and it is clear that no leader would have welcomed her after her generation's leadership retired or left office after their maximum term was up. She launched celebrity activism and that would have been a huge reason for her to be a bane in a lot of areas rather than a benefit and there is no way that her star power would have survived aging and yet another romance with a lowlife who was buying her presence in their lives. Hasnat got fed up with her antics and he never would have married her since she didn't have any Middle Eastern lineage and she would NOT have been able to fit into that way of life. As for social media, people would have gotten tired of her antics and self destructiveness and I am certain that at 60, she wold have been kind of like a female version of George Clooney, who refuses to stop inserting himself into the latest narrative and I am certain that she would have ended up being told off for her determination to be part of situations that were not supposed to be about her.
One thing about Diana, is that she never knew how to move on. She never moved on from that victimized mindset of a six year old kid whose mother was making a break from a wife-beater and it is clear that Diana never 'got over' the fact that Charles would not be able to be the perpetually nurturing figure in her life that she would never really find.
She likely didn't see that Charles was someone who wasn't obligated to keep proving her inner demons wrong and it is clear that she didn't see the value in a man who takes sincere pride and dedication to his work as a philanthropic prince. She never saw the value in Hasnat's work and never saw how he had pride in his work and dedication as a heart surgeon. She never understood WHY men, good men, did not want to just drop everything to attend to her as if they owed her their time. The decent ones she was seeking out were in fact hardworking and dedicated to a purpose of work and philanthropy. A lot of her supporters think that Diana would still be glamorous, thriving with handsome lovers by the dozen, but the reality is, with her bad attitude towards a concrete career/profession, she would have had only sleazeballs to contend with. There is no way that a guy like Hasnat would drop his profession and patients to run off to a disaster area and contend with suffering people while Diana falls prettily apart for the camera. With her drifting, lack of concrete ANYTHING, I am sure she would have ended up continuing to hook up with loser or users or both. Her biggest problem is her refusal to accept that no one she was looking for would in fact drop their professions just to 'hang out' or become a player so she would be a pampered consort all over again. She blew the one role she did have, but then for some maniacal reason wanted it back in another form.
I truly think that in this era, she would have had a horrible time of it since she would not have been able to handle a world that moved beyond the time she peaked. She would not have been able to accept that she was not the beginning and the end of everything and Charles was already moving on and she had problems after the divorce accepting that Charles didn't want her anymore. That he had moved on with Camilla and was still continuing to work and continuing to thrive and contribute. She spent a huge part of her time needling the BRF, as if the BRF didn't have better things to do other than respond to her immature antics. Tina mentioned in her (admittedly good) book about how Diana might have been of the mindset "Damn you Charles, I would have been a fabulous Queen" but Tina does not point out that Diana was not entitled to take a bazooka to the reputation of her husband and still stay. That position was by grace of her husband/marriage, not meant to be hers in her own right. Tina mentioned that Diana was struggling after the divorce, as if she were a techie creating an internet startup after being removed as an executive at Microsoft, but did not mention that up until Panorama, Diana was still in the fold and DID have the opportunity to engage in tolerant coexistence with Charles like her ancestors. Even after Andrew Morton, tearing her husband and his family to shreds, she still could have stayed in if she had just learned to STOP screwing things up. Then after the divorce, Diana likely thought that she had brought the BRF to heel, but she had in fact cut herself out and ended up watching the monarchy continue on and her husband with another woman. Tina mentioned how Diana was in wonderment, wondering how Camilla could have her husband, social life, etc., but Diana (and Tina) never took into consideration that Diana herself threw all of it away for good after Panorama. Diana never did make an effort to contribute to the Prince's Trust or any of her husband's interests and no one in the BRF owed it to Diana to stop living after the divorce. I think that Diana never did manage to comprehend that people had better things to do than sate her increasingly unhealthy demands and expectations for attention and her increasingly toxic addiction to drama. These days, with the media increasingly fractured and significantly more grassroots, I believe that she would have struggled to maintain her narrative and there would have been up to thirty year's worth of new births that would have had her viewed in a very different light. My generation and that of the following ones would have had trouble caring about the latest drama of a woman of exceptional privilege and oddly self destructive tendencies. She would, like George Clooney, be a part of a very different culture and era and would have been seen as some kind of annoying pest who refuses to get the qualifications for her to get the credibility that she so desperately craved. She would be a kind of annoying aged celebutante who refuses to accept that no one cares about her marital problems (a marriage that ended nearly thirty years ago) and no one cares about her childhood divorced parents (happened maybe fifty or so years ago), and no one cares about the latest bad choice in terms of relationships. I also think that she would have had struggles accepting that she didn't have any concrete position anywhere.
This is my last paragraph. Diana had a huge impact with AIDS, but as Princess of Wales, this was a different kind of impact. If not for the Wales title, she would have been just another socialite or celebrity activist and regrettably she ended up just that way. Getting BOT, with the Wales title, she could kick up the issue of AIDS up to a much higher level and did. As Charles' consort, she had the ability to meet (and did) with government officials in a way that celebs did not. She had that title that did admittedly impress heads of state and she had her own additional celebrity luster to top it off. Regrettably, she never saw the full import of how that title got her access and how it ended up helping AIDS victims get treated as more than cultural lepers. She did not see that it was not Diana Spencer that the government officials were taking seriously, but the Princess of Wales and mother of two royal princes. It galls me that she blew that title away and didn't see that her AIDS work would have significantly less credibility in the area of government officialdom than when she was Charles' consort. If she had remained Charles' consort, she would still be making a far more significant impact than she EVER could as a celebrity royal 'raising awareness.'
|
|
|
|
Post by councilcath on May 20, 2021 17:17:38 GMT
The BBC fell short of "high standards of integrity and transparency" over Martin Bashir's 1995 interview with Princess Diana, an inquiry has found. Bashir acted in a "deceitful" way and faked documents to obtain the interview, the inquiry said. And the BBC's own internal probe in 1996 into what happened was "woefully ineffective", it added. The BBC and Bashir have both apologised, and the BBC has written to Princes William and Harry. The corporation said the report showed "clear failings", admitting it should have made more effort to get to the bottom of what happened at the time. As well as Diana's sons, the BBC has also written apologies to Prince Charles and Diana's brother Earl Spencer. It is also returning all awards the interview received, including a TV Bafta won in 1996. What is the Diana interview row all about? Bashir said mocking up the documents "was a stupid thing to do" and he regretted it, but said they had no bearing on Diana's decision to be interviewed. Lord Dyson - the retired judge who led the inquiry - found: Bashir seriously breached BBC rules by mocking up fake bank statements to gain access to the princess He showed the fake documents to Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, to gain his trust so he would introduce Bashir to Diana By gaining access to Diana in this way, Bashir was able to persuade her to agree to give the interview When the BBC carried out its own investigation into the tactics used to get the interview in 1996 - led by future BBC director general Lord Hall - it "fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark" A 1995 letter from Princess Diana - published as evidence - said she had "no regrets" concerning the matter Princess Diana's interview with Bashir for Panorama was a huge scoop for the BBC - in it, the princess famously said: "There were three of us in this marriage." It was the first time a serving royal had spoken so openly about life in the Royal Family - viewers saw her speak about her unhappy marriage to Prince Charles, their affairs, and her bulimia. But since then, Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, has questioned the tactics used by journalist Bashir to get the interview. The independent inquiry was commissioned by the BBC last year, after Earl Spencer went public with the allegations. Its findings were published on Thursday. Lord Dyson found that Bashir deceived Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, by showing him forged bank statements that falsely suggested individuals were being paid for keeping the princess under surveillance. Extracts from the fake bank statements used to gain Diana's trust IMAGE COPYRIGHTDYSON INVESTIGATION image captionExtracts from the fake bank statements used to gain Diana's trust The inquiry said Bashir had later lied, telling BBC managers he had not shown the fake documents to anyone. And it described significant parts of Bashir's account of the events of 1995 as "incredible, unreliable, and in some cases dishonest". In a statement, Bashir apologised for mocking up the documents, but said he remained "immensely proud" of the interview. He said: "The bank statements had no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview. "Evidence handed to the inquiry in her own handwr [and published alongside the report today] unequivocally confirms this, and other compelling evidence presented to Lord Dyson reinforces it." The letter from Diana to Martin Bashir from 1995 IMAGE COPYRIGHTDYSON INVESTIGATION image captionLord Dyson said the note had been found in November 2020 and given to BBC officials For the first time, Diana's note that she wrote after the interview was broadcast has been published as part of the inquiry. In it, she wrote: "Martin Bashir did not show me any documents, nor give me any information that I was not previously aware of." As well as Bashir, the report also criticises the BBC over how it handled the claims about Bashir's tactics. In 1996, the BBC carried out its own internal investigation, which cleared Bashir, Panorama and BBC News of wrongdoing Lord Dyson said that investigation - led by then-director of news Lord Hall - was "woefully ineffective". And as scrutiny from the press increased, the BBC gave "evasive" answers to journalists' questions, he said. When the BBC was asked about the bank statements by journalists in March 1996, senior BBC officials - including Lord Hall - already knew Bashir had lied three times about not having shown them to Earl Spencer, the report said. But the BBC press office told journalists that Bashir was "an honest and honourable man". "For the reasons that I have given, I am satisfied that the BBC covered up in its press logs such facts as it had been able to establish about how Bashir secured the interview," said Lord Dyson. He said the BBC "fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57189371 |
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 20, 2021 23:45:45 GMT
I am going type this as calmly as I can:
1. She was 35 years old, not fifteen and she should have been hiring someone to do research on whether or not Bashir was telling the truth.
2. It happened nearly thirty full years ago and I am sick of hearing about Diana; she's still dead and won't get getting anything other than MORE dead.
3. William needs to get a real life and not live one fixated on his dead mother who many now realize was as crazy as this full blown pandemic.
4. Diana was not an ingenue after she ended up doing that interview; she had just released a book that bashed her husband and BRF/Sovereign and was on her marry way to stalking married men and all sorts of other self destructive acts. As a woman of the world, she had to have known that doing something like this would end up triggering a horrific backlash.
5. If any family of mine ever pulled something like this, if I had been Sovereign, I would have been locking her up in a nuthouse and kept her there until after torching the Parker-Bowels house with Camilla inside while outright ordering Charles to drop the Highgrove dolt set and order him to take up full time residence in Wales. Charles could run his charities from Wales as well as he could from Highgrove.
6. I would have ordered William and Harry brought up at Buckingham palace until things fully stabilized and both Charles and Diana were able to prove that they would behave themselves. I would NOT let those kids live in a messed up environment that would turn them into what they have become. Press coverage wouldn't mean a thing at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 21, 2021 15:02:09 GMT
I am going type this as calmly as I can: 1. She was 35 years old, not fifteen and she should have been hiring someone to do research on whether or not Bashir was telling the truth. 2. It happened nearly thirty full years ago and I am sick of hearing about Diana; she's still dead and won't get getting anything other than MORE dead. 3. William needs to get a real life and not live one fixated on his dead mother who many now realize was as crazy as this full blown pandemic. 4. Diana was not an ingenue after she ended up doing that interview; she had just released a book that bashed her husband and BRF/Sovereign and was on her marry way to stalking married men and all sorts of other self destructive acts. As a woman of the world, she had to have known that doing something like this would end up triggering a horrific backlash. 5. If any family of mine ever pulled something like this, if I had been Sovereign, I would have been locking her up in a nuthouse and kept her there until after torching the Parker-Bowels house with Camilla inside while outright ordering Charles to drop the Highgrove dolt set and order him to take up full time residence in Wales. Charles could run his charities from Wales as well as he could from Highgrove. 6. I would have ordered William and Harry brought up at Buckingham palace until things fully stabilized and both Charles and Diana were able to prove that they would behave themselves. I would NOT let those kids live in a messed up environment that would turn them into what they have become. Press coverage wouldn't mean a thing at all. There should have been an intervention of sorts - and now we are seeing the effects of that not happening. I wish too that Oprah and Gayle King would just shut their fat, unqualified and ignorant yaps. They are hardly the ones to really understand the BRF or what really needs to be done. They seem like toxic enablers of a sort - encouraging some to bring up and misunderstand family history. They aren't mental health experts too. Leave Harry's obsession with his mother's legacy to the experts. The nerve of them to even presume their say means something is astounding. A woman died 25 years ago - move on. |
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 22, 2021 5:19:40 GMT
I was reading the Tina Brown book about Diana and Tina mentioned that the more Diana was desired by the public, the less Charles wanted her and I wonder how different things would have been if Diana had revealed less of herself and saved it for Charles. Less sexy stuff and save her charm for her husband. If she had shined a spotlight on the charity work that the others do, that might have made things different. Instead of glorifying her own work, she might have promoted the Prince's Trust's work, or Anne's work, or maybe even Prince Philip's work. She would have been the perfect ambassador for the Trust and would have been a hugely successful asset if she had helped Charles write more PR aware speeches and maybe smoothed over his less socially adept traits. Instead of bridging the gap between celebs and royals, she might have instead smoothed the path between royalty and education or maybe even diplomacy. She just would NOT stop fixating on her 'pain' and would not start thinking about the possible aftereffects of her decisions/actions. If she had thought through the Andrew Morton book, or thought about what challenging the succession might do, she would have avoided it and would still be alive. I resent that she had the kind of power to have a therapist come to her and didn't choose to look at all she DID in fact have going for her. If she had not used her popularity as a weapon to try to get what she wanted, all the time, I am certain she would have been able to have a better marriage. She had a clearly defined place in her culture, she was slated to be top of the heap in time, and then she would have ended up Queen Consort and mother of a first in line Heir.
I sometimes wonder if whether or not Diana viewed any of her life as 'real' and if whether or not Charles was a real person to her or if Charles was just some object. Tina mentioned how Diana viewed Charles through the lenses of a fantasy, a rescuer, an icon and how Camilla was needed to make him feel like a human being. Diana was like a fan girl and treated Charles like a pop star who deserved to lose his position because she realized that he wasn't going to ever be able to be the perpetual icon behind closed doors. Charles wasn't going to get worked up with her about one thing or another and it is clear that she was having real problems functioning in a stable environment, a HUGE red flag. Lady Colin Campbell and others were right when they say that healthy people do not become bulimic and Tina Brown mentioned that Diana didn't tell anyone that she was bulimic. There is no justification that she had to not be cooperative and thing is, that she was showing marked signs of unnatural hostility at a young age. Writing poison pen letters or harassing phone calls as a child is something that is NOT normal at a young age. As or Gayle and Oprah, they view themselves as equals of the royals since Diana herself empowered celebrity culture to view itself as on par with royals and it has NOT led to anything good. Same with celebrity activism, Diana promoted the idea that hard work, training, and qualifications don't matter as much as fame or good looks or money. Diana, after her divorce, created the idea that she didn't have to get an education and that fame and looks were the primary criteria, not education and training. Diana got access to officials that genuine workers never got a chance at. It is a huge slap in the face that Diana got access handed to her and didn't have to put in any education or hard graft. All it took for her was looks and charm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2021 3:36:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2021 12:26:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2021 23:08:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 28, 2021 3:18:36 GMT
I hope Diana is happy. Her sons successfully smashed thousands of year's worth of build up and would have certainly reveled in the destruction of Charles' reputation all over again. Instead of fancying herself a kingmaker, she is certainly leaving a legacy of king-breaking and I must say she must be enjoying this, wherever she is in the afterlife. I also like to believe that she has successfully ended up destroying the very system that protected her privileged life (although I doubt she sees anything like that) and the privileged lives of her fellow aristocrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 28, 2021 14:36:43 GMT
I hope Diana is happy. Her sons successfully smashed thousands of year's worth of build up and would have certainly reveled in the destruction of Charles' reputation all over again. Instead of fancying herself a kingmaker, she is certainly leaving a legacy of king-breaking and I must say she must be enjoying this, wherever she is in the afterlife. I also like to believe that she has successfully ended up destroying the very system that protected her privileged life (although I doubt she sees anything like that) and the privileged lives of her fellow aristocrats. And in doing so, she may just have destroyed her sons, as they never were able to move beyond the Diana the Eternal Victim narrative. They never wanted to move beyond this because, quite frankly, it benefitted them. Don't want to work? Well, my mother St. Diana died. I don't want to do any charitable work because it's not very fun? That's fine, you poor grieving boys, you have to live with that nasty RF. Drag out the poor lone boys following the coffin and my, aren't they to be pitied? Their mean, cold father cheated on their mother, dontcha know? Daddy never took me on bike rides or did anything with me...mean old Charles who apparently accomplished nothing in his life.  And then they married disreputable, unsuitable and clearly manipulative low-grade wives who were going to milk them dry for all they could. If the world saw Bill and Harry clearly and for who they really are, they would see two highly-dysfunctional, spoiled and rather talentless party boys who can barely function in civilized society. They cannot blame their parents fully for what and who they are now, because they made active choices NOT to move on and grow as individuals. They are both almost 40 for crying out loud. But, they were still failed early on, and shouldn't have been indulged the way they obviously were. And yes, thinking Diana's problems played a much bigger role than they should have. And no matter what Charles did or didn't do, that wouldn't have changed things much. Diana came from a more dysfunctional background, and her sons absorbed the ways their mother "coped", and not in a good way. They never broke the pattern, really. No responsibility for their lives, ANYWHERE! They are owed the life-long ride on their mother's memory. The permanent life-long crutch. |
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on May 28, 2021 15:32:23 GMT
The generation that worshiped Diana worships those two dolts and refuse to see that if not for Charles, Diana would likely have ended up living a mediocre life and a bad reputation. Diana once stated that she wanted the monarchy to survive, but she in her own contradictory way, ended up finishing it. For good. There is no fixing this and as for low rent wives, William and Harry have shown themselves to be low rent. Diana painted her mess of a family life on boarding school and being expected to be a part of the rules of her caste. At least in terms of Diana herself, there was something terribly broken. Normal little kids do not write vicious letters or harass nannies (including flushing an engagement ring down a drain) and make harassing phone calls and have a vengeful nature already established.
|
|
tale BS.
#JamesMiddleton