Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: Grace on July 12, 2007, 04:55:36 PM

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on July 12, 2007, 04:55:36 PM
I think she was counting on William to restore her Royal Highness title when he became King.

There doesn't seem to be evidence that she was counting on this at all or even wanting it.  Supposedly, William did tell her he'd restore her title when he became king but he was a child at the time...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on July 14, 2007, 04:12:41 AM
Diana did not need a title.  As time went on even she realized this IMO.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 14, 2007, 05:45:35 AM
Quite right TB! Although she was angry at the time, if her mother is to be believed.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on July 14, 2007, 12:31:06 PM
Diana did not need a title.  As time went on even she realized this IMO.


TampaBay
I don't think half the time Diana knew what she wanted !!!!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on July 14, 2007, 12:47:29 PM

Diana did not need a title.  As time went on even she realized this IMO.

TampaBay



I don't think half the time Diana knew what she wanted !!!!!


I agree!  I think Diana was pursuring an emothional  security that does not exist.

IMO opinion she would have a better chance of receiving emotional security from Andrew.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 14, 2007, 02:38:28 PM
The woman remained "Diana Princess of Wales" with the qualification of "Highness" until her death.  She was no longer a "Royal Highness" simply because she not married to one. I am sure she was aware of this and not concerned about it. Not something to loose sleep over.
 Sadly, she was a young, beautiful woman who had been betrayed by the men she thought she loved, and loved her in return.
 Happily, her legacies are her sons, and her ground-breaking awareness in very good causes.
 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Antonio on July 15, 2007, 10:54:16 AM
I think the queen should have created a new title for Diana, after all she was the mother of the future king.  She might have styled  Her Serene Highness, Diana, Duchess of Althrop.  I am American so I don't know how that would work.  But the queen could do anything. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 15, 2007, 10:59:29 AM
The HRH status denoted a direct family connection to the Crown and is awarded or withdrawn purely at the will of the monarch.  There was simply no way that the Queen was going to let Diana continue to bear this appellation after the divorce.  Her concerns were that it was impossible to know where Diana's private life might take her.  The implications of the withdrawal of this were that even lesser members of the RF such as Princess Michael of Kent, whom Diana apparently wittily referred to as 'the U-boat Commander' would take precedence over her, and that she would even be required to curtsey to them.

Diana initially agreed to losing the title because bigger issues were at stake, the main one being money. Sarah Ferguson had been negotiating her divorce just as Diana approached hers and the example of the former was uppermost in Diana's mind, as she had been well and truly bested by the Windsors.

If Diana had retained the HRH status she would automatically have been included in state occasions and properly acknowledged as the mother of the future King; however her agreeing to relinquish the style of HRH and then deciding that she wanted to keep it was useful in her tactics to secure the matter that was of great importance - her divorce settlement.  Diana may have lost the style of HRH but she did win something far more important to her future life - financial independence.

In the long run, the loss of this style was no hinderance to her in the pursuit of the things that mattered to her.  To the people who met her and whose lives she touched, she was always a princess, to some even an angel.  Faced with the choice as to whether they would have preferred to meet Diana sans HRH and one of the many unappealing others who can boast to being styled thus, I think we can all imagine too well the choice that would be made..........
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Antonio on July 15, 2007, 11:04:40 AM
Prince Harry of Wales bears a resemblance to his uncle, Earl Spencer. 

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on July 15, 2007, 01:33:42 PM


Diana initially agreed to losing the title because bigger issues were at stake, the main one being money. Sarah Ferguson had been negotiating her divorce just as Diana approached hers and the example of the former was uppermost in Diana's mind, as she had been well and truly bested by the Windsors.
I have no doubt in my mind that Diana , seeing Fergies marriage difficulties sat back & watched the outcome with great interest.When it came to intrigue Diana used & abused anyone to her own ends....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on July 15, 2007, 01:37:07 PM
Prince Harry of Wales bears a resemblance to his uncle, Earl Spencer. 


The current Lord Spencer bears an uncanny resemblance too to his late sister...he has her unstable emotional characteristics....and her hypocrisy..though the latter seems to be even worse...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 15, 2007, 03:42:56 PM
So true ashdean - I think hypocrisy is his middle name!!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 16, 2007, 06:46:59 AM


Diana initially agreed to losing the title because bigger issues were at stake, the main one being money. Sarah Ferguson had been negotiating her divorce just as Diana approached hers and the example of the former was uppermost in Diana's mind, as she had been well and truly bested by the Windsors.
I have no doubt in my mind that Diana , seeing Fergies marriage difficulties sat back & watched the outcome with great interest.When it came to intrigue Diana used & abused anyone to her own ends....

I don't doubt that Diana did learn valuable lessons from the carnage that the Windsors created with the Duchess of York.

But, if we are talking intrigue, let's not forget that the Windsor court is more than adept at this particular sport, but that a match was well and truly met in the Princess and her media savvy skills.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 16, 2007, 06:49:38 AM
Prince Harry of Wales bears a resemblance to his uncle, Earl Spencer. 


The current Lord Spencer bears an uncanny resemblance too to his late sister...he has her unstable emotional characteristics....and her hypocrisy..though the latter seems to be even worse...

Too extreme.

In what sense do you consider the Princess to have been a hypocrite?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: lori_c on July 16, 2007, 10:44:53 AM
No, there isn't evidence except for passages in books that are not cited from a credible source.  But it was my thought that perhaps it WAS something she was looking forward to as the mother of a King.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on July 16, 2007, 12:23:15 PM
Prince Harry of Wales bears a resemblance to his uncle, Earl Spencer. 


The current Lord Spencer bears an uncanny resemblance too to his late sister...he has her unstable emotional characteristics....and her hypocrisy..though the latter seems to be even worse...


In what sense do you consider the Princess to have been a hypocrite?

Too extreme.There a many ways in Which I consider Diana to have been a hypocrite.ONE was spending th night with her doctor friend but making out ahe had been sitting with terminally patients and having the press at the door to se her depart !!!.ANOTHER is going on about Charles's adultery and herself sleeping with INDEED STALKING married men!!!! nobody came out of the divorce smelling of dasies...NO ONE...AND Martyn I will not be drawn into any further argument with you on this subject as I know to you Diana is perfection...That is yr opinion which you are entitled to..but it also seems to be yr blindspot..

{mod edit only to take ashdean's comments out of the quote box and put them in the proper spot since it was a new post--makes it less confusing to read}
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 16, 2007, 01:05:58 PM
Good lord, I never knew that! Ashdean, your posts are always so informative! Thank you.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on July 17, 2007, 04:32:08 AM
Ashdean
There a many ways in Which I consider Diana to have been a hypocrite.ONE was spending th night with her doctor friend but making out ahe had been sitting with terminally patients and having the press at the door to see her depart !!!.
Quote





Curious about your source.....is it from a Book? ???





Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 17, 2007, 05:17:41 AM
Tina Brown does discuss this in her book,'The Diana Chronicles'.  I agree that this subterfuge was not to the Princess's credit and will happily agree with Ashdean that neither Charles nor Diana emerged from the divorce wholly as victim or villain.

However I will take exception to your comments, Ashdean,  about me and your judgement of my critical faculties.  I asked the initial question in good faith as I wanted to understand your perceptions about the princess; thank you for supplying them.

I am happy to have no further discussion about the Princess, or indeed any other topic, with you, as you wish.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 17, 2007, 11:06:48 AM
My favourite portrait of Diana.......

                                                               (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/Diana17.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 17, 2007, 02:59:43 PM
Oh, she looks beautiful in that one!
I like this one too:

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/VirtualContent/84995/diana.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 17, 2007, 03:51:42 PM
Faith - in that picture her head looks tiny!! Looks like she has Microcephaly!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: imperial angel on July 17, 2007, 04:48:13 PM
That portrait is very early, when she was still in her fairytale princess stage. Who painted that portrait, does anyone have info on it? I don't really like it, but it certainly shows off her early image to advantage, despite the head!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on July 18, 2007, 04:43:20 AM
I think they are both Charming. The first one is more Representative of how her Sons would choose to remember her from the pictures they chose at the Memorial. But the Second one reminds us of the young wistful Diana. I think it reminds me of the interview during the Engagement when the Press asked if they were in love. And Diana at nineteen answered "of course." ::)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 19, 2007, 11:41:11 AM
The poor girl . . . she never knew what was coming ahead of her  :'( . . .
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Janet_W. on July 19, 2007, 12:33:58 PM
Martyn, I agree with you on all counts. The portrait is lovely, and neither Diana nor Charles could be considered wholly victim or villain.

The status quo system is, I think, the main culprit . . . as well as those who kept reinforcing it. Those of us who appreciated then and continued to appreciate the late Princess of Wales realize she was indeed guilty of her own problematic behaviors and actions, but that most (and possibly all) of these behaviors and actions wouldn't have occurred had the system she was up against had not been so unaccepting and unforgivable of anything but what she was expected to be, i.e. an attractive but voiceless royal brood mare who would put up and shut up.

There's a line from the William Inge play "Picnic" that says, "You don't love someone because they're perfect." That, I think, could apply to Diana and the feelings that so many of us had and continue to have for her.  Contrary to the many accusations made against those who've defended the late Princess of Wales, we did not believe her to "Saint Diana" . . . far from it. We saw her instead as a three-dimensional human being who was flawed, just as we are, and struggling to make some sense out of her life. The difference between her life and ours was one of elevation and scrutiny, and we understood and empathized with her because we knew that "there but for the grace of God go I."
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on July 19, 2007, 01:00:06 PM
Thank you Janet, I'm glad that you like the portrait.  When I visited Althorp last year, it had been moved from its place at the top of the staircase to a position underneath it; however this did not detract from the loveliness of the portrait and the fact that it is a good likeness, without being overly flattering or romantic.  I wonder whether the portrait of the Princess has been restored to its original position in view of the rumours that Countess Caroline and the Earl have split? (Countess Caroline's portrait took the place of the late Princess's at Althorp....)

I agree Janet that it is possible to admire someone despite their flawed humanity; I suspect that the Princess would be a much less interesting person had she been without the flaws and failings that make her so human.  What she achieved is yet more impressive in view of what she had to contend with - from the RF, from the Establishment and from her own personal failings and behaviour.  She was neither saint nor sinner, victim nor villain, but she will be remembered by many as someone who made a difference.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on July 19, 2007, 01:27:50 PM
That's a geat line (by Inge) Janet. It sums up my philosophy towards many of the historical figures we discuss. I'm keenly aware of the flaws of many of my favorites and, while I'll defend them against things I think are false or over-stated, that's not the same as white-washing them. Sometimes I think that gets a little overlooked in some of our discussions. Being a fan of someone doesn't mean that you are blind to their faults or unwilling to criticize when justified. I would imagine that there are precious few of us who have never committed a bad or selfish gesture, told a lie, or said something cruel. I would hate to think that we would be judged by only the worst of our actions with what is probably (hopefully!) a much larger portion of our character made up of better qualities.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on July 22, 2007, 08:13:47 AM
I think that People loved Princess Diana and defend her because she was so young and vulnerable in the beginning of the Marriage! And tried so hard the first few years!  She was also extremely warm and funny and very much a Humanitarian.
I don't think it means they're unaware that we all have faults....and just IMHO...the ones that criticize and the ones that defend just mean that We get some rousing debate. I personally have had some good laughs...here and  especially on the Camilla thread! ;)


Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: lexi4 on July 22, 2007, 08:21:08 AM
Well said Marytn. I agree with you 100 percent.
One of the things that was compelling about Diana was that she tried to break away from what Janet refers to as the status quo. She didn't settlle for becoming a silient brood mare. She let us see her, warts and all. And that is what the "Royals" could not allow. Diana never hid her humanity. That is one of the reasons I admired her so.
Thank you so much for sharing the photos. They are beautiful.
Lexi
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 22, 2007, 06:11:14 PM
I think they are both Charming. The first one is more Representative of how her Sons would choose to remember her from the pictures they chose at the Memorial. But the Second one reminds us of the young wistful Diana. I think it reminds me of the interview during the Engagement when the Press asked if they were in love. And Diana at nineteen answered "of course." ::)

 . . . And Charles said: "Yes, whatever love is."
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Janet on July 23, 2007, 10:06:07 AM
I think they are both Charming. The first one is more Representative of how her Sons would choose to remember her from the pictures they chose at the Memorial. But the Second one reminds us of the young wistful Diana. I think it reminds me of the interview during the Engagement when the Press asked if they were in love. And Diana at nineteen answered "of course." ::)

 . . . And Charles said: "Yes, whatever love is."

That isn't what he said.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on July 23, 2007, 10:11:38 AM
This is what an online quote page had:

"Yes … whatever that may mean."
Prince Charles
Asked if he was 'in love', after announcement of his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on July 23, 2007, 10:15:08 AM
How sad it is that Diana, Princess of Wales is dead. Her sons must think of her often and miss her terribly. Nobody has replaced her within in t he royal family.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Taren on July 24, 2007, 12:24:09 AM
This is what an online quote page had:

"Yes … whatever that may mean."
Prince Charles
Asked if he was 'in love', after announcement of his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer

I thought it was just "Whatever in love means". On any of the reterospectives about Diana's life that clip is generally played of her saying "of course" and him saying "whatever in love means". Most shows tend to cut off Charles' definition of just what he thought it meant.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 24, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
Whatever it was, it sure meant the same thing.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Windsor on July 24, 2007, 05:03:17 PM
I am hoping this is the correct place to post my question....

Does anyone have any information regarding Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd?  I gather that she lived a very isolated life in her later years.  Did any of her children provide for her?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: imperial angel on July 24, 2007, 05:25:46 PM
This is what an online quote page had:

"Yes … whatever that may mean."
Prince Charles
Asked if he was 'in love', after announcement of his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer

I thought it was just "Whatever in love means". On any of the reterospectives about Diana's life that clip is generally played of her saying "of course" and him saying "whatever in love means". Most shows tend to cut off Charles' definition of just what he thought it meant.

Indeed, those are words that will forever be associated with Prince Charles and Diana's marriage. They are very quotable, and memorable, especially in light of what happened long after he said those words. Both his words and hers really show their respective attitudes/ expectactions going into that marriage: she was young and naive, and he was obviously more sophisticated and experienced. Most importantly, they both had different ideas of what their marriage was going to be and that should have been a red light then. I have always heard only the ''Whatever in love means'' version. I guess that's the version history will remember.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on July 24, 2007, 10:25:15 PM
Does anyone have any information regarding Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd?

She was born The Honourable Frances Ruth Burke-Roche in Park House at Sandringham. Her father was Edmund, 4th Baron Fermoy, a friend of George VI. Her mother Ruth was a confidante and lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. In 1954, aged 18,she married John Spencer, Viscount Althorp (12 years her senior) at Westminster Abbey. Elizabeth II and Prince Philip were amongst those in attendance.

The Althorps had 5 children: Sarah, Jane, John (who died within 10 hrs of birth), Diana and Charles.

The media made comparisons between Lady Althorp's and Diana's lives, because both were inexperienced young women thrust into the spotlight by unhappy marriages to older men in higher stations. Diana resembled her mother in appearance and character, as well. "I've got what my mother's got. However bloody you're feeling you can put on the most amazing show of happiness. My mother is an expert on that," Diana was quoted as saying.

In 1967, Frances ran off with Peter Shand Kydd. Subsequently, she was named "the other woman" in Janet Shand Kydd's divorce action. The Althorps were divorced in 1969. The divorce was quite bitter & Frances was vilified and ultimately lost custody of her children. Diana later told Andrew Morton that "The biggest disruption was when Mummy decided to leg it. That's the vivid memory we have — the four of us (including her brother and two sisters). ... People took sides. Various people didn't speak to each other...it was a very wish-washy and painful experience."

Frances married Shand Kydd in 1969 and the couple lived on the remote Scottish island of Seil. Much against her wishes, she was forced into view following Diana's marriage. The Shand Kydds separated in June 1988 after he left his wife for a younger woman, and were later divorced. Frances blamed the media attention for the breakdown of the marriage. "The media descended here 16 years ago and have never left me since," Shand Kydd was quoted as saying in 1997. "I've now accepted they never will...I think the pressure of it all was overwhelming and finally impossible for Peter". Peter died in 2006.

In 1996 Shand Kydd was banned from driving after being convicted of drunk-driving, but denied she had a problem with alcohol. She and Diana quarrelled in May 1997 after she told Hello! magazine that Diana was happy to lose her title of "HRH" following her divorce. During the trial of Paul Burrell, Frances had to admit that they hadn't spoken in the months prior to her death and that her letters had been returned unopened.

She remained elegant and well groomed, but showed increasing evidence of the strains of her public role. As well as her rumored trouble with alcohol, she suffered a car accident and also the theft of jewellery from her home. There was further controversy when Frances and her daughter Sarah were accused of disregarding the Princess's wishes for her godchildren. The accusations made by Mohammed Al Fayed caused her a great deal of pain. With these troubles, she increasingly relied on her home & its close-knit community which helped her cope with her inner demons. Friends say this last phase gave her the most satisfaction and a degree of peace.  As she became more frail her life became one of increasing solitude. She converted to Roman Catholicism and devoted herself to Catholic charities.

She died on 3 June 2004 following a long illness that included brain disease, Parkinson's disease, and brain cancer at the age of 68. Her funeral at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Oban was attended by many of her children and grandchildren, including Princes William (who gave a reading) and Harry. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Argyll and the Isles, the Right Rev. Ian Murray, said Shand Kydd was a "deeply spiritual woman."

She managed to cause controversy from beyond the grave with the papers reporting on diaries and interviews that she supposedly left behind which revealed a great deal of bitterness except towards her grandsons. She described Harry as a "rascal" and said William would have to learn to adapt to dealing with the media." Charles, however, provoked her ire. "He acts like a spoiled brat! He's depressed? Good!" she said.  She did concede that the Prince suffered over the death of his grandmother. She told the journalist: "He was distraught at Mountbatten's death and his grandmother's. It shows who really brought him up." In a different conversation, a year after her daughter's death, Mrs Shand Kydd reported that she had not heard from "the boys" - William and Harry. She said: "He [Prince Charles] thinks he can be both mother and father."  Significantly, the diaries reveal that Mrs Shand Kydd did not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Diana had been murdered. She said it was "crap". And she dismissed the contention that Diana did not get on with the Queen. Mrs Shand Kydd apparently said: "It's b***s to say the Queen and Diana did not get on. They had a lot of mutual respect and admiration."
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on July 25, 2007, 03:05:45 AM
I am hoping this is the correct place to post my question....

Does anyone have any information regarding Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd?  I gather that she lived a very isolated life in her later years.  Did any of her children provide for her?
I do not think any of her children had need to provide for her...Frances was comfortably off and lived a modest life..and inherited substantial sums ( by normal if not royal standards) she had no need to be financially helped.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Windsor on July 25, 2007, 07:56:04 AM
Dear Grandduchessella & Ashdean,

You are both amazing!  Thank you for sharing your knowledge.  I have learned so much from you both (and others such as TampaBay, Emeraldeyes, etc.) over the past months. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 25, 2007, 11:49:06 AM
I find Lady Fermoy an interesting lady, very old school. Does anyone know how her relationship with Frances was in later years?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 15, 2007, 08:53:02 AM
I don't think it ever recovered after her betrayal of her own daughter.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 02:35:06 AM
These were in the Mail today;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=475647&in_page_id=1879 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=475647&in_page_id=1879)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on August 16, 2007, 06:51:26 AM
Hmmm, I'm not sure whether I will invest in that book.......... :-\
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 16, 2007, 11:25:21 AM
I must admit some of those images are pretty jolly kitsch. I do find the one of Diana as the angel rather interesting. She is sitting on the cloud with her wings looking like she is trying to make out what all the interest is all about after her death and whether anybody has understood her during life. It is very curious  and thought provoking work indeed.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 16, 2007, 12:12:20 PM
Ok, here is one from my collection. It is a tad iconographic, even for a Diana admirer like me. But it has personal meaning. Sadly, the original oil was lost in a  fire
.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Markhall/Alex.III0016.jpg)
 Could not configure it properly, but sure you get the message.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 16, 2007, 05:42:13 PM
Ok, here is one from my collection. It is a tad iconographic, even for a Diana admirer like me. But it has personal meaning. Sadly, the original oil was lost in a  fire
.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Markhall/Alex.III0016.jpg)
 Could not configure it properly, but sure you get the message.
I love that painting of Diana looks like an angel in it so pretty and it looks like she is trying to help others. That shows how nice she is! :) So said the original one was lost. :(
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on August 18, 2007, 01:54:08 AM
Robert_Hall
Insert Quote
Ok, here is one from my collection. It is a tad iconographic, even for a Diana admirer like me. But it has personal meaning. Sadly, the original oil was lost in a  fire
Quote


Very nice! One of my absolute favorites is of Diana and the Boys at Disneyworld  (I think it was) on a ride that went through water and the three of them laughing including the Bodyguard! If anyone can scan it in... would they do so for me?  :) Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 18, 2007, 02:50:18 AM
It was not a Disney theme park. It was one in England.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 18, 2007, 02:51:00 AM
Alton Towers I think!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 18, 2007, 03:49:56 AM
They did have some photos taken on a visit to Thorpe Park also. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 18, 2007, 05:57:45 AM
the two I think are the same place
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on August 18, 2007, 07:00:28 AM
Not the same place. Alton Towers is in Staffordshire and Thorpe Park is in Surrey.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 18, 2007, 08:40:43 AM
She did take the boys to Disneyworld in Florida though.   They got the VERY VIP treatment.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 18, 2007, 08:52:43 AM
well they no doubt had a very happy time together
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 18, 2007, 05:03:19 PM
She did take the boys to Disneyworld in Florida though.   They got the VERY VIP treatment.

They did?  I thought Diana insisted on she and the boys being treated ordinarily, queueing with everyone else etc. when they had visits to fun parks and trips to McDonald's etc.   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 18, 2007, 09:41:43 PM
This would have been Disney's dong. Don't infer it was Diana's doing.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Taren on August 18, 2007, 10:04:00 PM
This would have been Disney's dong. Don't infer it was Diana's doing.

Not necessarily. They're always happy to give special treatment to certain V.I.P's. The (presumed) future queen of England and her sons would certainly have counted as V.I.P's. If they'll do it for the Duggars of Arkansas (the family famous for having 17 children) they would have offered preferential treatment to Diana and her boys.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 18, 2007, 10:47:31 PM
Well, the treatment for the Duggar family could be seen as charitable, rather than 'VIP', I suppose - a family with that many children could probably never afford to take them to Disneyworld without some help somewhere.  Diana was not in that position.

It's probably good publicity for them to be seen helping the less well off from time to time but most people probably wouldn't appreciate them giving wealthy royals the red carpet treatment.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Taren on August 18, 2007, 11:56:14 PM
Not really. The family has quite a bit of money. Just instead of buying BMWs and diamonds they have children. Disney extends the same privileges to virtually any celebrity, major or minor, that comes through the gate.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on August 19, 2007, 12:43:42 AM
That's true Disney does! Even my Aunt and I got the VIP treatment..and I just knew an Executive there! ;D .....

um...what happened to the smiley's
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 19, 2007, 12:19:05 PM
Yes, Grace.
 Just think of the logistics of Diana and her sons standing in lines for  an hour or more!  The mob scene would have been hard to handle, even for Disney. I think the "treated like everybody else" story is nice, but just not practical
As for McDonalds.  Well, I  think that other than photo-ops,  they went without her [but with security] to avoid the same thing. Everyone on this planet knew who Diana was, but the boys could remain reasonbly anonymous without her.
Title: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 07:55:46 AM
No bids in Diana dress auction

August 23, 2007 - 11:04AM

A pale-blue dress worn by Princess Diana to the 1987 Cannes Film Festival failed to attract bids in an internet auction for charity today, just days ahead of the 10th anniversary of her death.

The silk chiffon evening gown was among 79 dresses that Diana auctioned off for charity at Christie's in New York in June 1997, two months before she died in a car crash in Paris.

The dress, a strapless bodice made of draped and tucked silk designed by Catherine Walker, is one of four of Diana's dresses owned by the WE television network and was put up for grabs on eBay 10 days ago.

However, the gown, which was also worn by Diana to the 1989 London opening of Miss Saigon, did not appear to have attracted any bids after opening offers were invited at $US125,000 ($A154,790).

When the bidding deadline expired at 5pm local time, no offers had been registered.

The auction's organisers, WE TV, were not immediately available for comment.

Proceeds from the sale had been due to go to America's Promise Alliance - a charity dedicated to helping disadvantaged children stay in school.

The WE TV network bought the dress in the 1997 auction for around $US71,000 ($A87,920). Though the gown was later appraised and valued at $US275,000 ($A340,536), experts have recently questioned its true worth.

"If we were to put the dresses up for auction, our auction estimate would be $US20,000 ($A24,766) to $US40,000 ($A49,532) dollars for each of the dresses," a representative from Christie's auction house told the Washington Post.

"The estimates are lower, in many cases, than the prices realised in 1997 because the original prices the dresses were bought at were very high."

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/DianaGown.jpg)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22294085-38198,00.html

http://www.pr-inside.com/princess-diana-s-dress-fails-to-attract-r205733.htm

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/168056.php/Dis-favourite-gown-fails-to-draw-bidders


Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 23, 2007, 08:00:33 AM
So what are we supposed to infer from this?  That no one wishes to buy her old clothes any more?  That the reserve was too high?  That the dress itself is not a lovely thing to wish to have?  That no one is interested in Diana any more?

Can't be the latter, of that I'm sure...........
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 08:03:35 AM
I don't know... I thought it wasn't a bad deal. It's a nice dress. Certainly better than buying some stupid baseball for a million $$. 
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 23, 2007, 08:25:20 AM
I don't know... I thought it wasn't a bad deal. It's a nice dress. Certainly better than buying some stupid baseball for a million $$. 

I agree.  It's quite a well-known dress and one would have thought that Althorp or KP would want it for their collections.

Do we think that Diana's clothes will accumulate value as the years pass, or not?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 08:29:35 AM
Do we think that Diana's clothes will accumulate value as the years pass, or not?

Just like with anything else, it probably depends on supply and demand... and how much collectors are willing to pay. But $125,000 seems to be a reasonable asking price for that dress, considering what it is.

I wonder what size the dress is.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 23, 2007, 08:41:48 AM
Do we think that Diana's clothes will accumulate value as the years pass, or not?

Just like with anything else, it probably depends on supply and demand... and how much collectors are willing to pay. But $125,000 seems to be a reasonable asking price for that dress, considering what it is.

I wonder what size the dress is.

I agree.  It doesn't seem like a lot of money for the dress.  I wonder how this price compares with garments that come up for sale belonging to other famous royals?

At a guess, I would reackon that the dress is size 10/12 (UK size).  Having met her in real life, she always looked bigger in photos than she actually was.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 08:53:00 AM
I wonder if this type of thing goes up in price because the owner is deceased, like art? In other words, because the quantity will be more limited... I feel so weird talking about it like this!

But this dress actually looks like something that can still be worn for an occasion by whomever buys it, because it's not "over the top", and is tasteful. Not that many people would probably wear it, but really why not. Or is that a really crazy idea?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Marlene on August 23, 2007, 09:29:43 AM


I'd go for the baseball!

I don't know... I thought it wasn't a bad deal. It's a nice dress. Certainly better than buying some stupid baseball for a million $$. 
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: ChristineM on August 23, 2007, 09:42:30 AM
You sound like my son Marlene - a passionate Yankees fan.

tsaria
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 23, 2007, 09:46:28 AM
I wonder if this type of thing goes up in price because the owner is deceased, like art? In other words, because the quantity will be more limited... I feel so weird talking about it like this!

But this dress actually looks like something that can still be worn for an occasion by whomever buys it, because it's not "over the top", and is tasteful. Not that many people would probably wear it, but really why not. Or is that a really crazy idea?

Quite possibly.  There wont be any more Walker/Olfield/Azagury creations that have this provenance.

I should think that the dress is very wearable.  All the examples of her clothing that I have seen at KP and Althorp are immaculate, and in most cases show almost no sign of being worn.  It is the kind of dress that has red carpet appeal as well.

However, we know that they are collector's items; both public collections and private collectors have in the past strongly competed to acquire her gowns, which is why it seems a little surprising that this dress has attracted no interest...........
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 09:48:40 AM


I'd go for the baseball!

I don't know... I thought it wasn't a bad deal. It's a nice dress. Certainly better than buying some stupid baseball for a million $$. 

To be perfectly honest, I would just buy real estate ;-)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 09:50:52 AM
There wont be any more Walker/Olfield/Azagury creations that have this provenance.

No, I meant the owner, as in Diana, not the designer. If the owner is deceased, would it be more valuable, rather than an owner who is alive, say, for argument's sakes, Princess Anne?

However, we know that they are collector's items; both public collections and private collectors have in the past strongly competed to acquire her gowns, which is why it seems a little surprising that this dress has attracted no interest...........

Yes, I am surprised too... I think even that the others sold for a lot more, if I am not mistaken?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on August 23, 2007, 09:53:22 AM
well it is a lot of money for one dress ... hopefully a museum may acquire it so it will not sold again and again
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 23, 2007, 09:59:03 AM
There wont be any more Walker/Olfield/Azagury creations that have this provenance.

No, I meant the owner, as in Diana, not the designer. If the owner is deceased, would it be more valuable, rather than an owner who is alive, say, for argument's sakes, Princess Anne?

Sorry, that's what I meant.

As labels, these designer dresses do have some value, depending on their nature and condition.  Their provenance, having belonged to the Princess, adds extra value. Designer + Princess (deceased) = no further specific creations = very limited supply.  Probably in the same way that garments belonging to Marilyn Monroe must have a considerable intrinsic value?

I can't imagine anyone paying anything for any garment that had belonged to Princess Anne...........apart from the fact that in the fashion stakes, she is usually in last place, she also wears everything to death, or instead remodels her antedeluvian modes and trots them out for a second/third/fouth life................
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 23, 2007, 10:07:59 AM
Yes becuase obviously nobody is buying it there are no bids. The price may be too high for the market. In my opinion the price is defantly not cheap it is quite expensive to me. The price has to at least drop down a little for some bids to be taking it. The dress is realy pretty I like it. It may be that price becuase a very famous perosn worldwide like Diana wore it. It is is true that the owner of the dress is not deceased and if they were the price would go up on the dress. I rather buy the dress than some lousy baseball!
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 10:10:50 AM
I can't imagine anyone paying anything for any garment that had belonged to Princess Anne...

LOL. That was a bad example, I was just trying to make a point and for some reason she was the only one I could think of, who was still alive! :-)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on August 23, 2007, 10:12:07 AM
I also think a baseball bat would be a touch difficult to wear and might raise more than a few eyebrows in a social setting. I'd opt for the dress ladies!! 
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 10:23:51 AM
well it is a lot of money for one dress ...

Well, I don't think the price is just for the dress, it's for who was in that dress at one point ;-) It's a dress + a collector's item/museum piece all in one!
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 23, 2007, 10:35:51 AM
well it is a lot of money for one dress ...

Well, I don't think the price is just for the dress, it's for who was in that dress at one point ;-) It's a dress + a collector's item/museum piece all in one!
The only reason mainly why the dress was so expensive I agree it was who was in the dress a very famous woman everyone knew about Diana.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on August 23, 2007, 11:01:38 AM
So what are we supposed to infer from this? 

I would not want to but a Diana dress on E-Bay.  A traditional auction yes but E-bay no!

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on August 23, 2007, 11:05:30 AM
Maybe it was a mistake to put the gown on eBay.  With all the fake/counterfeit stuff for sale (Fabergé anyone?...) on that site there could have been a bit of a disbelief factor; also I don't know how many eBayers have that kind of dough lying around! 
A recognized auction house would have had significant resources with which to market the sale.  Lack of knowledge of the sale by the general public may be more to blame for the failure to sell this dress than anything else.
That being said, while it is probably one of the more recognizable gowns that was sold - the pictures of the princess at Cannes were absolutely everywhere for a time - I have never really liked it.  Although I know that she had excellent posture and carriage, it always looks to me like she is slouching in this dress.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 11:16:05 AM
Maybe it was a mistake to put the gown on eBay.  With all the fake/counterfeit stuff for sale (Fabergé anyone?...) on that site there could have been a bit of a disbelief factor;

That's a good point, that was my first thought when I found out about it, how do we know it's authentic?


A recognized auction house would have had significant resources with which to market the sale. 

Why didn't they use Sotheby's or something along those lines?

Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on August 23, 2007, 11:41:52 AM
Maybe they wanted to have as much of the purchase price as possible going to the charity and were reluctant to cough up the fees associated with such a sale??
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on August 23, 2007, 11:43:20 AM
That being said, while it is probably one of the more recognizable gowns that was sold - the pictures of the princess at Cannes were absolutely everywhere for a time - I have never really liked it.  Although I know that she had excellent posture and carriage, it always looks to me like she is slouching in this dress.

I never like the dress either!  I thought the dress was way too old for Diana who was what 27 at the time?

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 11:52:52 AM
I never like the dress either!  I thought the dress was way too old for Diana who was what 23 at the time?

TampaBay

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on August 23, 2007, 11:56:31 AM

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!

You are so correct.  Some of her early attire was definitely dowdy to the max!

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on August 23, 2007, 12:26:46 PM
Diana's "bare look" in this dress is not successful. The draping of the chiffon scarf is meant to look stylish and just looks strangling and forced. You wonder if it is taped to her neck to stay put. Or did it swoosh around the whole time and did she have to fuss with it to keep it where it was supposed to be?

What this dress needs is to remove the scarf and wear some serious jewels instead of the small earrings and one afterthought bracelet. And the shade of blue----pale baby blue---just makes her look washed out. In white or in true ice blue, the shade of the Grace Kelly dress this gown is based on, the dress would compliment her coloring more. This dress also does strange things with her waist.




Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on August 23, 2007, 01:06:18 PM
Did not Liz Taylor also have a slight different variation of this dress.  I think Helen Rose of MGM did both the Grace and the Liz dress.

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 01:09:18 PM

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!

You are so correct.  Some of her early attire was definitely dowdy to the max!

TampaBay

And gaudy!
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 01:11:34 PM
This dress also does strange things with her waist.

Well, she just didn't have exactly the right kind of figure for it, otherwise it's a pretty dress. She generally didn't look that good in the "bare look" dresses, IMO.
Title: Re: No bids on Princess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 01:21:22 PM

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!

You are so correct.  Some of her early attire was definitely dowdy to the max!

TampaBay

And gaudy!

Exhibits A, B, C and D :-)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/Diana_Princess_of_Wales.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/DIANAFULLEMSEMBLE.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/pokadot.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/princess_diana.jpg)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on August 23, 2007, 01:33:26 PM
Helen, you are right---Diana's waist was not her strong point.

Tampa, yes, Elizabeth Taylor had a Helen Rose variation of this dress in white...and Jacqueline Kennedy had one by Cassini in a clearer, deeper clear shade called "Newport Blue" with a matching stole but no scarf that was supposed to be one of her all time favorites. I saw the JBK dress when it was part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibit of her clothes and it was stunning.

I saw this dress several years ago when it was on tour and what struck me about it was that the zipper in the back was set in poorly and that without the person wearing it, the dress looked like something from an inexpensive shop where American teenagers would buy their prom dresses. In contrast, the white duchesse satin dress with the pearl beaded bolero nearby was a total knockout just hanging on the dress dummy and oozed quality and workmanship.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on August 23, 2007, 01:37:12 PM
The "Elvis Dress" just posted is NOT the dress I was referring to in my previous post. The dress I saw had a shorter bolero with embroidery and pearls!
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 01:39:56 PM
I saw the JBK dress when it was part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibit of her clothes and it was stunning.

You know, I went to see that exhibit too, but for some reason I can't remember anything about any of the dresses that were there at all! Was her wedding dress there, or am I having a false memory? I may have seen it somewhere else if it was ever on display... maybe a replica  at Madame Tussaud's?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 23, 2007, 02:02:03 PM
I think Jackie's gowns were donated to the Metroplitan Museum  in NYC. She was a  patron  and  a good  friend of Diana Vreeland.  I have the Kennedy auction catalogues and there were no gowns in them. The innaguration ball gown is in the Smithsonian, of course, with the other First Ladies gowns. [Nancy Reagan's was falling apart, last time I saw it]
 That "Klondike"  costume was for some sort of  affair in Canada as I recall.
 I am puzzled as well as to why Diana's dress had no bids. I like it, personally. And the provenance! But maybe because it was Ebay is the reason.  Although  people do spend a lot of money there on cars and even houses. If I were to bid on something that costly, I would want to see it first. And, the big auction houses do charity fund-raing events where they wave the comission and even the staff donates their time.  I hope it does end up in a museum, preferably Kensington.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Janet_W. on August 23, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
When I make a dubious choice of apparrel--I won't call it a fashion mistake, because I don't aspire to that level!--the item is donated or shredded into cleaning rags, and nobody is the wiser.  But in Diana's case--and that of other famous women--the situation develops a life of its own.

Of the four "exhibits" just depicted, I'm fine with three of them; they were appropriate for who Diana was at the time, or what she was aiming to accomplish. It's my understanding that from the beginning Diana was working very hard at her visual image and, like anyone, making mistakes now and then. That's life!

As for the dress that is the basis of this thread, lovely as it is I agree with NAOTMAA . . . the scarf is problematic. And I agree as well that it does strange things with her waist. I love the skirt, and I think the basic idea of it was wonderful. The Grace Kelly dress NAOTMAA references is, I believe, the one from the famous "To Catch A Thief" scene in which Kelly floats, goddess-like, along a hallway toward Cary Grant, then without a word takes the initiative and kisses him. It was a wonderful concept to pay homage, but Diana's skin tones did not work with the color chosen for her own version of the style, and--in the interest of perfection, right?--I will add that the waist and bust treatment overwhelmed the skirt. So I would say that while it IS a lovely dress and a worthy experiment, it was not one of Diana's most successful looks.

I've seen only one of Diana's dresses in person. It was on display in my area about seven or eight months after her death . . . one of her personal favorites, the one worn while in Paris, "oyster" in color, with a bolero jacket and intricate beading. It was absolutely amazing. The dress was displayed on a slightly elevated platform in a slowly revolving plexiglass (or stronger) case. When I first saw it I was so overcome that I returned to my car and wept. (The outline of a person no longer with us as represented through their clothing is a powerful image; I reacted the same way when I was made responsible, shortly after my father's death, for the disposal of his shoes.) Later I returned to view the dress a number of times, with friends and with my mother, and was able to focus on the beauty of the garment.  

By the way, a number of threads were loose and minus their beads at the back of the dress. I was told it was decided not to make any repairs but to leave the loose threads as is, and I agree with that decision.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 23, 2007, 02:25:16 PM
Of the four "exhibits" just depicted, I'm fine with three of them; they were appropriate for who Diana was at the time, or what she was aiming to accomplish. It's my understanding that from the beginning Diana was working very hard at her visual image and, like anyone, making mistakes now and then. That's life!

Oh yes, without a doubt. I am not the one to criticize someone else's fashion faux pas since I  have been known on numerous occasions to run out in my pajama pants, knowing full well I don't look my absolute best! ;-) I posted those photos for comparison sakes, i.e. to show that the dress we are discussing is a lot more sophisticated and stylish compared to some other outfits Diana wore in the past (such as exhibits A-D). You can say that her style has evolved. As far as the scarf, maybe just a bad shot?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on August 23, 2007, 03:33:04 PM
Is this the dress you meant?  Bad pic, but it's all I can find right now.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/didress.jpg)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on August 23, 2007, 05:35:59 PM
That is the dress that knocked both Janet and myself out when we saw it at different times in different places. At the exhibit I attended, a young man in a wheelchair was wheeled up to the glass case the dress was being displayed in and he then reached out and put his hand, palm flat, against the glass for a very long time. It was as if he was trying to absorb some of her energy. I must admit seeing him do that brought me to tears.

The JBK Wedding Dress was not part of the Metropolitan JBKO clothing exhibit. That dress is kept at the Kennedy Library in Boston and is on exhibit there some of the time along with the engagement ring (remodeled while in the White House) gave her and the "two fruits" pin that JFK gave her when their son was born.

At the Met show, the docent said many of the clothes were going in the deep freeze for fifty years in order to be preserved until a time when repair and preservation will be advanced enough to ensure their survival. That exhibition did include the two fruits pin, which was worn often in her official role as First Lady.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on August 23, 2007, 05:42:05 PM
I had the same experience as Janet when viewing the Diana dress display. On some there were visible threads, beading coming undone and even places that looked soiled.

On the other hand, the displays at Althorp and Kensington Palace show immaculate clothes.

Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 23, 2007, 06:20:08 PM
I wonder why the curators are allowing the dress to just "fall apart"? I have not been to Althorp, but the dresses in  the Kensington  exhibit are  in a pristine state.  One of the gowns  sold at  the auction was later  cut up and sold as expensive souvenirs and I think a Franklin Mint doll. I forget which one that was.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on August 23, 2007, 09:05:37 PM
How ridiculous to cut up a dress. I have read somebody had done the same with a Picasso painting and was selling the small squares as genuine Picassos as well. How ridiculous some people will be. 
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Mari on August 24, 2007, 03:08:34 AM
They made a mistake putting the Dress on EBAY, I would expect that Dress to be sold through Christie's or one of the better Auction Houses. For anyone that collects vintage clothing and I do...I can tell you that for every piece that looked exactly as advertised there was one that didn't.

As to leaving the Dress of Diana's with loose threads and beads coming loose and maybe soiled... a lot of Museums feel the dress needs to retain its original condition...kind of like the original paint on a 18th Century Chest.  They like the viewers to feel that Diana has just taken the Dress off...that the actual Person is still there in a historical sense.  Kind of like picking up a piece of clothing from Marie Antoinette and smelling lavender etc.  They only intervene if Moths and rodents etc. start chewing the Dress...and 200 years from now someone will be amazed they are handling Diana Princess of Wales Dress much like I have had the good fortune to do with historical pieces of clothing.

However, I can see it from a modern point of view the need to keep it pristine...I just don't think all Museums practice that Kensington type preserval.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: ChristineM on August 24, 2007, 03:47:50 AM
Curators have a very difficult job in making the choice between preservation and restoration.

I have had the good fortune of physically touching different pieces of hugely important historical significance.   Since this discussion has developed around the issue of preservation v restoration, I will retell them here although they are off topic.

In the days of the Soviet Union I was fortunate to find a gentleman who was a guide in the Museum of the October Revolution in Leningrad which was, at that time, housed in Mathilde Kschessinskaya's home.     His secret passion was Mathilde Kschessinskaya.  I was so fortunate to get him as a guide, and managed to change the subject from the Great October Revolution.   By the time I convinced him that I knew a little about the lady, I will always remember what he said - 'You are going to see something today that you could never have imagined you would see when you wakened this morning.'   I followed him, half running, for what seemed like miles - upstairs, along corridors, up more stairs and along more corridors until we came to a small attic room.   This was his secret room.   It was his sanctuary to Mathilde.   Hanging on the wall was Mathilde's brother's Mazurka costume and alongside that, Mathilde's Odile costume.    A tiny wisp of a thing - even although ballet dresses were much more structured in those days, one had the feeling that to have blown on this little black dress and it would have vanished.    He allowed me to touch it - without wearing gloves - which I now think was very naughty.   Apart from the tutu, I touched the dress under the arm because I felt this had most contact with her body.    I also held her little black reticule and a tiny little black hat.   This was decorated with some black tulle and the entire was intact.   Somehow these had survived war, revolution, civil war, war, purges and kept secretly handed from one devotee to another - and they were all in absolutely pristine condition.   (There was much more beside).

Although I have had the privilege of close contact with a number of items of clothing which once belonged to Nicholas II, Alexandra and to their children (I have even touched the Hussar's jacket and carried the tall black, fine leather boots he wore at his wedding - his footprints still impressed in the otherwise perfect leather), what touched me most was one day in a curator's room we happened across an old cardboard box.   Inside this box were the girls's kokoshniki - pink silk grosgrain with very, very long pink silk satin ribbons, still crushed where they had been tied into bows.   The stiffening of the kokoshniki is bent, the pearls on the upper and lower edges are rolling off broken threads.   (The kokoshnik was held on to the back of the head by a white, elasticated band.)   There were three pink ones, the tiny one obviously had belonged to Anastasia.   There was also a pale mint green velvet one as well as a snood made from the same pale green velvet.    At that time these, along with Alexei's coats had recently been returned to Tsarskoe Selo from the museum in Tobolsk.   

It is impossible to describe the emotion of seeing and touching these priceless objects.   It is also difficult to express the different emotions experienced' between Mathilde's beautifully maintained items (without any modern preservation substances or deep freezing') or witness this pathetic little pile of headgear in a cardboard box - totally unpreserved, unrestored, unrespected and unloved.

To return to the preservation v conservation of Diana's clothes, I am sure processes have improved enormously, but I was told that Nicholas II's uniforms appear almost abnormally small because of the shrinkage in the dry cleaning process.   (Alexei's coats - which hadn't been dry cleaned were, though not terribly badly, moth-eaten.)   The same applies to Charlotte Brontes clothes on display at the Bronte museum.   

Martyn will be the best person to advise on this subject, although I can imagine some of his costumes will be very sorely used.

tsaria
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on August 24, 2007, 10:23:47 AM
Yes very fascinating Tsaria. Thanks for your experiences. I know with theatre costumes it is a total crime to wash makeup stains or even sweat stains off old costumes from famous people because of the physical connection. Older materials are preserved rather than being replaced. This is done with subtlety. If any new material is placed on the item in an effort to deal with any decay, it is usually not quite the same colour as the original so that the original is still obvious. A replica is not the effect that is wanted. I must admit I was horrified when I visited the Kaiservilla at Bad Ischl to see the tour guide touching a couch with authentic material cover. It was obvious this had been done many times as the material was wearing away due to contact with human body grease. It was extremely careless. At Herrenchiemsee Castle in Bavaria the very nice guide carefully explained not to touch anything. Of course you get people who either do not listen or choose not to listen and of course she went ballistic when they touched things. I understood why but those who touched though the guide was being rude. Do these people not understand if hundreds of thousands of people touch something sooner or later it is destroyed? I guess some look with their hands and touch with their eyes or simply have no respect or self respect. Inisde Castle Linderhof they now have to limit the number of people entering as human breath is also destoying paintings and so on. There really is a difficult set of problems encountered. Too much restoration can result in the loss of the original completely.     
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Grace on August 24, 2007, 05:03:49 PM
Perhaps some buyers saw the program which claimed Diana's dresses were 'cursed'?!  Absolute rubbish of course - the unfortunate occurrences which happened in the lives of some of the owners could be explained away as the normal ups and downs of life - cancer, bankruptcy, accidents etc. 

I have only seen part of the program so far though it does give some very close up details of some of Diana's most spectacular gowns - many of which, I was surprised to learn, had not been cleaned prior to the auction in 1997.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: ChristineM on August 24, 2007, 05:12:51 PM
Good.   I'm glad to learn that.

All this reminds me of the story of the axe.   The blade got blunt, so it was replaced... then the shaft snapped and it was replaced.   Was what was left the original axe?

tsaria
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 24, 2007, 06:40:07 PM
Being in the antique business for over 30 years, we have and still do come accross vintage clothing. Never anything like a Diana gown, however! But, unless severly soiled or otherwise untidy, we never clean anything. It is up to the buyer to do that, particulary if it is intended to be worn again. But on the otherside,  if bead work is falling apart, it is mended. Not replaced, mind you, but stopped from falling apart. That is the part I find curious.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on August 25, 2007, 10:48:48 AM
Just because one pays (whic I have on occasion paid ) top price for something does not mean it is of good quality and craftsmanship.  There are many top labels in high end ready to wear and some Haute Coutre that you are paying for design and the quality "ain't" that great. 

I once paid full price (which I rarely do) for a coctail dress from Lord & Tayor that fell apart after three wearings and two dry cleanings.  The nice professional people at Lord & Tayor refunded my money and told me they were not handling that label anymore after the current season because everything in the line fell apart.

Maybe the blue dress, which to my understanding was an original, was a rush job and quality sacraficed for time.  Maybe the current owner of which ever dress we are talking about with damaged beading could not find a qualified craftsman to repair.  If you cannot repair something properly maybe it is best left alone??

Does anyone know who purchased the Serpentine Gallery "F**K You" dress?  Believe me that dress would sell on E-bay!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 28, 2007, 02:00:20 PM
Does anyone have a copy of the portrait of Lady Cynthia Spencer, Diana's paternal grandmother? Diana was supposed to have resembled her very much. I tried to find it online but was unable to. Thanks.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ChristineM on August 28, 2007, 02:03:08 PM
Sorry Helen - I have seen a photograph, but don' know where to access one.   She was very lovely.

I believe Diana resembled her in more ways than one.   Her grandmother was admired and respected for her total devotion to humanitarian work.

tsaria
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 28, 2007, 02:04:59 PM
Sorry Helen - I have seen a photograph, but don' know where to access one.   She was very lovely.

I believe Diana resembled her in more ways than one.   Her grandmother was admired and respected for her total devotion to humanitarian work.

tsaria

Thanks. I think there is a portrait of her that hangs at Althorp, I was hoping a copy would be floating around somewhere...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 28, 2007, 03:48:00 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/Obesemia/Cynthia.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 28, 2007, 03:51:28 PM
Thank you. Oh wow, she does look a lot like Diana!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on August 30, 2007, 01:23:26 AM
They did a wonderful piece on the News tonight about Diana and the Remembrance! They showed her shaking the hand of an Aids victim and walking out in an unsafe area that had many horrific Deaths due to Mines and this I had forgotten shaking the hand of a Child. The Child was a Leper (this is how the News referred to it).   I missed the name of the UK interviewee but She was saying that Diana had changed the Royal Family and brought them into the 21st Century. Diana used to say (paraphrased) "Where are We when things happen" and they pointed out that when the Buses were bombed the Queen was right there...smiling, asking how they were and they were saying "that just did not happen before Diana." What they meant was the way in which they shake hands with the Crowd and act more caring and maybe even visit more scenes of Disaster and that She changed the face of the Royals.

The Scenes of Diana, Princess of Wales funeral was also shown. Another British Journalist stated "He had never seen anything like it." The grieving process was so intense the the Queen he stated felt forced to bow her head as Diana's coffin passed by and he stated that was against protocol as it had only been for Heads of States and that he knew She had to give in to to the intense wishes of the Public.  There were other ways these Journalist and Historians felt that Diana had changed the image of the Royal Family.

Finally they mentioned ...what She will be remembered for!   When you wash away everything over the years the good
is what We will remember...the Humanitarianism.   And that is another quote by the Guest on the News. So, Prince William and Harry are right this will be a vehicle to remind people of the warm and caring  person that was their Mother.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: aussiechick12 on August 30, 2007, 03:15:54 AM
For anyone living in Australia (Sydney) you might not have heard that at the Powerhouse Museum, starting September 29th, there will be an exhibition on Princess Diana. It looks really good - I can't wait till the 29th!!

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/exhibitions/diana.asp
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ChristineM on August 30, 2007, 04:57:54 AM
Another story of the instinctive Diana which was reported again recently took place on an occasion when she was visiting a home for the elderly.   In her characteristic fashion, she crouched down to talk with an old lady.   While she was talking to her she looked to her right and noticed an elderly man, tears rolling down his cheeks.   She asked him why was he crying.   He told her that it was because he was blind and could not see her.    She took both his hands in hers, placed them on her face and helped him trace around the configuration of her face.   

Now, that is not something that is learned.   That is instinctive and in my book sums up her instinctive thoughtfulness.   

Nobody in this world is indispensible, but Diana Spencer, in so far as the UK, its reputation and prestige, played an important part.    She encouraged people to talk openly about love and caring, the needs of the homeless and dispossessed and the importance of family.   I think just one look at the crime statistics over the last ten years tells us a lot.   Crimes of assault, stabbing and shootings among young people in particular have soared.   This may be in part a change in society's morees, it may be the inexplicable policies of the present government, it could also be that we no longer have the example of someone who was never frightened to stand up and be counted.   She included herself with the 'underdog'.   

She talked the talk AND she walked the walk.

tsaria

 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on August 30, 2007, 08:03:20 AM
I'm sorry Tsaria. Normally I 100% respect and agree with everything you say. But I cannot believe that you have just credited Diana with the reason why crime rates used to be lower in the UK.

I work incredibly hard for a children's charity as my full time job, five days a week. I volunteer heavily for another in my spare time. I live in a flat in South East London and I live on a pitiful amount of money. I don't have millions of pounds or a palace at my disposal. No one calls me an angel. No one calls my colleagues angels, or my many family members and friends who also live as I do and work tirelessly for good causes. We just get on with what we do because we love it and care about other people. We don't look for public recognition.

I am fed up with reading how wonderful and amazing Diana was and what good she did for the world, etc. She was a wealthy, pampered princess who did a bit of charity work in her spare time. Always with a camera in the background, I might add. Call me cynical, but come on.

I don't deny her passion for helping others and I don't deny that she was a good woman with a good heart. But let's not be ridiculous here. There are plenty of normal people who go above and beyond what Diana did every day. Doctors, nurses, those working in war zones, soldiers, firefighters, etc. These are the heroes of society, not Princess Diana. This hero worship of Diana is, to me, a prime example of how society has gone wrong. Instead of lauding those people who genuinely make a difference in this world, people lie down at the feet of celebrities who, in real terms, do very little good in the world around them. I was only 11 when Princess Diana died. But even then I couldn't believe the madness that had descended on the UK at the time. Carpets of flowers? Perfect strangers crying at her funeral? It was really rather absurd. I'd question the sanity of someone who had formed that deep an attachment to someone they had never met.

I mean no disrespect to those who feel this way about Diana, but I honestly think some people need a reality check. What Diana did was NOTHING compared to what SO MANY people do every single day without recognition OR the desire for recognition. Holding a few children's hands and insisting that she queue in McDonald's is hardly worthy of a sainthood.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margarita Markovna on August 30, 2007, 09:15:08 PM

Quote
I don't deny her passion for helping others and I don't deny that she was a good woman with a good heart. But let's not be ridiculous here. There are plenty of normal people who go above and beyond what Diana did every day.

I agree with you here, completely.

For anyone living in Australia (Sydney) you might not have heard that at the Powerhouse Museum, starting September 29th, there will be an exhibition on Princess Diana. It looks really good - I can't wait till the 29th!!

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/exhibitions/diana.asp

Speaking of exhibitions on Princess Diana, the one at Kensington Palace is worth going to if you're in London. There are rooms devoted to video memorials, plus several of her evening dresses. (It seems like it's not a lot, though, if you're American and mentally do the conversion from pounds to dollars!)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Margarita Markovna on August 30, 2007, 09:36:38 PM
Just because one pays (whic I have on occasion paid ) top price for something does not mean it is of good quality and craftsmanship.  There are many top labels in high end ready to wear and some Haute Coutre that you are paying for design and the quality "ain't" that great. 

I once paid full price (which I rarely do) for a coctail dress from Lord & Tayor that fell apart after three wearings and two dry cleanings.  The nice professional people at Lord & Tayor refunded my money and told me they were not handling that label anymore after the current season because everything in the line fell apart.

And then, sometimes you pay a little for a piece of clothing that will last forever. I collect little black dresses. The best little black dresses are 90% of the time cheaper than the ones that will fall apart!

By the way, I agree with you all about Diana's waist not being her strong point...she could have worn skirts that had a bit more of a puffy skirt and it would have looked much smaller. I think that's why this dress didn't work as well as some of her other, more stunning ones (where the top half of her body was accented more).

What will happen with the dress now?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 30, 2007, 09:58:57 PM
Rachel, the difference in what Diana did and what others do is the she was Diana. She brought attention to causes that most people were ignoring at best. Of course others did much more, but her high profile encouraged others to participate.  I agree that celebrity worship is shallow, but hers was more than just that. Her legacy still lives on.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on August 31, 2007, 01:22:44 AM
Agree with both Rachel and Robert.

Ten years on to the day today;
http://www.royalblog.nl/

Courtesy hja/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 31, 2007, 03:31:38 AM
Yes today is the day! Tenth year of her death her legacy does live on forever she has become a royal worshipped by the public!

I found this article today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/29/ndiana229.xml
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on August 31, 2007, 03:46:02 AM
London:
http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=30-08-2007%20London

Courtesy PPE/Nieboer.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on August 31, 2007, 03:59:00 AM
Robert, That is put beautifully! I agree with you 100 per cent.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 31, 2007, 05:06:13 AM
Rest in peace Diana, Princess of Wales.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 31, 2007, 05:56:48 AM
More verbal diarrohea from the ghastly al fayed!!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070831/tuk-uk-britain-diana-fayed-fa6b408_1.html
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on August 31, 2007, 07:35:31 AM
Thought it a moving service,the boys did very well.

On the link,at your left,you will find the order of service.
http://www.royalblog.nl/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 31, 2007, 08:25:28 AM
Thank you Lucien. I am very keen to see photos of the service!!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on August 31, 2007, 08:40:16 AM
Thank you Lucien. I am very keen to see photos of the service!!!

Haven't found any yet,sorry Eddie.To those interested,the BBC will air the funeral of Diana,Princess of Wales again tomorrow september 1st at 08.35AM GMT,I think BBC Parliament.
Title: Re: No bids on Princess Diana dress
Post by: dancingbarefoot on August 31, 2007, 08:42:55 AM

Exhibits A, B, C and D :-)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/DIANAFULLEMSEMBLE.jpg)


I just have to giggle about exhibit B, she borrowed that dress from the BBC costume department, that was a dress that Francesca Annis wore in the mini series about L. Langtry.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on August 31, 2007, 08:46:28 AM
It was a beautiful and moving service in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales. All the royal family attended apart from Camilla who was absent for obvious reasons. Prince Henry spoke very well and remembered his mother with great love.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 31, 2007, 09:21:47 AM
No worries Lucein, I know full well you would post them if you did!! I would love to have seen it but am working!! Harry sounded quite choked up.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on August 31, 2007, 09:23:54 AM
It is a shame that the service was televised and shown at a time when many people, including myself, would have been at work......

Robert,  a point very well made, as ever.

As for Al-Fayed, I suppose that he will keep ranting about the RF for as long as he lives.  I can only imagine that his rage must endless for the loss of his son........

Remembering the princess, on this the tenth anniversary of her passing.  Let's hope that her legacy and memory will be with us for a long time to come.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 31, 2007, 09:28:57 AM
Was that dress really from the 'Lillie' series?!  I seem to remember the costumes from that as being rather lovely and that looks terrible!  Still, perhaps I am looking back through the haze of nostalgia and perhaps the costumes were not so very good after all?

Some have made mention that Diana's waist was not her best feature - absolutely true.  Long legged and short in the body, anything that broke her at the waist tended to be potentially problematic, which is why her later dresses mostly looked so great because they generally had no waist seam........
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dancingbarefoot on August 31, 2007, 09:55:58 AM
I'm not sure of which episode it came out of, but the tour of Canada book that I have for them states it as such.

It was what it was, which for the time was something "simple and pretty" for her, but yes Diana's waist in most of her evening gown photos wasn't the best asset.

Speaking of that blue dress, it's very similar in style to a dress that Princess Madeline of Sweden wore recently (M's was pink) and it seems the type of dress that one should have curves for.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on August 31, 2007, 10:49:45 AM
I'm not sure of which episode it came out of, but the tour of Canada book that I have for them states it as such.

It was what it was, which for the time was something "simple and pretty" for her, but yes Diana's waist in most of her evening gown photos wasn't the best asset.

Speaking of that blue dress, it's very similar in style to a dress that Princess Madeline of Sweden wore recently (M's was pink) and it seems the type of dress that one should have curves for.

Perhaps the costume looks lees than wonderful on Diana because it was made for someone else and thus the fit is not so precise.  Plus, it look very flat over the hip, where fullness is required to offet the waist.......

The blue dress, as you say, requires curves at the bust and hip, but a small waist to make the lines work. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 31, 2007, 12:08:00 PM
I was rather surprised to see another Camilla- al Fayed at the service! She must remain friends with the Princes' ?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dancingbarefoot on August 31, 2007, 12:24:27 PM
Its more than true, because Madeline (I can never spell that name properly) seems to look more lovely in hers while Diana looks as if she's playing dress up in her mother's hand me down dress.

And if I'm not mistaken (I'm at work and don't have my Diana books handy) that dress was a revamped dress.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dancingbarefoot on August 31, 2007, 12:26:10 PM
I don't know about the european channels, but CBC's (In Canada) is going to be showing a "highlights" package tonight (friday) and I'm hoping that CNN will have something. Perhaps Larry King even?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: imperial angel on August 31, 2007, 01:30:35 PM
It is interesting to see her wearing that dress, but I think that maybe it just shows that Victorian/ Edwardian dress didn't suit her. I agree that you need fullness below the hip, if you see women in the 19th/early 20th century dressed like this, there is always fullness of the hip to offset the waist. She looked good in clothes of her own era.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on August 31, 2007, 04:28:49 PM
http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=31-08-2007%20London

Courtesy PPE/Nieboer.

(Don't mind some of the captions.......)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 31, 2007, 05:36:30 PM
Post deleted.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 31, 2007, 09:30:58 PM

Remembering the princess, on this the tenth anniversary of her passing.  Let's hope that her legacy and memory will be with us for a long time to come.

Let's hope! Every memory of Diana is worth remembering.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on September 01, 2007, 04:01:31 AM
I heard part of the Speech of Prince Harry at the Chapel and he did a wonderful job! The News also did an hour segment on Diana and they showed the clips of her as a child...this is the Child her Nanny defended so heatedly claiming the Palace rewrote history. The Background of the clips has a song that is so perfect for it..singing. .I will always love you! Does anyone know who did the Song? I assume it is one of Diana's favorite's...and it is so touching...her dancing around...a little blonde child.. Prince Harry called her the best Mother in the World. I also found it touching that so many people showed up in London to pay their respects....the signs were just powerful they put up....
   
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Mari on September 01, 2007, 04:15:22 AM
Quote
She looked good in clothes of her own era.
Quote




Like the Black "up yours" dress! That was perfect for Diana and played up all her assets as mentioned. But Victorian Women  with their plump curves would have looked great in the Lily Langtry Dress  but would have looked terrible in the Black Dress.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on September 01, 2007, 01:03:20 PM
More information on the Klondike dress.

http://princessdiana.ca/ (http://princessdiana.ca/)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on September 01, 2007, 01:35:48 PM
I stumbled upon the program last night called "The Curse of Diana's Dresses" - I think it is probably the one referred to above by Grace - it was a documentary about the dresses that were sold in the original auction and the effect ownership of said dresses have had on the various owners' lives.  It was somewhat sentimental, but provided good closeups of the dresses themselves and discussion about how the dresses have continued to raise money for charity since their original sale.  The word 'curse' in this case is meant not only in the traditional sense i.e. that the dresses bring misfortune, but also the 'curse' of being responsible for the care, preservation and protection of dresses associated with one of the most recognizable women of the last century. 
I was surprised to learn that the recent eBay auction (the one that was the impetus for this thread) was not the first time one of the dresses had been up on for sale on that site. 
Lot 9 was offered at $100,000 US dollars, but attracted no bids; the owner claims however that a 'private negotiation' had been underway.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/lot9.jpg)


I was also quite horrified that at least two of the dresses have been worn since being bought - lot 21 and lot 26 have both been worn by relatives of the women who purchased them.  Lot 21 in particular was rather ill-used in a photo session that had the wearer posing in an enclosure with multiple miniature horses, and then in another photo holding a pitchfork and standing among hay bales (!).  Ug.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/lot21.jpg)


Lot 26 appeared to have been used as a sort of Cinderella costume; video footage showed the young woman wearing the gown while dancing with a gentleman who looked to be attired as Prince Charming.  Double ug.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/lot26.jpg)

In searching for pictures to use for this post (sorry they're so small, it's all I could find), I also came across a site providing info on another exhibition of a number of dresses.  It will take place in Ocala, FL from 14 October to 30 December at the Appleton Museum of Art.  Tampa, I expect you to attend and provide a full report, with pictures!

Link - http://www.dianadresses.org/title.htm (http://www.dianadresses.org/title.htm)
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on September 01, 2007, 01:46:06 PM
I was also quite horrified that at least two of the dresses have been worn since being bought - lot 21 and lot 26 have both been worn by relatives of the women who purchased them.  Lot 21 in particular was rather ill-used in a photo session that had the wearer posing in an enclosure with multiple miniature horses, and then in another photo holding a pitchfork and standing among hay bales (!).  Ug.

For some reason I'm not surpised! :-p
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Mari on September 02, 2007, 02:26:09 AM
Quote
I was also quite horrified that at least two of the dresses have been worn since being bought - lot 21 and lot 26 have both been worn by relatives of the women who purchased them.  Lot 21 in particular was rather ill-used in a photo session that had the wearer posing in an enclosure with multiple miniature horses, and then in another photo holding a pitchfork and standing among hay bales (!).  Ug.
Quote



Yes, that's the trouble with People....I don't understand it!! One day at the Museum I let a nice middle aged Couple go alone upstairs for just a minute. I was doing research and I went up the Stairs in time to hear her say "that old icky dress I am not going to put it on" and then he said "well just put on the Hat then." They had taken down an exhibit painstakingly mounted with care.... on the Wall....I was up those Stairs so fast....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on September 02, 2007, 10:36:47 PM
From the Daily Mail, previously unseen photos take by Prince William of his mother:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_04/dihigroveMS0109_468x370.jpg)

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_04/dihigroveMS0109_468x343.jpg)

"The pictures, which have never been published before, were taken during a visit to Highgrove by Diana's close friend and former flatmate Carolyn Bartholomew, and her new son Jack, in 1989. The Princes borrowed a camera belonging to Mary Bruce, Jack's nanny, and for almost 18 years the photographs lay hidden in a box with Miss Bruce's other personal keepsakes. But when Miss Bruce died in January this year she bequeathed the photographs to her best friend Isabella Paton's son, Norrie. Now Norrie, a 52-year-old self-employed electrician from Dundee, has decided to share them with the world.  "
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on September 03, 2007, 07:23:44 AM


In searching for pictures to use for this post (sorry they're so small, it's all I could find), I also came across a site providing info on another exhibition of a number of dresses.  It will take place in Ocala, FL from 14 October to 30 December at the Appleton Museum of Art.  Tampa, I expect you to attend and provide a full report, with pictures!


EE,

If I can get up there I will and I will send the pictures to ED Ella for posting.

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on September 03, 2007, 08:11:48 AM


I was also quite horrified that at least two of the dresses have been worn since being bought - lot 21 and lot 26 have both been worn by relatives of the women who purchased them.  Lot 21 in particular was rather ill-used in a photo session that had the wearer posing in an enclosure with multiple miniature horses, and then in another photo holding a pitchfork and standing among hay bales (!).  Ug.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/lot21.jpg)



If I am not mistaken, the lady that purchased the above dress at the original auction is in the horse breeding and horse showing business.  One of ther daughters wore the dress to present the awards at a very big horse show.

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: NAAOTMA on September 03, 2007, 11:20:28 AM
If memory serves me right, at the time of the auction the Princess said something to the effect that she hoped the dresses would be worn---and that one or two of them might even be worn as wedding dresses.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on September 03, 2007, 11:40:23 AM
If memory serves me right, at the time of the auction the Princess said something to the effect that she hoped the dresses would be worn---and that one or two of them might even be worn as wedding dresses.

No doubt I would love to have a collection of Diana Dresses but I would donate them to a museum in Kentucky.

I would feel strange wearing a Diana or Wallis dress.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 03, 2007, 06:25:19 PM
The pictures look so typical, if you know what I mean... If it weren't for Diana in the middle, this picture would probably never have gotten published. My point is that everything about it is informal.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on September 04, 2007, 02:16:23 AM
That is what was so special about Diana. She was so natural and able to relate so easily in so many different situations. It is a shame her husband never realised what an enormous asset she was to him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 04, 2007, 08:35:24 AM
That is what was so special about Diana. She was so natural and able to relate so easily in so many different situations. It is a shame her husband never realised what an enormous asset she was to him.

His loss.  Our gain. The 'People's Princess' - we were lucky to have her for as long as we did.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ChristineM on September 04, 2007, 04:26:59 PM
How true Martyn.... so sad it couldn't have been longer.   She shot like some beautiful star through our firmament and we were fortunate to have walked the Earth as the time she did.    We saw her first hand - and didn't just read about her in history books.   She was flesh and bones - loving and caring.   It won't be long before children ask - 'Do you reallly remember Princess Diana?'

However, Charles chose to lose her.   We had no choice.   She was the 'Peoples' Princess' but not for nearly long enough.   She was one of the best things to happen to post-WWII Britain.

tsaria
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Dina on September 04, 2007, 08:54:52 PM
Mari, if it was the same clip that was played at the end of the memorial concert, the song is 'These are the Days of Our Lives' by Queen.  The last line of the song is 'When I look and I find I still love you'.  It is a beautiful song that was recorded shortly before Freddie Mercury (lead singer) died of AIDS related illness. 

I don't know if Diana was a big fan of Queen, but I do remember seeing a picture of Brian May and Roger Taylor (guitar player and drummer) sitting behind Diana and Prince Charles at Live Aid.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on September 04, 2007, 09:39:26 PM
I would feel strange wearing a Diana or Wallis dress.

TampaBay

I would feel strange too because I have a feeling all the Spanx in the world couldn't get me into one of them!  lol...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: dmitri on September 05, 2007, 06:40:16 AM
I remember one afternoon quite by chance noticing a lot of people waiting near the Coldstream Guard memorial off Horseguards Parade in London. Prince Charles was supposed to come to review former officers. He didn't make it and sent Diana in his place. She was dressed in a most beautiful cream two piece suit with matching cossack style hat. She looked simply superb and made so many people happy. She conducted herself superbly. You could see the men just swooning and the women admiring her so much. Her smile was so magnificent and genuine. This was the woman we all lost. I also remember meeting her at a garden party at Buckingham Palace. She was so natural and had a most incredible sense of humour. She was utterly delightful. It is truly sad to think she has been gone for ten years. It is an enormous loss as she was a great asset for the monarchy. Nobody has replaced her.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 05, 2007, 07:23:57 AM
Dmitri, I think that you have made a good point here.  Diana had the ability to blend royalty with humanity in a way that seems impossible for anyone who was born a member of the RF.

Diana, like the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, and to some degree Sarah York, had enough knowledge of ordinary people to know how to relate to them, and seemed effortlessly natural and at ease.

For those of us who don't have to live the kind of life where one is introduced to strangers on a daily basis, sometimes in circumstances of great hardship and suffering, it is impossible to conceive of how much strength and effort this must require.  Diana always made it look easy, showed that she cared, at whatever cost to herself.  This must have taken some doing.  Not once has anyone who met her ever remarked that she was disinterested, distant, formal or phony........

From my own experience of meeting her, I can attest to the fact that she had the gift of putting others at ease, that she was charming and humourous (and not averse to dropping heavy hints about her difficulties with her husband - this was back in 1990), and that she had the gift of winning people over. 

Before I met her, I had no partuicular interest in her; meeting her was an unforgettable experience that now seems like a privilege..........
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on September 05, 2007, 11:17:22 AM


From my own experience of meeting her, I can attest to the fact that she had the gift of putting others at ease, that she was charming and humourous (and not averse to dropping heavy hints about her difficulties with her husband - this was back in 1990), and that she had the gift of winning people over. 


Do tell!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 06, 2007, 08:11:33 AM


From my own experience of meeting her, I can attest to the fact that she had the gift of putting others at ease, that she was charming and humourous (and not averse to dropping heavy hints about her difficulties with her husband - this was back in 1990), and that she had the gift of winning people over. 


Do tell!

TampaBay

Well, I could do, but not here. 

I doubt that the story would be of sufficient interest to everyone, but irf you really want to know, I could always pm you.......?
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on September 06, 2007, 08:15:50 AM
I would feel strange wearing a Diana or Wallis dress.

TampaBay

I would feel strange too because I have a feeling all the Spanx in the world couldn't get me into one of them!  lol...

I'll bet that's not true!  I've seen photos of you and I know that you have an extremely elegant figure........

I suppose that we shouldn't be too precious about Diana's dresses- she did after all hope that others might enjoy them by wearing them - but from a historical point of view it would be lovely if as many as possible could be conserved and displayed so that as many people as possible can see and enjoy them...............
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on September 06, 2007, 09:36:11 AM
yes but the idea of buying a dress and wearing it so you could say you had worn something Diana had worn is simply tacky in the extreme
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Helen_Azar on September 06, 2007, 09:40:55 AM
yes but the idea of buying a dress and wearing it so you could say you had worn something Diana had worn is simply tacky in the extreme

I think it would be ok if you actually like the dress and it looks good on you... not only because Diana wore it.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on September 06, 2007, 10:56:33 AM
yes you could have a point there Helen .. I tend to think those who bought them only bought them because of the Diana connection ... 
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on September 06, 2007, 12:33:55 PM
yes but the idea of buying a dress and wearing it so you could say you had worn something Diana had worn is simply tacky in the extreme

I think it would be ok if you actually like the dress and it looks good on you... not only because Diana wore it.

Or because it was bought because one wanted to feel proud and privileged to own something that had once belonged to the Princess........no harm in that.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: TampaBay on September 06, 2007, 08:23:25 PM


I tend to think those who bought them only bought them because of the Diana connection ... 


True!! For 225,000 USD or BPS I could have bought everything on the 75% off rack at Saks & Neimans!!!

Other than the "Up Yours" dress, I do not think the dresses in and of themselves were all that great!

However, if I had the cash$$$, I would buy every Diana dress I could get my hands on!!

TampaBay
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: emeraldeyes on September 07, 2007, 08:47:47 AM

I'll bet that's not true!  I've seen photos of you and I know that you have an extremely elegant figure........

You are too sweet. 

Other than the "Up Yours" dress, I do not think the dresses in and of themselves were all that great!
TampaBay

I tend to agree with you there Tampa - there was a surprising amount of frump.  Although having seen the 'Curse of Diana's Dresses' program, the workmanship looked to be very high calibre.  I suppose we must also bear in mind that while the auction itself took place only 10 years ago many of the dresses hadn't been worn for many years prior to that - so they are reflecting the formal mode of dress of a good 15 to 20 years ago.  Context is everything.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Arleen on September 07, 2007, 06:50:03 PM
Martyn I am so happy that you actually met Diana!  What a lovely happening, something right out of history books now.  I just adored her!

Arleen
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on September 08, 2007, 03:20:01 AM


You are too sweet. 


Not at all!  Praise where praise is due.


I tend to agree with you there Tampa - there was a surprising amount of frump.  Although having seen the 'Curse of Diana's Dresses' program, the workmanship looked to be very high calibre.  I suppose we must also bear in mind that while the auction itself took place only 10 years ago many of the dresses hadn't been worn for many years prior to that - so they are reflecting the formal mode of dress of a good 15 to 20 years ago.  Context is everything.

I think that is an excellent point, emeraldeyes.  Seen as a collection, Diana's clothing spans an astonishingly lengthy period, in which fashions changed radically and in which the personal taste of a woman whose character developed enormously are major factors in the style and content of this clothing.

From the clothing that I have seen at Althorp and KP, you are absolutley right in the fact that the workmanship is consistently high, as is the condition of most garments
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Mari on September 08, 2007, 04:57:51 AM
Quote
Princess Dianas jackets had special design. They were interlined and toughened so that they never creased.
Quote



Well made!

I liked her a lot in the below gown also and I can't find it but I thought she looked great in bright sky blue or robin egg blue!


Quote
The black gown by Jacques Azagury in 1995 was part of the sexier, more sophisticated look that Princess Diana adopted in the '90s. Bare arms, cleavage and leggy looks all became part of her look. She also became known for wearing sleeveless shift dresses and designer bags in the mid-90s.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on September 08, 2007, 11:19:51 AM
Thats all that matter who wore the dress even if it does not fit or look right on the person it does not matter to them becuase all that matters is that Diana a famous person had wore. I would think they at least see if the dress is the right size for them but it did not matter to them obviously/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 08, 2007, 12:01:11 PM
I remember one afternoon quite by chance noticing a lot of people waiting near the Coldstream Guard memorial off Horseguards Parade in London. Prince Charles was supposed to come to review former officers. He didn't make it and sent Diana in his place. She was dressed in a most beautiful cream two piece suit with matching cossack style hat. She looked simply superb and made so many people happy. She conducted herself superbly. You could see the men just swooning and the women admiring her so much. Her smile was so magnificent and genuine. This was the woman we all lost. I also remember meeting her at a garden party at Buckingham Palace. She was so natural and had a most incredible sense of humour. She was utterly delightful. It is truly sad to think she has been gone for ten years. It is an enormous loss as she was a great asset for the monarchy. Nobody has replaced her.

That is very true. Nobody has replaced her and I don't think anyone will. She was probably one of the most graceful creatures of the century, internally and externally.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 08, 2007, 01:01:26 PM
These dresses are not bought to be worn again. They are bought for collections and the provenance is extremely important. As is the designer. To alter a desinger dress for personal wear would destroy an original work and thus reduce the value considerably. These are not "off-the-rack" after all.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: Martyn on September 09, 2007, 06:04:06 AM
These dresses are not bought to be worn again. They are bought for collections and the provenance is extremely important. As is the designer. To alter a desinger dress for personal wear would destroy an original work and thus reduce the value considerably. These are not "off-the-rack" after all.

That is absolutely true.  To some, couture is valued and collected in the same way that some people collect art.  Acquired for the intrinsic beauty and provenance, most collectors would not dream of wearing their 'investment'.......
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: dmitri on September 09, 2007, 09:02:08 AM
I can't see these items surviving very long if they are worn often.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on July 08, 2008, 11:27:42 AM
Diana was such an amazing person, i might be only 17 but i remember being broken over her death, more than my parents. I didn't know alot about her but i knew, back then, that it was a loss for the world that never could be returned. No one could replace here, she was an amazing woman and those who met her will take that memory with them in their life and cherish it. As for the millions of other people who never met her, she will be in our minds as the woman who turned the monarchy around and showed that you can do much more with humanity than royal splendour.

Every time I hear about her on the news, or when it is mentioned she is death for so many years(i can't believe its almost 11 years, it feels like yesterday, 31th of august 1997) i feel sad, and empty, thats why our generation, the last generation that had the chance to notice her as the way she was, and not as the icon she's become, has to show the world she is not forgotten.

Its good there is a good biography on her, or several biography's - i love The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown -  so people can get to know who she was. Aldo i doubt people will forget her, even if 100 years have passed since her death, she is like Empress Elisabeth, The Romanovs, Queen Marie Antoinette, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean a symbol of an era. I also hope there will be a real good movie on her life, that works on the truth about her and gives a good bio, yet respectful. It would be great if they made a movie on her, and the proceeds going to the Diana Memorial Fund.
It would have some meaning then, and she would've loved that the money would be spend on her legacy and the humanity work she's started.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: maire on August 05, 2008, 06:32:46 AM
The late Princess of Wales deserves her own discussion section. Please feel free to discuss Diana in a respectful fashion please.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on August 05, 2008, 07:39:24 AM
Ummm;
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=7451.0 (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=7451.0)

:-)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on August 05, 2008, 08:11:49 AM
I merged the two.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on August 05, 2008, 07:49:53 PM

The late Princess of Wales deserves her own discussion section. Please feel free to discuss Diana in a respectful fashion please.


I would love to have an open discussion on Diana but she is one one topic I would not touch with a 10-foot pole on the Ally Pally forum!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on August 06, 2008, 08:07:06 AM

The late Princess of Wales deserves her own discussion section. Please feel free to discuss Diana in a respectful fashion please.


I would love to have an open discussion on Diana but she is one one topic I would not touch with a 10-foot pole on the Ally Pally forum!

TampaBay

Why is that?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on August 07, 2008, 07:58:40 AM
Because Diana is still more than revered and after more than ten years her death still seems to me to be fresh in everyone's mind.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on August 07, 2008, 08:40:36 AM
Indeed, she's still missed by humanity, and lets not forget her family and children. To be honest, i still feel sad if I hear one of the tributes that were written for her after she died, when I watch a documentary I also feel sad afterwards, and that just shows how much she is missed by those who knew her, or had a chance to notice what a wonderful woman she was.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Michael HR on August 07, 2008, 08:55:24 AM
Princess Dania may have had faults, may have made mistakes but she was the best thing to happen to the house of Windsor and England in a long, long time. Her work for AIDS alone did more to tackle this subject in a positive way than anyone else has done before or since. Her work for the homeless and Centrepoint, land mines and the list just goes on. Yes there were mistakes and errors of judgement but the impact on our lives here was beyond belief and showed what the Monarchy can be in this modern age. It is just so sad that she got into a car with a drunken driver that evening and it all came to an end. I have always felt that had she lived she would have gone onto greater things and been one of the main role models inthis country for years to come. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on August 07, 2008, 09:05:26 AM
Beautifully put, Michael.........
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on August 07, 2008, 01:42:28 PM
Yes, Michael that expresses my feeling also. :)" She really was the best thing to happen to the house of Windsor and England in a long long time."
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on August 07, 2008, 08:26:37 PM
Beautifully put, Michael.........

Here! Here!! Sir Michael,

One of the best tributes I have read on the Ally Pally Forum!

Diana had the common touch without being common...sorta like my USA cohort Nancy Astor!

Long may they both rest in peace!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: imperial angel on November 05, 2008, 01:23:54 PM
Yes, thats a wonderful tribute, Michael- so hard to believe it has already been 11 yrs. Seems like yesterday that night. It is hard to know what she would have gone on to, but that is the biggest tragedy of all- not knowing. Like the poem under my profile says, it wasn't their time- change that to, it wasn't her time.
Title: Re: No bids on Pricess Diana dress
Post by: imperial angel on November 05, 2008, 01:38:53 PM
The preservation of these is very important.
Title: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on December 13, 2008, 02:03:32 PM
Diana has been compared to many other famous women- among them we have a whole thread on Sissi ( Empress Elizabeth) and Diana. But she has also been compared to Jackie Kennedy ( I'm not sure why, but a whole book has been written on this), and she has been compared to Princess Grace, whom she met, and attended the funeral of, and there are photos of them together, and she has also been compared to Marilyn Monroe ( both tragic blonde beauties who died at 36) as well. Comparisons have also been made between her and her ancestor in the 18th century, Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire- as for instance with the movie about Georgianna not too long ago- I believe the trailor and marketing for the movie compared them. Does anyone particularly agree or disagree with Diana being compared to these women- Jackie, Marilyn Monroe or Princess Grace or Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire? Just thought it might make a good discussion. I have to say personally, I see no similarities to Jackie Kennedy in Diana's life and there are some things she had in common with Princess Grace, and a few things she had in common with Marilyn, but not perhaps not that many aside from the fact they are both iconic, tragic figures. I think she and Georgianna had some things in common, and of course were relatives. Are there any other famous women who you think Diana was like or not like whom she has been compared to?
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Mari on December 14, 2008, 03:22:10 AM
Often when People compare Diana to others its to give a reference point to her impact! Some People touch others even thousands of People and its because they have a special brightness or Warmth that People respond to...Marilyn Monroe because She was beautiful, died young and seemed vulnerable...approachable...Princess Grace...well they were both blonde, beautiful, died tragically, represented their Countries well internationally, Jackie Kennedy had a certain elegance, style as well as a way of walking similar to Diana, Princess of Wales. and then someone said Princess Charlotte of Wales was mourned with the same level of grief as Diana also  in  England with her death...shocked the nation...
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Charity on December 14, 2008, 10:15:51 PM
Personally, I see no real similarities with any of these women except superficial ones.  They each had their own special "thing", just like us all!  Incidentally, I read not too long ago that Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire was a closer relative of the Sarah Ferguson rather than Diana.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Taren on December 14, 2008, 11:41:38 PM
One can compare any two people, whether they share many similarities or not. I don't really see the point of all the endless Diana comparisons. It tends to be "she was beautiful and kind and died tragically" and so did *insert people to compare her to here*. Nothing new or terribly thought provoking. But maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: OctoberLily on December 15, 2008, 12:05:53 AM
I think the comparisons are simply because these are all women who have become iconic, so in that sense I can see the comparisons.  However, IMO, that's where the relevance stops. 
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on December 15, 2008, 12:56:09 AM
Has anyone ever read the book comparing Jackie Kennedy and Diana? I never did because I thought it was farfetched, but would be curious of someone has read it. Then there is the Requiem book, which is a 1997 or 1998 collection of writings by various authors on Diana's death, the impact of her life, the reaction to her death, and her funeral written sometimes in a more academic style ( in my opinion) which compares Princess Diana to Marilyn Monroe alot- at least, it compares the two women's deaths to take the following quote

'' I thought of the chilling line at the close of Webster's tragedy the Duchess of Malfi '' Cover her face. Mine eyes dazzle. She died young''. The pity is that we will never be able to cover her dazzling face, the most photographed in the world.. Her face will dazzle for decades like Marilyn Monroe's and never grow old. The icky Monroe comparison is unavoidable now. Both died at 36; both were iconic fantasy women who were lapped with sentimental adoration from unknown millions of ordinary folk ( not to mention drag queens and dress designers);both were charismatic, beautiful and both were damaged. Both were girls sent out to do a woman's job. They failed and succeeded without ever understanding why''- Vicki Woods, Guardian as quoted in Requiem, Diana Princess of Wales 1961-1997

Anyway, there's some other Monroe comparisons in the book, but I don't have it in front of me, but will look it up. I think this author was maybe comparing the impacts the two women's lives had, rather than comparing Diana and Marilyn personally. They both had iconic impact. Also, in I believe ( though this is also not in front of me- maybe someone can check who has it)- in Georgina Howell's Diana, her life in Fashion, I believe it quotes Diana herself as saying to someone she might one day be thought of as the Marilyn Monroe of her day- in terms of her being an iconic figure, perhaps. I can't substantiate that, don't have the book, but if someone does, someone could look it up. It might be interesting..
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on December 15, 2008, 01:43:32 AM
Just thought I'd add that Marilyn Monroe and Diana were both on the cover of an Aug 1992 ( nobody could have known then they would both died in August at age 36- Marilyn died when Diana was a little over a year old of course, they only sharing the earth for a year, but nobody knew Diana's fate in Aug 1992) issue of Life Magazine- although it wasn't intentional. Look it up on ebay if you want to see it- I'm sure it wasn't the only time they were on magazine covers together before her death. Candle in the Wind was of course written first about Marilyn, and then was used for Diana's funeral, some words changed.

I also ran across a quote from a photographer who was taking formal pictures of Diana and Diana said thought she looked like Marilyn in some of the pictures- that's in Diana Style which I found quoted online, altough I haven't read the book. Both did have great iconic impact..Diana's style has sometimes been compared to Jackie Kennedy's and that could be true (the pillbox hats), also I think Tina Brown's book mentions comparisons between Princess Grace and Diana, but apart from their meeting and what Grace said to Diana then, and their deaths in car accidents, and being both iconic blondes they weren't real alike- although Diana wore that ice- blue dress at the Cannes fllm festival in 1987 - and it sure looked like Princess Grace's dress from to Catch a thief- many compared it at the time. Its interesting people make comparisons between these women, however true or not true it is.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Mari on December 15, 2008, 02:10:49 AM
Quote
I don't really see the point of all the endless Diana comparisons. It tends to be "she was beautiful and kind and died tragically" and so did *insert people to compare her to here*. Nothing new or terribly thought provoking. But maybe that's just me.
Quote

The thing abut Diana, Princess of Wales is that she is also a historical figure. Because all this happened 10 years ago those that are not interested in her always tend to try to write off her impact. But I don't see the endless comparing of a lot of the discussions on the Czar's family either. Did they smile and show teeth...was this one or that one snobbish or born too late? I have interest in the Family but one can write off the Daughters the same way...beautiful, young, died tragically! Finally found... end of story! Rest In Peace!

But is that the way People with an interest in that section of history would feel? Obviously not....and although my Graduate degree in History was not in Russian History I can see, although I don't go into detail with all that, obviously there is interest in it. I have some interest.. but not to the level a lot of those People have. So, I let those People discuss it!  :)

Well, so is there in Diana! And the interest will continue. One day a hundred years from now she will be just as discussed and much sooner than that Historians will start writing on her from some School of thought..for one her impact on AIDS acceptance...And these books that are comparing her to other Iconic Figures right now are the start...so anyone that has read the Jackie Kennedy comparison I would be interested in hearing their take on it also.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on December 28, 2008, 12:53:46 PM
I once read a dutch book comparising her with Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary, it was a good read. The translated title would sound like "Sisi - haunted by destiny"(original: Sisi - opgejaagd door het noodlot) by Wim Ewalt. Also she is often comparised with Queen Astrid of Belgium. Both were the most popular royals of their day, both worked for good causes, they stood out of the Royal protocol, were great mothers and died in a car-accident - both late August, Astrid died in 1935, august 29th and Diana august 31th 1997. But there it ends, Astrid became queen and had a happy marriage.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: lady on December 28, 2008, 02:23:43 PM
She was compared to Eva Peron because of her help to the poor.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: TampaBay on December 29, 2008, 02:13:31 PM
One can compare any two people, whether they share many similarities or not. I don't really see the point of all the endless Diana comparisons. It tends to be "she was beautiful and kind and died tragically" and so did *insert people to compare her to here*. Nothing new or terribly thought provoking. But maybe that's just me.

The only point of all the endless Diana comparisons is for people to write books in order to sell books and make money!

Diana has become more than a cottage industry and these books will continue to be written forever just like the books on JFK & Jackie.

As long as there is money to be made the comparisons will continue. 

TampaBay
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Olga Maria on December 31, 2008, 02:55:54 AM
I just read about Queen Consort Astrid of Belgium and I found out she and Diana are both socially active. Queen Astrid also accentuated giving the poor what they need and everything (read it on Wikipedia). Both died young, Diana on 31 and Astrid on 29. They were also perfect mothers for their children. Both broke the usual monarchial protocol to make their children happy and as normal as other children in their society.


P.S. I love Princes William and Henry of Wales.I have no doubts why they grew to be such young charity workers like their mother.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on December 31, 2008, 02:48:46 PM
One can compare any two people, whether they share many similarities or not. I don't really see the point of all the endless Diana comparisons. It tends to be "she was beautiful and kind and died tragically" and so did *insert people to compare her to here*. Nothing new or terribly thought provoking. But maybe that's just me.

The only point of all the endless Diana comparisons is for people to write books in order to sell books and make money!

Diana has become more than a cottage industry and these books will continue to be written forever just like the books on JFK & Jackie.

As long as there is money to be made the comparisons will continue. 

TampaBay

Even I would agree that is true- comparisons between her and other famous women sell books, and indeed originate in wanting to sell books. I think there's stuff you can learn from comparisons as well though. If nothing else, it can be interesting what comparisons are made and why.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Mari on January 02, 2009, 05:39:25 AM
Yes, just like the endless comparisons the other Royals that merit threads receive....the French Royals, the Windsors and the Spanish...certainly the Russian! Books and Books and all making money....i.e. the Ferrand Books!
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on January 05, 2009, 10:56:20 PM
I was reading a 2007 book called DianaStyle recently that compared her to Audrey Hepburn quite a bit.. along with Jackie Kennedy. Also it mentions the Evita comparison, a fashion designer of Diana's compared her to Evita. I'm a fan of Evita too. I don't think Diana was much like Audrey Hepburn at all, though.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Mari on January 06, 2009, 04:30:43 AM
Well. the only things I see in common with Audrey Hepburn is the elegance, both loved ballet and trained, the humanitarianism (AH was UNICEF Ambassador) and recruited a lot of People like Roger Moore into the work, and they both had two sons.

 So, you could build some common elements there! I think they would have liked each other and had a lot to talk about. Audrey Hepburn is another favorite of mine. Her Mother was the former Baroness Ella van Heemstra, a Dutch aristocrat, who was a daughter of a former governor of Dutch Guiana, and who spent her childhood in the Huis Doorn manor house outside Doorn, which was subsequently the residence in exile of Wilhelm II, German Emperor.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on January 06, 2009, 01:48:26 PM
Yeah, that's basically what the book said when it compared her to Audrey Hepburn. I believe Audrey Hepburn lived quite a long life though and certainly her type of beauty was very different than Diana's, and I know little of Audrey's life but do not believe it to have been tragic. Diana  according to a few books I've read had framed photos of herself at Kensington Palace dressed as Audrey Hepburn in costumes from the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's. That's in DianaStyle and also in Georgina Howell's 1998 Diana fashion book. I'm not sure who the photographer was and to my knowledge these photos have never been seen in public. They might be interesting. Also, according to some books I have read Diana  commented to Paul Burrell that the last Mario Testino pictures of her in her gowns for the Christy's sale made her look a bit like Marilyn Monroe- and they do look a bit like some mid 1950s formal pictures of Marilyn by Milton Greene, so I can see the comparison. Of course, even Paris Hilton ( as if) has publicly compared herself to Diana and Marilyn in the same sentence ( '' I'm the Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana of my day''), so obviously these comparisons can go way too far.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Olga Maria on January 20, 2009, 04:05:39 AM
If Diana didn't die, Princes William and Harry would not still have girlfriends up to this time because their mother's indeed a very good girlfriend.
Nothing ambiguous, huh. Just literally speaking.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: imperial angel on February 24, 2009, 09:44:19 AM
I just ran across a article online that compares Princess Diana and the dying reality TV star Jade Goody. I really doubt they have much in common- but the article seems to be serious. Anyone else read this or see this? It's the First Post online- Uk.
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: Grace on February 24, 2009, 01:16:23 PM
I just ran across a article online that compares Princess Diana and the dying reality TV star Jade Goody. I really doubt they have much in common- but the article seems to be serious. Anyone else read this or see this? It's the First Post online- Uk.

Now I've truly heard it all.  How utterly ridiculous and tasteless. 
Title: Re: Diana, Princess of Wales comparisons to other famous women
Post by: alixaannencova on February 24, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
Grace I concur.....I am dumbstruck with disgust! I had no idea Mrs Tweed was so still so popular in the United Kingdom! I never understood why she was ever embraced anyway! A ghastly, racist vulgarian IMHO! This obsession with celebrity particularly in England is revolting IMHO! I hear Pierce Morgan has negotiated the 'last' interview rights with Mrs Goody Tweed, even in the build up to her death she and Max Clifford continue to encourage her status as a commodity..... is she a victim? I think not! 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 14, 2010, 01:46:11 PM

pictures displaying affection between charles and diana during their visit to australia in 1983. it`s a pity that positive feelings between them were wasted



(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana5.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana7.jpg)



Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 14, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
tender moments during diana`s first pregnancy, the beginning of june 1982

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana2.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana4.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 14, 2010, 02:20:25 PM
an affectionate moment as they set out for their honemoon

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana1.jpg)

here i think she must be pregnanat with william

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana3.jpg)

some more pictures,australia 1983

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana9.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana10.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana20.jpg)



b
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 14, 2010, 02:54:38 PM

a rare and beautiful moment-cltching hands


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana20.jpg)


chatting


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana12.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 18, 2010, 03:19:19 PM
momnts of affection and tenderness during diana`s second pregnancy

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana15.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana16.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana17.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana18.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 18, 2010, 03:53:27 PM
romantic moments

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana14-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana11.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana19.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana21.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 20, 2010, 11:54:50 AM

a few absolutely fabulous dresses (they are among my favorite)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana28.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana40.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana47.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 27, 2010, 10:17:00 AM
stylish diana in a yellow suit

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana45.jpg)

stylish outfit in a hussar style (i think she was visiting a military unit)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana49.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 27, 2010, 10:19:33 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana50.jpg)


another stylish outfit
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: LadyTudorRose on March 27, 2010, 01:16:59 PM
^ Love it. Diana had the figure to pull off pretty much anything, but she looked really great in one-shoulder dresses. I think that style is coming back.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on March 27, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
Wonderful photos! Thank for posting!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 29, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
some moments of closeness and affection

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana23.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana25.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana30.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 29, 2010, 04:27:27 PM
and one more beautiful picture

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana35.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on March 29, 2010, 04:47:17 PM
here we can see how chilly their relations are.they are simply BUSINESS PARTNERS IN A ROYAL FAMILY BUSINESS and parents.no longer a loving couple.

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana32.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana38.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana39.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on March 29, 2010, 07:27:02 PM
Fantastic pics! :)

Some of those dresses I'd never seen before.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 02:14:54 AM

when i loked at diana`s photoes at ascot i realized that when you compare pictures you will see how her style changed. she started with "a fairy tale princess look" with all those frills and gradually developed a sophisticated styl of her own.  year by year this chang was more and more visible.


1981

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1981-2.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1981-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1981-4.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1981-5.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1981-6.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 03:18:06 AM
ascot-1985

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1985-2.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot1985.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1985-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 03:30:32 AM
ascot 1986

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1986-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 04:56:00 AM
ascot 1987

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1987-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1987-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1987-4.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1987-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 05:15:37 AM
ascot 1988

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1988-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 05:34:36 AM
ascot 1989

 (http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1989-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1989-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 06:20:39 AM
ascot 1990

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1990-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1990-2.jpg)

i especially like the combination of red and violet - the colors that seemingly do not match

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1990-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1990-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 06:42:53 AM
ascot-1991

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1991-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1991-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 03, 2010, 06:59:53 AM
ascot 1992

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1992-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 03, 2010, 08:29:40 PM
I'm glad this thread is up....she was a special person.  There was /is only one Diana. I was recently at an exhibit of the Althorp items and the dresses in Philadelphia. You would never know nearly 13 years had passed. It  was mobbed for all the time it was here and it had to be extended. What got me was the how crowd behaved  when Diana video was playing and at the end, when they showed  the funeral, a pin could have dropped , many dozens of people pressed together were quite ,totally absorbed and crying. You would think it was Sept 1 1997...That cannot be bought,  faked or forgotten. There  was only one Diana
(http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/th_diana97.jpg) (http://s792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/?action=view&current=diana97.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 04, 2010, 03:40:29 AM
I'm glad this thread is up....she was a special person.  There was /is only one Diana. I was recently at an exhibit of the Althorp items and the dresses in Philadelphia. You would never know nearly 13 years had passed. It  was mobbed for all the time it was here and it had to be extended. What got me was the how crowd behaved  when Diana video was playing and at the end, when they showed  the funeral, a pin could have dropped , many dozens of people pressed together were quite ,totally absorbed and crying. You would think it was Sept 1 1997...That cannot be bought,  faked or forgotten. There  was only one Diana
(http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/th_diana97.jpg) (http://s792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/?action=view&current=diana97.jpg)


death at 36 is horrible.too early...but i think there is one thing that makes me and other women feel affinity with diana.despite her position and high financial status she was,like many other women,looking for love and emotional security. her childhood had enormous influence on her psyche, and she probably was not able to tackle emotional and psychological problems that hunted her from her childhood on - i think many of us could have experienced that.in many aspects she was  so much like us:vulnerable, insecure,longing for love, emotionally unstable at times....we can sympathise with her so easily....in spite of the difference in our social position she was like every woman...when we read her memories we can easily recognize our feelings and emotions.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 05, 2010, 12:58:56 PM
official engagements made diana wear hats very often.although hats seem to be quite old-fashioned items diana knew how to make them fashionable and stylish.and how to combine them with appropriate clothes.no wonder that she became a fashion icon.

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-2.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-5.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 05, 2010, 01:15:31 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-4.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-6.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 05, 2010, 01:59:15 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-8.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-19.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 05, 2010, 04:31:59 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-9.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-13.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 06, 2010, 03:37:55 PM
 Fergie and  Diana were as thick as thieves.... even before Diana's fairytale marriage.
They were friends during the  1980s and must have often compared notes
during those times.
   Its quite nostalgic now to see pictures of them together !
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=134



.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 06, 2010, 04:09:49 PM
I disagree that they were as "thick as thieves", I'm sorry.  There was a well known and permanent fall-out before Diana's death, related mostly to what Sarah had said about Diana in a book she wrote.  Diana had also kept her distance from Sarah after the separation from Prince Andrew - because of how palace insiders regarded Sarah post-separation and Diana also saw that associating with her did her own reputation little favour after Sarah fell from grace so spectacularly with the public as well as with the royal family. 

So the "terrible twins" and "thick as thieves" stuff may have existed during the early days of Sarah's marriage - when Diana found her a welcome ally during her lonely days as a royal wife - but it was fleeting to say the least.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 06, 2010, 04:29:41 PM
They seem to have been friends at some point. It's interesting that during the earlier days of  Sarah's marraiage,  Sarah was often being held up to Diana by the royal family of how she ought to be..." Why aren't you more jolly like Fergie?" that is, until Sarah's chram lost its luster for them.   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 06, 2010, 04:53:13 PM
It was amazing how Fergie took over from Diana as the Royal Number  1,
the press went balmy for the feisty red head.... Diana was suddenly old news
The magazines and newspapers were full of pictures of Fergie.... Diana must have felt
quite neglected.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 07, 2010, 04:38:34 AM
Diana did say that she felt unworthy within the family when Sarah came along as she was thought of as such a breath of fresh air (which turned stale quite rapidly) and although Sarah was photographed and written about in the media a lot in the early days of her marriage, she never knocked Diana off the covers that I can remember...and I didn't miss much Diana-related stuff in those days!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 07, 2010, 05:21:59 AM
Yes , Sarah's time at the top was relatively short, it was nt long before we were hearing
that  she was unpopular with the staff and servants at Buck House...
wonder what she did to upset them ?

But Sarah never had the training, nor the discretion to carry off such a high profile
role I think she was living  in a world of her own.

Today, age 50, she has morphed into a TV celeb, still glamorous and still
in demand by the media .
 In a way she has  confounded her critics and lasted the course.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 07, 2010, 06:01:12 AM
Nowadays, Sarah only seems "glamorous" when she is dressed and made up by professionals, either for a paid personal appearance or a photo shoot.  The rest of the time, she doesn't bother much with her appearance and, to be honest, a 50-year-old redhead completely makeup-free caught in the flashes of paparazzi cameras does look a bit...unforgiving.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 07, 2010, 06:28:44 AM
in 1986 sarah was a novelty.and novelty wears off sooner or later.....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 07, 2010, 08:40:12 AM
hats - continuation ( i think it is done in a chronological order)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-12.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-16.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-22.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-18.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 07, 2010, 09:34:35 AM
Today, age 50, she has morphed into a TV celeb, still glamorous and still
in demand by the media . In a way she has  confounded her critics and lasted the course.
I agree.  Many would not have landed so well on their feet. That is not an easy world for a non royal. 
The system isn't there to help you. And I have to say having her  lovely girls in the royal family is worth any of the unseemly  prat falls
a thousand times over ...all in all, Sarah as been decidedly a plus for the famly.imo
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 07, 2010, 11:50:21 AM
She's been "decidedly a plus" for the family?  May I ask how you come to this conclusion?  Personally, I couldn't think of anyone who's been more disastrous for the family....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 07, 2010, 12:24:33 PM
Very true Grace. I think the girls need to learn how to dress elegantly in my opinion & behave more lady like. They could be a good asset to the Royal Family....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 07, 2010, 12:38:59 PM
She's been "decidedly a plus" for the family?  May I ask how you come to this conclusion?  Personally, I couldn't think of anyone who's been more disastrous for the family....

I'm speaking of Sarah giving the family  her and Andrew's two lovely  princesses...when that is wighted against the disasters, I think
all in all , it's been a plus. I believe the royal  family can weather the garden variety messes Sarah brewed... and indeed they have.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 07, 2010, 01:43:51 PM
Yes, 2 lovely useless princesses. I am sure they are well loved, but  what are they to do to benefit the country & the monarchy.?
 By the way, I like Sarah, Duchess of York, always have. I especially admire her stamina in the face of adversity and disgrace. Sure, she made  some pretty big mistakes, but who has not [perhaps the Queen, but we will never know]
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 07, 2010, 03:05:59 PM
In the  1980s ... for a while... things were looking good
Two fairytale Royal Marriages... lots of children... things seemed to be going
along ok .... little did we know !

 Towards the end of the  80s the wheels started coming off
by the early  90s it was one disaster after another  leading to
1992  the " annus horribilis"

If the  British Monarchy was a  luxury liner sailing the high seas
... then Fergie and Diana at that time were  like  two exocet missiles....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 07, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
Diana did say that she felt unworthy within the family when Sarah came along as she was thought of as such a breath of fresh air (which turned stale quite rapidly) and although Sarah was photographed and written about in the media a lot in the early days of her marriage, she never knocked Diana off the covers that I can remember...and I didn't miss much Diana-related stuff in those days!


Now why would Diana choose the word 'unworthy', in comparison to Sarah?
She must have been lacking self-confidence and didn't like the media attention being taken away from her. That seems a little like jealousy no?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 07, 2010, 05:52:40 PM
Yes, 2 lovely useless princesses. I am sure they are well loved, but  what are they to do to benefit the country & the monarchy.?
well Robert I guess I was thinking in  terms of simply family...how they benefit the country, is something we will have to see.  But how the word " useless"  can go before the word " princesses"  is a puzzlement to me. In a monarchy,  princes and princesses  are never useless,  if properly utilized. The throne needs a next generation to do walk about don't they? Is Harry useless?  Would the family say William and Harry didn't make up for the difficulty they feel Diana caused? ( because she out shone them...oops did I say that out loud? ) I surely hope not. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 07, 2010, 05:58:02 PM
I'm not sure she used the exact word, Lindelle, but I remember seeing an excerpt of an interview (might have been from those notorious Settelen tapes) where Diana said that at the time of Sarah and Andrew's engagement/early marriage, Prince Charles had said to her how jolly Fergie was, why can't you be happy and fun like her etc.  She felt the rest of the royals were thinking the same thing.  Maybe they were, maybe it was just her own slant on things, hard to say.  It's difficult to be an accurate judge when you are unhappy within yourself, I think.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 07, 2010, 06:34:28 PM
Bless OTMA, William and Harry are serving officers and William is heir presumptive.  They are far from useless.   The York princesses are still young and we have no  idea what role, if any they may play after they finish  their educations. If they become idle rich socialites, that is useless  IMO. So far, their public actions tend  to show them leaning in that direction. They do not see to be the "plant a tree, dedicate a plaque"  type.  What patronages will they take on, if any?  So far, they seem to be going the way of the Kent  kids, and Princess Anne's children.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 07, 2010, 06:58:42 PM
I think Diana's appeal was when she was an innocent teenager...
she was so ravishing and attractive back then.  
By her late 20s  she had lost those youthful teenage looks  and was just another
... very tall blonde... nothing special.

 Fergie was the exact opposite, she was plain and   chubby as
a teenager... nothing  special.... but in her 20s she began to bloom and become more and more
attractive.   Even now age 50 she is quite stunning and glamorous.

As for the magazines... Diana was keeping them going at one point,
 magazines  all around the world...   but gradually they lost interest and in the UK
the soap stars slowly began to take over... probably from the late  80s on.

 In fact by the mid 90s people were pretty fed up with Diana and all her TV tantrums
she was being increasingly marginalized.
 The car crash changed all that and she
 suddenly  became a sainted figure... idolized and the centre of attention once again.

 In a way she  has become  England's answer to Marie Antoinette... who also died young and had
a sudden, violent death.  
Marie Antoinette, like Diana... was feted  as a teenager and her ravishing , teenage looks wowed Paris..
but in her late  20s she became a bit gawky  and  plain  and quickly lost the affection
of  the fickle Parisians.
  Their indifference  soon  turned to hatred and the rest is history.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 07, 2010, 07:03:23 PM
We shall have to see how well the York Princesses perform once they complete their university education! According to the vile Daily Mail Princess Beatrice apparently confided that Princess Eugenie finds her role as Princess and the pressure of being a member of the RF difficult to deal with! I wonder if this is true whether Eugenie might perhaps one day drop her HRH status and try and lead a more private life rather like Lady Patricia Ramsay did.

As this is a thread about Diana, Princess of Wales I think I will try and get back on topic! As most of you probably know, I have very little time for Diana worshipping and idolatry but I came across an absolutely stunning photograph which I think Testino might have taken! It really is one of the most extraordinary and unusual images I have ever seen of Diana:-

http://cockybrat.com/diana%20b&W.jpg
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 07, 2010, 07:24:33 PM
I'm getting off topic too, Margot, but why do the York girls have to wait to complete their university education before they show an interest?  They are already 21 and 20.  Surely a couple of small patronages each could be slotted in around their studies?  Many other university students have jobs.  If they are not going to work as royals eventually, I think a "Lady Patricia" scenario would be the thing but I don't see this ever happening.  Both parents seem to have a huge sense of entitlement towards their children but not much interest in getting them involved in royal life (other than social appearances) and little insight into the growing public opinion that royals must earn their living like the rest of us.  This opinion is growing ever louder regarding Beatrice and Eugenie as they cost the tax-payer thousands of pounds annually in 24 hour security, reportedly at their father's insistence.  To be honest, the way they are heading, I don't think too many people would be upset if they said goodbye HRH and moved away from the royal family (officially).     
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 07, 2010, 10:26:37 PM
I am not a "Diana worshipper" but I did admire her a great deal. Her patronage of AIDS causes was brave and very important. I actually met her at a hospice in Oxford. She  very friendly, informal and easy to talk with. For that alone she will always have my admiration.
 Not every was "fed up with her" by any means. She always drew crowds, wherever she went in public, even after the divorce. She was never disgraced and remained on good terms with the Queen.  She matured into a beautiful, matured indpendent woman. She died tragically and far too young.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 08, 2010, 06:53:58 AM
i`m not a worshipper of diana either but i DO admire her sense of fashion and her ability to look stunning and stylish.sometimes she knew how to look regal both in a hat and elegant dress and casual clothes. she knew how to look fashionable and comply with the rules of royal dress code. i`m never tied of looking at her outits
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on April 09, 2010, 07:05:00 AM
Quote
I want to walk into a room, be it a hospice for the dying or a hospital for sick children, and feel that I am needed. I want to do, not just to be.
Quote
from the quotes of Diana...

That sums up how Diana Princess of Wales would have envisioned her future undertakings. Look at the list of Charities She raised money for and awareness of:
The British Red Cross
Anti-Personnel Land Mines Campaign
Centrepoint Soho
English National Ballet
The Leprosy Mission
National AIDS Trust
Royal Marsden NHS Trust
Great Ormond St Hospital
for Children NHS Trust

Well as you can see in the Hat photographs She was beautiful and very stylish.  She was the first to shake the hands of an AIDS Patient in Photographs! No gloves...and that was at a time of real fear with that Virus. She brought the Land Mines issue to the table... I think She was finding herself more every year.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 09, 2010, 03:12:48 PM
a few more pictures that testiy to diana`s flawless taste

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-21.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-24.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-25.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-27.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 09, 2010, 05:25:04 PM
Not every was "fed up with her" by any means. She always drew crowds, wherever she went in public, even after the divorce. She was never disgraced and remained on good terms with the Queen.  She matured into a beautiful, matured indpendent woman. She died tragically and far too young.

I suspect that after the infamous Panorama interview was broadcast the Queen and Diana were hardly on 'good terms'. I always assumed that that interview was regarded as the greatest possible betrayal. Diana did a 'Crawfie' and basically lost all remaining sympathy that may have been harboured by her mother-in-law!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 09, 2010, 06:15:46 PM
In the aftermath of that interview, no one came out ahead, I imagine. Charles was a right cad,  and Diana driven to  her own distractions. That was a dreadfully tacky  page in the royal diaries [annus horribillus]. However, after  things calmed down, I  think they came to amicable terms. Diana was, after all  not only mother to the Queen's grandsons, but the heirs presumptive to the throne.
 The Queen has seen it all over her long years, I cannot imagine she bears any grudges  for very long, if indeed, at all.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 09, 2010, 06:31:16 PM
Did nt  Diana her true story ... predate the TV interview ?
and must have been far more devastating when it  came out.....  did it come
out in the  annus horribilis ... 1992  ?

I have a feeling that Diana came to regret giving those  interviews  to her  " friend "
that were then passed onto  Andrew Morton.
It might have been cathartic for her at the  time.... but how could she give so much
private and personal information to that creep Morton   earning millions for him
and his publishers when  Diana was nt going to get a red cent out of it.

  It shows how  foolish and naive she was at that time...  and probably vindictive  too !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 09, 2010, 08:01:28 PM
I think foolish, naive and even vindictive are probably appropriate terms to describe Diana's motivation in cooperating with the Morton book and Panorama TV interview.  She regretted both later.  She was a spontaneous person who sometimes acted too quickly without thinking of consequences or taking on board the advice of friends, which she did seek from time to time.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 09, 2010, 08:02:41 PM
The extraordinary response to Diana's death did for a very long time, greatly distort the reality of her position and the way she was regarded in the last year of her life, especially in Britain!

I think you would have had to have been a hermit with no access to Television or media sources not to have been literally Diana-ed out by the 30th August 1997. It was surreal just how fascinated everyone 'appeared' to be by her! Tabloids and broadsheets alike plastered their front pages with pictures of her constantly! It was rather like 'open season'. I agree that not every one was fed up with Diana, but I do remember a great many people being very jaded and 'fed up' with seeing grainy images of her and Dodi frolicking in the Med, Diana with her flak jacket and visor, Diana in Bosnia, Diana in full make up and surgical get up in the dead of night attending an emergency heart operation, Diana 'secretly' visiting the homeless but making sure a photographer was there to record the visit and get the image into the dailies! Diana taking the boys to see a film that glamorized the IRA and which was  certified a 15 when Harry was only 12 years old! Diana sobbing on camera during her Angola trip! Diana swimming, Diana sitting on the Jonikal's diving board, Diana at an airport, Diana at a hotel wielding a tennis racket and looking distressed even though she herself had consistently declined to have personal security.  Diana coming out of Harvey Nichols, Diana driving to the gym, Diana driving away from the gym. Diana going to San Lorenzo for lunch, Diana coming out of San Lorenzo after another lovely lunch, Diana in New York, Diana flogging her clothes, Diana falling out with Elton John, Diana making up with Elton John and comforting him at Gianni Versace's funeral. Diana taking four holidays in forty days! The frenzy was absurd and what made it even more irritating was that Diana herself seemed to be playing along with the media and even teased them with the infamously glib and deliberate 'Big Surprise' remark she made during her jaunt in the Med and then refused to elaborate on! Many, many people in Britain had had enough of Diana by the time she was seen scampering up the steps and into Al Fayed's Gulfstream on Saturday 30th August! The Sunday Times ran a psycho analysis of Diana for the News Review for Sunday 31st August which attested that Diana's behaviour could have been linked to her broken home and that she was basically damaged goods so to speak! The review was pulled, but several did escape and it makes stark reading to see such a cold and clinical critique of Diana and her possible future escapades inside and the front cover headline announcing her death!

By the end of July 1997 a great many people were beginning to see through Diana and to tire of the constant attention being given to her and in particular her holiday antics! Many people wondered why Diana seemed so hypocritical in her dealings with the press! One minute she was sobbing and claiming to be unable to deal with constant attention and the next she was positively inviting them into her confidence! A fair portion of the rational in Britain were tired and had become rather cynical in their regard for Diana! Quite a few of us wished she would jolly well hurry up and move to the States! Then she died and that was the end of it! The orgiastic mass grief was extraordinary! I still find it rather disturbing to recall all those people milling around, grey faced and many in tears as though a close relative had been killed rather than Diana! It was very disconcerting and the wailing when the gun carriage came down Palace Avenue on the morning of the 6th September was appalling. Thank goodness it appeared to have been isolated to only a very few who could not seem to control their emotions! Anyway Diana's death and the fall out seems to have obscured the fact that there were indeed lots of people who were fed up with her and all the attention she was getting in the months leading up to the death.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 09, 2010, 08:24:06 PM
I think, Margot, the majority of reasonable people would agree that Diana had lost her way at least somewhat following the breakdown of her marriage and her eventual divorce.  Her unique position, the media attention (which distorted everything she did) and her acute loneliness were the main contributors to this.  How can any of us truly deride her for her behaviour when none of us has been in a position anything like hers?  You seem to constantly poke fun at her.  You don't have to have regard for her, but you cannot take away from the fact that she was a very important person in the lives of millions of people and why shouldn't they have grieved when such a young woman who didn't make a success of everything she did but was a damn hard trier, died so tragically and so young?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 09, 2010, 08:55:34 PM
Grace I utterly agree with you regarding Diana's unique position and I do agree that she did make a difference with regards to AIDS, leprosy and land mines! All very worthy and rightly lauded legacies! I was merely pointing out that during the last year of her life, there were some who had come to recognize that Diana was using the media as much as they were using her and that ultimately, by the end of July 1997 there were some who were basically fed up with her and were tired of seeing her every mundane move and antic meriting such attention! It was absurd and I often wondered who really lapped up the stories and fed the frenzy of diana-mania? For that is how it appeared to me!

As to the extraordinary displays of grief that followed her death. Well, I found it rather strange and disconcerting! Here is a fascinating article about the way people responded after Diana died! It is very interesting and does demonstrate very well what I have tried to explain!

http://members.tripod.com/paul_marsden/Crash-Contagion.html
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 10, 2010, 03:38:59 AM
YES  I think Margot has got Diana nailed with that excellent  post, the last year of her
life was a bit surreal... frolicking with Dody  in the South of  france, 
showing off her figure in  sexy. leopard skin  bathing costumes  and phoning the  photographers to make
sure they got the sexy  pics... and  endless,  pointless travel in fast cars, in planes, in helicopters...

It was frantic  and ultimately she paid the price for all this jet setting.
What was really unbelievable was the fact that she was racing round Paris.. at night... travelling at
90 and  100 miles an hour... without wearing a safety belt..... how  crazy is that ?

I think since  the annus horribilis   the Queen and the Monarchy have been battening down  the hatches
and  lying low.... the  80s  and  " the Terrible Twins "  were an abberation and  threatened to drag the
Monarchy into the mire.... but they somehow survived it  all....
now  in the  1990s  it was time to steady the ship and take stock of the situation.

The Queen has a much lower profile nowadays... there are no exotic trips to Asia and Africa... more and more
contact with the public is being restricted    ( maybe due to fears of suicide bombers ? )

Diana is gone, Fergie is sidelined....  the mad, frenetic 1980s  are history... things are  a lot  calmer
now ...... more controlled      ( and boring !)

The press and  paparazzi  must look back to the  1980s  and see it as a golden age for the tabloids
 with  endless stories and  racy  pictures of  Diana and Fergie....
perhaps they sigh for what is lost and can never be again!



.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 10, 2010, 04:36:05 AM
Diana nailed?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 10, 2010, 05:42:43 AM
I'm sorry to sound rude, but I find it impossible to fathom the reasoning behind the majority of Heavensent's posts.

Heavensent, what evidence do you have that the royal family is "battening down the hatches and lying low"?  As far as I'm aware they are as busy as ever and if the Queen no longer undertakes exotic trips to Asia and Africa, do you think it could possibly be due to the fact she is now almost EIGHTY-FOUR YEARS OLD?  And more restricted contact with the public - where do you get this from?  And just one more thing: Fergie hasn't been "sidelined", she and Prince Andrew are divorced and she is no longer a member of the royal family.   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 06:13:07 AM
Not every was "fed up with her" by any means. She always drew crowds, wherever she went in public, even after the divorce. She was never disgraced and remained on good terms with the Queen.  She matured into a beautiful, matured indpendent woman. She died tragically and far too young.

I suspect that after the infamous Panorama interview was broadcast the Queen and Diana were hardly on 'good terms'. I always assumed that that interview was regarded as the greatest possible betrayal. Diana did a 'Crawfie' and basically lost all remaining sympathy that may have been harboured by her mother-in-law!


I agree Margot. Nothing is worse than having your daughter-in-law trash your family. My own motto is 'If you want to hurt the cub, you play with the tiger'.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 10, 2010, 06:42:07 AM
I am well aware that was a sympathy ploy, but  it was the only way she saw to get her view across.  I agree it was a bad move, but so be it.  After all, she was treated shabbily  by Charles and the RF, they  did not believe she had grown up and had ideas of her own. In time, she was back on good terms with the Queen, if no one else. Frankly, I doubt she cared much for  any of the others. She had her own circle of friends, which seemed to rotate a bit. Sadly, she received some pretty lousy advice.  She sometimes atced rashly, but I nor many others held it against her. As she was no longer a member of the RF, she could do and say what she wished.
 BTW, Grace, I tend to agree with you.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 06:45:51 AM
I think foolish, naive and even vindictive are probably appropriate terms to describe Diana's motivation in cooperating with the Morton book and Panorama TV interview.  She regretted both later.  She was a spontaneous person who sometimes acted too quickly without thinking of consequences or taking on board the advice of friends, which she did seek from time to time.


And it had a devastating effect on William.
Harry, as young as he was, would have felt it to.
To do that to your children though!
Honestly, I for one would NOT be proud to air my marriage problems to the world and when you come to think of it, you don't hear other RF's doing it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 10, 2010, 06:49:18 AM
Charles did it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 06:50:27 AM
Grace I utterly agree with you regarding Diana's unique position and I do agree that she did make a difference with regards to AIDS, leprosy and land mines! All very worthy and rightly lauded legacies! I was merely pointing out that during the last year of her life, there were some who had come to recognize that Diana was using the media as much as they were using her and that ultimately, by the end of July 1997 there were some who were basically fed up with her and were tired of seeing her every mundane move and antic meriting such attention! It was absurd and I often wondered who really lapped up the stories and fed the frenzy of diana-mania? For that is how it appeared to me!

As to the extraordinary displays of grief that followed her death. Well, I found it rather strange and disconcerting! Here is a fascinating article about the way people responded after Diana died! It is very interesting and does demonstrate very well what I have tried to explain!

http://members.tripod.com/paul_marsden/Crash-Contagion.html


Margot, I'd be interested to see her face. Do you know if there is a link to that pic please.?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 06:54:02 AM
YES  I think Margot has got Diana nailed with that excellent  post, the last year of her
life was a bit surreal... frolicking with Dody  in the South of  france, 
showing off her figure in  sexy. leopard skin  bathing costumes  and phoning the  photographers to make
sure they got the sexy  pics... and  endless,  pointless travel in fast cars, in planes, in helicopters...

It was frantic  and ultimately she paid the price for all this jet setting.
What was really unbelievable was the fact that she was racing round Paris.. at night... travelling at
90 and  100 miles an hour... without wearing a safety belt..... how  crazy is that ?

I think since  the annus horribilis   the Queen and the Monarchy have been battening down  the hatches
and  lying low.... the  80s  and  " the Terrible Twins "  were an abberation and  threatened to drag the
Monarchy into the mire.... but they somehow survived it  all....
now  in the  1990s  it was time to steady the ship and take stock of the situation.

The Queen has a much lower profile nowadays... there are no exotic trips to Asia and Africa... more and more
contact with the public is being restricted    ( maybe due to fears of suicide bombers ? )

Diana is gone, Fergie is sidelined....  the mad, frenetic 1980s  are history... things are  a lot  calmer
now ...... more controlled      ( and boring !)

The press and  paparazzi  must look back to the  1980s  and see it as a golden age for the tabloids
 with  endless stories and  racy  pictures of  Diana and Fergie....
perhaps they sigh for what is lost and can never be again!



.


Even Sarah said she thought Diana was living life in the fast lane." "
I remember  a news snippet saying that Diana was unable to take any ph calls as she was busy sleeping. Obviously it was catching up with her.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 06:58:06 AM
Charles did it.


EXACTLY! Both as bad as one another.
When all is said and done, with the 'he said,she said', it was still the boys that took the aftermath.
And THAT is the one thing I can't forgive either one of them for.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 10, 2010, 07:09:17 AM
Well, I don't know how much "aftermath" the boys suffered.  William and Harry seem to speak very fondly about both parents when the subject comes up.  They seem quite well adjusted to me, given their still young ages.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 10, 2010, 07:24:48 AM
I agree wholeheartedly, Grace. Naturally they were in shock at her death, but handled it well. They are a real tribute to her motherhood, I feel.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 10, 2010, 08:50:02 AM
As soon as Diana made panorama, she went straight to Williams school and apologised. She was VERY worried how he'd take it and it wasn't good. But, what else could the boy do? It was done and how a child can deal with that is no one's business. But that he puts on a brave face is his way of dealing with it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 10, 2010, 09:32:09 AM
Children are far more perceptive than we tend to give them credit for.  He most likely knew something was wrong with his parents. Also, in modern British society, divorce was something he was pretty well aware of,  amongst his friends  and classmates. In any case he  seemed pretty stable through it all, and later. As I understand it, Charles & Diana never spoke ill of each other to their sons.  And they both did a good job of shielding them from the intrusive media.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 10, 2010, 09:35:26 AM
Lindelle I am afraid I do not have a link to any photographs of the purported vision of Diana's face that was apparently visible to some of those who queued to sign the Book of condolence! I must admit I had quite forgotten about it until I found it in the Crash contagion article.

As to the airing of dirty laundry that Charles and Diana both chose to indulge in, I think they were as guilty as one another! Ultimately children tend to be the silent, bewildered and often frightened victims in marriage break-ups! I am sure many will remember Diana's emotive little vignette which she shared with Morton about the time William pushed loo paper under the door when she was having one her cries! Heaven only knows how old he would have been at the time! I also wonder how I would feel if I had found out my mother had apparently thrown herself down a flight of stairs when pregnant with me!  
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 10, 2010, 09:39:12 AM
i thhink that diana was both a victim of mass media and a person who created powerful media that in turn destroyed her life. mass media,in fact,introduced a shy blushing bride to the british and world public opinion. diana seemed to like her fame and popularity,she felt very comfortable in the limelight. people all over the world and the british loved her and wanted to see her on tv or magazine covers thus boosting sales. people enjoyed looking at a stunning princess dressed in stylish clothes and carrying out her royal duties with dignity. people observed her every step.in the course of timee diana became a victim of her own popularity as people demanded more and more inormation on her: about her conlicts with her husband,her exercises in a gym, shopping, dating etc. people seemed to be insatiable.diana must have been tired of excessive attention as she couldn`t even have a weekend break with her boys.mass media that used to be her supporter gradually turned not into an enemy but a persecutor probably.and people who bought magazines with the pictures of her and craved for more are to some extent responsible for her death (if we believe in the official version of her death). but i think that she to some extent created such powerful mass media that destroyed her life
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 10, 2010, 09:41:29 AM
I seem to  have been unjustly  singled out for criticism by Grace.....    but I  stand by what Ive said.
The monarchy did reassess  its position and role in society   during the 1990s.
 They are an  national  institution... like the BBC ... and like any  national institution they  are sensitive to public opinion.

Things have quietened down considerably since those ... over the top... 1980s
 and  those   "annus  horribilis"    1990s  .....  with the serial  Royal divorces  that  ensued.

Prince Edward's marriage was a low key affair , celebrated  modestly at Windsor
where .....in former times .......it would have been St Paul's or Westminster Abbey.

The Queen's  (  once very regular  )  visits to exotic countries in Asia and Africa
where there would be  hectic  scenes at tribal gatherings etc... have  ceased....
The Royal Yacht has been scrapped....  excessive spending has been reigned in.

The prestige of the Windsors and the Monarchy has been in decline  since the
advent of  Diana and Fergie  and their endless escapades.
    We are witnessing  the Monarchy and Royal Family  sobering up... drawing in their horns.......
  getting back   to  basics.

What was it that the Queen said to  Paul Burrell  ?  "there are dark forces at work."..
   she is  so  right... for  eg.   the  publisher of   "Diana her true story"  is a rabid republican and Diana's revellations must have been catnip to him and his  republican buddies.
   Add to that the  1990s  saw an escalation in terrorist violence and ... with suicide bombers... a frightening  threat to all  public figures.... so it is only to be expected
that security has been stepped up and  events  like  Royal walkabouts are not on the agenda.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 10, 2010, 09:54:18 AM
stylish diana again. she was able to combine royal dress code and style and fashion

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-26.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-29.jpg)


Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 10, 2010, 10:01:02 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-30.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-31.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-32.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-33.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 10, 2010, 10:04:39 AM
wonderful Violetta....  lovely pics  thanks
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 10, 2010, 10:32:11 AM
and some more, heavensent

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-34.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-35.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-36.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 11, 2010, 04:33:43 AM
Lindelle I am afraid I do not have a link to any photographs of the purported vision of Diana's face that was apparently visible to some of those who queued to sign the Book of condolence! I must admit I had quite forgotten about it until I found it in the Crash contagion article.

As to the airing of dirty laundry that Charles and Diana both chose to indulge in, I think they were as guilty as one another! Ultimately children tend to be the silent, bewildered and often frightened victims in marriage break-ups! I am sure many will remember Diana's emotive little vignette which she shared with Morton about the time William pushed loo paper under the door when she was having one her cries! Heaven only knows how old he would have been at the time! I also wonder how I would feel if I had found out my mother had apparently thrown herself down a flight of stairs when pregnant with me!  


Thanks Margot for trying to find the pic.
And I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think people seem to get what I'm saying.
Just the thought of parents telling the world about their marriage would be something I as a child wouldn't get over. As an adult, different story, but a CHILD?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 11, 2010, 04:36:53 AM
Did nt  Diana her true story ... predate the TV interview ?
and must have been far more devastating when it  came out.....  did it come
out in the  annus horribilis ... 1992  ?

I have a feeling that Diana came to regret giving those  interviews  to her  " friend "
that were then passed onto  Andrew Morton.
It might have been cathartic for her at the  time.... but how could she give so much
private and personal information to that creep Morton   earning millions for him
and his publishers when  Diana was nt going to get a red cent out of it.

  It shows how  foolish and naive she was at that time...  and probably vindictive  too !


Very well said
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 11, 2010, 06:47:11 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-37.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-38.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-40.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Condecontessa on April 11, 2010, 09:56:48 AM
On reply# 577, the first pic that you posted violetta, the princess looks like she's taking a little nap. How sweet. Thanks for posting the pics.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 11, 2010, 10:14:53 AM
I do not think she was taking a nap.  She & Charles had just a big argument and she was not speaking to him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 11, 2010, 11:08:27 AM
On reply# 577, the first pic that you posted violetta, the princess looks like she's taking a little nap. How sweet. Thanks for posting the pics.


i`m sure this picture was taken in germany,during the waleses` visit there.it was 86 or 87 i.e. when their relations started to deteriorate. if you lok at their body language it`s clear that they are drifting apart...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 12, 2010, 12:31:02 AM
I like pic *571, the first one.
It shows Diana and Anne having fun - for a change.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 12, 2010, 02:59:18 AM
 i watched a 50 min vid last night about Diana and her jewellry
very interesting.... the cambridge emeralds  etc...
interesting that she was fond of  pearl chokers ...  ( reminiscent of  Princess Alexandra )
Ill have to put the vid on rapidshare and send in a link ! )
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 12, 2010, 04:10:42 AM
I think I've seen that Heavenscent.
Was part of 'The Private Eye', and was called Diana's Life In Jewels'?, cause if it was it was quite good.
Did you see the pic where Diana is wearing a choker that she received as a gift from an Arabian Prince and after her death Camilla is seen wearing it. I'm sure it was a brooch.

By the way "The Private Eye"? or something like it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 12, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
It's on youtube.  Was going to have a look until I read the third line of Lindelle's last post.  I think I'd choke...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 12, 2010, 11:09:04 PM
No, really you should watch it.
If i'm mistaken with it being called 'Private Eye', then of course, "Diana, her life in jewels", will get you there.
Yes Grace I was disgusted when the photo of Camilla wearing the EXACT brooch was shown.
The gall of that woman.
It's one thing to say a piece of jewellery is ok to be worn as it's part of the crown, but this was Diana's personal jewel. And there's Camilla sitting there in all her glory WEARING it.
I would've thought PC would have had more feeling for his boy's than to let her wear it.
Absolutely abhorent.

But a fascinating amount of jewels.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 01:34:10 AM
We do not know the circumstances behind that, though.  AS I understand,  Diana's jewels were given to her sons, so perhaps they gave it to Camilla to wear.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 13, 2010, 02:13:10 AM
Who really cares for that matter? The point is, that the brooch appears to have been worn by both Diana and Camilla! If it is the same piece....so what? It appears to be family piece! If William and Harry weren't up in arms about it, than why should we minions be?

Does it really matter? For goodness sake it is only a piece of poxy jewelry after all! Surely we are all 'mature' and emotionally responsible enough to accept that if William and Harry have no issue than neither should nor really by right, do any of us for that matter! IMHo there are far more pressing things that all immediate members of the family including Diana, had she lived, would have worried about than who was wearing Queen Alexandra's brooch!!!!

I defy any Diana worshippers to turn round and post back a 'But the boys were probably forced by duty to accept the situation....' type 'nonsense' rubbish! We all know that such a situation is not the case!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 02:31:20 AM
So True, Margot. When alive, Diana did not  set much store for her jewelry, and  she had some  fabulous stuff. She wore it beautifully, but  she seemed  not to take it too seriusly, prefering simple pearls over the over-the-top  stuff the  Arabs gave her.
 Personally, I do not care  for Camilla, but    I do not think her wearing a  pice of jewekry does Diana  any dishonour.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 13, 2010, 02:56:26 AM
Who really cares for that matter? The point is, that the brooch appears to have been worn by both Diana and Camilla! If it is the same piece....so what? It appears to be family piece! If William and Harry weren't up in arms about it, than why should we minions be?

Does it really matter? For goodness sake it is only a piece of poxy jewelry after all! Surely we are all 'mature' and emotionally responsible enough to accept that if William and Harry have no issue than neither should nor really by right, do any of us for that matter! IMHo there are far more pressing things that all immediate members of the family including Diana, had she lived, would have worried about than who was wearing Queen Alexandra's brooch!!!!

I defy any Diana worshippers to turn round and post back a 'But the boys were probably forced by duty to accept the situation....' type 'nonsense' rubbish! We all know that such a situation is not the case!



See, this is why I like this forum. We can agree to disagree without the nonsense .
Margot, you have just put another outlook on that story, you may well be right. I didn't even consider that the boys MAY have given it to her BUT it wasn't PA brooch, it was Diana's. :)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on April 13, 2010, 03:36:13 AM
If we are talking about the same piece that Diana wore as a a pendant and which later on, Camilla appears to have worn as a brooch than it seems that originally this piece belonged to Queen Alexandra and passed via Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to Diana.  We are talking about the circular diamond pendant with the emerald drop which Diana wore as part of a necklace aren't we? Or have we our wires crossed? 

 Please do not bring up the leek brooch, as I am not referring to that piece! (Just in case anyone wants to jump in and bring it up, nor the 'Wales feathers' for that matter!!!!) The piece in question very distinctive, and should any care to watch the youtube link provided above, will see that it is quite evidently one and the same or a copy of a particular piece with provenance as per photographic evidence! If, Lindelle you are referring to another piece, I would be fascinated to know to which piece you are referring?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 13, 2010, 05:24:20 AM
I think Lindelle was referring to the large sapphire brooch Diana was given (I think also with matching earrings) that she had made into a choker as she never wore brooches.  Perhaps we should wait until she clarifies this before we continue the argum, er, I mean discussion.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 13, 2010, 08:13:36 AM
Well any one of us could be right.
If I am wrong then please forgive me.
I'll check the site tomorrow, re-watch the programme.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 11:12:42 AM
Well any one of us could be right.
If I am wrong then please forgive me.
I'll check the site tomorrow, re-watch the programme.
Camilla wears many similar necklaces to those once worn by Diana...indeed at least 2 chokers she wore long before Diana had such gems.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 11:15:21 AM
So True, Margot. When alive, Diana did not  set much store for her jewelry, and  she had some  fabulous stuff. She wore it beautifully, but  she seemed  not to take it too seriusly, prefering simple pearls over the over-the-top  stuff the  Arabs gave her.
 Personally, I do not care  for Camilla, but    I do not think her wearing a  pice of jewekry does Diana  any dishonour.
I think you are slightly wrong there..Diana knew how to impress with gems when the occasion demanded.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 11:36:19 AM
I understand what you say, Ashdean,  The point I was getting at is she used them as just that- props for her  looks  as you say, as the occaiasion called for. She did not deck herself for   everyday events or  a meal with friends. She was a very beautiful woman and did not need a lot of adornment. That is why simple pearls complementd her.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 13, 2010, 11:48:49 AM
Its  about  a  50 min documentary,  I ll get it uploaded to rapidshare or somewhere eventually
you ll be a ble  to watch it in much better quality than U tube.
the cambridge emeralds... which Diana often wore, were obtained  I think from Germany
by  Mary of  Tecks mother....   they were given   by Mary of  Tecks brother to his wife...
But  Mary of  Teck  eventually  recovered them
 Ive got caps of Mary of Tecks  mother....  which Ill post....(not very flattering pics !)
I suppose Charles got possession of  Diana's  fabulous jewellry...... thats why Camilla is seen wearing
  Diana's  choker  .....   !
 shes really rubbing it in is nt she  !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 13, 2010, 11:51:36 AM
Camilla doesn't seem the type to "rub it in" IMO.....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 12:54:11 PM
Its  about  a  50 min documentary,  I ll get it uploaded to rapidshare or somewhere eventually
you ll be a ble  to watch it in much better quality than U tube.
the cambridge emeralds... which Diana often wore, were obtained  I think from Germany
by  Mary of  Tecks mother....   they were given   by Mary of  Tecks brother to his wife...
But  Mary of  Teck  eventually  recovered them
 Ive got caps of Mary of Tecks  mother....  which Ill post....(not very flattering pics !)
I suppose Charles got possession of  Diana's  fabulous jewellry...... thats why Camilla is seen wearing
  Diana's  choker  .....   !
 shes really rubbing it in is nt she  !
Sorry to contradict you on 2 points,
Prince Francis of Teck gave his mothers emeralds to his married mistress...he was never married.
Camilla has never worn any of Dianas jewels though she has many SIMILAR pieces and at least one identical one...The Queens personal order.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
And, Diana's jewels went to her sons, for the most part.  I think there were some small bequests to others as well.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 02:28:00 PM
And, Diana's jewels went to her sons, for the most part.  I think there were some small bequests to others as well.
I was under the same impression..
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 13, 2010, 07:05:37 PM
ive got about 1/3 of it uploaded to pando, Ill post a link when its done

meanwhile... I was wondering where Diana got her fabulous looks from,
her mother of course... but no doubt also from  her Grandmother.....Lady Fermoy


could this be  a  young  Lady Fermoy ?
(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6486/dianadidiiffeiruruur19.jpg) (http://img263.imageshack.us/i/dianadidiiffeiruruur19.jpg/)




 Here is Lady Fermoy... at the wedding I believe.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9949/dianadidiiffeiruruur23.jpg) (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/dianadidiiffeiruruur23.jpg/)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 13, 2010, 08:06:13 PM
If we are talking about the same piece that Diana wore as a a pendant and which later on, Camilla appears to have worn as a brooch than it seems that originally this piece belonged to Queen Alexandra and passed via Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to Diana.  We are talking about the circular diamond pendant with the emerald drop which Diana wore as part of a necklace aren't we? Or have we our wires crossed? 

 Please do not bring up the leek brooch, as I am not referring to that piece! (Just in case anyone wants to jump in and bring it up, nor the 'Wales feathers' for that matter!!!!) The piece in question very distinctive, and should any care to watch the youtube link provided above, will see that it is quite evidently one and the same or a copy of a particular piece with provenance as per photographic evidence! If, Lindelle you are referring to another piece, I would be fascinated to know to which piece you are referring?



Yes, you are correct Margot. PC gave a necklace to Diana which in turn Camilla had made into a brooch.

Still, I'd feel strange if my husband gave me something that he'd previously given to his first wife. Royalty or not.

I did apologise for if I was mistaken and that still stands.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 14, 2010, 08:07:15 AM
Camilla doesn't seem the type to "rub it in" IMO.....

I have to be fair and agree with you here, Eddie.  I've never seen or heard of an instance where Camilla has overtly flaunted her position or what it's given her since her relationship with Prince Charles became official, jewellery included.  I don't really have a problem with her wearing items belonging to the royal family, only I feel it would be wrong for her to wear any which were personally gifted to Diana and it appears from our discussions that she hasn't done this.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 14, 2010, 09:14:15 AM
Diana's  Jewellry  video  ( about  50 mins )

go here
(http://cache.pando.com/soapservices/SendToWeb/8C9B656D9EBE16EE1A92B6DA80A5D1BB7F7FF4CD/F435E3D4E59EAE102BA9AB789767FB6A/Preview.png) (http://cache.pando.com/soapservices/Package/package.pando?id=8C9B656D9EBE16EE1A92B6DA80A5D1BB7F7FF4CD&key=01139785AA5D1A8D92BF6695A41FA44C763DF92DB75430F6D5D878903173A7CE&tt=S2W&embedId=F435E3D4E59EAE102BA9AB789767FB6A)

posted on pando   14th april 2010   Hurry, it will only be up there for a few days
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 14, 2010, 09:03:41 PM
Camilla doesn't seem the type to "rub it in" IMO.....

I have to be fair and agree with you here, Eddie.  I've never seen or heard of an instance where Camilla has overtly flaunted her position or what it's given her since her relationship with Prince Charles became official, jewellery included.  I don't really have a problem with her wearing items belonging to the royal family, only I feel it would be wrong for her to wear any which were personally gifted to Diana and it appears from our discussions that she hasn't done this.


This particular one we are talking about came from Charles. But that's where it ends as I don't know wether it's a family heirloom or if he purchased it for her.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 17, 2010, 03:47:57 PM
Diana's debut dress... the one she wore at age  19
is being sold at auction
go here
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/201004133274/princess-diana/dresses/auction/1/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 18, 2010, 03:58:13 AM
one of my favorite hats,probably my favorite.the only thing that i don`t like about this outfit is the length of diana`s skirt but it was probably the royal dress code that defined the length of skirt and all other features of the outfit

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-44.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-42.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-45.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 18, 2010, 07:50:24 AM
I don't think it was the royal dress code which decided the length of Diana's skirts, she just wore what was in fashion at the time.  This was the length most women's skirts were then.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: jehan on April 18, 2010, 03:32:20 PM
I don't think it was the royal dress code which decided the length of Diana's skirts, she just wore what was in fashion at the time.  This was the length most women's skirts were then.

True, just look at the skirts worn by the women above her on the ladder.  Also, it would appear she is visiting a middle eastern nation, where longer more modest skirts would have been more appropriate attire.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on April 18, 2010, 05:24:29 PM
one of my favorite hats,probably my favorite.the only thing that i don`t like about this outfit is the length of diana`s skirt but it was probably the royal dress code that defined the length of skirt and all other features of the outfit

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-44.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-42.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-45.jpg)


She did have to have her skirts at a decent level as she said once herself, when she was crouching down to speak to a child, the last thing people neded to see was under her skirt. So she took a view of being practical as well, whilst admitting she wasn't always happy with the lengths herself.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 19, 2010, 04:28:38 AM
After her separation from Prince Charles, her hemlines rose a great deal but she still looked elegant.  If ever anyone looked terrifiic in a short skirt, it was Diana.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 19, 2010, 06:39:45 AM
i do remember what skirt length was in ashion in the 1980-s.i do understand the requirements of diana`s activities BUT when i look at her legs i feel sorry that she had to hide them for so many years!!! 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 19, 2010, 08:02:55 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-41.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-70.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-46.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 19, 2010, 08:42:52 AM
Diana showed such style... right from the getgo
here she is.... en route to the honeymoon
 

(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6245/dianadidiiffeiruruur27.jpg) (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/dianadidiiffeiruruur27.jpg/)

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 19, 2010, 08:53:21 AM
Diana and sister in law, Princess An ne. The watermark is from a forum where i moderate

(http://i43.tinypic.com/309o4l3.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on April 19, 2010, 09:14:39 AM
Yes, She was a remarkable person, charismatic and very stylish! Some of the critical remarks puzzle me! Why in the World would someone in the Media bother you?  ...either you were fascinated with her or you weren't? Personally I thought She was the best thing that ever happened to the Royal Family and that Charles was an idiot to prefer Camilla. And according to one of her biographies Prince Phillip said the same thing to her! She married for love and got a man who went down the aisle wearing cuff links given him by Camilla with their pet names for each other in the initials. As She said "there were three in that Marriage!"  Her Sons during the ten year anniversary of her death saw Harry telling us "to us her sons she was the best Mother in the World." I think that sums up how "they felt" much better than any other opinions.

 These photographs remind me of how beautiful She was! That blue and white Hat middle of the page and her smile is just amazing...what a shame she is not here today!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 21, 2010, 01:55:50 PM
a few more pictures of diana wearing absolutely fabulous hats matching her equally fabulous outfits

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-47.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-48.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-50.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-50.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on April 21, 2010, 02:16:48 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-51.jpg)



(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-52.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-63.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on April 22, 2010, 12:04:38 PM
One plate of the princess
http://www.seawaychina.com/productimages/-main/COM-Diana-Plate-Princess-of-Wales.jpg (http://www.seawaychina.com/productimages/-main/COM-Diana-Plate-Princess-of-Wales.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 03, 2010, 03:17:55 PM
diana in all hues and shades of blue.and beautiful hats


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-55.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-58.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-59.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-68.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-73.jpg)

though the last one seems to be grey,not blue
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 04, 2010, 01:41:52 PM
Funny how the clothes are starting to look dated.....she still looks great though!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on May 04, 2010, 02:12:08 PM
I  dont think it was her favourite item of clothing.... but Fergie could
wear a hat with the best of them  !

(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6893/zfergiedidifergggss222.jpg) (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/zfergiedidifergggss222.jpg/)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 04, 2010, 03:34:35 PM
Funny how the clothes are starting to look dated.....she still looks great though!


yes, some of the items look a little bit old-fashioned but not too much. may be the blue and white costume isn`t really modern (the one with white pleated skirt) and huge buttons.especially these buttons seem old-fashioned now
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: aussiechick12 on May 05, 2010, 03:39:27 AM
I love this one, it seems like she's tried to match them.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e182/aussiechick12/Windsors/Princess%20Diana/24y0k1x.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 05, 2010, 06:31:55 AM
It's a lovely photo.
Very photogenic. :)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on May 05, 2010, 10:22:07 AM
She had a great look and taste for fashion, also a great beauty and charm
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 05, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
The gown is gorgeous (sigh).
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 20, 2010, 05:58:15 AM

diana in her stunning matching hats


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-54.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-57.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-60.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-62.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-64.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-65.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-hats-67.jpg)



Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 20, 2010, 06:06:37 AM
he could look good in anything.
Thanks Violetta
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 20, 2010, 06:08:18 AM
I meant to type ' she', the first time i typed it came out ' he'. :-[
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 20, 2010, 06:19:38 AM
he could look good in anything.
Thanks Violetta

you`re welcome, Lindelle
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 23, 2010, 05:28:10 PM
pregnant diana

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-2.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Condecontessa on May 24, 2010, 12:22:32 PM
Thanks violetta!!! She looked radiant and beautiful. Can't say the same for Prince Charles. It's not a flattering pic of him (he looks rather girly in that pose because of the twist, ribbon and what looks like a sash on him). Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 24, 2010, 01:52:41 PM
Well i'm sure we all have had unflattering pictures of ourselves! Nothing wrong with looking "girly"....though I can't see it myself. :):)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Condecontessa on May 24, 2010, 02:34:54 PM
Believe me I know about having an unflattering pic taken of myself. The angle of the camera made Prince Charles look like a Miss Universe contestant because he was caught turning around to mention something to the Princess.  :)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 24, 2010, 11:03:28 PM
Can happen anytime.
There's always going to be THAT one picture where he's genuinely wiping his nose, but it'll sure say he's picked it :)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on May 25, 2010, 01:24:55 PM
wow,  just saw a fab   pic of  Di in the  sat  mail  ( may 22 )
red suit,  glass in hand.
Ill scan it in eventually and post it here.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 25, 2010, 05:16:31 PM

more pictures of diana`s first pregnancy


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-6.jpg)

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 26, 2010, 07:12:14 AM
pictures from the same photosession

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-7.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-10.jpg)


i think she was at one of the polo games. i don`t think it was her favorite pastime. she must have attended them as a dutiful royal wife and due to her love for charles.later on,when their relationship began to deteriorate,it was only duty that made her attend these games(she always gave the prize to the winner)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 27, 2010, 12:40:21 AM
I can emphasise.
I only ever went to my husbands stupid cricket matches as I was the secretary of the club, which I was talked into doing. Not the best way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
And I was pregnant too. YUCK!!!!!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on May 27, 2010, 05:56:04 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-8.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-9.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on June 09, 2010, 03:44:10 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-13.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-14.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-15.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-16.jpg)


pregnant diana during trooping the color, lovely green outfit
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on July 14, 2010, 10:28:30 AM
a very "80s chic" image of Diana

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4411620513_36dc8abc81_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on July 14, 2010, 10:49:48 AM
The Queen and Prince Phillip look great there but Charles looks a bit flummoxed.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 14, 2010, 11:39:45 AM
 The AIDS hospital/hospice that the Princess of Wales made famous- Midway Mission- is to be demolished this summer.  She made this famous by visiting and touching AIDS patients, thus breaking the "plague barrier" and giving real visibility
 to  very serious public health issue.
 I met the Princess in a similar situation at  a hospice in Oxford, visiting a friend. It was an extremely emotional  encounter,  and will always be one of my treasured memories.
 Anyway, all is not lost. The old establishment is  being rebuilt [current government not withstanding]  to meet new  capacity and  current technology in the treatments  and care of AIDS patients.
  Reference- The Pink Paper, Terrence Higgins Trust.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on July 14, 2010, 03:52:26 PM
29 july 1981 diana spencer married the prince of wales. to tell the truth, i don`t like modern royals because they are not truly royal.but princess diana is an exception because she is EVERYWOMAN for me. i can associate myself with her though our lives are totally different. but she is similar to many women because she longed for happiness and love.she was disappointed unfortunately like many women in her marriage and her hopes crumbled.

this is the picture of diana an charles`s wedding rehearsal.she looks happy and radiant not suspecting what lay ahead



(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/rehearsal1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/rehearsal2.jpg)

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on July 14, 2010, 04:46:13 PM
two more pre-wedding pictures
diana with her future mother-in-law

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-queenelizabeth1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/dianaqueenelizabeth-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on July 14, 2010, 08:40:58 PM
Violetta, is that picture taken at the front door of their apartments at Kensington Palace?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on July 15, 2010, 05:16:06 AM
29 july 1981 diana spencer married the prince of wales. to tell the truth, i don`t like modern royals because they are not truly royal.but princess diana is an exception because she is EVERYWOMAN for me. i can associate myself with her though our lives are totally different. but she is similar to many women because she longed for happiness and love.she was disappointed unfortunately like many women in her marriage and her hopes crumbled.

I know exactly where you're coming from, Violetta, I've always felt the same way about Diana and I always will...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on July 15, 2010, 04:25:21 PM
Violetta, is that picture taken at the front door of their apartments at Kensington Palace?

Lindelle,I have no idea where this picture was taken .I decided topost this picture because it show how beautifully it all began... diana thought and hoped that her future husband`s family would receive her with open arms.she was so naive and so in love that she couldn`t detect that the royals came from a totally different reality
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on July 15, 2010, 07:35:32 PM
Considering that Diana was an Earl's daughter and grew up in Althorp House, their backgrounds weren't that different.  That picture is definitely not Kensington Palace.  it is the door to a box at a polo ground, maybe Guards or maybe Cowdray Park or maybe Hurlingham
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 16, 2010, 01:27:27 AM


 diana thought and hoped that her future husband`s family would receive her with open arms.

I think they did. The Queen by all accounts was very supportive & Prince Phillip offered "to do my upmost to help you & Charles to the best of my ability. But I am quite ready to concede that I have no talent as a marriage counsellor"  !!!!...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on July 29, 2010, 10:39:33 AM
diana before her wedding, at wimbledon with her siste sarah and the duchess of kent

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/princessdiana-wimbledon-1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/princessdiana-wimbledon-2.jpg)

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on July 29, 2010, 10:41:22 AM
WOW  ... Blue is Diana's colour.... to match her eyes !


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4411620513_36dc8abc81_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 04, 2010, 03:31:09 PM
princess diana in 1982,shortly after william`s birth.her figure didn`t come back to normal .or is it the wrong dress?


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-1982-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-1982-3.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-1982-4jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 04, 2010, 05:41:10 PM
It's said Diana's bulimia/anorexia tendencies increased greatly after publication of these photos.  She subsequently lost a huge amount of weight within weeks.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on August 04, 2010, 06:02:08 PM
And she was breast feeding.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: susana on August 07, 2010, 02:09:12 AM
Yes, Harry has physical traits of the Spencers and if you remember Diana's hair also had a reddish cast in the beginning--she went blonde later. I do think his ears are a smaller version of Prince Charles's and he is drop dead gorgeous by any measurement. He shows up his brother William now they have both matured. IMO Charles has done a really good job with his sons and has continued to raise them in a way I believe Diana would approve.

I love to see photos of the three men together--they're healthy and robust and seem to have a great relationship.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 07, 2010, 02:11:54 AM
Yes, what a crying shame that Diana is nt around to see her two dashing  princes....
she would be so proud of them both
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: susana on August 07, 2010, 02:57:32 AM
This is out of line but earlier someone remarked that Trevor Rees-Jones also didn't have on his seatbelt; wrong. He alone was wearing his and lived through the accident but with major crippling injuries. Seat belts don't guarantee safety but can reduce damage in some accidents.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 07, 2010, 03:20:00 AM
Diana was so lovely
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=981#p981
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on August 07, 2010, 08:05:07 AM
I´m sorry is this a wax doll?

Thanks for the link. I never saw Dianas mother so young!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 07, 2010, 08:22:22 AM
Well done  Rani,  I fooled everyone else but I suppose
someone would rumble it some time...... !

go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=982#p982



.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: imperial angel on August 08, 2010, 08:05:37 AM

more pictures of diana`s first pregnancy


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-6.jpg)



Does anyone know Diana is with in this picture?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 08, 2010, 08:26:13 AM
as far as i know this is ronald ferguson`s (duchess of york`s father) second wife
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 08, 2010, 08:34:08 AM
just wondering... does Dianas brother.. the present Earl Spencer... have a thread
anywhere on this forum ?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 08, 2010, 01:44:57 PM
I hope not - he is ghastly!!! ;);)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 08, 2010, 02:17:54 PM
  Its  only that Ive just noticed what a babe Caroline ( his ex wife ! )   really is ...
 to think, she would have been Di's  sis in law ( wonder if they ever met ? )

go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=498&p=986#p986
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 08, 2010, 03:37:31 PM
lol. Caroline was his first wife & Diana did attend there wedding, she dressed quite plainly on order not to take attention away from the bride apprently!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 08, 2010, 04:09:59 PM
lol. Caroline was his first wife & Diana did attend there wedding, she dressed quite plainly on order not to take attention away from the bride apprently!

she was weaing this outfit for her brother`s first wedding. she wore the same outfit at ascott,in 1988. actually,this is a photo taken at ascott. simple outfit but very very chic IMHO

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-ascot-1988-2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 08, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
No  Eddie   you re getting confused,   the  Caroline in my pictures is his second wife
the one he married in 2001  .
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on August 08, 2010, 08:17:16 PM
When ever I see Diana in her dresses , I remember what  the designer Bill Blass said when Diana  asked him what he thought of the dresses she put up for auction. Mr, Blass pause for a moment and said, "It's amazing what you brought to them?  Indeed.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 09, 2010, 11:00:09 AM
No  Eddie   you re getting confused,   the  Caroline in my pictures is his second wife
the one he married in 2001  .

Oh yes "CATHERINE" was his first wife! I bow to your superior knowledge!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 09, 2010, 05:44:03 PM
Charles Edward Maurice Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, was born on May 20 1964.  He was married to Victoria Lockwood (1989-1997 - four children) and Caroline Hutton (1992-2007 - two children - and she also had two children from a previous marriage).  In 2010, Spencer announced his intention to marry for the third time.  This is to Bianca Eliot, Lady Eliot, widow of Jago Eliot, Lord Eliot, with whom she had three children.

Personally, I don't know how he keeps up with it all!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 10, 2010, 03:23:43 AM
WIKI  says he married  Caroline   15 dec 2001
like Diana  a blonde,  like  Diana a former nursery teacher
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 10, 2010, 03:56:02 AM
Sorry, yes, I had it that he was married to two women at the same time!  Still...we ARE talking about Charles Spencer you know!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 10, 2010, 11:01:22 AM
tHE  Earl must have around 6 children already !   all cousins of  Harry and William of course
no doubt there are more children in the pipeline
this  saga will just run and  run !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on August 11, 2010, 04:13:43 AM
I hope not - he is ghastly!!! ;);)
Never a truer word said Eddie!
The Earl is also a total hypocrite.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 11, 2010, 08:39:50 AM
yes , I think if I was a rich as the Earl with all that land and property, Id have
a harem of women at my beck and call.... why not ?

I mean look at the Marquess of Bath with his wifelets ! they re all at it !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 11, 2010, 02:44:06 PM
yes Lord Bath is a very interesting person.  He should change his name to the Marquis of Hottub.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 11, 2010, 03:47:11 PM
Maybe we need a new sub-section............. Aristos.....
and the Marquis could get his own thread in there !
some of the Aristos are more interesting ( and outrageous ) than the Royals !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on August 11, 2010, 11:07:43 PM
They can be, they're not in the media as much as the Royals, they're just RICH. ;)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 12, 2010, 01:49:37 AM
I hope not - he is ghastly!!! ;);)
Never a truer word said Eddie!
The Earl is also a total hypocrite.

I agree 100% ashdean!!! All that nonsense he spouted at Diana's funeral. What a nerve!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on August 12, 2010, 03:59:16 AM
Am I missing something here? Why is Earl Spencer regarded as such a pariah?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 12, 2010, 08:11:39 AM
Looking at Harry, I used to think ....  could be the son of the red haired James Hewitt...
but seeing a photo of  Harry together with  his uncle the  Earl   (and  Dianas brother.... )
they look so alike....

 hes obviously got a lot more of the Spencer genes (red hair etc )
than William.... who like Diana is probably genetically more on the  Roche  side of things.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 12, 2010, 08:13:26 AM
Charles Spencer was accused of both physical and emotional abuse of his first wife causing her to suffer anorexia and addiction problems.  He left his second wife when their child was just four months old and was said to be a "serial adulterer" during both marriages.  His ex-girlfriends, and there are many, many of them, don't seem to have fond memories of him either.  He is regarded as a bit of a "cad" I think.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 12, 2010, 08:15:58 AM
Edmund Roche....  father of  Frances,  Grandfather of  Lady Di...

basically an  American  guy..............

(http://i37.tinypic.com/2qdoeqf.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on August 12, 2010, 09:05:42 AM
Did Diana really said that Harry would be the better King?
I think she was right.

Ah, and Charles Spencer: awkward.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 12, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
Am I missing something here? Why is Earl Spencer regarded as such a pariah?

He wasn't there for Diana when she needed him. Long story but following her divorce, when she wanted some time out She asked her brother for a cottage on his estate to retreat too, he agreed and then changed his mind, I think complaining of the press intrusion. Apparently Diana was very hurt about his.
Infact where they on speaking terms even when she died??? I know she was not on speaking terms with her mother about something she said in an article about Diana losing her title.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 12, 2010, 12:17:53 PM
Shows how people can be deluded... Diana wanted a cottage on the estate...
as a bolthole... but her evil brother refused...

In fact the actual story is that the demanding Diana wanted one of the prime
properties on the estate  and when  the Earl refused to give in to her  wishes
she went off in a  huff.
   He was quite prepared to  give or lend her one of the properties on the estate
but Diana... as always,  wanted the very best.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 12, 2010, 12:25:46 PM
Who's deluded?

I'm not blind to Dianas faults but that sounds unlikely.

Diane Her True Story by Richard Kay & Diana by Anne Edwards are my sources, what are yours?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Margot on August 12, 2010, 04:53:52 PM
Charles Spencer was accused of both physical and emotional abuse of his first wife causing her to suffer anorexia and addiction problems.  He left his second wife when their child was just four months old and was said to be a "serial adulterer" during both marriages.  His ex-girlfriends, and there are many, many of them, don't seem to have fond memories of him either.  He is regarded as a bit of a "cad" I think.

Okey Dokey Thanks for clarifying Grace and Eddie! The fallout from his marriages does go some way to reveal the more repellant and less attractive aspects of the Earl's character, but the issue of providing a house at Althorp as a bolt hole seems a tad more complicated. I am not defending the Earl as I do not know the full details of what occurred, but the logistics of having probably the most famous woman in the world living on his property and the security considerations and logistics involved when trying to run a stately home as a viable business open to the public, seems to me a little daunting to say the least! I just think that in the case of the 'bolt hole' there were no doubt two sides to this story and it is a shame that Lord Spencer's side does not appear to have been given fair hearing! I always thought that the security issues and balancing privacy and logistics were his prime concern! Perhaps someone here who knows the facts will be able to throw light on this issue!  
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 18, 2010, 05:42:05 PM
Having just watched the so-called "Settelen tapes" in which Diana confides all, including private details of her dealings with the royal family and her sex life with Prince Charles on tape whilst Settelen films her, I can't believe she was SO STUPID as to allow this!  Settelen should not have sold these tapes in any circumstances but, honestly, Diana could be the most naive woman on the planet!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 12:34:49 AM
Princess Diana was a complicated person with psychological problems and possibly psychiatric problems.  It is quite possible she had something like Borderline personality complex which makes risky behaviour attractive.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on August 19, 2010, 02:28:21 AM
Having just watched the so-called "Settelen tapes" in which Diana confides all, including private details of her dealings with the royal family and her sex life with Prince Charles on tape whilst Settelen films her, I can't believe she was SO STUPID as to allow this!  Settelen should not have sold these tapes in any circumstances but, honestly, Diana could be the most naive woman on the planet!


Hi Grace,
Is the "Settelen tapes" the ones where she admitted pushing Raine down the stairs?
I know I saw this somewhere and was wondering if what you watched was where she was speaking with her voice coach.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 19, 2010, 03:41:49 AM

Hi Grace,
Is the "Settelen tapes" the ones where she admitted pushing Raine down the stairs?
I know I saw this somewhere and was wondering if what you watched was where she was speaking with her voice coach.

Hi Lindelle,

Those are the ones, yes, though I haven't watched it all yet (I fell asleep on my couch).  Surely she wouldn't really have pushed her father's second wife down the stairs?  She also said she "slapped her father across the face" when he told her he had married Raine!  Was she exaggerating or was she really that horrific?  I just can't picture it!  She really was foolish though, to allow herself to be recorded blurting out all that stuff.

Constantinople, Diana had her issues but I don't think she had genuine "psychiatric" problems or Borderline Personality Complex.  Some so-called experts stated some time ago she wouldn't have been able to conduct public duties and her general life in the way she did had she had serious psychiatric issues.  I think she was just a person with some very contradictory personal traits, that's all.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on August 19, 2010, 05:44:42 AM
Grace, I don't know about slapping her father across the face, wether it's  heresay or not, but I'd only heard/read about her pushing Raine down the stairs via the media,  until I actually saw and heard how she explained what she did, I'd never have believed it. I can't think what motivates one to do such a thing. And yes she was very foolish as to blab about it - not something you'd want the public to hear about. I certainly thought differently about her when I realised it was true.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 07:12:15 AM
People suffer psychiatric conditions to various extents.  And Diana suffered a number of symptons that comprise a number of psychiatric conditions.  She had eating disorders, liked risk and was to some degree promiscuous.  She certainly was known for acting out.  People with borderline personality disorder often as seen to have a high level of charisma as well, which she had.  The tapes that you spoke of earlier and her biographies show someone acting out serious psychological problems.  As well with the number of keepers around her and the somewhat flexible nature of her schedule, it was also possible for her to remain out of the public eye on her worse days.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 19, 2010, 07:26:49 AM
Not everybody who acts oddly has a psychiatric condition though.  Sometimes people just...act oddly from time to time!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 07:28:27 AM
Diana did not show these conditions occasionally but consistently and that is a hallmark of psychological or psychiatric problems.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 19, 2010, 08:01:16 AM
the issue of providing a house at Althorp as a bolt hole seems a tad more complicated. I am not defending the Earl as I do not know the full details of what occurred, but the logistics of having probably the most famous woman in the world living on his property and the security considerations and logistics involved when trying to run a stately home as a viable business open to the public, seems to me a little daunting to say the least! ! I always thought that the security issues and balancing privacy and logistics were his prime concern! Perhaps someone here who knows the facts will be able to throw light on this issue!  

I don't know anything about what Diana asked for, and what the Earl's true reasons were for denying her.  But I did just pop onto the Althorp Estate website to see if it was likely the princess' occupancy would have harmed the security or commercial functioning of the estate.

And what I found is that Althorp Estate consists of 14,000 acres in Northamptonshire and in Norfolk.  To put that into perspective, 14,000 acres equals 22 square miles of land.  Included are a large number of houses, cottages and commercial properties, most of which are leased out.

I find it hard to believe there was not a single appropriate property somewhere on the Estate, miles away from the manor house and its immediate grounds, which could have been appropriate as Diana's country home without causing a security risk or interrupting the Earl's ability to generate funds.

Was Diana insisting on a particular property?  Was the Earl just a cad?  It seems reasonable to me that the claims put out in the public (by both sides) were probably not the whole true story.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on August 19, 2010, 05:32:08 PM
I agree.
If the Earl was being a cad I wouldn't be surprised if it was because Diana wanted a specific place and it may not have been that easy to accomodate her where she wished.
So in saying that, if he HAS denied her a home, it may have been she didn't want another offer?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 20, 2010, 01:13:24 AM
Diana apparently wanted the "Garden House" on the Althorp estate. However in "Diana, A Closely Guarded Secret" Ken Wharfe states that Earl Spencer telephoned and offered her the use of the property, she was very pleased and excited. He was dispatched to investigate security, and found it perfect.  Unfortunately, after building up her hopes her brother said he was no longer happy about the idea because he was uneasy about the added security presence.

As some one has pointed out, 4 years later he had no problem bringing Diana and opening it up as a memorial to her and making money, I know a lot has gone to Charity..
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 20, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
THAT was a disgrace, burying Diana on some poxy island in the middle of a  pond,
She was an icon of the British people, she deserved to be buried in Westminster Abbey with
statues and an elaborate  monumental tomb.

People who loved her, could have visited her tomb in the  abbey  and paid their respects.

Her tomb would have become  a national monument,
Instead...(.so  we are told).... she was buried on that poxy island on the Earl Spencer estate.



As usual, the great British public lose out in the end.


.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 20, 2010, 10:39:43 AM
While your sentiments are obviously sincere and heartfelt Heavensent, I must disagree for several reasons.

First, members of the public may wish to consider themselves "the people who loved her", except.....none of you ever met her.  And most people who did meet her did so her only for a fleeting moment.

The real people who loved her were those who shared her life.  Her mother, her sisters and brother, and most importantly, her two sons. And all those people decided to bury her at her family home.  Yes, Earl Spencer may be making money from the result, but it was not solely his decision where Diana was buried. 

I can think of many legitimate reasons they decided to bury Diana at Althorp instead of at the Abby under a huge monument - can't you?  And I can't see exactly how the "Great British Public" is losing out?  If someone wishes to mourn for Diana, they may simply do so.  Must they have a slab of marble to stare at?  And, those who simply cannot mourn without something to look at may always go to the Diana Fountain at Kensington Gardens, or travel to Althrop, wander into the beautiful gardens and sit on a bench along the peaceful lake, looking across at the tree-covered island which was approved by William and Harry as their mother's final resting spot.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 20, 2010, 11:24:57 AM
Being in exactly the same position as the Earl , with 3 sisters
and  having lost one sister far too young, I think I have an idea
what the family are going through... of course her close family were devastated.


In medieval times the Cathedrals used to fight and squabble over the remains of
famous people for the right to bury them in their own cathedral for the prestige and
for the  fee paying pilgrims that their grave and monument would attract...

I dare say  we have witnessed a modern version of that... though I cant
really say that the Earl has been making money from Diana's presence on his estate...
nor does he really need any more money.

But was she really buried on the island ?
Don't remember seeing any film or photos of the internment !

Re the Diana Tapes,  found this on  U  tube
go here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZhU2eS-bg4
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 20, 2010, 01:18:59 PM
You may be right, I am only supposing that ticket sales at Althorp increased following Diana's burial there.  I do not know for sure.

Since the family chose a private burial at the family home, there may not be any photos or film of the event. If there are, I sincerely hope they are locked away in a vault somewhere beneath Althrop House, not to be seen for decades if ever.

As to whether or not Diana is buried on the island or not, I suppose only the government, the immediate family, and any clergy and staff present are the only ones who know for sure.  Frankly, it's none of our business. 

We saw one filmmaker's interpretation of what happened that week in the movie The Queen, but even if it was 100% accurate, it only focused on the adult royal family and Blair, not on the thoughts and wishes of the Spencers or the two young princes.  And frankly, those were the only people who's opinions mattered.  I can't imagine all of the dynamics that were going on that week when funeral decisions were made.  She's the mother of the future King.  She's not a HRH.  She's a public figure.  She's a private person.  The public wants a huge spectacle.  The Spencers want a private affair, and so does the Queen.  The media killed her, we need to protect her.  No, we need to have a state funeral and the works.  No, give her the peace she never got in life.  Depending on who you asked, you got a totally different answer.

As distasteful as the topic is to write about, if I had been a member of the family responsible for making funeral decisions, I would have been very concerned with the short-term and long-term security of her remains.  We all saw how irrational and emotional people were acting that week - I would fear that some crazy person would break into Althorp's grounds and try to steal the remains - for profit, for ransom, for fame, or whatever. 

So I'd be tempted to recommend that the family place her actual remains elsewhere in an unmarked grave known only to those few who needed to know - and perhaps place a marker on the island as a decoy.  Then someday in the future when the emotions had calmed, we could always either quietly move her, or even come clean and hold a formal public reburial somewhere else.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see - eventually these sorts of things become known when the time is right.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 20, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Of course she's buried on the island!  Why wouldn't she be?  Prince Charles and his sons were filmed travelling out there after her funeral for her burial.  Does anyone really think they would be complicit in duping the public about this on that very day?

Although it somewhat troubles me to think of Diana's earthly remains lying anywhere near that irksome brother of hers, she was always prouder of her Spencer heritage than she was of the royal titles she acquired on her marriage.  I think she would have far more preferred to be buried at Althorp than she would somewhere with the Windsors because, in the end, she didn't regard them as her family (apart from her sons of course).   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on August 20, 2010, 06:51:57 PM
she was always prouder of her Spencer heritage than she was of the royal titles she acquired on her marriage.

She was proud of being descended from a long line of privileged toffs? How did she express this? Indirectly, through that aforementioned typically aristocratic blasé attitude to her royal status?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 20, 2010, 07:00:36 PM
From memory, she said it in the Morton book which, however you view this book, was Diana's recorded word.  
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 22, 2010, 12:00:03 PM


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-17.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-20.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-18.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 22, 2010, 04:10:02 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-7.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-9.jpg)

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on August 22, 2010, 04:25:41 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-9.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/diana-pregnant-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on August 22, 2010, 06:24:33 PM
I read that Diana was very snobby towards Sophie Wessex and jealous about the relationship between her and QEII.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 22, 2010, 08:15:46 PM
That's a bit hard to understand as Diana was dead before Sophie even became a member of the royal family.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 22, 2010, 08:32:08 PM
I agree with Grace. Where did you read that, Rani ? The Daily Mail  perhaps?
  On the other hand, Al Fayeed has come out with a statement that he burned the Royal Warrants for Harrods, as the RF did not shop there any longer. But asked, in the sale of the place that his "memorial" to Dodi & Diana remain in place.
 Fair dinkins, I suppose. I have seen it, and it is supremely tacky in my opinion.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 22, 2010, 09:12:17 PM
I think the establishment have kept their distance from Al Fayeed for some reason...
we probably wont know the  full details till after his death and biogs will begin to bring out
the full story.

  I think after the Diana ... her true story book  and hearing about her various romances.. tantrums
etc,  the public were getting a little tired of Diana .

They found it a little odd that she was galavanting on a yaught in the Med with Dodi the
playboy.... a little tacky too.

  I think they just sighed and turned over the newspaper page
  Diana was becoming a bore..... but things were very soon to change.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on August 23, 2010, 09:33:21 AM
Edward and Sophie were a couple since 1993. She dated him a long time. And in this time, the family met her, Diana, too.
The story is exaggerated, but maybe Diana felt that way. We don´t know.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 23, 2010, 11:26:05 AM
I think the establishment have kept their distance from Al Fayeed for some reason...



Erm, why do you think? He's a crook and a liar, ghastly man in fact!!!!!. I feel sorry for Princes William & Harry having to hear Fayeds lies about there mothers last "apparent"  moments.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 23, 2010, 12:38:01 PM
Yes, EddieUK,  the man is dreadful, I agree.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 23, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
I was on flickr looking at waxwork figures around the world, there was one up
there of Al fayeed and from what I could figure it is on a kind of plinth in the store somewhere
..... for the moment anyway !  I read last week that he d sold the store for  £ 1.5 billion
( but thats only rumour )
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 23, 2010, 12:43:59 PM
Well I just think the lies where bad!! Didn't he claim a nurse told him Diana's last words where "Bury me next to Dodi"  !!!!

& how Prince Phillip was horrible to Diana when his letters to her show differently.....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 23, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Heavensent,  he did sell Harrod's, to the Qatari royal family. It is not a rumor.  I used to go the food halls there, but stopped going altogether after he started his  feud and lies, as EddieUK mentioned. I did see the awful maudlin  "memorial" to Dodi & Diana though.  There is nothing he can do about Diana, but he has had Dodi dug up and reburied more than once. And, speaking of Diana, last I heard, her grave was sinking on that island.  Anyone know the latest about that?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 23, 2010, 04:28:26 PM
I think poor Raine got it in the neck from the Earls jealous and resentful daughters...
non moreso than  the teenage Diana.
They resented the changes she was  bringing about... maybe they thought she was dominating the Earl ?

However in later life Diana came to realise how important Raine had been in her father's life and how
much he loved her.   Amazingly Diana and Raine became very close and had lunch together on a regular basis.
In fact from  what I have read about Raine she was  ( or is ) a very  bright and intelligent lady ...
 a real charmer in fact...
go here
 http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1011#p1011


.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 23, 2010, 05:09:19 PM
 Heavensent, I did not know Raine was still even alive! Last I heard about her she was on the board at Harrod's [tallk about irony] I did know, however that she and Diana had a rapprochement, of sorts. The Princess needed friends, especially  older women who could guide her. As we all know, this did not go well for her in all cases. Especially  her sisters.  They seemed to be tigers on wheels,  IMO.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 23, 2010, 06:31:13 PM
Hi Robert,

Yes, the Countess Raine is still alive and lives in the Mayfair district of London.  She must be about 80 now....
I know people who have seen her out and about and say she is very cheery and gracious and splendidly dressed.
She seems to have been on committes in the past to preserve art, architecture and the environment.  I think when all is said and done that she is perceived as an intelligent woman.  Perhaps overbearing, but we need overbearing intelligence in this world today!!!

I did love her nickname though:  "Acid Raine"....

Larry
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 24, 2010, 12:17:17 AM
Fayed is an interesting creature.  Although the quoted source of his wealth was the initial development of Dubai, there are a lot of rumours that the intermediate step that he took to get the money for construction was through arms deals.  He covered his tracks well but there was a lot of dealings with Adnan Khashogi initially.  I heard a story that he took down the royal warrants from Harrods.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 24, 2010, 12:24:42 AM
Ah research is interesting.  Dodi's mother and Mohammed's first wife was the sister of Adnan Khashoggi, who was one of the world's biggest arms dealers, who tries to camouflage those deals with legitimate deals.  While most of those deals were between the US and the Saudis, he probably was also doing side deals with other countries in the region.  Khashoggi was implicated as the go between in the Iran Contra deal.  To understate it, Fayed has some very interesting connections.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 24, 2010, 06:16:11 AM
I think poor Raine got it in the neck from the Earls jealous and resentful daughters...
non moreso than  the teenage Diana.
They resented the changes she was  bringing about... maybe they thought she was dominating the Earl ?

However in later life Diana came to realise how important Raine had been in her father's life and how
much he loved her.   Amazingly Diana and Raine became very close and had lunch together on a regular basis.
In fact from  what I have read about Raine she was  ( or is ) a very  bright and intelligent lady ...
 a real charmer in fact...
go here
 http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1011#p1011
Heavensent, it wasn’t just the “changes” Raine made that made her stepchildren resent her.  They actually had some very good reasons for their feelings.  I think Diana deserves great credit for making peace with her stepmother after her father’s death.

Johnny Spencer and Raine married without even telling his children…they read it in a newspaper…rather terrible, wouldn’t you say?  The children also claimed after the marriage, Raine more or less kept their father away from them.  When Johnny Spencer had a severe stroke and was in hospital for weeks, Raine wouldn’t even allow the children to visit him though she is credited with saving Johnny’s life by fighting to have him given a drug which wasn’t yet available in the UK. 

Later on, she was said to have sold off many treasures from Althorp and then decorated it in a garish fashion completely out of kilter with its historical aspect.

Raine Spencer has always been a larger than life character.  She is (or was in the past) an intelligent and dynamic woman.  People like her though are not always widely admired by everyone and unless these stories are fictitious, I can well understand why the Spencer kids didn’t take to her!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: grandduchessella on August 24, 2010, 09:10:41 AM
Edward and Sophie were a couple since 1993. She dated him a long time. And in this time, the family met her, Diana, too.
The story is exaggerated, but maybe Diana felt that way. We don´t know.

But Diana had been more and more phased out by then. The Morton book exploded the summer of '92 (I was lucky enough to be in London on my honeymoon for it part of it). She would have met Sophie on some occasions but I would think pretty infrequently. That year's Trooping the Colour, for instance, in '92 was Diana's last. She may indeed have felt standoffish and for good reason. Sophie was moving into the family at a time when Diana's relationship was pretty rock-bottom and she was pretty isolated. I wouldn't see much ground for anything more than a civil gretting.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 24, 2010, 11:02:11 AM
"interesting creature" is a fairly good picture of al-Fayeed.
As for the Althorp sales, well, the stuff sold was not really "treasures". It was junk from the attics and basement [I have the catalogue here somewhere] Mainly old kitchen pots and pans., broken furniture and worn out rugs.  Of course the copper pots and pans  were worth something but were otherwise fairly useless.I have never been there, so do not know  how she redecorated it.
 I imagine the current Earl's wife, whoever she may be at the moment, has re-done it again! I know a few people that have been there, for the Diana museum [if one could call it that] and called the place "tacky"
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on August 24, 2010, 11:13:29 AM
"interesting creature" is a fairly good picture of al-Fayeed.
As for the Althorp sales, well, the stuff sold was not really "treasures". It was junk from the attics and basement [I have the catalogue here somewhere] Mainly old kitchen pots and pans., broken furniture and worn out rugs.  Of course the copper pots and pans  were worth something but were otherwise fairly useless.I have never been there, so do not know  how she redecorated it.
 I imagine the current Earl's wife, whoever she may be at the moment, has re-done it again! I know a few people that have been there, for the Diana museum [if one could call it that] and called the place "tacky"
I would not call  a multimillion pound Rubens painting,Serves services,18th century English and french furniture "not really treasures" and although all did not sell they were part of the items offered by Spencer all in the same week!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 24, 2010, 11:16:48 AM
and the stress is on multi, probably close to between £50 to 100 million.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on August 24, 2010, 11:37:22 AM
But Diana had been more and more phased out by then. The Morton book exploded the summer of '92 (I was lucky enough to be in London on my honeymoon for it part of it). She would have met Sophie on some occasions but I would think pretty infrequently. That year's Trooping the Colour, for instance, in '92 was Diana's last. She may indeed have felt standoffish and for good reason. Sophie was moving into the family at a time when Diana's relationship was pretty rock-bottom and she was pretty isolated. I wouldn't see much ground for anything more than a civil gretting.

Agree with you. Maybe she thought that they wanna replace her. I feel sorry for her. The main point is that there weren´t any communication between Diana and Charles, in my opinion.
They hadn´t anything in common. A friendship was never there.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 24, 2010, 12:06:03 PM
Ashdean, I have been in the antique business far to long to not call anything on the shelf for sale as "junk".J Just a colloquial expression in the trade, so to say.
 I do know a few dealers who bought  some stuff from the auction,  and they linked whatever they bought to Diana.  Things she probably never even saw nor used. The sale was very much "To the Manor Born"
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 24, 2010, 12:30:43 PM
I can only think that  it was Diana's  own idea to create a book  and  get her own side of things into print
that   led eventually to the book.......... Diana her true story ....
  She must then have   communicated this idea to her child hood friend  James Colthurst
and asked him to arrange things.

  I asume that James then contacted  Andrew Morton... who in turn contacted Micheal Omera the publisher.

Right there you have the production line... James Colthurst  taping his conversations with Diana where she
spoke so candidly about her lRoyal life and times over the last  10 years

Colthurst then bicycling out of Kensington Palace and depositing the latest hot tape with Andrew Morton.
Andrew  eagerly  typing   up Diana's words  which were  to become the basis of a book for  Micheal Omera to publish.

Quite a  simple process  really,  but did the naive Lady Diana  realize what a goldmine she was handing over to the
3 conspirators ?   she was literally handing over to them  multi  millions of  loot.

 Certainly Omera and  Andrew Morton made multi millions...  I wonder if James Colthurst  ( the Royal Deep Throat )   got his share of the lolly ?

Its obvious that Diana was angry and frustrated with everybody  and with this book she wanted to get her own back on Charles and his family.
 It was  certainly  a body blow for the Royal Family, any way you look at it... a Royal exocet missile.

I wonder though,   if Diana had been thinking a little clearer back then, maybe she could have published the
book with a different organization and made  sure that all those golden profits went to charity and not
into the pockets of  Morton and Omera.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 24, 2010, 03:54:23 PM
With all due respect, Heavensent, everybody knows the machinations behind the Morton book...it's all old news...it happened nearly two decades ago now.  You almost speak as if you've just single-handedly discovered the whole plot on it!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on August 24, 2010, 04:20:49 PM
yes but did Coly get any of the lolly ?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on August 25, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
Nice summation Heavenscent but Andrew Morton was never considered to be a serious author or biographer.  Most of his work on Diana was based on tapes he did with her or that she taped and sent to him, so if she was vilified in her biography, she produced the material for her prosecution.  As well, if she was thinking, she probably could have come up with a better biographer than Andrew Morton.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on August 25, 2010, 02:48:39 AM
She didn't want anyone well known to do it.  She deliberately chose Morton BECAUSE he was not a well known, well regarded writer at the time as there would be less accountability.

And, Heavensent, I don't think Dr James Colthurst profitted from the book as far as I know.  He was an old friend of Diana's and I think he just did it as a favour to his friend.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on September 06, 2010, 09:07:34 PM
Wonderful pic of Di....  Im sure you ll agree !
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1030#p1030



.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on September 07, 2010, 11:46:43 AM
The gloriously creative Chinese have honoured Diana in an ad campaign.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fadedtribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/diana-underwear.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fadedtribune.com/2010/09/diana-lingerie-causes-royal-stir/&usg=__lsiadHILUTIqdMbi5wIxssx72HY=&h=329&w=482&sz=92&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=-n_Ww_nuOWbtNM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddiana%2Bunderwear%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on September 07, 2010, 12:09:49 PM
How disrespectfull can things get.... What's next, underwear with Nicky & Alix's faces? OK, I'm exaggerating a bit on here but I just think it's terrible they use her image for something like this.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on September 07, 2010, 03:23:40 PM
You can bet there are no royalties going to Diana's charities even.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 07, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
. What's next, underwear with Nicky & Alix's faces

There are.....fo real!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on September 07, 2010, 11:34:25 PM
How disrespectfull can things get.... What's next, underwear with Nicky & Alix's faces? OK, I'm exaggerating a bit on here but I just think it's terrible they use her image for something like this.

I don't think most people would be offended by Nicky and Alix's faces on underwear for the simple reason that hardly anyone would recognise who they were whereas Diana still lives in the memories of those of us who are past our teens anyway and she has living children and family to consider.

...not that I want to see Nicky and Alix on underwear, mind you!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on September 08, 2010, 07:35:33 AM
There are.....fo real!

You must be kidding... I hope you are.

I don't think most people would be offended by Nicky and Alix's faces on underwear for the simple reason that hardly anyone would recognise who they were whereas Diana still lives in the memories of those of us who are past our teens anyway and she has living children and family to consider.

...not that I want to see Nicky and Alix on underwear, mind you!

Well, I was just trying to put up some example.... I don't think people(those who know anyway) are that pleased with the fact that Diana became the face of some underwear.... What should her boys be thinking. And well, to use Royal figures to attract tourists is one thing... But to promote underwear with them ::)...

And indeed Diana is still a vivid memory to humanity, those who can remember her or the events she died in atleast.... I'm about to turn 20 and the most strong 'early' memories I have are those surrounding her death. I remember begging my mother to buy the BBC "A Celebration"-video after she died and even though most memories of those days are vague the moment wen I found out she died stands out in my mind... Probably because my mom followed her and she was the first Royal I got interested in...

I for one can't get they use her name to joke or even to say someone is making a fuss of themselves... When I heard that in class the first time I felt awful... Can one be so forgotten?
But I am dwelling on the subject here, we were discussing Diana-underwear and not how I feel about her death.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 08, 2010, 07:40:51 AM
Nope. I remember once i was looking  for pictures of Nicholas and i found boxers with his face printed in them 0_o
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 08, 2010, 07:44:12 AM
I have come across J.S. Bach boxer shorts as well.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Constantinople on September 08, 2010, 09:13:47 AM
I am currently working on a line of deceased composers funeral shrouds, perfect for decomposing.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on September 08, 2010, 09:25:52 AM
Nope. I remember once i was looking  for pictures of Nicholas and i found boxers with his face printed in them 0_o

Now, I wouldn't want to wear Nicholas(no offence).... Would be a bit too odd.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on September 09, 2010, 02:23:44 PM
Diana's Fountain.....  



(Or is it  Diana's Drain ? )
go  here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1034#p1034

scroll down for pics of some of the ladies who influenced  Diana's life
   (bit of a rogue's gallery really ! )




.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on September 14, 2010, 09:23:28 AM
The lovely  Di  in  happier  times
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1044#p1044
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on September 17, 2010, 09:22:29 PM
Stunning!

http://dianasjewels.net/pearlnecklaces.htm
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 18, 2010, 02:49:14 PM
Stunning!

http://dianasjewels.net/pearlnecklaces.htm

I think her pearl choker made with the sapphire and diamond brooch, given to her by The Queen Mother, suited her particularly well. I imagine that it complimented her sapphire and diamond engagement ring beautifully.

R.I.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on September 18, 2010, 07:30:09 PM
 The Diana Appreciation Society
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1051#p1051
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 29, 2010, 03:58:38 AM
Not sure if this has been posted else where, but the designer Catherine Walker who designed many of Diana's clothes died last week aged 65.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on October 16, 2010, 03:15:51 PM
Di and  Gemima

(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1963/dianaandgemimasososo.jpg) (http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dianaandgemimasososo.jpg)

Gemima looks like a lovely lady....  wonder if they were really good friends  back then  ?
Gemima has always seemed  so wise and mature....  the perfect friend and confidant for Diana
( and like  Di... a thoroghbred aristo  too ! )

(her  autobiog ... if she ever does one....  will be  a very interesting read !  )
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1088#p1088
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on October 17, 2010, 01:07:01 PM
Oh my gawd.....Keira (pouty) Knightley..........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1321164/Keira-Knightley-lined-star-Diana-movie.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1321164/Keira-Knightley-lined-star-Diana-movie.html)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on October 17, 2010, 02:30:58 PM
OH MY GOD......
So, it is true?

The rumors were spreading as early as 2007, and then Keira played the Duchess of Devonshire - who is an ancestor of the Princess - and I thought that would be the end of it all.... And now she's probably playing her for real. Also, I think Helen Mirren should play The Queen again. She simply was stunning in "The Queen". I don't know what to think about this though... To be thrilled or feeling uneasy. I just hope that they won't rush it in 2 hours... You can't tell a story that spans 16 years in that time. And they really have to be respectful towards her and her sons.... I always wanted them to donate the profit if there'd be a movie, chances at that are not existing I fear. All is about profits, not about charity.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on October 17, 2010, 03:15:28 PM
Are there just 5-6 actresses in Great-Britain?
Helen Mirren is great, no question. But she played Queen Elizabeth I. & II., and now Lady Francis?

I´m not sure about Keira. There is something in her eyes, which reminds me of Diana.

But I hope it will better then the movies about Diana in the past. Just crap.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 17, 2010, 03:58:57 PM
God, not another one.  Whoever plays her, you can bank on just another VERY BAD WIG and that annoying downcast look played over and over again.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on October 17, 2010, 04:17:39 PM
you can bank on just another VERY BAD WIG

Exactly my thoughts.... They have to get the hair right, it annoyed me in previous movies. The only movie that slightly satisfacted me was the haircut in 'Diana: Last Days of a Princess', the only movie I saw that got it slightly right. But if this production is going to be real, chances are for once there'll be good costumes and haircuts(after all, previously all were smaller production... This will promise to be big)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on October 23, 2010, 03:37:48 PM
diana pregnant with harry



(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnantwthharry.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnantdi.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on October 23, 2010, 04:11:10 PM
WOW  Violetta   wot a fab pic of  Charles and Di  !  thanks
that was nt the movie.... that was the real thing !!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on October 23, 2010, 04:24:05 PM
Heavensent, I `ll post some more when i have time
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on October 24, 2010, 09:12:36 AM

diana pregnant with harry


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnantharry.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-15.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnant-diana-16.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on October 25, 2010, 10:49:42 AM
expecting harry

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnantharry1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/1984-dianapregnantwithHarry.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: violetta on October 29, 2010, 04:38:35 PM
diana expecting william

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/1982.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/dianapregnantwilly.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/pregnantwithwilliam.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on October 29, 2010, 07:21:37 PM
BRILLIANT... thanks ..... Diana was really blooming back then...
Dont remember seeing the  red bikini pic ?  very riske !
Somewhere there must be  HQ versions of these pics ( without the watermark ! )
That red dress pic is stunning too....

 1982 must have  been a vintage year  for Diana pics
( and that  redhead was nt  yet on the scene  ! )
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on November 24, 2010, 01:13:48 PM
Cute porcelain doll showing Princess Diana with her wedding dress
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Queens/dollDiana.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on January 17, 2011, 08:20:32 PM
 Diana in Nepal .... March 1993
 


Diana visited Nepal in March 1993.. a low key visit by Lady Diana
with the emphasis on her charity work.
 
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1467/diananepalmarch1993vvvh.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/diananepalmarch1993vvvh.jpg/)(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1494/diananepalmarch1993vvvd.jpg) (http://img842.imageshack.us/i/diananepalmarch1993vvvd.jpg/)


(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3282/diananepalmarch1993vvvs.jpg) (http://img827.imageshack.us/i/diananepalmarch1993vvvs.jpg/)(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6927/diananepalmarch1993vvv.jpg) (http://img593.imageshack.us/i/diananepalmarch1993vvv.jpg/)

 (http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1494/diananepalmarch1993vvvd.jpg) (http://img412.imageshack.us/i/diananepalmarch1993vvvd.jpg/)
 
To the right..on the above picture is Crown Prince Dipendra who on 1st of June 2001 went berserk
and murdered his father the King of Nepal and his mother , brother and sister before turning the gun on himself
 
see pics full size
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1307#p1307


.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on January 17, 2011, 09:00:31 PM
  Nepal visit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVKIA1joSg8
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on January 18, 2011, 02:09:51 AM
This may have been posted before but it's one of my favs
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/erinorion/diana-1.jpg)

Not sure about this one
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn84/Suel383/princess-diana.jpg)

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t117/Ncgirl11810/Princess-Diana.jpg)

(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr187/meadow_bucket/Princess%20Diana/08941531.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on January 18, 2011, 02:13:31 AM
(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr187/meadow_bucket/Princess%20Diana/08941780.jpg)

(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m250/roxysurf273/princess_diana_gallery_27.jpg)

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh142/die-97/1997-diana.jpg)

(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/Princess-Diana-85.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on January 18, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/Portraits%20of%20Princess%20Diana/diana-2.jpg)

(http://i905.photobucket.com/albu[IMG]http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/DIANA-princess-diana-10650591-432-660.jpg)

ms/ac255/MichelleHorner/Lady%20Diana%201981/princess_diana_hairstyles003002.jpg[/IMG]

(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/Portraits%20of%20Princess%20Diana/diana-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on January 24, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Ive got
 Paul Burrell ....... What really Happened
 Wm and Harry  .......  ditto
 Dodi    .................                   ditto

 each  movie  is about 450 meg
 I can pando them if anyone wants them .
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 24, 2011, 05:40:46 PM
(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/Portraits%20of%20Princess%20Diana/diana-2.jpg)

(http://i905.photobucket.com/albu[IMG]http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/MichelleHorner/DIANA-princess-diana-10650591-432-660.jpg)

ms/ac255/MichelleHorner/Lady%20Diana%201981/princess_diana_hairstyles003002.jpg[/IMG]


Lovely image, but the photog made a mistake, imho, on staging and set up by not having her standing or by revealing something of her seat. The floating look is spoiled by the obvious visual "error" of her raised knees as if she's squatting.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on March 16, 2011, 11:19:30 AM
Diana in Wax




(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/169/ladydianawaxddd.jpg) (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/ladydianawaxddd.jpg/)
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4723/ladydiwaxxxiixixix.jpg) (http://img339.imageshack.us/i/ladydiwaxxxiixixix.jpg/)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1751/ladydianawaxxxx1.jpg) (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ladydianawaxxxx1.jpg/)
(http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7816/ladydianadieururuururu.jpg) (http://img576.imageshack.us/i/ladydianadieururuururu.jpg/)

see full  size  here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=71&p=1580#p1580
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 25, 2011, 11:08:02 AM
It kinda creeps me out... Don't know why.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 25, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
Perhaps because they don't at all capture the vitally alive woman Diana actually was?  And the shiny skin?  Looks like she's out in a sweat!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 25, 2011, 06:41:45 PM
Perhaps because they don't at all capture the vitally alive woman Diana actually was?  And the shiny skin?  Looks like she's out in a sweat!
I agree. You said that well .  Indeed, what is with the shine? Plus that last one seems to be based on photos  taken when  Diana  was depressed...to capture Diana in art would be a challenge...but it would be nearly impossible if one is using  from such an image  imo
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on April 26, 2011, 12:27:53 AM
Perhaps because they don't at all capture the vitally alive woman Diana actually was? 

/quote]

You mean to say what manipulative attention consuming woman she was.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 26, 2011, 03:29:30 AM
Funnily enough, I've been called upon to write a piece about royal brides, and being asked specifically to mention Diana. One of the points I'm making is that Diana became a deeply divisive figure and that I hope Kate Middleton will prove a uniting figure.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 26, 2011, 08:28:00 AM
I would say Diana's husband was and continues to be a more "deeply divisive" figure than his first wife ever was.  That's my opinion.  I believe the majority of people saw and understood why Diana behaved as she did even if they didn't approve of it.  I don't think they had or have the same understanding or forgiveness regarding Charles. :/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 26, 2011, 09:58:40 AM
'I would say Diana's husband was and continues to be a more "deeply divisive" figure than his first wife ever was.  That's my opinion.  I believe the majority of people saw and understood why Diana behaved as she did even if they didn't approve of it.  I don't think they had or have the same understanding or forgiveness regarding Charles. :/'

I disagree but will leave it there. I find it interesting that people make far more excuses for Diana's behaviour than Charles's, and forget all the work Charles has done for the Prince's Trust and the like.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 26, 2011, 10:31:36 AM
I'm feeling a tad more sympathy or Diana... She was not perfect - who is? - but she was the one who had to endure the hardships, she was young and naive when she married... She had her doubts, was persuaded to go on with it and in the end she could not deal with the royal enviroment... And the Royal Family did not understand that, let alone her husbad, as they were living by rules set up ages ago... Having a mistress was seen as 'correct', as it used to be in the upper classes up to probably halfway through the last century. Diana was the first to openly stand up to it and that is one of the reasons why she is admired. Ofcourse she was manipulative when it comes to the press, using them for her own goals and she could simply drop out a friend who had made the mistake of spreading a story about her, among others, but does all that matter when she in fact was one of the few Royals who emphasize on the need for help and who do not only see it as duty... I can only name a few, who openly made a plea to change things and not did charity out of duty, to me that is the difference.... Usually charity was done in  private, for the poor and suffering, all Royals did and do that... But look at Alexandra and her sister... They both did charity, but Ella sort of wen 'openly' by starting her convent and doing good works there, Alix trained as a nurse, organized Charity at Yalta and such, but she did not do it publicly - besides Yalta, which sort of was Public Charity. Had she done that she would probably been much more popular, but she never overcame her shyness. That is what Diana did. Also, one must remember that dying young often gives someone more 'following' because of the tragedy and sadness.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 26, 2011, 10:50:00 AM
What is often forgotten is that plenty of British royalties were heavily engaged in charitable work long before Diana came along. Look at Princess Marie Louise!

To me the best charitable work is done in private.

Diana certainly has a greater following because she died young and dramatically, but she was a figure of myth even before that.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 26, 2011, 11:53:28 AM
The big difference with Diana, however, is that she embraced subjects that were socially taboo at the time; AIDS and land mines [more poltically taboo, than socially, perhaps]. Anybody can unveil a plaque or plant a tree, she visited the field and exposed herself for "the causes" she  took on.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: voyageroffreedom on April 26, 2011, 01:20:19 PM
I agree with what Robert said, let’s not forget during that time there were many misconceptions about AIDS like: AIDS can be spread through a simple contact with an HIV infected individual like shaking someone's hand. However, few celebrities at that time including Princess Diana were photographed touching and holding HIV patients, those photographs has helped removing stigma associated with AIDS.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 26, 2011, 05:31:37 PM
Exactly... Not only did she engage in Charity publicly, but she took some extreme causes on... Things that were not openly supported at the time, things that no one dared to 'touch' or even tried to understand. And, I don't even know why one would see "planting a tree" as charity. Yep, all good for the environment and such, but that is not going to make people support your cause. And Diana went out there, did things no one else would have dared to do in the hope that her charitable works would benefit from her patronage or involvement in it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 26, 2011, 09:48:29 PM
Thank you Robert, I quite agree . Diana taking the hand of the aids patient cannot be forgotten and was a huge turning point...I well remember at the time even some  health professionals were refusing to treat Aids patients. She did much to change  that. 

The good news is the Royal Family is learning and letting a price marry the woman he loves from the start
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 27, 2011, 04:27:22 AM
'I would say Diana's husband was and continues to be a more "deeply divisive" figure than his first wife ever was.  That's my opinion.  I believe the majority of people saw and understood why Diana behaved as she did even if they didn't approve of it.  I don't think they had or have the same understanding or forgiveness regarding Charles. :/'

I disagree but will leave it there. I find it interesting that people make far more excuses for Diana's behaviour than Charles's, and forget all the work Charles has done for the Prince's Trust and the like.

Ann

His work has been and is admirable, Ann, I do not take that away from him.  His behaviour within his first marriage was, however, appalling.  The two are separate issues.  You were the one who brought up the topic, incidentally.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 27, 2011, 07:15:18 AM
Charles married the wrong woman. I personally think that he tried to make the marriage work and only went back to Camilla when it was clearly in trouble. Let us remember that Diana also had affairs.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 27, 2011, 03:19:35 PM
Yes... That is why I said Diana was not a perfect woman. She was admirable for her charitable work, so is Charles, but Diana simply took on causes that were seen as dangerous and the fact that she was such a beautiful person, inside and out, got her that mythical status even within her lifetime(though I myself remember little, besides the landmines-issue and eventually her death and funeral). She was not the first Royal to engage so openly in public charity, nor will she be the last I am sure.... That is what made Diana so popular, that she went out there to show she cared.

However... Her married life was far from perfect, Charles obviously never loved Diana in the way he loves Camilla and even though he tried to make the marriage work he could not understand his wife, who was jealous the jealous wife of course, and simply went back to the one who understood him. Diana felt alone and scared, so she went looking for love, too, outside the marital bed. Eventually the marriage failed because the two of them were no match from the start and they were unable to understand each other.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 27, 2011, 03:35:09 PM
Charles married the wrong woman. I personally think that he tried to make the marriage work and only went back to Camilla when it was clearly in trouble. Let us remember that Diana also had affairs.

Ann

And it could just as easily be said that Diana married the wrong man.  It can't be denied there was another woman lurking in the background from the beginning of their marriage and I don't think it is clear to anyone when these two resumed their relationship or if indeed it ever stopped.  How can you make a marriage work if you're tied to someone else, either emotionally or physically?  As to Diana having affairs, the opinion is quite firm from those who knew her well that these would never have happened if she had had her husband's love, which was all she asked for.   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 27, 2011, 06:21:33 PM
Well, I wonder... Did Charles ever love Diana or was it all orchestrated by him, the Royal Family and possibly even Camilla... They wanted a shy young thing, so she would do what they wanted and be out of the way for Charles to go messing with Camilla. The romantic notion would be that Charles and Camilla had grown apart and he really loved Diana but I don't think he ever loved Diana the same way as he loved Camillla. He might have cared about Diana, but he too saw her as a means to get an heir and when Diana sensed it was too late to save her marriage, that Camilla was there from the beginning and would never go she did all she could for her own happiness and freedom...

To quote Charles: "whatever love means"..... That, in my opinion, shows clearly Camilla always was there and that Diana, however charming and beautiful she was, never would win Charles' affection because these were already meant for Camilla. The quote shows, that's what I think, Charles intended on having a wife and a mistress.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 27, 2011, 06:48:15 PM
Its so sad that Diana wont be there for that special day, I think she would
be so proud of her handsome, dashing son  and it would be wistful  for her to see
Kate  take on the role she performed so well on that magic day, 30 years ago....
30 years, can you believe it !
So  much has happened in those 30 years ...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on April 28, 2011, 12:34:42 AM
Oh pl-eee-ze....the lady is dead!All these hyped up emotional nonsense,she won't come back for the wedding.Period.
Lets concentrate on the wedding as of today please and comfort yourself with the thought she will be there in the spirit.s.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 28, 2011, 04:20:30 AM
Noooo!  This is the Diana thread -- not the wedding one!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 28, 2011, 07:58:54 AM
Well, I wonder... Did Charles ever love Diana or was it all orchestrated by him, the Royal Family and possibly even Camilla...

I've said it before - Charles and Diana were horribly matched, and both went into their marriage for the wrong reasons.  They never had a chance, and if you take away all the romantic notions, the facts bear that out very clearly.

For his part, Charles was emotionally limited, already in love with another woman, and didn't appear to even want to marry.  He had proposed marriage to Amanda K. less than a year before and was rejected - and he only met Diana a few times before he proposed.  That fact alone says it all.  Frankly, he had no choice in the matter, and given the set of rules forced upon him at the time (his wife must be a virgin, royal or aristocratic, sufficiently acceptable to the public, able to shoulder royal life, and above all - able to produce children), there were few options available.  Diana was one of the few that fit the bill and Charles, ever pragmatic, realized that.  He chose Diana by default.

Diana, for her part, was still very much a child emotionally.  A girl of 19 with grand sentiments of love and romance, she had little realization of the very situation she was agreeing to.  And take royalty out the equation, Charles was absolutely not the right man for her, even if she was too young to realize it at the time.  Try to make a list of the things Charles and Di had in common.  Anything?  Nope, absolutely nothing. 

It always seemed to me that once they had set the future in motion, both of them did their level best to try to find a common middle ground and make it work - but it was hopeless.  Today, its quite easy to lay all the blame on one or the other, depending on your point of view.  But the truth is - both were guilty and both were merely victims of their own circumstances - and their own insecurities.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2011, 09:01:41 AM
Chris

I agree entirely.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on April 28, 2011, 12:57:33 PM
Noooo!  This is the Diana thread -- not the wedding one!

Oh,ofcourse dear...but it would be so much nicer to focus on the wedding instead :) :) :) :) ;D
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 28, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Its  nearly 30 years since Diana's spectacular wedding.... watched by the entire world...
but we forget that poor Diana only lived 16  of those years,
for Diana they were  hectic years,  bitter sweet.... she hardly  had time to think.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Princess of Cupertino on April 29, 2011, 12:23:06 AM
Somehow I don't think Diana would have been a great mother-in-law, as possessive as she was ...

Not that I don't admire many of her good qualities.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: imperial angel on April 29, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
People compare Kate and Diana, but it seems to me the comparisons aren't based on much, beyond the fact of Kate inheiriting Diana's role as a beautiful young royal who will very likely one day be Queen- Consort, a role Diana set up a lot of expectations for, to be sure.Different personalities, different life experience, both lovely, but very different types of beauty, is my final thoughts on the Kate/ Diana comparison.Diana only lived 7 years longer than the age Kate is now..that's something to remember It's hard to say what Diana would have been like as a mother in law..who knows where life would have taken her, had she lived, she might have had another child with someone and that might have occupied her attenion,so she wouldn't have been as possessive about her two oldest children.Like any mother, she loved her children and wanted the best for them, so I'm sure she would have been happy for William.Diana would be 49 now (would be 50) this year had she lived..hard to imagine, but not that old, really.Part of her legend is that she died so young, and so much happened to her in the 36 short years of her life.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Clemence on April 29, 2011, 02:34:45 PM
People compare Kate and Diana, but it seems to me the comparisons aren't based on much, beyond the fact of Kate inheiriting Diana's role as a beautiful young royal who will very likely one day be Queen- Consort, a role Diana set up a lot of expectations for, to be sure.Different personalities, different life experience, both lovely, but very different types of beauty, is my final thoughts on the Kate/ Diana comparison.Diana only lived 7 years longer than the age Kate is now..that's something to remember It's hard to say what Diana would have been like as a mother in law..who knows where life would have taken her, had she lived, she might have had another child with someone and that might have occupied her attenion,so she wouldn't have been as possessive about her two oldest children.Like any mother, she loved her children and wanted the best for them, so I'm sure she would have been happy for William.Diana would be 49 now (would be 50) this year had she lived..hard to imagine, but not that old, really.Part of her legend is that she died so young, and so much happened to her in the 36 short years of her life.

my thoughts exactly! yet I find kate so much more and better prepared for her life after the wedding than diana ... hope she'll have a long and happy life with her prince)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 29, 2011, 06:40:07 PM
True...

It is good that the Royal Family has taken some lessons from the past, arranged but wrongly matched marriages, and is finally seeing what has been happening in Europe for years.... That Royalty does not need to inter-marry anymore. I think the Windsors tried to hang on to duty, etiquette and all that for too long. Nothing wrong with it, but one should not mess with love... Had Charles been able to marry Camilla ages before he ever met Diana things might have turned out completely different. The Monarchy as institution might not have been as popular as it was, and is, during Diana's lifetime and with her impact on the institution of Monarchy, but the scandals would have been avoided too. As Charles made his mistakes, and Diana made hers, and Camilla certainy has part of the blame too... The Royals might not have been as popular, as Diana really gave them a boost, but things would have gone gradually. However, that all is speculation. I do think that William has taken some lessons out of his parent's marriage and is determined to make his work, which I am sure it will as they have been 'walking' toward their wedding day gradually and now are really sure about what they want from their marriage... That is where Diana and Charles had gone wrong from the start, and Diana at first did not even realize it, their short engagement, or actually the time they'd been 'dating', if you can call it even that, and this should have been a warning, even for the public... But in the end people wanted to believe in the fairytale, which eventually became a tragedy.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on April 30, 2011, 12:01:49 AM
CHRISinUSA , I think you said it very well. The sad part is after all the hurting and fighting, Charles and Diana  seemed to have come to an understanding that last year...at least the start of one . They had nothing in common of course but the boys...and  their sons  seem to bring out the best in both Diana and Charles. This picture taken at William's  confirmation seems to me a picture of hope there would be smoother relations ahead...sadly we'll never know.

(http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/Romanov%20postings/th_Willsconfrimation.jpg) (http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy202/blessOTMA/Romanov%20postings/Willsconfrimation.jpg)

But it's my hope the comparisons  between Diana and Kate being made  by the press will fade...Diana was Diana and Kate is Kate. It doesn't serve either to constantly compare them.  I wish the newlyweds the best of luck!   
 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on April 30, 2011, 04:14:37 AM
I heard a commentator say that as Catherine didn't leave her wedding bouquet on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier as seems to be fairly customary for royal brides, she and William may have planned to place it on Diana's grave which would certainly be a touching gesture.  Anyone heard anything of this?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carisbrooke on May 11, 2011, 06:56:05 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/10/princess-diana-documentary-cannes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/10/princess-diana-documentary-cannes)   LINK - From the Guardian

   A controversial Diana documentary is to be screened at Cannes. The film includes that picture. Conspiracy ? ........ I don't think so. It will only go to prove just how close

the paparazzi were that night. The very ones who would rather photograph a dying woman than help her. Fortunately this will not be broadcast in the UK.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on May 11, 2011, 08:39:21 AM
That is an odd film.  The writers are saying it is an indictment of the inquiry, not  Diana's death per se.
 And, al Fayed, who is paying for it, has denounced it and and is insisting the death picture is taken out.
 However, that picture has been seen all over the world, first in an Italian magazine. It is also on the net.
 And Grace, I think the story about the wedding bouquet is just an urban myth. I have not read anything other than gossip about it. But, of course, there could have been 2 bouquets.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on May 11, 2011, 09:16:54 AM
The wedding bouquet was on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior by the next morning, though, personally, I would have preferred to see Kate lay it herself at the end of the service.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Mari on May 15, 2011, 08:53:12 AM
With that Crowd and all those Photographers, TV People from around the World I don't think there was a way for Kate to do that! Just in the U.S. We had practically half the Media over for the Wedding! I think it went off perfectly and like clock work but I know the channel I watched insinuated Security was sweating it...
Love all the photos...I thought about Princess Diana that day! And I don't know how much it was covered... but here they had a Commentator Guest who knew Princess Diana. They commented on seeing Prince William under a little stress that day, chew his lip at the Altar and some other things that reminded them of Princess Diana in body language. Prince William used to have a lot of Diana's gestures...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lindelle on May 23, 2011, 02:33:19 AM
The wedding bouquet was on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior by the next morning, though, personally, I would have preferred to see Kate lay it herself at the end of the service.

Ann




She was still a bride at the end of the service and probably wanted to hang on to it for a bit longer, say for the wedding pics.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: prinzheinelgirl on September 29, 2011, 05:03:48 AM
I'm rather new on reading seriously on Diana. I have this nagging thought on my mind about something that I read on Tina Brown's book on her. I apologise if my question is quite trite but would appreciate response(s).

Diana apparently said to Prince Philip (when he threatened to take away her title if she continued to misbehave) that : "My title is a older than yours" in reference to her Spencer heritage. What exactly did she mean, considering:

1. she had no title of her own; she was never a peer of the realm, never Countess Diana Spencer (what she had was just a courtesy title).
2. the Spencers got their title in 1761 (baron) and 1765 (earl), surely Philip's lineage as grandson of a king (althoiugh deposed) and title of Duke of Edinburgh was not only superior but older than "hers" (which was not hers at all)? 

as of now, i'm thinking perhaps she just her displaying her ignorance as she was not a bright and academic girl, who probably had little concern for such forms/subtleties even though she came from an aristocratic family...and was just displaying undue bravado?   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 29, 2011, 05:20:59 AM
The Greek monarchy only dates from 1861, but Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark before 1947. The Danish monarchy is very old, going back to the 10th century.

Diana was talking tripe!

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on September 29, 2011, 05:24:17 AM
Diana apparently said to Prince Philip (when he threatened to take away her title if she continued to misbehave)  ?   
I really can't see Diana saying that, at least to him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kitt on September 29, 2011, 05:50:20 AM
I think Diana was technically correct if she was really referring to her heritage.  Philip’s grandfather became the Greek king in 1863. He was a Dane.  His grandmother was married to a Battenberg. That family came into existence when Julia Hauke,  Grand Duke Louis III of Hesse created her Countess of Battenberg in 1851, and at her marriage to Grand Duke Louis' brother Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine, elevated her title to Princess of Battenberg in 1858. The Battenburgs were a morganatic marriage.
I also believe that Diana was not a "blond bimbo", and could have easily shot this off to Prince Philip.  She just should have said family and not title.
All the best, Kitt

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 29, 2011, 06:22:32 AM
Diana was certainly not known for her intelligence. Despite an expensive education she only managed one O level (in art!).

The Duke of Edinburgh took his mother's surname of Mountbatten when he was naturalised, but his male line goes straight back to the Danish royal family.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on September 29, 2011, 09:09:38 AM
...and she was not known for her LACK of intelligence either.  Her "expensive education" did not focus on academic achievement anyway if you recall.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on September 29, 2011, 09:16:32 AM
Oh certainly Diana could have thought of this in time to say it ...but I don't believe she would be that rude to his face. The fact that  it was true would make it extra rude of course. But she seems to have respected the Queen and Prince Philip,  at least in her treament of them in person. Indeed Diana didn't have many 0 leavls...however imo she had what cannot be learnt.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: prinzheinelgirl on September 29, 2011, 09:31:16 AM
thank you for your replies.

i find diana smart, but only when she wanted to get back (retaliate) at someone and in doing her public duties (her staff praised her as very professional and organised). other than that..... :( 

tina brown's book seems well-researched and she had all those connections and supporting evidence so i don't doubt that the scene did happen. i think diana was indeed  disrespectful to her father-in-law in saying that ("my title is a lot older than yours"), and i haven't found enough information to support her statement (from what i have read so far, the oldenburgs were an older line than the spencers, moreover they were sovereigns)  but then she wasn't so smart when she got hurt/angry.... so sad. i see that tina brown's book was discussed much earlier in this thread but my specific question wasn't. if anyone could give further help on this particular matter, it'd be most appreciated. 

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 29, 2011, 09:54:15 AM
'and she was not known for her LACK of intelligence either.  Her "expensive education" did not focus on academic achievement anyway if you recall.'

I disagree. I have yet to come across anyone praising her intelligence. Her school may not have been super-academic, but she did take a full diet of O levels and failed all but one, then drifted about vaguely and did voluntary work in a kindergarten. She was born in 1961 (two years after me) - past the age in which girls were not expected to get an education.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 29, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
Academic achievement and intelligence are not always linked.  It must also be added that people develop at different rates; many successful mature students are those who have not managed to realise their full potential at typical GCSE age (of course O and A level in Diana's era).

None of the Windsors are renowned for their academic achievement, including Prince Charles.  Few however would doubt his reputation nowadays as an intelligent and cultured man.

A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on September 29, 2011, 12:14:02 PM


A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........
Very true Martyn....Tina sadly at times does mix fact & fiction in a cocktail shaker..
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: prinzheinelgirl on September 29, 2011, 10:18:13 PM
A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........

Martyn:

There is no need for sarcasm here ("a note to the wise prinzheinelgirl"). I made it clear that I'm new to books on Diana and would appreciate any other views other than what Tina Brown presented in her book.  Tina's book is just two of what I have read on Diana so far and I have yet to read and sift through other materials on her to get a more balanced view.

Not that I'm so interested in Diana, because what I'm really interested in are 17th & 18th century Austrian and Spanish royalty. I'm just very curious about her (supposed) remark to Prince Philip.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 30, 2011, 03:42:11 AM
To be fair to Prince Charles, he got what was at the time a perfectly respectable degree (a 2.2, I think) in the days before grade inflation and coursework made it much easier to get a 2.1. But unless the teaching is extremely bad (which does happen, but probably not at expensive girls' boarding schools), a person of even  moderate intelligence is not going to fail all her O levels except Art.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 30, 2011, 11:05:25 AM
A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........

Martyn:

There is no need for sarcasm here ("a note to the wise prinzheinelgirl"). I made it clear that I'm new to books on Diana and would appreciate any other views other than what Tina Brown presented in her book.  Tina's book is just two of what I have read on Diana so far and I have yet to read and sift through other materials on her to get a more balanced view.

Not that I'm so interested in Diana, because what I'm really interested in are 17th & 18th century Austrian and Spanish royalty. I'm just very curious about her (supposed) remark to Prince Philip.

There was no sarcasm intended.  You are assuming that I hadn't picked up on the fact that you are 'new to books on Diana' - I had indeed noted that.  It's always a good idea to make sure that you quote someone correctly as well!

AS no one has really picked up on this 'supposed', perhaps it is a safe assumption that it is just that......'supposed'?

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 30, 2011, 11:06:48 AM


A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........
Very true Martyn....Tina sadly at times does mix fact & fiction in a cocktail shaker..

That's a very succinct way of putting it Ashdean!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on September 30, 2011, 11:18:18 AM

To be fair to Prince Charles, he got what was at the time a perfectly respectable degree (a 2.2, I think) in the days before grade inflation and coursework made it much easier to get a 2.1.

I won't argue with that.  It's respectable.  But then there is small chance that he would have graduated with a 3rd, is there?  How would that have looked?  As I said though, he now is viewed as a man with a very keen intellect, so perhaps life and experience have embellished an average academic career?

But unless the teaching is extremely bad (which does happen, but probably not at expensive girls' boarding schools), a person of even  moderate intelligence is not going to fail all her O levels except Art.

Ann

That's an opinion I suppose.  I don't think that it's a widely held view that she was unintelligent.  Not academic perhaps? 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on September 30, 2011, 06:20:07 PM
Of course, most of what we are delving into here is related more to our personal views than facts, a la the Wallis/David thread! 

I don't regard Charles as a genuine intellectual at all.  He is a deep thinker...a ponderer and he's had a life where he's had the time and the means to indulge that.  That's not to say he's not intelligent of course.  But anyone who claims Diana was a dimwit is way off the mark.  She had more 'emotional intelligence' than perhaps any royal before her.  She may have been the wrong wife for Charles but she was the right Princess of Wales and it wasn't a matter of her only being a shallow people-pleaser either.  She did her job well and with knowledge and insight.  It was her unhappy private life that got in the way of that job.

For her critics...name someone who would have done a better job than her? 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 01, 2011, 10:34:37 AM
Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 01, 2011, 11:58:00 AM
Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann
Here here.
Ann...very well put!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 01, 2011, 04:56:51 PM
Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

Just what are those divisions and controversy still very much apparent 14 years after her death, Ann?  What is very much apparent is your intense dislike of the late Princess of Wales and in that, absolute refusal to acknowledge the many positive character traits she had which she brought to her royal role.  And...who said she should have been nothing other than a "support" for the Prince of Wales?  Are you married?  Was that only as a "support" to your husband?  What tosh!  That Diana became a "rival" to her husband almost from Day 1 was because of press attention and public interest - that was not of her doing at all.   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 01, 2011, 05:08:18 PM
IMO, if Diana was a "disaster"  for the monarchy, it needed it. The institution was moribund. It needed  lots of fresh air to wake it up.
 Although Charles is a product of that old, dusty school,  Diana produced new hope in William and now Catherine to further the  road to relevance of the institution  in British life.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 01, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
Well said, Robert.  My point was not to regard Diana as perfect or a towering intellect, but about acknowledging the very real qualities she had and which she brought to the royal family - regardless of her lack of "O" levels or the modern equivalent.  There are some who simply won't accept this in any way, shape or form.  >:(
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 02, 2011, 06:16:54 AM
'Just what are those divisions and controversy still very much apparent 14 years after her death, Ann?'

There is still a great deal of dislike of Prince Charles and failure to acknowledge his good qualities and conscientious approach to his royal duties. For example, I do not think he is given anything like enough credit for setting up the Prince's Trust in 1977, which was, apparently, entirely his own initiative in what was not at that time a terribly fashionable area of charitable endeavour.  The Prince's Trust is now very well established and doing a lot of useful work - we regularly hear of young entrepreneurs who got their enterprises going with the aid of grants and advice from the Trust.

Marrying a member of the royal family is rather different from marrying an ordinary husband. A 'normal' wife may nowadays have a separate career without causing any problems, but problems tend to begin in any marriage if one spouse becomes a rival to the other rather than the two being mutually supportive.  While I accept that the rivalry between Charles and Diana was begun by the press, Diana herself came to revel in it.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 02, 2011, 06:25:10 AM
Continuing from previous message.

I will admit that during her lifetime I got thoroughly fed up with Diana and all the adulation for her. Partly this is due to an instinctive regard to the underdog - 'poor old Charles', who according to the press could do nothing right where she was concerned. Partly it is due to a different approach to getting things done. I simply prefer Charles's approach of working away quietly with the Prince's Trust and Princess Anne's telling the staff of refugee camps to sort the drains out to Diana's going round hugging people. Prompting people to give money to charity is all very well, but what is possibly even more important is making sure the money is used responsibly. Diana may have been good at the first, but what about the second?

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 02, 2011, 07:01:23 AM
So wouldn't it have been wonderful if they could have "pooled" their respective talents-they would have been unstoppable. I don't believe that the things Diana "knew" and felt can be found in books, nor can they be taught but it doesn't render them more or less valuable than talents gained via the regular routes. It may simply be how they have evolved, but I feel that there have, since Diana, been subtle changes in the RF. It may be my imagination but HM appears more focused on, perhaps even more relaxed with the person to whom she is speaking, than she previously did. Of course, I could have got it entirely wrong, it may be just that her family as less of a problem to her than they were!!!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Selencia on October 02, 2011, 07:46:48 PM
Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

I used to be a fan of Diana and bought into the "poor Diana mistreated by everyone" mentality. Reading up on her after her death she does seem to have been a thorough disaster for the RF; and the image she and the press tried to create of Charles was largely based on falsehoods. Only thing worse would probably have been Sarah Ferguson. Both Sarah and Diana seem to have been incapable of surviving in the royal family and understanding what their roles were. I think Diana had some good qualities; but there were definitely some bad qualities which tend to be ignored.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: prinzheinelgirl on October 03, 2011, 02:58:08 AM
There was no sarcasm intended.  You are assuming that I hadn't picked up on the fact that you are 'new to books on Diana' - I had indeed noted that.  It's always a good idea to make sure that you quote someone correctly as well!

All right then. :) thanks.

=======

Moving on, I think Diana both had good and bad qualities. She had very keen emotional intelligence, was very professional in her work, and had a good heart.  Had she managed to overcome her "demons", she would have been truly exceptional. It's a pity that she didn't disclose her condition (bulimia) to her doctors, it would've been a good place to start.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 03, 2011, 02:36:22 PM
Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

I used to be a fan of Diana and bought into the "poor Diana mistreated by everyone" mentality. Reading up on her after her death she does seem to have been a thorough disaster for the RF; and the image she and the press tried to create of Charles was largely based on falsehoods. Only thing worse would probably have been Sarah Ferguson. Both Sarah and Diana seem to have been incapable of surviving in the royal family and understanding what their roles were. I think Diana had some good qualities; but there were definitely some bad qualities which tend to be ignored.
Diana could be extremely charasmatic/kind...and extremely malicious/machivellian
she reminds me of that nursery rhyme
"There was a little girl who had a curl right in the middle of her forehead..
When she was good she was very very good and when she was bad she was horrid!"
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 03, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
I used to be a fan of Diana and bought into the "poor Diana mistreated by everyone" mentality. Reading up on her after her death she does seem to have been a thorough disaster for the RF; and the image she and the press tried to create of Charles was largely based on falsehoods. Only thing worse would probably have been Sarah Ferguson. Both Sarah and Diana seem to have been incapable of surviving in the royal family and understanding what their roles were. I think Diana had some good qualities; but there were definitely some bad qualities which tend to be ignored.

These "good Charles/bad Diana" posts irritate me beyond words.  During their marriage, they both did good things and they both made grave errors.  If Diana was a "disaster" for the royal family, her former husband's proven behaviour was also and, believe me, there has always been just as a big a "poor mistreated Charles" camp as there has been a Diana one and it absolutely flourishes around here!

Diana understood perfectly what her role was - that was the irony.  How you could lump her with Sarah Ferguson who had and has no idea is beyond my comprehension.  As to your last sentence - should the world have concentrated on her "bad qualities"?  That's just weird! 

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 04, 2011, 10:17:04 AM
"When she was good she was very very good and when she was bad she was horrid!"

A nice summary of Diana!

Diana was a person who provoked extremes of admiration and the reverse, and nothing has changed since her death. I find myself in the anti-Diana camp in part as a reaction to all the adulation and the constant making excuses for some of her behaviour.

Charles's big mistake was to allow himself to be pressured into marrying someone with whom he had absolutely nothing in common. Were he an actor, or pop singer, the populace might well have accepted that and wished him well with the woman he should have married in the first place. But because the woman he first married was Diana, who could do no wrong, AND SHE WAS BEAUTIFUL, he is condemned as the villain.

I think my hostility towards Diana is particularly due to the way she made use of the press, particularly the odious Andrew  Morton.

Sarah Ferguson had no idea how to do 'her job'. However, Diana needed to realise that her job was to work with her husband, not against him.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 04, 2011, 10:28:45 AM
Ann, you  think Charles did noot use the press for jis own benefitas as well.
 And he was an awful hypocrite at it too.  He made those off-the-cuff comments about them in Switzerland and then pretends to like them.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 04, 2011, 12:48:05 PM
I don't believe Prince Charles was pressured into marrying Diana, not one forced him into it. He realised he had too get married & to someone appropriate & choose Diana and I believe he did love her. I think you could see on his face that he was devastated when she died. He is such a kind sensitive man I don't think he is given enough credit.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 05, 2011, 03:30:19 AM
I would never deny Charles being a kind, sensitive man but he met and fell in love with one woman and chose? to marry another and make her the mother of his children. Now, if we are to believe that he fell out of love with Camilla in order to marry Diana, presumably "whatever that word means" he fell in love with Diana-for how long?-for the time it took to have children with her, then fell out of love with her and IN love with Camilla all over again. I find it easier to believe that he was flattered, for a time, by Diana's adoration of him, for a time, enjoyed playing the protective "grown-up" to her "child." For a while I believe he was infatuated with and intoxicated by her but it palled, I imagine, because they had little in common and he couldn't cope with her neediness because he had his own to contend with, thus he returned to the love that had not only fulfilled those needs but was never extinguished. Please believe that I'm not knocking anybody here, IMO Camilla is and always was the right person for Charles but this probably means that NO other woman, regardless of who she was, stood much chance of him remaining faithful to her for long. As to his emotions at Diana's death, I imaginge that guilt and profound sorrow were prominent followed by gratitude for their beautiful sons.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 05, 2011, 03:36:24 AM
Feodorovna

I think you may well be right. I tend to think that he was fond of Diana, but never in love with her (whatever love means). Certainly, he couldn't cope with her neediness, but to be fair to him, who could? None of her other relationships lasted all that long, which may suggest the other men in her life couldn't cope with her neediness either.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CountessKate on October 05, 2011, 10:13:10 AM
Feodorovna
I think you may well be right. I tend to think that he was fond of Diana, but never in love with her (whatever love means). Certainly, he couldn't cope with her neediness, but to be fair to him, who could? None of her other relationships lasted all that long, which may suggest the other men in her life couldn't cope with her neediness either.
Ann

One of the points Sarah Bradford made in her impressively fair biography of Diana (broadly sympathetic, but not letting her off the hook at all), was that both Charles and Diana had tremendous emotional needs which neither had the capacity to satisfy in the other - one of the major inputs to the train wreck of their marriage. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 05, 2011, 11:40:54 AM
Quite true.  The reality is that there is no villain nor saint in either Charles or Diana.  They were just two individuals, each with their own set of weaknesses and strengths, which when combined made them utterly incompatible as spouses. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 05, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
Quite true.  The reality is that there is no villain nor saint in either Charles or Diana.  They were just two individuals, each with their own set of weaknesses and strengths, which when combined made them utterly incompatible as spouses. 
Very true .
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 05, 2011, 09:15:46 PM

One of the points Sarah Bradford made in her impressively fair biography of Diana (broadly sympathetic, but not letting her off the hook at all), was that both Charles and Diana had tremendous emotional needs which neither had the capacity to satisfy in the other - one of the major inputs to the train wreck of their marriage. 
 

Yes, so very true. They really would have been magic together if they both received the emotional support they both needed. Strange, you'd think that they would have recognized that as a common bond between them and because of it they should have protected an supported each other. So sad they were never able to achieve that. Seeing the devastation on Charles' face the day he went to bring her home and at the funeral spoke volumes to me...he loved her and not anything that anyone can say will change my opinion of that.

From this royal watcher's perspective, I truly wish those who are still so passionate about which camp they associate themselves with would take pause and just appreciate the good qualities that each possesses and possessed. I'm thankful for their union because they produced two beautiful children who possess the best qualities of both of their parents.

 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: B5218 on October 06, 2011, 12:18:41 AM
Well put, Feodorovna and Royal Watcher.  It was all long ago in the scheme of things.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 07, 2011, 12:42:30 PM
Its always really interesting to read just how polarised opinion is about Charles and Diana.  Is it really impossible to admire one to the detriment of the other?  I don't believe so.....

It was a terribly bad match, one cannot deny that.  But out of it has come much good, not the least of which are William and Harry (some might take issue with me including Harry?), as well as other important factors.  Without the marriage, Charles may never have had the opportunity to be with the woman he truly loves, who seems at last to fulfil everything that he needs in a wife and who seems to be doing an excellent job as the type of public consort that he needs - Diana was neither.  Charles will never be eclipsed again by his wife, who although a perfectly charming and personable woman, poses no threat in this respect, and this is entirely as it should be and should always have been.

Without the marriage Diana would never have made her mark on the world, helped so many worthy causes and touched so many people.  Like or loathe her style, she made a difference - that cannot be denied.

I think that it was a terrible shame that her life was cut short; who knows what she might have done - good or bad - had she lived longer?  However life has moved on and the principals in this drama have achieved some measure of happiness and stability, and many others have fond and respectful memories of Diana.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 07, 2011, 12:49:33 PM
Very well said, Martyn. I never cared much for Charles BEFORE he was married. And, I feel the RF  [except for the Queen, ASAIK] treated her horribly once Diana married into "the Firm". She was a breath of fresh air that they chose not to  utilise to  her best potential.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Selencia on October 09, 2011, 02:49:33 AM
Diana and Charles should never have gotten married. I think that if Charles had been allowed to be with her more he would have realized that she was not suited for him or to be Princess of Wales. For Diana I think she tricked herself into believing she loved Charles or she loved the idea of him. They both needed to marry different people, it's just unfortunate that only Charles got the chance to marry a person better suited for him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CountessKate on October 09, 2011, 09:37:04 AM
Very well said, Martyn. I never cared much for Charles BEFORE he was married. And, I feel the RF  [except for the Queen, ASAIK] treated her horribly once Diana married into "the Firm". She was a breath of fresh air that they chose not to  utilise to  her best potential.

I'm not entirely sure all the royal family were as horrible to Diana as sometimes portrayed.  Princess Margaret was apparently supportive of her up till the Panorama programme (which upset even Diana's sons) and the correspondence with Prince Philip in 1992 seemed remarkably civilized.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Sara Araújo on October 10, 2011, 08:29:58 AM
Yes, Prince Philip, unlike what has been suggested, tried to help her in the beginning because he understood what it was like to marry into the royal family. They mention it at "Prince Philip at 90". Not the best source, of course they only complimented him during the show, but I think the correspondence between them proves it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ6z59KczQ8
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Selencia on October 11, 2011, 09:04:13 PM
Robert and Sara you are right, Diana portrayed the family as being cruel and uncaring towards her but as more facts spill out it seems that quite the contrary was true. It seems that Philip in particular didn't start disliking both Sarah and Diana until it became obvious that they were more of a liability than an asset. Also Princess Margaret didn't stop liking Diana until the Bashir interview where she said Charles wasn't fit to be king. The Queen in particular is said to have maintained sympathy for both Diana and Sarah long after everyone else had cut them off.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 12, 2011, 01:57:36 AM
They may not have been cruel and particularly uncaring towards her, but I don't think they were terribly supportive either....given that Diana was so very young, her whole life had changed and she was not used to their ways as a newcomer.  She was more or less expected to just get on with it....and I think that's what she found most difficult because she was a person who needed to feel appreciated and validated and whether or not that's right or wrong is personal opinion.  Please remember she started her royal life at just NINETEEN YEARS of age and that her own side of the family were not really there to help her much.

....and, sorry, but I find the continual lumping of Diana with Sarah Ferguson quite odious....Diana at least tried to do the right thing....Ferguson acted like a kid in a candyshop from the minute she married into the royal family - she really was a true liability to the royals in almost every way possible.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 12, 2011, 02:22:54 AM
Grace, I almost think it impossible for any Royal to have shown Diana the "ropes." What they do in public is second nature, bred into them from birth and requires little thinking so it would be hard for them to have the mindset of zero knowledge necessary to understand how an absolute novice feels. Most of the instruction books are unintelligble to me because they are compiled by experts who assume an understanding on the part of the reader which, if they had it, would render the instruction book unnecessary. However, I do believe more effort on their part and a more positive support could have helped.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 12, 2011, 04:14:36 AM
I entirely agree.  I think Diana's expectations of support from her new family were probably a little high (though not entirely unreasonable) and I think the royal family's expectations of her were probably somewhat optimistic also.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 12, 2011, 07:35:25 AM
I think that Grace makes a good point about Diana's chronological age.  Not to mention the fact that emotionally she may very well have been even less mature.  The age gap between the worldly prince and the emotionally scarred girl can only have exacerbated the disparity in their natures and expectations......
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 12, 2011, 09:48:15 AM
Plus the fact that Diana was romantically in love with Charles and he still had his feelings for Camilla and, though he may of been fond of Diana, I don't believe he loved her in the way needed to create a family unit and survive.

How hard it must have been for the both of them to know that they had to produce an heir and had to work on that and act (on Charles's part) as if he cared about his wife.  Since Diana has said that even on their honeymoon, Charles was in contact with "Ethel", I wonder how she got through the whole thing for as long as she did.

However, the affairs that Diana had did nothing to help her image or her situation.  She wasn't entirely blameless and couldn't sit back and feel that she was wronged.  She had done some of the wrongs herself.

I know that her reputation (as reputations of all who die young) has been reconstituted, but her flagrant ways would probably have caught up with her in the end.  Would she be the much revered mother of Prince William and Harry if she had continued to globe trek with the likes of Dodi and other men?

She might have ended up as "notorious" as Wallis Simpson was a generation before.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 12, 2011, 12:34:41 PM
It's difficult to predict how her life might have turned out had she lived longer.

It could be argued that the Dodi relationship was something transient, and that it had a certain annoyance element which Diana may possibly have chosen to foster, at least for a while....

Diana at 50 would probably have been a very different person.  Speaking as someone who is actually 50, I can safely say that the passing years alter one's perspective and expectations, tastes and inclinations, to a degree that one could scarcely have imagined.  Who is to say that this may not have been the case for her?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on October 20, 2011, 09:05:21 AM
I always wonder what she would think about Kate and Chelsey.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 20, 2011, 09:14:59 AM
Every news-person thinks that she would "love" Kate.  I think that they have to write something.

I wonder how she would have reacted to Kate and William living together for so long before the wedding was even a certainty.

As to Chelsea, she is blip on the screen compared to the stuff that Harry has engaged in.  Would he have been such a "wild child" if he had had his mother's influence and not just his staid father's?

But Times have changed so much since the early 1980s when Diana married into the royal family.  Who knows what her point of view would have been?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 21, 2011, 09:43:13 AM
Interesting to speculate on how long their relationship would have lasted had Diana and Charles been allowed to live together before they married.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 21, 2011, 10:34:39 AM
Royals living together in the early 1980s?  That wasn't even a readily accepted thing for non royals as it is now.

I truly hate all the Diana worship that goes on.  It is sort of like the JFK worship that Americans indulged in during the 1960s and after his assassination.

All idols have clay feet.  No one has yet accepted that whether it is worship of a sports idol - Tiger Woods - a politician - John Edwards - Hollywood idols and Rock Stars - there are too many to name -Italian politician -Silvio Berlusconi and many royals.

Maybe they are just human, but some of us don't indulge in the kind of bad behavior that others do and I think we are all human.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 21, 2011, 11:22:33 AM
I too am no Diana worshipper.

Realistically, Charles and Diana could never have lived together as William and Kate have. However, they should have had more opportunity to get to know one another.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 21, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
I would not call myself a "Diana worshipper" but I have personal reasons to admire and respect her.
 To me, her mistakes, if we must call them that, were the end result/reaction  to Charles'  behaviour, whom I  dislike intensely.  Although the reaction to  the Princess' death here in SF was not as mad as it was in the UK,  we had long lines at the British consullate for the condolence books. [BTW, that consulate has since moved to LA, much to my annoyance, although I rarely had much reason to use them].
 Diana was an inspiration  to young people,  and not just because of her glamour and beauty. Those assets helped, of course but they were a beginning.
 As noted, JFK [another that I admire, despite his faults] was another inspiration to young people, and I  freely admit being one of them.
 His death as well as Diana's'  were shattering to  those who admired and were inspired by them.
 No one is without faults and to me,  hers' were no worse than anyone elses'.
As she famously said  "the marriage was rather crowded".   It was a lousy marriage but look at  what it produced. The monarchy's best hope for the future, if it lasts that long.
 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 21, 2011, 02:17:20 PM
I remember feeling "lost" when I heard about JKF.  After all the last presidential assassination had been McKinley of 1901.

I was quite young, but not so young as to know what was happening.  It was much later that the world heard about JFK's clay feet and how his father may have "won" the election for him by the voting fraud that took place in Chicago.

And while the marriage of Diane and Prince Charles may have been "crowded", Diana brought a few people into it herself.  Look at the request for DNA testing on Harry to see if he was truly Charles's child. It was never done (as far as the public knows) and I am glad, but it will follow him around for the rest of his life.  It was even brought up on the day of the wedding of Kate to Prince William.

I guess I just get tired of all the press babbling about things they know nothing about.  For example whether or not Diana would have "loved" Kate.  Perhaps Diana would have been a mother in law like Queen Alexandra or Empress Marie - who knows and who can tell?  And no one knows who would have been William's step father.

I'm just grumpy today.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 21, 2011, 03:49:00 PM
The Prince Harry  story was a media creation to sell cheap, trashy newspapers.  I never gave it credence, considering who published it. I have my own stories about that, but they are not pleasant.
  It is my understanding that Charles'  distraction with  "the other woman" is what drove her to play the same game. She had a better taste  that he did,  but we all make mistakes.  I cannot say that i would do the same, I am no nun after all.
  Diana was treated shabbily, as an "object"  despite all the talk of  Phillip's support, Margaret and  Anne, whom I suspect secretly hated her, for obvious reasons.
  In my  semi-informed view,  the Queen was the only one who treated her decently.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 21, 2011, 04:56:26 PM
And while the marriage of Diane and Prince Charles may have been "crowded", Diana brought a few people into it herself.  Look at the request for DNA testing on Harry to see if he was truly Charles's child. It was never done (as far as the public knows) and I am glad, but it will follow him around for the rest of his life.  It was even brought up on the day of the wedding of Kate to Prince William.

Of course it won't follow him around for the rest of his life!  As Robert has said, the whole story was pure gutter press invention and I'm surprised someone like you would even raise it here.  There's no evidence that Prince Charles, Prince Harry or the rest of the royal family ever doubted Harry's parentage.  Do you remember that both Charles and Diana had affairs?  Why, then, do you not make the assumption that Charles could have been the father of Camilla's children? 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 21, 2011, 05:32:33 PM
Wow, Grace. Very interesting  observation. Wish I had thought of it !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: koloagirl on October 21, 2011, 06:12:33 PM

Aloha!

I too admire, respect and care for the memory of the late Princess Diana.  I do not "worship her" however - she was human and her imperfections were there.

Being the same age as she, I followed her right along from the beginning of the "fairy tale" of the royal wedding to the disillusion and break-up of their marriage. 

Speaking personally,  I cared for her more being a person who freely admitted not being perfect, than a cardboard cutout of a Royal - I think many people (including myself) related to her in some way and although it makes no sense whatsoever - felt real grief at her untimely death, as if I "knew" her, which of course I did not.

I surprised myself very much when upon my very first visit to London last month I had the opportunity to tour the State Rooms of Buckingham Palace.  When I got to the Throne Room with its large photograph of William and Kate sitting on the steps with their bridesmaids and pages - I suddenly flashed in my mind to the very similar picture of Princess Diana after her own wedding in that same location.  To my huge embarrassment and surprise, I actually teared up and became quite emotional (not overly so though, people weren't staring at me or anything!) - I can only say that being someplace so intimately associated with what seemed to be a very happy time in Princess Diana's life struck me in a very real way.

She was a special person who was as flawed as many of us and IMO, would have become someone who at 50, would have continued to inspire us in many ways.

I have to say a big "ditto" to Robert's comments - completely agree!  BYW Robert - I loved "your" London, even for one day!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 21, 2011, 06:45:17 PM
Thank you, Koalagirl, .  I am happy you enjoyed  your brief stay.  London is not for everyone, but anyone interested in royalty and especially history will find many interests available.
 Plus, many of those are free, which releaves the high cost of staying there.
 I am not a tourists there, just a visitor with  friends to enjoy so I rarely  go to those sort of things- BuckHouse as an example,  but I have been to them all.  I boycott the  cheesy "Diana Tours".   I know what they are and to me,  pure exploitation. I was asked once to guide such a tour and almost lost my cookies over they script. Needless to say  I passed on the opportunity.
 I am even disgusted with Earl Spencer and his tricks to get "Diana money" with busloads of  Asian tourists. However, I think that is over with.
 Of course, this happens with famous people all over the world so I really cannot say it is unique to Diana, Princess of Wales.
  To me, she remains, and always will, a vivid, fond memory and I personally was deeply upset at her death. It makes no difference how or why, to me, I felt like I had lost another inspiration. Those are few and far between now, at my age.
 My return to London, not long after the events, was probably the saddest I have made. And I have been through a lot  there, After 2-3 visits a year for 30+ years,  I am an old hand but till, always something new,  Diana's death was NOT something I was prepared for. I do not think anyone, even those who did not care for her, was.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 22, 2011, 09:47:35 AM
As to bringing up the DNA of Harry, I heard it many times in the days before the wedding of Kate and William.  As I said, the press has to say something, I didn't say that I agreed. Just making a point that the press never stops talking just to have something to say.

Grace mentions that Charles was never considered for the father of Thomas Parker Bowles -1974 or Laura Parker-Bowles - 1978.

I think that Diana's affair with James Hewitt and the resemblance of Harry to Hewitt's coloring was what brought the suggestion to the fore.  In the media bite that I heard in the days before the wedding of Kate and William, there were photos of the two men and also the point was made that Harry looks more like a Spencer than a Windsor which is why he doesn't resemble his brother or his father.  William looks a great deal like Diana, but Harry seems to look more like his uncle Earl Spencer.

The whole horrid story of Charles and Diana and the mess they both created (and I know that many blame Charles more than Diana but I think they both created the mess) brought a sad inheritance to Harry.  And I do think that it will be brought up over and over again as long as the media thinks it will fill up space and bring in readers.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 22, 2011, 10:41:09 AM
Always consider the source.......and the source for this story started in  garbage press.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 22, 2011, 11:50:18 AM
I feel dreadfully sorry for Harry over this sordid tale (which, of course, reflects badly on Diana rather than Charles, but the gutter press forgets that!). As I understand it, Diana didn't actually meet Hewitt until after Harry was born, but it's an unfortunate coincidence that Harry has ginger hair and a certain similarity of features, inherited from the Spencers.

Interestingly, Harry has a double among his Spencer cousins. During the TV coverage of Diana's funeral, the BBC went from the cortege to one of Diana's sisters arriving at the Abbey with her family. Her son, who was virtually the same age as Harry, was so like him that my instant reaction was 'How did Harry get here?'

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 23, 2011, 03:09:07 AM
  It is my understanding that Charles'  distraction with  "the other woman" is what drove her to play the same game. She had a better taste  that he did,  but we all make mistakes.  I cannot say that i would do the same, I am no nun after all.
 
I don't think Diana did have the greatest taste in men....indeed she went through a not modest number and only one seems to have been totally decent Hasnat Khan...and her last paramour.....well less said the better!
AND say what you like about Camilla, her attractions,charms or lack of them.....good bad or indifferent.....she  got Charles's attention and she kept it!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 23, 2011, 05:50:03 AM
We only have to think of James Hewitt!

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 23, 2011, 07:52:58 AM
I was shown a picture of Diana greeting a young man in military attire who looked for all the world like Harry. For a moment I was confused. Diana didn't live long enough to see Harry at this particular young man's age. The person of whom I speak was her brother, Charles Spencer.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 23, 2011, 11:59:58 AM

Aloha!

I too admire, respect and care for the memory of the late Princess Diana.  I do not "worship her" however - she was human and her imperfections were there.

Being the same age as she, I followed her right along from the beginning of the "fairy tale" of the royal wedding to the disillusion and break-up of their marriage. 

Speaking personally,  I cared for her more being a person who freely admitted not being perfect, than a cardboard cutout of a Royal - I think many people (including myself) related to her in some way and although it makes no sense whatsoever - felt real grief at her untimely death, as if I "knew" her, which of course I did not.

I surprised myself very much when upon my very first visit to London last month I had the opportunity to tour the State Rooms of Buckingham Palace.  When I got to the Throne Room with its large photograph of William and Kate sitting on the steps with their bridesmaids and pages - I suddenly flashed in my mind to the very similar picture of Princess Diana after her own wedding in that same location.  To my huge embarrassment and surprise, I actually teared up and became quite emotional (not overly so though, people weren't staring at me or anything!) - I can only say that being someplace so intimately associated with what seemed to be a very happy time in Princess Diana's life struck me in a very real way.

She was a special person who was as flawed as many of us and IMO, would have become someone who at 50, would have continued to inspire us in many ways.

I have to say a big "ditto" to Robert's comments - completely agree!  BYW Robert - I loved "your" London, even for one day!

Thank you for sharing your experiences, koloagirl.

I had the extreme pleasure of staying in London for an entire week last year. It was my first visit and I fell in love with it whole heartedly. I had a similar experience as you, but mine was in Westminster Abbey. I stood on the very spot Diana's coffin rested inside the abbey for her funeral service. Standing there looking up at the pulpit and then up at the incredible Gothic ceiling brought me back to that day instantly. Tears welled in my eyes as I thought of her boys sitting off to my right. Unfortunately, mine wasn't a happy remembrance such as yours. I had no idea where those emotions came from, but they overtook me just the same.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 23, 2011, 04:40:42 PM
Oh, I did not mean Diana's choice in men had anything to do with their  characters, just they were better looking  than the choice Charles made.  But them, he is no prize either.
 It is fairly obvious I am rather prejudiced towards him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on October 24, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
Oh Robert, that's rather a shallow way of looking at things!

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 01:57:14 AM
I know, Ann. Do not take it too seriously.  And I do  mean  my prejudice halfheartedly. I just do not care for Charles, not  for a very long time so am just being bitchy.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 24, 2011, 08:32:56 AM
I always remember that Mohammad Al Fayed - who is the owner of Harrods - wanted to become a British citizen and was turned down.  I always thought, what better way to get around being shunned than by marrying your son to the former Princess of Wales and mother of the future king?

How could he be turned down for citizenship if his son was so closely involved with the royal family?

I remember hearing that Al Fayed pushed his son to break his engagement to the woman he was currently with to pursue Diana.

Robert, I did say that Harry got his coloring from the Spencers.  But even considering the source, I believe that the media will never let this story go.  It sells papers and when Harry finally marries, I will imagine that the whole thing will be dredged up again.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 24, 2011, 08:40:05 AM
Well he is certainly more than stupid enough to have thought that, but the likelihood of that marriage ever coming to pass is zero.  I particularly hate the way that Al Fayed hijacked Diana's death for his own personal purposes - nothing is more distasteful than the awful memorial that he erected in Harrods - ghastly.....

As to the press's obsession with Harry's paternity - why don't we do our bit on here and refrain from mentioning or discussing it?  It's demeaning to our integrity as a serious discussion group.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 24, 2011, 09:07:25 AM
Martyn - you are very right!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 09:12:26 AM
Agreed, Martyn. BTW, al Fayeed no longer owns HARROD'S- he sold it ! And, that tacky shrine/memorial is long gone I think.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 24, 2011, 09:51:33 AM
I believe that awful Harrods memorial is actually still insitu, sadly. All Dodi and his father cared about was Diana's status IMO, Dodi soon got shot of that American girl he was supposed to be marrying! That tells you what sort of man he was if you ask me. Ghastly.

I think Diana was just having a bit of fun but I think she should have been a bit more sensible and known better...and ultimately sad how things turned out!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 24, 2011, 11:07:34 AM
I believe that awful Harrods memorial is actually still insitu, sadly. All Dodi and his father cared about was Diana's status IMO, Dodi soon got shot of that American girl he was supposed to be marrying! That tells you what sort of man he was if you ask me. Ghastly.

I think Diana was just having a bit of fun but I think she should have been a bit more sensible and known better...and ultimately sad how things turned out!

How dreadful.  The thought that it is still there - frightful.

Fayed made the mistake of imagining that anything in life can be bought or sold - citizenship, Diana, even his son.

It's utterly regrrettable in so many differing ways that she should have ever have been mixed up with him and his clan.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 12:16:08 PM
Oh, Eddie,  how sad that it may still be there.  Just as was about to go back into the place.....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 24, 2011, 12:26:17 PM
Never one to purposely post inaccurate information (unlike a certain individual who shall remain nameless) I Just telephoned Harrods and they informed me the memorial IS still insitu!!!

For those who have not seen the tasteless, revolting "thing" in person here is a pic!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D

(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5493/princessdianamemorialpi.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/princessdianamemorialpi.jpg/)

Why they didn't sell it for scrap the moment Fayed vacated the building I will never know!!! hehe

Poor Diana, such a lover of beautiful things, would be horrified.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
Thanks for the update, Eddie.   Sadly, that is not the worst it was-  when I saw it  he had Dodi and Diana manques IN HER WEDDING DRESS [copy, of coourse] displayed.  He was still  even selling the dolls.
  This just made her death all the more distressing to me.
 I have not been into the store since.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 24, 2011, 12:32:52 PM
I agree Robert! Makes me dislike the man all the more. I won't even start on the comments he made about the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh! He's not fit to kiss the ground they walk on.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 24, 2011, 12:41:11 PM
Well he is certainly more than stupid enough to have thought that, but the likelihood of that marriage ever coming to pass is zero.  I particularly hate the way that Al Fayed hijacked Diana's death for his own personal purposes -
There is am old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my best friend"...by getting entangle the Fayeds and Diana were both settling old scores...
But one must remember.....Diana had no need to get mixed up with those ghastly Egyptians.....she made that choice..
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 01:40:22 PM
I must agree, Ashdean. I have no idea what her point was and why, but it did seem like she was thumbing her nose, so to say.
 If she had to do that, I wish she had chosen someone else to do it with.
 I doubt very much marriage was ever in her horizon with that clan.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 24, 2011, 02:08:04 PM
No one will ever know if marriage was on her mind, but Al Fayed can say anything he wants to and no one can dispute it because all of the main players are gone.

I am sure that Dodi was not the "love of her life", but I think no matter how popular she was and no matter how much she had grown up, she was still a little lost girl dreaming of a great love.  It got her into a lot of trouble and ultimately led to her death.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Vecchiolarry on October 24, 2011, 04:04:45 PM
Hi,

My theory on this is that she probably just wanted a vacation on his yacht and was planning on returning to London - probably the next day...
But, things got away from her and out of hand.  Photographs of her with Dodi and on his yacht proclaimed their engagement; but I tought that was all too soon for that declaration, since she hadn't known him that long.
Did she ever actually receive that ring or was it just produced after the fact?  If it was hers, why don't the boys have it now, as her inheritance?
I believe Al Fayed has the ring, doesn't he??

Larry
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 24, 2011, 04:09:46 PM
Personally I think all that stuff about a ring was a load of nonsense cooked up by Fayed Senior himself. There was a picture of a ring floating around, a big ugly gaudy thing which Diana would never have worn. They had only known each other 5 minutes, I think she was just having fun. One of her closest friends said she would never have married him. An English Rose, a member of the aristocracy and Royal Family marrying someone like him? Never!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 24, 2011, 04:23:21 PM
Personally I think all that stuff about a ring was a load of nonsense cooked up by Fayed Senior himself. There was a picture of a ring floating around, a big ugly gaudy thing which Diana would never have worn. They had only known each other 5 minutes, I think she was just having fun. One of her closest friends said she would never have married him. An English Rose, a member of the aristocracy and Royal Family marrying someone like him? Never!
Fayed was a total fantatist....he  had big dreams of a big payback on his so called enemies and they were shattered by the accident....
However Diana does not come out of it very well....it shows how unstable she was....she was a single woman and entitled to her life but for a loving mother of a future King ahe should not have been whoring around the Med with such unsavoury characters....
She had plenty of money (that was one thing about her divorce..she did receive a  very generous pay off....she had no need to accept freebies....Royals do accept them we know and not always off the nicest of folk...but this shows how disconnected Diana had become...she was estranged from her birth family and mixing with less than savoury characters....She really was hurtling toward disaster...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 24, 2011, 04:42:36 PM
I think we have consensus here.  That ring did exist but magically appeared when the jeweler wanted his bill paid.
 There were all sorts of phantom jewelry stories related to  Diana after her death.  None of which has been proved true as far as I know.
 One of the more fantastic I read was yet another ring, I forget from whom  but apparently from some filthy rich Arab prince, that was given to William after her death. As the story went, he had it melted  down or salvaged some way for re-use.   I do not believe a word of it.  As usual, this story came from you know you.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 25, 2011, 01:16:55 AM
Ashdean, yes, yes and yes to all you say. However, before you imply that the payout Diana received from the divorce should have compensated her, please understand that logic and emotion rarely sit comfortably together. Diana had always been financially cushioned, the cushion just became thicker as she moved from Lady to Princess but there was nothing to cushion her against the devastation of her dream. I speak from experience when I tell you that nothing demeans a woman's sense of selfworth more than the man she loves turning his back on her for a woman nearly old enough to be her mother. I, at least had the luxury of comparative privacy, for Diana it was all too horribly public, which for a woman with her fragile psyche must have felt intolerable. I imagine, as I, she sought validation of herself as a woman who who was worthy of receiving love whilst sending a message to Charles that she was doing alright without him. You may call it "whoring around the Med", I see it rather as a lonely woman, wearing a fixed smile for the world, searching for somebody to love her. No divorce settlement, however large, could be more important than that.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 25, 2011, 01:23:10 AM
I, at least had the luxury of comparative privacy, for Diana it was all too horribly public, which for a woman with her fragile psyche must have felt intolerable.

I disagree, she worked the press to her advantage too, but remember that awful television interview she did, that was a big no no. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 25, 2011, 02:07:02 AM
You have a valid point there, Eddie UK, but as Royals, or those married to them, are not given a different psychology from the rest of us,. Of course maybe she felt that public humiliation required public revenge. Of course, I can only speculate. I would need to be Diana in order to experience what it felt like to be Diana.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 25, 2011, 03:18:01 AM
Ashdean, yes, yes and yes to all you say. However, before you imply that the payout Diana received from the divorce should have compensated her, please understand that logic and emotion rarely sit comfortably together. Diana had always been financially cushioned, the cushion just became thicker as she moved from Lady to Princess but there was nothing to cushion her against the devastation of her dream. I speak from experience when I tell you that nothing demeans a woman's sense of selfworth more than the man she loves turning his back on her for a woman nearly old enough to be her mother. I, at least had the luxury of comparative privacy, for Diana it was all too horribly public, which for a woman with her fragile psyche must have felt intolerable. I imagine, as I, she sought validation of herself as a woman who who was worthy of receiving love whilst sending a message to Charles that she was doing alright without him. You may call it "whoring around the Med", I see it rather as a lonely woman, wearing a fixed smile for the world, searching for somebody to love her. No divorce settlement, however large, could be more important than that.
I did not mean the cash she received compensated for the emotional stress...I meant thatshe had total financial independance and could live the comfortable life most of us dream of !.... without need to resource to anyone especially the characters she did become tragically associated with!.
As for her emotional state she was indeed a very vulnerable and complex person damaged from childhood by circumstances a situation that had worsened by her failed marriage and various relationships....She could be both extremely cunning and malicious and extremely irrational.....her entanglement with the Fayed duo was I think a mixture of both and was a costly cocktail...
When you are a loving mother....let alone a person in the spotlight...and you have a child who you know will inherit a great position...you should try to lead a circumspect life for their sake....I am NOT  saying that she was not entitled to a private life....I am saying there are ways and means of conducting one.....You cannot put yr 2 fingers up to a world of which yr children are destined to have a leading roll...Diana was very much a loose cannon that last tragic summer....estranged from the family and the world to which she had belonged...mixing with (or letting herself be in the clutches of machivellian characters) how could it one way or another not end in disaster
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: feodorovna on October 25, 2011, 04:51:43 AM
Ashdean, you are quite correct in your assessment and that last year was indeed a tragedy. In a perfect world it would have all been alright in the end, but for whom? Perfection for one can so often mean heartache for another. There usually is no clear cut black or white to any situation, it's more about the numerous shades of grey.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 25, 2011, 08:55:30 AM
I have to agree with Ashdean.  It's more than clear that Diana was using the Fayeds for her own purposes, just as much as Fayed senior was trying to use her.  That last summer was messy and horrible in the sense that she was not at her finest during this period - aimless, obviously lonely and prey to that pair of carpetbaggers.  One can only hope that it was a temporary loss of purpose and clarity, although I guess we will never know for sure what her motives really were for this horrible entanglement.

As for the Repossi ring story - it's bunkum.  The ring in question was a cocktail ring - most certainly not the kind of jewel that would be appropriate as an engagement ring for a former member of a royal house.  Whoever suggested that it was fit for such a purpose was certainly lacking in both taste and sense........
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on October 25, 2011, 09:41:57 AM
As for the Repossi ring story - it's bunkum.  The ring in question was a cocktail ring - most certainly not the kind of jewel that would be appropriate as an engagement ring for a former member of a royal house.  Whoever suggested that it was fit for such a purpose was certainly lacking in both taste and sense........
I totally agree with yr assesment of the ring and the story behind it....If they really had been getting engaged Daddy Fayed would have made sure there would have been a rock to surpass Charles's ring...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 25, 2011, 10:05:36 AM
And remember that Diana chose "Charles's ring" herself from a tray of rings that were shown to her.  She picked, according to my friend who knows a lot about the Windsors, the biggest ring, not the most beautiful or the most meaningful.  Although marrying someone who says, "What ever that means," when asked if he is in love makes meaningful meaningless.

While I said previously that I am tired of "Diana worship", I do feel that from the beginning she was a lost little girl.  But I also agree that she did many things, including that horrible TV interview, that made her life more complicated and she was, at that time, in charge of herself.

And if Camilla was "old enough" to be Diana's mother, then was Charles old enough to be her father?  I don't think so unless one gives birth at 13 or so.  (1948 to 1961)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 25, 2011, 01:54:56 PM
Diana was full of mixed messages to be sure. It has been said that she loved Prince Charles and never wanted a divorce...even after they were divorced. But, she goes and does the Panorama interview and says all of those harmful things including (and I am paraphrasing here) that Charles should not be king. That interview alone, I believe, was the catalyst for the divorce. The Queen would have no more. How does one do that if you are supposedly in love with your spouse?
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 25, 2011, 02:06:47 PM
You have a remarkably sensitive insight  to Diana's feelings, Feodorovna.
 I agree with the "lost little girl" assessment. It seemed  fairly obvious from the begininning. I do not think, just my opinion here, that she  knew fully well what she was getting into. And by this, I mean she was not  told not prepared  for a life with  Charles and the RF. It seemed to me she was condescendingly tolerated, but not taken seriously.  After she produced the "heir & spare" she was just a trophy to trot out at his side.  That she out shined him was  just too bad for Charles.  She was an asset, not competition. as JFK knew with  the beautiful Jacqueline.
 Charles was and is just too selfish to have realised that.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 25, 2011, 04:39:23 PM
It was touted as the "fairy tale romance" but they did not live happily ever after.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on October 27, 2011, 07:07:33 AM
Diana was full of mixed messages to be sure. It has been said that she loved Prince Charles and never wanted a divorce...even after they were divorced. But, she goes and does the Panorama interview and says all of those harmful things including (and I am paraphrasing here) that Charles should not be king. That interview alone, I believe, was the catalyst for the divorce. The Queen would have no more. How does one do that if you are supposedly in love with your spouse?

The Panorama interview was in response to the interview that Charles had already given himself to Dimbleby.  It's safe to say that it was a very crude way to hit back at Charles, but it must also be added that he had set the precedent for this kind of intrusion into their relationship with his interview.

Her suggestion that Charles was either unsuited to be King, or perhaps that he did not care to be King, was a very potent way of getting back at him, and reinforced a notion that already existed in the minds of some.  Whatever the case, it ht its mark.

What is clear from her interview is that she had very strong feelings at that time; whatever her motivation, whether it be love or hate (and the two can become dangerously mixed up in a messy situation such as this), she was very shrewd in knowing just how to hit and hit hard.....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on October 27, 2011, 08:55:58 AM
But she also discovered "that there is dignity in silence".
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: DNAgenie on November 05, 2011, 12:32:05 AM
Grace wrote
Quote
There is no need for a programme of this type, accident photos or not, on the tenth anniversary of Diana's death.

Could they not, just this one time, honor this lady with a documentary on the achievements of her life as Princess of Wales, without dragging up her problems with Charles, extra-marital affairs, supposed psychological problems and her early and tragic death?

Diana's greatest achievement was how she brought up her sons, not as Royals, but as modern and unspoilt young men.

I've just been watching a documentary on one of William's charities in Africa.  What comes across with great clarity is what a natural and modern young man he is. Not a typical old-fashioned Royal, but someone who cares for those less fortuanate than himself, who likes a joke, likes modern music, who thinks for himself and doesn't always toe the "Royal" Party line.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Lucien on November 05, 2011, 01:27:39 AM
Grace wrote
Quote
There is no need for a programme of this type, accident photos or not, on the tenth anniversary of Diana's death.

Could they not, just this one time, honor this lady with a documentary on the achievements of her life as Princess of Wales, without dragging up her problems with Charles, extra-marital affairs, supposed psychological problems and her early and tragic death?

Diana's greatest achievement was how she brought up her sons, not as Royals, but as modern and unspoilt young men.

I've just been watching a documentary on one of William's charities in Africa.  What comes across with great clarity is what a natural and modern young man he is. Not a typical old-fashioned Royal, but someone who cares for those less fortuanate than himself, who likes a joke, likes modern music, who thinks for himself and doesn't always toe the "Royal" Party line.

And thanks to his dad!Don't forget,Charles has raised them to what they are now!!They were so young when they lost their mother,yes.The charities,well,yes,so many of them.All she did was to raise awareness,when it so suited her,beyond that she was as superficial and manipulative as a human can be.Nothing special,a loose canon with fancy dresses and jewelry a go go....a dressed-up walking talking doll.
The fascination with her is almost obsceen and must come from lala-land .Tells a lot of the world,or some circles,today that she's almost revered as a saint.Which she certainly wasn't.She was the first real big hype of the day and all went crazy,all felt she was their girlfriend,family member.She wasn't.She was just a shy british girl that got lost and lost it on the way...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: DNAgenie on November 05, 2011, 02:25:37 AM
I am not one of Diana's admirers in general but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  William was 15 when his mother died and Harry was a month short of his 13th birthday, so she would have been the most important formative influence in their lives.  Diana had always shown her rapport with children, and her benign influence on the development of her sons may well prove to be her most lasting legacy. I agree that Charles was left to raise them after Diana's death, and he deserves some of the credit, but without Diana's influence they would not have been such grounded individuals.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Rani on November 05, 2011, 11:26:06 AM
It is always said that William is like his mother, but the last time I see more and more his fathers character in him.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Martyn on November 07, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
It's quite clear that both boys display the influences of both parents in their adult characters.  They are a credit ot both parents, despite some youthful highjinks and indiscretions....

Lucien's rather strong opinions of the late Princess make interesting reading but differ largely from the perceptions of others, and in particular, those who had the chance to meet her.

Still that is the essence of this Group - the opportunity to come together and exchange opinions and information, no matter how diverse....
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 08, 2011, 03:29:32 AM
Lucien is far from alone in his view of Diana, which I largely share, though I might have expressed it a bit differently.

I'm STILL trying to work out what so many people saw in her!

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on November 08, 2011, 03:35:50 AM
Lucien is far from alone in his view of Diana, which I largely share, though I might have expressed it a bit differently.

I'm STILL trying to work out what so many people saw in her!

Ann
I agree with what yr saying...though I think her sad but timely death saved the family especially her sons a great deal of embarassment....the flip side was she died while her charisma was still mainly intact....if she had lived even 3 or 4 years longer the life she was leading would have made much of he adoring public look at her in a less favourable light.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on November 08, 2011, 04:25:07 AM
I see the Diana baggers are back in full force.  I should head over now to the Prince of Wales thread and dissect HIS character in the thoroughly relentless fashion Diana's has been here...over and over again. 

Do you people ever see the good in this young woman who became a member of the royal family, a world famous personality, a wife and a mother all before she was 21 years of age and did it admirably?  No one knew what was happening behind the scenes for years...that is a massive achievement in itself as far as I'm concerned.  Today's 19-20 years olds wouldn't cope with half of what this girl took on...nightclubs and drinking is the life for most of them. 

Why don't you give it a break?  This thread doesn't exist just for you to tear Diana's memory down in post after post.  I bet it wouldn't be tolerated on the thread about her ex-husband!   
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 08, 2011, 05:23:02 AM
But what did Diana do? Apart from producing William and Harry.

She looked glamorous, and attached herself to fashionable causes, and causes which became fashionable because people swooned over her.

You may think there is something lacking in ME, but I can't work out what was so remarkable about her.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on November 08, 2011, 05:35:36 AM
And the same may be asked about her former husband whom you all seem to coo over constantly...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on November 08, 2011, 08:56:07 AM
I "coo" over neither, yet I also agree that Diana was heir to that age old benefit of having died young while in the best flower of youth and vitality.

I always think of others like James Dean and JFK and Marilyn Monroe who died young and so are remembered as "forever young" and beautiful.

Just the other day it occurred to me that, had he lived, JFK would now be 94.  An old man and not the young president whose life was taken in 1963.  He would be "old age" ugly and with his "back problems" most likely in a wheelchair with arthritis and age spots.

Hardly the "matinee idol" that so many remember.

I think that Diana, Princess of Wales would have met a similar end had she not died in a car accident at the age of 37, she would now be into her 50s and no longer the youthful "rebel" of the Royal Family.

In fact I wonder if she would have had the sense to back away and let the next generation take over or would she have been jealous of Kate and the ease with which Kate has moved into the role that Diana couldn't handle?

It is obvious that William is quite different from his father in that he is not keeping an old mistress in his head and in his heart while pretending to accept the woman to whom he is married.

Diana would have been wise to have taken Queen Alexandra as her role model.  A different age and different way of life?  Obviously, but while she was married to Charles, Diana actually did nothing more than produce the "heir and the spare".
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 08, 2011, 09:11:03 AM
I don't coo over Charles. I simply think he has done more concrete things than Diana by creating the Prince's Trust.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on November 08, 2011, 10:32:51 AM
I wonder - did Diana "create" anything or did she just attach her name to already existing charities and concerns?

Many royals give their "support" to charities without actually creating or giving anything except their name and royal recognition.

I do know that Charles created the Prince's Trust thirty five years ago. That would have been in 1976 well before Charles and Diana married.  Charles was 28 in 1976 - a young age to create an organization to help those less fortunate.

While Diana attached herself to the land mines concerns and the Aids concerns, did she actually "create" any charities or organizations to deal with these global problems?  Or were her interests simply "photo ops" to put her in the limelight while trying to make Charles look bad.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 08, 2011, 10:57:48 AM
Charles started the Prince's Trust in 1977 when he came out of the Navy, using his terminal gratuity to do so.

As I understand it, the Trust specialises is assisting young people who don't get assistance from anywhere else - best known for giving loans and grants to people with business ideas that the banks won't touch. I don't know to what extent he was inspired by the example of his grandfather with the Duke of York's Camps, which seem rather quaint nowadays (all that sitting round camp fires singing 'Underneath the Spreading Chestnut Tree') but were very forward-thinking in their day.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on November 08, 2011, 08:37:41 PM
My point is not about who did what (but I'd love to know what more Diana was supposed to have achieved during her time as the wife of Charles?), but the CONSTANT highlighting over and over again on this thread of her mistakes and character flaws.  How many of you could undergo such scrutiny of your lives and come out squeaky clean?

As to Ashdean's post about Diana's death "saving" "the family, especially her sons" a great deal of "embarrassment", have these sons had lives of virtue in comparison to that of their late mother?  Not many are deluded about Harry's lifestyle and William was jetting off on holidays with his girlfriend and living with her before they were engaged, so I'd like to know how is that different from what Diana was supposedly doing?  Seems like double standards to me!  It's just possible SHE may have experienced some embarrassment by some of the things THEY have done if she was still living...as for Charles...don't get me started!  

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on November 08, 2011, 08:44:34 PM
here here, Grace.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on November 08, 2011, 11:42:36 PM
here here, Grace.
On the assumption that the repetitive words just used above, indicate enthusiastic agreement with a foregoing comment, then the correct usage/spelling is "Hear, hear !"  It comes from the wording "Hear him !  Hear him !", and I am constantly surprised to observe that it is SO often seen used incorrectly (UNLESS it is the case wherein one is vigorously indicating a specific physical location, usually accompanied with gesturing, and meaning "at this place.").   Regards,      AP.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 09, 2011, 03:42:42 AM
I really don't see that admitting to being quite unable to see what it was about Diana that charmed so many people (and clearly still does) qualifies as character assassination.

I'll ask the question again. Apart from looking glamorous and wearing her heart on her sleeve, what did she do that was different and 'better' than anything other members of the Royal Family had already done or were doing?

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on November 09, 2011, 06:15:03 AM

I really don't see that admitting to being quite unable to see what it was about Diana that charmed so many people (and clearly still does) qualifies as character assassination.

I'll ask the question again. Apart from looking glamorous and wearing her heart on her sleeve, what did she do that was different and 'better' than anything other members of the Royal Family had already done or were doing?

Ann


She had the "It" quality.  I never saw her in person but I know people who did see her in person and two that actually met her.  The two that met her said she had the ability to make you feel she was there to see you and that she really cared about whatever she or you were talking about.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 09, 2011, 07:03:38 AM
Tampa Bay

Thanks

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CountessKate on November 09, 2011, 08:39:25 AM
Quote
She had the "It" quality.  I never saw her in person but I know people who did see her in person and two that actually met her.  The two that met her said she had the ability to make you feel she was there to see you and that she really cared about whatever she or you were talking about.

I think that's absolutely right.  I didn't see the Queen Mother but most people who saw or met her suggested she had this star quality, as did Edward VIII, and the royal family does need an injection of 'it' from time to time.  I saw both Princess Diana and Princess Anne quite close to when they visited my places of work in the early '90s and while with Princess Anne there was a mild frisson because she was well known and a celebrity, for want of a better word, with Princess Diana there was an incredible fizz and excitement.  With Princess Anne, while there was nothing wrong with her interest or her demeanour, somehow you got the impression she was making the visit because this was her job.  With Diana, you felt she was making the visit because she really wanted to learn more about what we were doing and she was thrilled we were all working in this exciting area. 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on November 09, 2011, 09:22:24 AM
Countess Kate

What area did you work in?

I only saw Diana once, a few months after she and Charles married, and then from a distance through a car window, so cannot comment on her charisma (which she does seem to have had, even though I don't understand it).

But being charismatic doesn't of itself make someone admirable. To cite an extreme case, Hitler clearly had an ability to inspire people to follow him!

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on November 09, 2011, 10:21:34 AM
Right after the marriage, I saw Diana (not in person, of course) as a deer (or doe) in the headlights.  She never looked secure or comfortable as Kate does.

Then the interview with the black smudged eye makeup to make her look like a waif who had been crushed under the pressure of being a part of the Royal Family.

Then that black tight "hooker style" dress when she emerged from her cocoon to show Charles just what he had lost.

Then the all too revealing shots of her and Dodie on the yacht and we know that her sons were often with her.  Was is a good mother who flaunted her lovers in front of her sons?

I do think that a lot of the "bad behavior" that we saw in Harry came from his mother's bad examples.  He was so young when she died.

And, yes, Charles also engaged in "bad behavior", but for different reasons.  He wasn't out to prove to anything to the world because he had already begun the Prince's Trust.  He had his place in history set for him and some of the mistakes his parents made in not allowing him to marry the woman that he loved caused the problems that he and Diana inherited.

But good or bad, both princes love their mother and cherish her memory.  Otherwise William wouldn't have given Kate that cursed sapphire ring.  I don't think I could have accepted and worn that horrible symbol of that failed marriage.  Kate has spunk and panache.  Also, she must love William a great deal.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CountessKate on November 09, 2011, 10:56:51 AM
Quote
Countess Kate
What area did you work in?
I only saw Diana once, a few months after she and Charles married, and then from a distance through a car window, so cannot comment on her charisma (which she does seem to have had, even though I don't understand it).
But being charismatic doesn't of itself make someone admirable. To cite an extreme case, Hitler clearly had an ability to inspire people to follow him!
Ann

I worked in medical research administration.  The visits were of Princess Anne to the Dunn Human Nutrition Unit of which she is the patron, and of Princess Diana to the Medical Research Council's Head Office in London to learn more about the scientific aspects of AIDS.  
Of course you are right that charisma is not necessarily admirable in itself, but only when directed towards the right ends (although even Hitler enacted excellent legislation relating to animal welfare - though I certainly wouldn't push that as a comparison!). I'm not a Diana adorer by any means, and there are many areas where she seems to have been very self-destructive, and she could certainly be very difficult, but in the area of AIDS she did a tremendous amount of good; it was a personally-driven crusade of hers, and I doubt whether any other member of the royal family would have had the right touch (both literally and metaphorically) to have obtained the results she did.  If you want somewhere where Diana showed the value of charismatic leadership, Ann, I would suggest that it took someone like her to help cut through at least some of the real horror and disgust that AIDS sufferers met with in the early days of the disease, but seeing a beautiful princess actually touching a sufferer and showing compassion spoke much louder than words in changing people's opinions, achieved in a way that was then rather novel for a member of the royal family.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TampaBay on November 09, 2011, 11:24:23 AM
Quote
She had the "It" quality.  I never saw her in person but I know people who did see her in person and two that actually met her.  The two that met her said she had the ability to make you feel she was there to see you and that she really cared about whatever she or you were talking about.



I think that's absolutely right.  I didn't see the Queen Mother but most people who saw or met her suggested she had this star quality, as did Edward VIII, and the royal family does need an injection of 'it' from time to time.  I saw both Princess Diana and Princess Anne quite close to when they visited my places of work in the early '90s and while with Princess Anne there was a mild frisson because she was well known and a celebrity, for want of a better word, with Princess Diana there was an incredible fizz and excitement.  With Princess Anne, while there was nothing wrong with her interest or her demeanour, somehow you got the impression she was making the visit because this was her job.  With Diana, you felt she was making the visit because she really wanted to learn more about what we were doing and she was thrilled we were all working in this exciting area. 



CK,

Funny you should metion the Queen Mum because one of the people I know who met Diana also meet the Queen Mum during WWII and this person said they had the exact same quality.  The quality to make you feel as if they had come to whatever gathering or "shindig" for the purpose of specifically seeing  you. 

It also my understanding that both the Queen Mum and Diana never forgot a face or the place they last saw that face and 90% of the time remembered you name. 

For what it is worth, this same ability with faces, places and names is also attributed to Bill Clinton.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Alixz on November 09, 2011, 11:28:55 AM
Bill Clinton - yet another with charisma but indulged in a lot of "bad behavior"  :-)

Perhaps we just like the bad boy/bad girl image that we can't indulge in ourselves. Excepting the Queen Mum as I don't ever remember anyone saying that she indulged in any bad behavior except perhaps with her opinions and cutting remarks.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: ashdean on November 09, 2011, 02:43:39 PM


As to Ashdean's post about Diana's death "saving" "the family, especially her sons" a great deal of "embarrassment", have these sons had lives of virtue in comparison to that of their late mother?  Not many are deluded about Harry's lifestyle and William was jetting off on holidays with his girlfriend and living with her before they were engaged, so I'd like to know how is that different from what Diana was supposedly doing?  Seems like double standards to me!  It's just possible SHE may have experienced some embarrassment by some of the things THEY have done if she was still living...as for Charles...don't get me started!  


I have expressed a opinion which I stand...as I respect your opinion. Diana/s sons are no more saints than any of us but then Diana wanted to be a saint "a Queen of Hearts"...What I do sa say is (and I have said it before) that Diana was entitled to a life....but a modicum of circumspection would have not gone amiss especially as she knew the position her sons were in.....but her behaviour was a symptom of the turmoil she was in and had been in scince childhood....Diana was a Jekyll and Hyde character...sadly the Hyde side was gaining the upper hand in the last phase of her life.
Title: Re: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Selencia on February 18, 2012, 08:56:36 PM
I used to be entirely on Diana's side until I read more into the situation. All the stories that were Diana's view point have been taken as gospel with no consideration for the other persons view. I don't think there is a highlighting of Diana's faults anymore than there are of Charles', its just usually people constantly pick pick pick at Charles and his love for Camilla and leave Diana as the victim ignoring that she had numerous affairs and some of them with married men. It has taken awhile for me to realize that Charles is actually a very intelligent, admirable person who is worthy of being a King despite his disastrous marriage. There is no indication that Charles is anything like Bill Clinton, my dear president despite being good at his job is a serial womanizer who was accused of sexual harassment and took advantage of a young naive intern. Charles for all we know had an affair with one woman whom he loved for decades and eventually made his wife.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on February 19, 2012, 12:00:37 AM
If you follow up the threads on both Charles and Diana and their relationship/marriage on this forum, you'll see there has been a great deal of criticism and a great deal of support for both parties, certainly not just for Diana but I would say there is probably still more public support out there for Diana, possibly influenced by her tragic early death than there is for the union of Charles and Camilla but support for them seems to be growing also.

And Monica Lewinski a young, naive intern?!!!!  Doubt that!  It doesn't take a man long (seconds probably!) to realise when a woman is "available" and I'm sure that was the case here.  The number of women throwing themselves at Bill Clinton before and during his presidency is supposedly legendary!     
Title: The Influence of Princess Diana over the monarchy
Post by: Suzanne on August 31, 2012, 12:04:16 PM
Today is the 15th anniversary of Princess Diana's death. Here's a piece on her influence over the role of royal women as leaders of fashion

http://www.royalhistorian.com/diana-princess-of-wales-and-the-monarchy-part-1-queen-of-fashion/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: blessOTMA on September 01, 2012, 01:46:08 AM
what ever is said or not said, I remember Diana was the first public figure to take the hand of an aids patient, at a time when many health professionals were refusing  to treat them, besides public's  off the charts  attitude about the disease and those who had it . Diana helped to change that... 
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 02, 2012, 05:52:19 PM
what ever is said or not said, I remember Diana was the first public figure to take the hand of an aids patient, at a time when many health professionals were refusing  to treat them, besides public's  off the charts  attitude about the disease and those who had it . Diana helped to change that... 

Yes indeed! I feel this was one of her greatest achievements and went a long way to dispell fear and encourage others to do the same. It's a pity that neither of her two sons have carried on her charitable work in this direction.

R.I.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Jen_94 on September 02, 2012, 06:10:20 PM
what ever is said or not said, I remember Diana was the first public figure to take the hand of an aids patient, at a time when many health professionals were refusing  to treat them, besides public's  off the charts  attitude about the disease and those who had it . Diana helped to change that... 

I agree with you! She did help to change that...
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 02, 2012, 06:25:07 PM
Eof D, Prince Harry does- with his  charitable work with children in Africa, many of whom are AIDS orphans.
 I read, long ago, that one of the other royals was taking on her role in the UK, but  can't recall who it was supposed to be. The Terrence Higgens Trust would know. When I get the chance I shall call and ask.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: CountessKate on September 03, 2012, 04:07:45 AM
Eof D, Prince Harry does- with his  charitable work with children in Africa, many of whom are AIDS orphans.
 I read, long ago, that one of the other royals was taking on her role in the UK, but  can't recall who it was supposed to be. The Terrence Higgens Trust would know. When I get the chance I shall call and ask.

The Terence Higgins Trust currently doesn't have a royal patron, and there does not appear to be any AIDS organisations amongst the list of charities and patronages supported by the royal family (see the official website of the British Monarchy: http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Search%20Charities%20and%20Patronages.aspx).  However, on Prince Harry's webpage relating to his charities and patronage on that site it states "He is also keen to continue the work of his mother, the late Diana, Princess of Wales, who worked to support people with from HIV/AIDS in the UK and overseas."
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 03, 2012, 07:11:55 AM
I did not say he was a patron of  the THT, just they might know.
However, the African children, that is another matter as they do have AIDS orphans. Nothing to do with any British AIDS organisation. I do not know but may they even a UNICEF project.
 Perhaps when W&H finish their military careers, they will have the time to put  more effort into these things.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 03, 2012, 10:12:05 AM
Prince Harry's own charity, Sentabale, which he set up with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, does a lot of work with children in Lesotho, where there is a very high incidence of HIV (something like 30% of the population - and the population is actually shrinking at present) and therefore a lot of AIDS orphans. Prince Harry was joint patron (with Prince Seeiso) of the British Cadet Forces expedition to Lesotho in 2010, which I went on. The group I was with worked in a school for orphans and disabled children - a high proportion of the orphans had been orphaned by AIDS and many of them - and others - were HIV positive. The school is running on a shoestring incidentally.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 03, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
Eof D, Prince Harry does- with his  charitable work with children in Africa, many of whom are AIDS orphans.
 I read, long ago, that one of the other royals was taking on her role in the UK, but  can't recall who it was supposed to be. The Terrence Higgens Trust would know. When I get the chance I shall call and ask.

Yes of course Robert, his work in Africa had momentarily slipped my mind. I was thinking of charitable work closer to home, where there is still and immense amount of work to do to tackle discrimination in regard to those living with or affected by HIV. I hope, as been suggested either he or the Duke of Cambridge might take up the baton for this cause in the UK.

R.I.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 03, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
It does not even have to be a duke or prince. A consort could do it as well. As Dianna was and she started it.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 04, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
It does not even have to be a duke or prince. A consort could do it as well. As Dianna was and she started it.

Absolutely, but I think Philip too established with his own charitable causes, perhaps Camila feeling the cause too close to Diana and by the time Kate becomes consort HIV may have become a non-issue.

R.I.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 04, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
I could not agree more, EoD.  Camilla  would not be very welcome, IMO.  But the Duchess of Cambridge would be perfect. Perhaps she is just not ready yet. And of course, the hope is the final point- a non issue. Sadly, too late for so many.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Suzanne on September 09, 2012, 06:17:00 PM
Diana, Princess of Wales and the Evolution of the Royal Walkabout

http://www.royalhistorian.com/diana-princess-of-wales-and-the-monarchy-part-2-the-evolution-of-the-royal-walkabout/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on September 10, 2012, 01:16:20 AM
Bear in mind that it was not Diana who invented the walkabout. I've not had time to read the article just yet, but I well remember the earliest walkabouts in Britain were in 1972, at the time of the Queen's Silver Wedding.

I have shaken hands with Charles and Camilla when they did a walkabout at Swansea University, where I was working at the time.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Suzanne on September 12, 2012, 09:52:08 PM
Very true - George VI and Queen Elizabeth invented the walkabout and Queen Elizabeth II revived it!
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Suzanne on September 22, 2012, 11:30:47 AM
When I was researching this piece about Princess Diana and her charities, I noticed a few paralells between the Princess and Grand Duchess Ella - the combination of hands on charity work with an interest in fashion and public image.

http://www.royalhistorian.com/diana-princess-of-wales-and-the-monarchy-part-3-philanthropy/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Suzanne on October 03, 2012, 11:50:36 AM
There some interesting paralells between Diana's parenting innovations and the domesticity of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert

http://www.royalhistorian.com/diana-princess-of-wales-and-the-monarchy-part-4-the-public-perception-of-royal-parenting/
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: nena on December 25, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
Then the all too revealing shots of her and Dodie on the yacht and we know that her sons were often with her.  Was is a good mother who flaunted her lovers in front of her sons?

Eh, my first post in the Windsors threads. I'd like to continue conversation on the Princess. ;-)

''Even her harshest critics agree that the Princess of Wales was a devoted, imaginative and demonstrative mother.'' (Wikipedia)

I think that their sons' words would be more reliable source:

'' When she was alive, we completely took for granted her unrivaled love of life, laughter, fun and folly. She was our guardian, friend and protector.

She never once allowed her unfaltering love for us to go unspoken or undemonstrated.

She will always be remembered for her amazing public work. But behind the media glare, to us, just two loving children, she was quite simply the best mother in the world. '' (Princes Harry and William)

'' She was an exceptional and gifted human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her capacity to smile and laugh, nor to inspire others with her warmth and kindness.

I admired and respected her -- for her energy and commitment to others, and especially for her devotion to her two boys.'' (Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second).

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/th_Dianaandsons2_zpsea54d61a.jpg) (http://s185.beta.photobucket.com/user/nemanjapr/media/Dianaandsons2_zpsea54d61a.jpg.html)

Everyone loves moms. You know , one man was once asked, 'What was the best thing one a woman had done to you? ' And the man answered ' She kept me in her stomach for nine months'. Well, I would give support to my mom if my parents were divorced, and if she had a man who respects and loves her, besides my father. They do not have perfect marriage,it is far from that, but they fight, they talk, they solve the problems. And always keep in minds -- Nobody is perfect. But you can do your best. People will always have comments and judge you, due to jealousy or boredom. I understand, maybe the Princess made several 'bad' steps after the divorce, but my God...

On the other hand, I understand Prince Charles -- he had had an affair with Camilla even in the seventies, and he knew that he loved her and that his true love can't be forgotten. But I also understand that he had to be more respectful towards his first wife, to one great man, philanthropic , humanitarian.  Of course that people, me included, love the Princess. She died young, she was royal, she was simply embodiment of 'princess from fairy-tale'. As one had said, she just had 'it'. Yes, I find Queen Mother as one nice woman as well.  

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/th_princess-diana-1-435_zpsf360b217.jpg) (http://s185.beta.photobucket.com/user/nemanjapr/media/princess-diana-1-435_zpsf360b217.jpg.html)
Title: "Unpublished" photo of Diana with her brother.
Post by: rosieposie on January 04, 2013, 02:24:03 AM
The Daily Mail has written an article of a photo that was taken of a teenage Diana with her brother (though Daily Mail labeled him as a boyfriend) where she is relaxing on his lap.    On the photograph it is written "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED".   The photograph has been autioned off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256829/Previously-unseen-photo-teenage-Princess-Diana-scrawled-published-goes-hammer.html

(http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy227/rosieposieAP/1def0f62f6_zpsbf5c51f9.jpg)

Source: Daily Mail.

Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on August 17, 2013, 01:13:04 PM
Thought I would post this here.
There are some rumours flying around "twitter" apparently...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23741483 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23741483)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on August 17, 2013, 02:10:32 PM
Let us hope that the police keep their heads and treat this rubbish with the contempt it deserves.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kimberly on August 17, 2013, 02:55:00 PM
Here is the Daily Wail's take on it;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396208/Was-Princess-Diana-MURDERED-British-soldier-Metropolitan-Police-assessing-credibility-new-claim.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396208/Was-Princess-Diana-MURDERED-British-soldier-Metropolitan-Police-assessing-credibility-new-claim.html)
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Carisbrooke on August 27, 2013, 01:58:58 AM
DIANA'S LONDON FLAT
COLEHERNE COURT, BLOCK H, 56-75.
    Diana was in No 60 on the 1st floor.

(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/84/28p1.jpg)

(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2018/kurr.jpg)
Title: Re: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: heavensent on April 24, 2015, 09:52:38 AM


i HAD NT   really thought about it  before,  but   in  fact  Lady  Di  was  a  bottle  blonde... right from the  beginning
when she  first appeared on  our  screens  ... and  then  of  course ... through the  years....

had to keep  dying  it  blonde  to  keep up the  image  !
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2015, 08:09:44 AM
I would go further and say that Diana was entirely a manufactured beauty. when she first came to public notice, she was a pleasant-looking, but entirely ordinary girl.

Ann
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: TimM on July 31, 2017, 11:31:12 AM
I've noticed an increase in the talk about Princess Diana.  Then I realized why, we're only a month or so away from the 20th Anniversary of her tragic death.  Has it been twenty years since that horrible accident took her life.
Title: Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
Post by: Grace on October 09, 2017, 10:28:18 PM
I would go further and say that Diana was entirely a manufactured beauty. when she first came to public notice, she was a pleasant-looking, but entirely ordinary girl.

Ann

What utter nonsense is THIS?  An entirely manufactured beauty?  Kim Kardashian is "an entirely manufactured beauty" - artificially and surgically altered from head to foot and virtually unrecognisable from old photos.  Diana had none of this.  She wore discreet and tasteful make-up and needed little of it because of her natural good skin and colouring.  About the only enhancements she used were hair dye and a tanning bed - not unusual for any young woman, particularly back then, let alone one who was in the spotlight and under critical scrutiny at all times.