Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Princess Diana ‘was really spiteful, really unkind’, Mountbatten sisters claim - Vanity Fair Feature

When I float the name of the late Princess of Wales by Lady Pamela, she initially offers a couple of positive remarks, then lowers the boom: “She had enormous charisma, she was beautiful, she was very good at empathy with the general crowd … and she had no feeling at all for her husband or his family. Quite the reverse!

“She was really spiteful, really unkind to him—and, my God, he’s a man who needs support and encouragement. [The marriage] absolutely destroyed him. He looked grey and ghost-like. Now of course he’s blossomed again.

“She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert. She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star.”

by Anonymousreply 35609/10/2013

They seems like the Original Cunts.

by Anonymousreply 109/05/2013

I believe it.

by Anonymousreply 209/05/2013

Vipers, everywhere!

by Anonymousreply 309/05/2013

I always thought Diana was a spoiled child and a drama queen. Her "public works" were a vehicle to garner love and attention. She would have benefitted greatly from work with a good psychiatrist.

by Anonymousreply 409/05/2013

[quote]or to some jive concert.

This pretty much tells you all you need to know about them.

by Anonymousreply 509/05/2013

I wonder if Lady Pamela speaks Jive.

by Anonymousreply 809/05/2013

Oh, please. Yes, I'm sure these cunts are onto something despite the millions that have stated the opposite about Diana. I'm not saying Diana was a saint by any means. I'm sure she had her moments like everyone else on the planet. This just sounds like people who are looking for a payout.

by Anonymousreply 1009/05/2013

Discoing? Jive concerts? Why don't they just accuse her of riding in rumble seats and showing her ankles in public?

These people are laughably archaic.

by Anonymousreply 1109/05/2013

What was Diana to do? Her odd upbringing meant that she wasn't terribly worldly when she married at 19, and her father believed in marital fidelity (and divorced Diana's mother when he found she was cheating on him). Although Philip has cheated on the queen, the press promoted (and continues to promote) their pairing as a love match, and the previous married monarchs before the queen (i.e. her father and grandfather) really were married in love matches and did not cheat on their wives, so far as anyone knows. So Diana just naturally assumed the Windsors would be faithful.

These Mountbatten sisters' complaints about her are pretty funny--they seem to assume (as does r6) that Diana's role was to put up with Charles's philandering and be his loyal and obedient helpmeet, as if this were still 1925 or something, and completely fit into their tiny little snobbish Establishment.

Of course she didn't. Why should she have? once she discovered she could never count on his martial loyalty, she felt he hadn't kept up his end of the bargain, and she realized she could achieve what the royal family is supposed to do anyway (that is, be loved and comfort the suffering and promote good causes) completely independent of this weird loyal silent helpmeet role she was supposed to adhere to. I don;t think Diana was a saint--I think she had a personality disorder and was a nightmare to be close to, either romantically or as a family member, but I do think she was much smarter than r6 or the Mountbatten sisters believe.

And, what's more, she won in the end. Her vision of the royal family is what William and Kate believe in, and they're clearly the future of the institution. These two old gargoyles must cringe every time they read William knows how to put the baby in a car seat and strap him into a car, or that he spends weekends with his middle-class Middleton in-laws.

But their despicable class is dead--look who they are calling for now.

by Anonymousreply 1209/05/2013

They look like a friendly pair of old hags. Is "reckoned" a word often used by the British? Doesn't seem to fit.

by Anonymousreply 1309/05/2013

If you read Edward St. Aubyn's Patrick Melrose novels, you'll see their mindset prevailed for decades among the British upper class. That awful snobbishness combined with an inability to recognize the world had moved on since the glory days of the Edwardian past they can't even remember.

by Anonymousreply 1409/05/2013

Even Diana grandmother said Diana was wrong for what she did to the Monarchy and especially to Charles.

She made a point of inviting Charles over for tea, and had the press in full to photograph him entering her house.

She wanted the world to know whose side she was on.

by Anonymousreply 1509/05/2013

r15, that was not Diana's actual grandmother--that was her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland, the awful trashy mother of Diana's much-loathed stepmother, Raine.

by Anonymousreply 1609/05/2013

Diana's grandmother was Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen. Either she was brainwashed or looking for job security.

by Anonymousreply 1709/05/2013

Yes, the Brits do use "reckon" quite a bit, R13 - at least when I lived there back in the 80s.

by Anonymousreply 1809/05/2013

R16 That was her Grandmother Lady Ruth Fermoy

She made it clear she was on Charles side, and hung on to that even on her deathbed.

She refused to make peace with Diana even then, thinking her behavior atrocious.

by Anonymousreply 1909/05/2013

What a shallow despicable old hag r17.

No matter what Diana was like. She did not deserve to have her husband fuck the horse and flaunt it in front of her.

If her Grandmother thought that was her fault, the Grandmother was the one in the wrong.

by Anonymousreply 2009/05/2013

[quote]In 1956, the Queen Mother appointed [Diana's maternal grandmother] Lady Fermoy an Extra Woman of the Bedchamber. The Queen Mother, being a widow herself, showed a preference for appointing widows to her household, and four years later Lady Fermoy was promoted to Woman of the Bedchamber, a post she held for the next 33 years. Lady Fermoy was a firm believer in the sanctity of marriage. In 1969, her daughter Frances and John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, were divorced. Lady Fermoy testified against her own daughter, allowing Spencer to retain custody of his children.

[quote]The Queen Mother and Lady Fermoy became confidantes, and it was assumed by many that the two women engineered the match between their grandchildren, the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. However, when asked about it, Lady Fermoy remarked: "You can say that if you like – but it simply wouldn't be true". She was also said to have counselled her granddaughter against the marriage, saying: "Darling, you must understand that their sense of humour and their lifestyle are different, and I don't think it will suit you."

by Anonymousreply 2109/05/2013

It should also be noted that Lady Ruth Fermoy took the side of Diana's father AGAINST her own daughter during the custody battle for the children (Diana and Charles Spencer).

Lady Ruth Fermoy was aghast that her own daughter wouldn't put up with her husband's affairs, for the sake of the children.

Lady Ruth even testified for the father to get custody, against her own daughter!

by Anonymousreply 2209/05/2013

R16 Well?

by Anonymousreply 2309/05/2013

Advice their father Lord Mountbatten sent to Charles in a letter in 1974 about marrying:

"In a case like yours, the man should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down, but for a wife he should choose a suitable, attractive, and sweet-charactered girl before she has met anyone else she might fall for... It is disturbing for women to have experiences if they have to remain on a pedestal after marriage."

by Anonymousreply 2409/05/2013

These two sound like Patty and Selma.

Under different circumstances they would have been born Battenburg princesses with the style 'HSH' had it not been for the disastrous position of the British royal family being littered with German names and titles during WWI. Their branch had their name changed to Mountbatten and were given British peerages in exchange for their continental royal titles. Prince Louis of Battenburg became Lord Louis Mountbatten, then The Earl Mountbatten of Burma. His daughters then were born as daughters of peers, but prior to WWI they would have been minor ranking princesses.

by Anonymousreply 2509/05/2013

All right, r23: here are some questions for you as my response:

Why should Diana be in the wrong because her grandmother believed in the sanctity of marriage? Should people necessarily stay in an unhappy marriage where their partners are cheating on them because their grandmothers believe in the sanctity of marriage?

Do you conduct your own personal life according to your grandmothers' beliefs? Do you believe you should? If your grandmother disapproved of homosexuality, would you then renounce it?

by Anonymousreply 2609/05/2013

What gave you the idea I agreed with Lady Fermoy?

I was just saying that Diana's Grandmother took Charles side.

by Anonymousreply 2709/05/2013

Diana was pretty and had the sparkling backdrop of all things royal.

I don't doubt the perspective of the Mountbatten sisters.

by Anonymousreply 2809/05/2013

R27 responding to R26 question

by Anonymousreply 2909/05/2013

[quote]What gave you the idea I agreed with Lady Fermoy?

Because of your construction of the sentence "[bold]Even[/bold] Diana grandmother said Diana was wrong for what she did to the Monarchy and especially to Charles."

by Anonymousreply 3009/05/2013

R20 Well I was just saying that Diana's grandmother took Charles side. Sorry if you read more into it.

Besides you were the one who mixed up Lady Fermoy and Barbara Cartland, not me.

by Anonymousreply 3109/05/2013

[quote]“She was really spiteful, really unkind to him—and, my God, he’s a man who needs support and encouragement.

Charles needed support?! Fuck off, bitches. He and Camilla were having a fucking affair starting before Diana's marriage and continuiing throughout. And flaunting it in front of Diana. Perhaps it was Diana, considerably younger than Charles, was the one who needed support and encouragement--and she got none.

Instead Diana got an unfaithful husband and a rottweiler whore meddling in her marriage that she was just supposed to accept and not rebel.

by Anonymousreply 3209/05/2013

What a bizarre snipe, r31.

by Anonymousreply 3309/05/2013

And let's not forget all the crank calls Diana would make to the Parker-Bowles residence. Calling up to thirty times in a day, and then hanging up upon someone answering.

by Anonymousreply 3509/05/2013

R30 was the one who got Lady Fermoy and Barbara Cartland mixed. Then when pointed out, he turns it around accusing someone else of taking sides!

Why can't R30 just admit he made a mistake? Instead of shifting the blame to someone else?

by Anonymousreply 3609/05/2013

Do you remember the first video interview that Diana and Charles gave together upon their engagement?

The interviewer asked if they were in love. Diana immediately responded, "Yes." Charles responded, "Whatever love means."

Charles didn't love Diana from the very beginning. He's a douchebag who thought his wife, a young, modern woman of the day, should put up with his cheating ways and a loveless marriage. Diana should have taken off the microphone and walked away from Charles and the interview immediately.

by Anonymousreply 3709/05/2013

What a horrible lie, op. Those Mountbatten sisters are vile.

by Anonymousreply 3809/05/2013

God god, listen to all the queens in such a fit over something so stupid.

Didn't Diana harass the wife of that art dealer she was fooling around with, his name was Oliver? She also stalked him after he broke their relationship off.

by Anonymousreply 3909/05/2013

Charles married a girl he thought was a dimwitted hot blond simpleton slut when in reality she was just young and insecure, two personality characteristics that corrected themselves to his discomfiture.

by Anonymousreply 4009/05/2013

Don't talk ill of the dead, it will come back to haunt you.

by Anonymousreply 4209/05/2013

Thank you, R40. Diana grew up and matured, which of course Charles entirely discounted. And then it dawned on Charles that he didn't care for someone who exposed him as a cheating douchebag.

by Anonymousreply 4309/05/2013

R37 has it right.

by Anonymousreply 4409/05/2013

R37, Charles did not love Diana and Diana did not love Charles. Regardless of what she said later, she knew this was not a love connection. She wanted to get the chance to be a real life princess - she got that. Charles needed someone to produce an heir - he got that. The issue is that later she decided this was not enough especially when she realized Charles with with the love of his life and she had no one. Sure she had affairs but none of them seemed to really love her. I wonder why?

by Anonymousreply 4509/05/2013

Like this, R35?

by Anonymousreply 4609/05/2013

Not surprised by the comments from these two. A lot of these older royal women have archaic notions of their sex and their place in the world. The stately woman who turns her head as the man fucks anything with breasts is long outdated. As is the woman who clings to her man right or wrong, unless you're someone like Hillary Clinton who has her own career and actually contributes something to society.

Diana dragged royalty into the 20th century. It's obvious that some simply couldn't handle that. Now whether they just wanted to remain ignorant or simply didn't have the mental capacity to adjust to the times one cannot answer. But there is nothing admirable anymore in being a passive doormat whose main goal in life is simply to defer to her husband. Hence why none of these royal families are anything more than a tiny blip on the public radar. Diana embodied the modern woman.

by Anonymousreply 4709/05/2013

Chucky is a homo. Camilla is a beard.

He married Diana because of the whispers about him being a bachelor in his 30's. He had obligatory sex with her twice.

by Anonymousreply 4809/05/2013

Diana does not embody the modern woman. She was uneducated twit that married into Royalty. She is basically was a wealthy frau.

by Anonymousreply 5009/05/2013

[quote] “She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her.

Well, that does it! When the queen bestows you with a person, you must obey!

by Anonymousreply 5109/05/2013

She listened to that jive turkey rock and roll music on her jukebox! She had a radio and used it to listen to other jive music. Negroes, like Steven Wonders -- a blind Negro! --- and homosexuals like Boy Georgie who wore makeup and dresses. Elton Jane was also a homosexual jiver, wearing those enormously distasteful eyeglasses.

She wanted to do the Twist and oh.... the other "cool" dances. The Peppermint Twist, I guess, and the Mashed Potato. She thought she was the grooviest. I wouldn't be surprised if she dabbled in smoking some acid. She was horrid, I tell you. We believe she may have been, you know, one of *those* kind. Her hair was very short. Many women who wear a bob are lesbians. And lesbians can be very bitter, very masculine in their dislikes.

by Anonymousreply 5209/05/2013

R51. And the queen's lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, was probably an enabler for the royal family for them to continue their lying, cheating ways. I'm sure Diana recognized this and prety much politely told Sue to fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 5309/05/2013

[quote] She reckoned she was the star.”

She was, jealous bitches.

No one gave a fig for anyone in that family. They liked Diana because she was young, she was vastly attractive compared to anyone else in the royal family, and she delivered two heirs. She did her bit.

Nobody wanted o look at Charles or anyone else and they were jealous about that. It's a closed world and Diana attracted too much attention and brought too much of the real world into their lives.

It's no wonder Charles was attracted to Camilla. Both he and his sister look like they were born in a stable. Neither Charles nor Anne could hold onto a spouse.

by Anonymousreply 5409/05/2013

These two Cuntesses are frightening. Imagine the cobwebs and dried mildew a husband would have to navigate. Just die.

by Anonymousreply 5509/05/2013

Diana was an uneducated, extremely wealthy woman who liked hanging out with other rich people.

She wasn't some sort of well-groomed Mother Teresa.

by Anonymousreply 5609/05/2013

Diana took it upon herself to learn about various issues affecting the world.

And slamming her for being dumb. None of the royals are particularly well educated. Aside from learning useless "etiquette" none of them have any functioning skills outside of waving to people and smiling for the camera.

by Anonymousreply 5809/05/2013

She also said the Queen Mother was aghast at Elizabeth marrying Philip and wanted her to marry someone respectable like a British Duke

by Anonymousreply 5909/05/2013

My purse matches me knickers..

by Anonymousreply 6009/05/2013

[quote] Diana was an uneducated, extremely wealthy woman who liked hanging out with other rich people.

Just like almost every other member of the royal family. You are acting like the royal family is a brain trust. They aren't. The older royals don't even have high school eductions

Prince Charles was the first member to go to college. And he almost failed. If he was anyone else he never would have been admitted to university and would have flunked out his first year

And no member of the royal family has any friend that isn't a millionaire. And Prince Charles is someone who definitely wants everyone to know their place

by Anonymousreply 6109/05/2013

Of course some cunt with the surname Mountbatten didn't like Diana. If the rumours are true, a MOUNTBATTEN had her killed.

by Anonymousreply 6209/05/2013

R55. Thanks for posting a photo of those two old bitties. They are a couple of douchebags defending Charles for cheating with the rottweiler. They are from another century when women were wallflowers and enablers.

Diana may have had some things to learn when she first married into that whacko, ruthless family. However, she became a modern woman with modern and compassionate sensibilities. Hopefully her sons are nice people. William seems like his father with a stick up his ass.

by Anonymousreply 6309/05/2013

well, I suppose they'll be dead by the time William is king.

by Anonymousreply 6409/05/2013

William and Harry must be appalled. Charles probably isn't too thrilled to have the past dredged up.

by Anonymousreply 6509/06/2013

[quote}William and Harry must be appalled.

Even more appalling, their paternal grandfather had their mother killed.

by Anonymousreply 6609/06/2013

The Diana myth, which Diana created, reflected how she simply was much better at PR work than was the ossified, arrogant-yet-naive bunch supporting the family. Diana saw every chink in their royal armor and capitalized on it.

Her rage over Charles' misalliance with Camilla quickly became a mere pretext for her justifying every bad decision she made. The snarks against the Mountbattens here of course reflect ingrained and inauthentic "democratic" reflexes. But they also show how unreasonable and witless the Dianaphiles still can be. The sisters saw Diana clearly and quite properly interpret royal matters, into which Diana moved knowingly, were important. Diana was a narcissist who saw every detail of the world as reflecting her brilliance and neediness. For all her charms, she was as cold and spiritless as a polished gallstone.

Look at her relationships and you can see her as she is. Charles had one mistress and later married her. Diana chose married men and obese, spoiled playboys. She was all about the drama, the naughtiness, and the spendthrift fun of acquisition. Peppered with PR visits to mine sites and children's hospitals in the most cynical bids to maintain public favor, concerning a public for whom she felt contempt.

by Anonymousreply 6709/06/2013

[quote] those two old bitties

It's "biddies."

by Anonymousreply 6809/06/2013

She associated with wogs! Can you imgine? A white woman with connections to our highest royalty wanted wog cock!

by Anonymousreply 6909/06/2013

R16 seems to have disappeared. He still refuses to admit Lady Fermoy and Barbara Cartland are NOT the same person!

by Anonymousreply 7009/06/2013

"Still [R16] refuses to admit Lady Fermoy and Barbara Cartland are two different people."

You mean no one's gone down on his hands and knees yet begging for your forgiveness?

by Anonymousreply 7109/06/2013

Diana was a hair hopper!

by Anonymousreply 7209/06/2013

The royal family threads remind me of soap threads - they have the potential to bring out a special kind of crazy.

by Anonymousreply 7309/06/2013

R64, totally accurate. If Diana was such a wonderful person surely there would be at least one man who truly loved her beyond a dalliance. But no one who fits that bill. That informs that she was indeed a vapid person that was primarily PR smoke and mirrors.

As far as her sons goes I think it killed Diana that the boys loved their father and the other Royals. They shared a lot of their father's interest and enjoyed being with him. It became quite clear that William while he loved his mother dearly did not wish to be a part of his mother's created chaos right before she died. Both boys saw up close and personal the damage Diana was capable of and in return sympathized with their father. This played a major role in their supporting his marriage to Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 7409/06/2013

I love how these people come out of the woodwork to garner some publicity by trashing a dead woman.

by Anonymousreply 7509/06/2013

Yes, R73, and the snarking non-contributors who float above it all. Like midges.

by Anonymousreply 7609/06/2013

The heart surgeon seems to have liked her a lot.

by Anonymousreply 7809/06/2013

Diana was brought into the royal family strictly for breeding purposes. She produced two healthy male heirs, and as a bonus provided a lot of positive publicity for the Windsors at a time when the British public were starting to publicly question the whole idea of monarchy (remember the Sex Pistols?) Unfortunately for everybody concerned she involved the media in her private grievances, and once she let them into her personal life she couldn't get them out again.

by Anonymousreply 7909/06/2013

[quote]Unfortunately for everybody concerned she involved the media in her private grievances, and once she let them into her personal life she couldn't get them out again.

R79. From the very start, Diana didn't let the media in; the media barged in and never left even if there were times as the years rolled on that she allowed them in.

by Anonymousreply 8009/06/2013

R78, perhaps but he would not marry her. After the relationship ended she stalked him.

by Anonymousreply 8109/06/2013

Charles never loved her but then nobody ever expected him to, it was a royal match to provide heirs. I don't think she loved him either but she did seem to have some romantic vision of being a princess and future queen.

Eventually it became clear that Charles was a selfish boor and Diana was psychologically unstable. In the divorce, she won the PR war, hands down. He was even blamed for her narcissistic personality disorder, as if he'd caused it.

It was just a bad match all around.

by Anonymousreply 8209/06/2013

Charles did love her and she was infatuated with him. Diana was too young when she married and they had little in-common at the end of the day. She was very headstrong and vindictive, while he was spoiled and stubborn.

It just was a disastrous marriage and it ended badly.

by Anonymousreply 8309/06/2013

"Do you remember the first video interview that Diana and Charles gave together upon their engagement?

The interviewer asked if they were in love. Diana immediately responded, "Yes." Charles responded, "Whatever love means."

Charles didn't love Diana from the very beginning. He's a douchebag who thought his wife, a young, modern woman of the day, should put up with his cheating ways and a loveless marriage. Diana should have taken off the microphone and walked away from Charles and the interview immediately."

You must be one of the raving, moronic Diana trolls.

I remember that interview. She ducked her head and grimaced before saying "Of course (she didn't say "yes")". Charles said "whatever love means." And what was wrong with that? It was an embarrassing question; he's a reserved man, a member of the Royal family who observes protocol. What should he have said "yes, I'm forever, madly, insanely in love and I want to throw her down and make wild monkey love to her right now?"

As for love, well, NEITHER of them loved the other. It was a semi-arranged marriage that seemed like the right thing to do at the time. And as for cheating...well, Diana was no slouch when it came to spreading her pussy around. She was a slut. A DUMB slut.

by Anonymousreply 8409/06/2013

"What should he have said 'yes, I'm forever, madly, insanely in love and I want to throw her down and make wild monkey love to her right now?'"

How about just "Yes"?

by Anonymousreply 8509/06/2013

R84 Diana did not grimace as you purported above, I remember the interview and she was a shy and naive young woman being asked a very personal question.

She seemed smitten with Charles from the very beginning and I am sure that she did love him in the beginning.

by Anonymousreply 8609/06/2013

R84 seems rather unhinged.

by Anonymousreply 8709/06/2013

They'd be perfection stirring a cauldron in "The Scottish Play". Throw in bitch-face Bowles & and we're all set.

Diana gave the evil "royals" a pretty good run for their money.After she was purposely photographed touching Aids patients in hospice,she could never do wrong in my eyes! That footage was shown on the news around the world.

I had a customer in a shop I worked in,in Provincetown the morning after she was killed. He told me he had recently met with her about an HIV charity event he was organizing. He'd gone to find out what her personal expenses were going to be for her appearance at the gala in NYC.

He fully expected a laundry list of expensive demands. What she told him was there were none! He said he couldn't believe it. She said charity is charity & and you just tell me where to stand.

So,you cunts can take her apart all you want, I'll always fucking ADORE her.

by Anonymousreply 8809/06/2013

Princess Diana's engagement interview

by Anonymousreply 9009/06/2013

"Charles had [just] one mistress...."


by Anonymousreply 9109/06/2013

[quote]He fully expected a laundry list of expensive demands. What she told him was there were none!

That may be surprising to you as an American who only has celebritites to work with, but it's the bog standard expectation with royalty. As long as there's a nice clean toilet on the premises should they need it, they're all happy.

Yes she could be caring, but she could also be an utter heartless selfish immature manipulative bitch. Read the sober memoirs of Diana's private secretary (who resigned because of her behaviour) if you doubt it.

As for Pammy: she's adorable. Both her parents were rampaging bisexuals (her mother's reported passionate snogging of Nadejda, the Marchioness of Milford Haven is what caused a sensation at the Vanderbilt trial; and her father would make a pass at anyone to get what he wanted. ) And she was married to David 'Daisy' Hicks, who was also of course bisexual, who married her for the money (although a very happy marriage) so her view of marriage is a very English aristocratic one. But then, Diana was an aristocrat to her fingertips too, and knew that world intimately. People forget that and judge her behaviour by their own middle class perceptions.

by Anonymousreply 9209/06/2013

What a toffee-nosed git, R92 is! Or should I say brown-nosed?

How about we just judge them by the standards everyone should aspire to, that is: the ones held by decent human beings?

Your ludicrous defence of archaic notions of aristocracy and "blue-blooded" entitled-ness is pathetic and shallow. Do you REALLY think these people have superior DNA to anyone else on the planet? Anointed by God?

You - and they - are a sad joke.

by Anonymousreply 9309/06/2013

And of course I meant "Spencer."

by Anonymousreply 9509/06/2013

Maybe it just boils down to 2 people who came from very privileged but dysfunctional backgrounds who were a bad match from the beginning if you really look at their temperaments.

They both needed to be married to more stable and developed people. They were not good life partners and were bound to make each other miserable at some point.

Charles was raised by nannies and had a somewhat remote relationship with his parents in his formative years. (See the famous film of him around age 4 greeting his mother on her return from a trip abroad with a handshake.) He fell in love with Camilla would likely would have been a nurturing 'mummy' figure for him but 40 yrs ago she would have not been considered 'top drawer' enough to be considered as a suitable bride for Charles/future queen.

He had pressure put on him to marry a virgin who was from a royal or top tier aristocratic background and he didn't seem to be able to find someone until the clock was ticking and he was 31 and along came the refreshing virginal 'Shy Di', Lady Diana. (Even Prince Philip was saying, "Get on with it, Charles." )

She came from a a dysfunctional family herself, i.e. her mother, Frances, ran off with a man when she was 6 and Frances' own mother testified against her in court. Diana's father was granted custody of the children and Diana and her siblings went through a very rough time living apart from her mother. Diana, like other aristocratic children of that era, went off to boarding school at age 9 and then went back and forth between her parents.

No wonder the 19 yr old Diana thought 31 yr old Prince Charles was going to 'take care of her' and be the older loving figure in her life that she never had. And Charles thought he was getting this lovely, adoring girl who was 'shy' and sweet who would be a loving wife and mother (and who would look the other way with Camilla which was hugely ignorant and narcissistic of him). They both thought they were getting what they needed and couldn't see the damaged parts of the other person.

by Anonymousreply 9609/06/2013

R84. When the interviewer asks the Prince of Wales if he loves the woman he's about the marry during an interview that is pretty much being aired all over the world, the proper answer is "Yes" or "Yes, of course." NOT "Whatever loves means."

Don't defend Charles the douchebag. He wasn't shy and reserved enough not to be carrying on an affair to another woman as he was walking down the aisle to be married to Diana. He intentionally embarrassed Diana by that answer and brought an enormous amount of criticism upon himself because he didn't know how to do the right fucking thing.

by Anonymousreply 9709/06/2013

Once they got married, things got even worse because Diana was so betrayed by Charles' affair with Camilla that she started bingeing and purging and acting out (understandably). The press attention must have also been suffocating. She sold papers all over the world and her fame drew a wedge in her marriage as well. If the couple did joint engagements, people would be disappointed if they met Charles but not Diana. He felt eclipsed by her popularity and she felt abandoned by him in private.

Throw in the fact that they still lived in a time in the 1980's where you kept your problems private (stiff upper lip and all that) and it must have been hard for them to keep the charade going for as long as it did.

Reports on both sides have said that both could be very caring and kind people but they were also both spoiled and adamant about getting their way. They could both be petty and childish if they felt betrayed. Diana had a history of smothering people with her neediness and then cutting them off suddenly over some grudge. She had a very compartmentalized life of people that didn't interact with each other much. She had her life with her children, a life with her boyfriends, a life with friend A, a life with friend B, etc.

One of Diana's most saving graces was her compassion for others, particularly those who society didn't value. She was able to find an outlet in her work that she wasn't getting in her private life.

William has likely broken the cycle now that he has married a very stable, middle class girl who has no need for the limelight the way Diana did. Diana would sometimes use the press if she needed it but Kate comes from a very nurturing background wtih her family and has a stable relationship with William and doesn't need the press and the drama the way Diana did.

I think Charles has mellowed through the years and found stability with Camilla. And truthfully, he's probably been been able to get on with his royal work in a more relaxed manner now that the drama with Diana is gone and She is no longer overshadowing the House of Windsor to the extent that she was when she was alive. I'm sure he misses her and has fond memories but also remembers all the drama and doesn't miss that one bit.

I think Diana would have calmed down as she got older and she would have thrown herself into be a grandmother (albeit a young 52 yr old granny!). As you can tell by this overly long post, I miss her and appreciated what she brought to the planet while she was here.

by Anonymousreply 9809/06/2013

Do the Charles fans not remember he fucked the bulldog and not DI on their wedding night?

That said, I think Di was a famewhore & fucked up, and Chas. is utterly deplorable.

by Anonymousreply 9909/06/2013

Get the med cart for R94, stat!

by Anonymousreply 10009/07/2013

R100 ...or the cyanide capsule.

by Anonymousreply 10109/07/2013

R74 Penny Junor, monster raving loony bitch stalker-obsessed with Charles.

Re: the two harridans this thread was about - really, DL? All the "frau" hate, and here are two uber-fraus, German Huns, snobs, spiteful, jealous, decrepit relics of an abandoned empire, jealous of a young, pretty, modern, glamourous, actually English girl, and there's support for these hags? WTF?

Also, Diana didn't start the media offensive, the fucktard Charles announced his infidelity in a blowjob/"interview" with his girlfriend Dimblesby.

Diana one-upped him, and in an "American", confessional way that the horsey set finds ghastly, ie, human.

Charles is a weakling like his uncle David. They used a young, fertile, non-Catholic virgin, and were shocked to find she wasn't content being a doormat, and that she was, in fact, the star.

The Batterberg twats don't like jive music? Like Khan's snob cunt caste-bitch mother, fuck 'em. Useless fossils.

by Anonymousreply 10209/07/2013

R103 Amusing, Agnes in Cedar Rapids, but when "Mohammed" is the most popular name in London, second in England, the Establishment is fucked. Dead "man" walking.

It's nice that Elizabeth connected with the people durong WWII, but, the days of Alfred the great are gone, and a pleasant English couple like William and Kate make a better rump monarchy than the inbred German gorgons.

by Anonymousreply 10409/07/2013

One of my favorite things about Diana is she loved dance music, it's my favorite genre too. Does anyone know who her favorite artists were?

by Anonymousreply 10509/07/2013

r103 so you're advocating that William should marry his cousin(s) like Charles did? Like his grandmother did? Like his GGM did? Like King George did? Like Queen Victoria did? Like her forebears did?

Sheesh. Kate is NOT a cousin of his, she's far far FAR away from the family tree, thankfully.

Diana's mother? A SHAND-KYDD. Camilla was Camilla SHAND. The monarchy and the elite are all related to each other and that is one reason all their children look bad.

by Anonymousreply 10609/07/2013

It's almost like they were complicated people, and no one was the complete villain!

by Anonymousreply 10709/07/2013

Simon Doonan is posting tonight.

by Anonymousreply 10909/07/2013

R103 R108 R110 R111 Darling, each successive post is more bizarre and incoherent than the last.

Take an Ambien and call us in the morning.


by Anonymousreply 11209/07/2013

Where is Middleton's Lady In Waiting? Where?! QEII has Fortune, The Duchess of Grafton, but where is Middleton's? THIS is the proletarian precipice the Windsors are teetering on! She needs someone of the quality like Kathleen, The Duchess of Newcastle (pic at link.) She would have wrenched that fucking shopping trolly from her.

by Anonymousreply 11309/07/2013

Nothing brings out the loonies like a Diana (or a Madonna) thread.

by Anonymousreply 11409/07/2013

r103/108/110/111/113 has finally devolved into parody worthy of *Dowager Quarterly*. Brava! And to think I was ready to ff her.

by Anonymousreply 11509/07/2013

She was a jive turkey.

by Anonymousreply 11609/07/2013

There are no winners in this family: whore-mongering Chuck, delusional Diana, whore Camilla and especially the parents who produced the mess that is Charles.

by Anonymousreply 11709/07/2013

R113 That looks like Lady Grantham

by Anonymousreply 11809/07/2013

I'm so very glad HRH Princess Margaret sent Diana that letter after she did the Panorama interview telling here 'you're a fucking lying unforgiveable two bob slag'. Or words to that effect. Margo didn't need to play Brave Me skipping through land mine fields which had been cleaned out by orphans anyway!!!!! Diana was jealous that Margo had enjoyed Lord Snowdon's enormous phallus. I'm sure of it. That's why Margo looked so blissfully content and REGAL at her wedding (pic).

by Anonymousreply 11909/07/2013

No matter, in the end Camilla won the war.

by Anonymousreply 12009/07/2013

Yes, and she's getting eaten alive by cancer. Good on her!

by Anonymousreply 12109/07/2013

R87 seems rather retarded.

I've seen their engagement interview. She does duck her head and make a face as she says "of course" in response to the "in love" question. And Charles may not have screamed "YES!" in response to the same, but his body language expressed great affection for her. He was rubbing her shoulders and holding her hand, stroking her finger. Not cold and unfeeling at all.

by Anonymousreply 12209/07/2013

R121 what cancer?

by Anonymousreply 12309/07/2013

"They used a young, fertile, non-Catholic virgin, and were shocked to find she wasn't content being a doormat, and that she was, in fact, the star."

You think Diana Spencer was a "virgin" when she married the Prince of Wales?! HAHAHAHHAHA! You are such an idiot! SUCH an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 12409/07/2013

"Yes, and she's getting eaten alive by cancer. Good on her!"

At least she's not six feet under on a remote island getting eaten by worms.

by Anonymousreply 12509/07/2013

Let's not forget Diana spread an ugly rumor the her children's nanny aborted Charles baby!

How immature!

by Anonymousreply 12609/07/2013

Diana was a virgin when she married. Charles on the other hand had been fucking the Rottweiler Camilla for years--even as he was marrying Diana.

by Anonymousreply 12709/07/2013

No matter R127

Camilla showed that she was the stronger than Diana and thus won the war

by Anonymousreply 12809/07/2013

"Do the Charles fans not remember he fucked the bulldog and not DI on their wedding night?

That said, I think Di was a famewhore & fucked up, and Chas. is utterly deplorable."

So Charles fucked Camilla on his and Di's wedding night? How did he manage that? Boy, you sound like a right nut case.

For the record, Charles didn't resume his affair with Camilla until he realized his marriage to Diana was kaput. He and Camilla were friends; apparently he thought Diana was intelligent enough and secure enough to accept the fact that he was friends with Camilla. But Diana, being paranoid and jealous, believed that right from day one Charles had been screwing around with Camilla. That was untrue, but it was what she chose to believe. Considering all the shit he had to put up with, I'm surprised he didn't stray long before he did.

by Anonymousreply 12909/07/2013

Diana was so crazy that she literally drove Charles back into Camilla arms.

by Anonymousreply 13009/07/2013

"Diana was a virgin when she married. Charles on the other hand had been fucking the Rottweiler Camilla for years--even as he was marrying Diana."

That slut was NOT a virgin when she married Charles, you dumbfuck. And Charles and Camilla had parted ways as lovers long before Diana came upon the scene; Camilla had married and they were no longer romantically involved. And that hoary old "he was fucking Camilla before and during his marriage to poor, poor, sweet innocent Diana!" crap has long since been revealed as hysterical bullshit Diana fangurls love to say. It's right up there with rumor that Harry is James Hewitt's son. Harry was born before the affair with Hewitt, but to this day some nuts insist that he's Hewitt's offspring.

by Anonymousreply 13109/07/2013

Why'd someone bother to interview those old bats?

by Anonymousreply 13209/07/2013

r131, you are fucking vile. Let me guess, you are also the one calling Britney 'Shitney' in the other thread? You hate women and what's more, you hate guileless women.

by Anonymousreply 13309/07/2013

Remember when this saint dated the married Oliver Hoare. Multiple harassing calls to his home were traced and came from Diana's home. This along with her multiple lovers. Charles on the other hand ( as stated by another poster ) had one lover and married her.

by Anonymousreply 13409/07/2013

You people think you're so fucking perfect.

by Anonymousreply 13509/07/2013

Thank you r119 fir the pic. Princess Margo's wedding dress looks like it could have inspired Kate's gown-

I like that Kate subtlety alludes to Will's lineage through her fashion choices. I think it's smart.

Okay: back to your chatter

by Anonymousreply 13609/07/2013

Some of you are naïve, out of your minds and completely delusional if you think Charles and Camilla simply maintained their 'friendship' when he was marrying Diana. Charles an Camilla were fucking before, during and throughout Diana's marriage.

by Anonymousreply 13709/07/2013

And you were in Charles bedroom when that happened R137

by Anonymousreply 13809/07/2013

Regarding Camilla winning the war? Please. She won nothing if Charles is the prize. Besides, Diana still overshadows the Rottweiler in the public's mind and affection.

by Anonymousreply 13909/07/2013

I'm waiting to see the ocean of spit directed at Camilla's casket, by the British public, when that BITCH finally takes her last breath. Diana will be smiling.

by Anonymousreply 14009/07/2013

[quote] She won nothing if Charles is the prize.

Then why was Diana also fighting for her marriage.

You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand saying that Charles is no catch. Then on the other hand saying that Camilla had no right to battle Diana for Charles.

Pick one narrative and stick with it.

by Anonymousreply 14109/07/2013

Who is the woman on the far left of R119's photo? Margaret actually looks sad.

by Anonymousreply 14209/07/2013

[quote]Goodbye Princess Di Though I never knew you at all You had the grace to hold yourself While those around you crawled They crawled out of the woodwork And they whispered into your brain They set you on the treadmill And they gave you a royal name And it seems to me you lived your life Like a candle in the wind Never knowing who to cling to When the rain set in And I would have liked to have known you I never really did Your candle burned out long before Your legend ever did Loneliness was tough The toughest role you ever played England created a superstar And pain was the price you paid Even when you died Oh the press still hounded you All the papers had to say Was that Diana's death was lewd Goodbye Princess Di Though I never knew you at all You had the grace to hold yourself While those around you crawled Goodbye Princess Di From the old man at your funeral Who sees you as something more than royalty More than just an English Rose

by Anonymousreply 14309/07/2013

R141. Diana was not only battling for her marriage, she was battling to make a stable life for herself and her sons. Diana was battling to survive in a system in which there often seemed to be no way out. There are a lot of reasons why women battle to preserve their marriages.

Camilla, on the other hand and with Charles' cooperation, was undermining Diana's marriage from the start. And no, Camilla had no right to wage this battle. She should have backed away--she wasn't married to Charles. He was already married. But Camilla is a whore, and while she was undermining Diana's marriage, Camilla was an entitled whore.

But Camilla had no right to be the third wheel in Diana's marriage. And keep in mind, Camilla was also married to someone else at the time. Camilla had no respect for her own marriage or for Diana's marriage.

by Anonymousreply 14409/07/2013

No matter R144 Camilla won the war. She showed she is alot smarter and tougher than Diana.

End of story.

by Anonymousreply 14509/07/2013

[quote] Camilla had no respect for her own marriage

Andrew Parker bowles had no problems with Camilla being with Charles, as they had an open marriage. Andrew had his own set of affairs, and was even good friends with Charles. He went to Charles and Camilla wedding.

So if Andrew had no problem with Charles and Camilla, how can you say Camilla had no respect for her own marriage?

by Anonymousreply 14609/07/2013

r145, by tougher you mean insensitive, which means emotionally retarded. Camilla won fuck all. She exists in the British psyche primarily as 'the other woman'. She is as despised as Anne Boleyn was in her day.

by Anonymousreply 14709/07/2013

[quote]I'm waiting to see the ocean of spit directed at Camilla's casket, by the British public, when that BITCH finally takes her last breath.

That might have happened fifteen years ago; but time has passed and the British people are pretty much used to Camilla now, and like her.

The trouble with dying young is that people forget you as your enemies go on to outlive you.

by Anonymousreply 14809/07/2013

Camilla was really made over. She looks every inch a royal duchess when dressed for occasions, wears jewels marvelously and from all appearances has a lovely happy marriage. She won.

by Anonymousreply 14909/07/2013

[quote] Camilla won fuck all.

She has Charles

She will be Queen one day (something Charles hasn't denied)

She is HRH

Other than Grandma Middleton, she will be the only other Grandmother Prince George will know

Meanwhile Diana is six feet under, where she belongs.

It just kills you that Camilla has merged as the victor.

[quote] by tougher you mean insensitive,

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Life is tough, deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 15009/07/2013

I teach lessons in real life.

Real life sucks losers dry. If you want to fuck with the eagles, you have to learn to fly.

by Anonymousreply 15109/07/2013

Diana was killed in a car accident. Had that not happened, Camilla would still be holding secret teas fucking Charles behind the barn.

Diana has won and earned her place for all eternity. Camilla will be long forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 15209/07/2013

[quote] Camilla would still be holding secret teas fucking Charles behind the barn.

Not true. Charles had hired a PR firm to rehab Camilla image. But unfortunately Diana died, and he was forced to put that on hold.

He waited a year before he gave the green light to this PR firm to more forward with plans to rehab her image.

And they did a pretty good job.

So Camilla WON!

by Anonymousreply 15309/07/2013

[quote]Meanwhile Diana is six feet under, where she belongs.

You are one sick trolling fucker.

by Anonymousreply 15409/07/2013

R154 if Camilla has died, you would have said the same thing

by Anonymousreply 15509/07/2013

r155, absolutely not. You are fucking vile.

by Anonymousreply 15609/07/2013

R156 you must be outraged by what R125 had said as well. That is worse!

by Anonymousreply 15709/07/2013

The Mountbattens have no room to talk. I was on a trip to Nepal in 1996, and my guide was an older man. I asked him if he had ever guided anybody famous. He said he had been Lord Mountbatten's guide. I asked the guide what he thought of Mountbatten. He said he was the biggest SOB he ever met.

by Anonymousreply 15809/07/2013

I am so sick of hearing about that worthless cunt Diana!

I was happy when the little bitch died.

JFK Jr., too.

Stupid people glorified by morons.

by Anonymousreply 15909/07/2013

[quote]She (Camilla) will be Queen one day....

Maybe, maybe not.

She could die before Charles becomes king. HE could die before his mum does.

by Anonymousreply 16009/07/2013

R154 is R159 vile as well?

by Anonymousreply 16109/07/2013

[quote]I was happy when the little bitch died.

You know what I'm sick of? Keyboard warriors who are probably perfectly charming in real life and away from the computer screen, who act like sociopaths online just because it's the only place where they CAN.

You are so transparent & self indulgent. Just go and fuck yourself.

by Anonymousreply 16209/07/2013

r161. Yes. He is. I've got it - Maybe you should marry him and then have your honeymoon at the Ritz in Paris, jerking off as your car goes underneath the tunnel.

by Anonymousreply 16309/07/2013

I have to say threads involving royals around the world bring out the most stirring discussions. Some people have an extraordinary amount of knowledge of precedence, protocol and history.

by Anonymousreply 16409/07/2013

R163 what about R125 ?

by Anonymousreply 16509/07/2013

[quote]Had that not happened, Camilla would still be holding secret teas fucking Charles behind the barn.

But it DID happen, Blanche! It DID!

Diana is DEAD!!! And Camilla, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall is alive... ALIVE!

by Anonymousreply 16609/07/2013

R99, it does not matter if he fucked Camilla during the reception. Their marriage was an arrangement. He did not love Diana and she did not love him. The problem with Diana is that once the fairy tale wedding was over she realized she was stuck with a old man.

by Anonymousreply 16709/07/2013

Diana did not fight for her marriage, she was fighting to become Queen one day.

by Anonymousreply 16809/07/2013

I disagree, r168. According to the Andrew Morton biography, early in her marriage she went to a psychic who told her (correctly) she would never be queen. She took that prediction to heart and stopped caring about becoming queen.

by Anonymousreply 16909/07/2013

R162 FTW. I think I love you.

by Anonymousreply 17009/07/2013

I don't believe for a second that Diana had no clue as to what was expected of her and what her "place" was in her marriage to Charles. And Diana herself has admitted to knowing about Camilla long before their wedding day... iirc, there was an interview where Diana admitted that a few days before the wedding, she overheard Charles on the phone with Camilla professing his love for her. Yet Diana went ahead with the marriage anyways. Diana was a self-serving narcissist who wanted to be a Princess and ultimately Queen.

As can be gleaned from the 1995 Panorama interview with Bashir, when Charles finally tired of her bullshit and the marriage deteriorated, she makes it clear that losing Charles wasn't what angered and devastated her... it was losing the status and privilege that she once enjoyed, the status and privilege that defined her. What pissed Diana off the most was when the Royals cut her off from public appearances and other engagements, this is what she hated most.

So she decided to show them who the real star is. Sadly, the way she went about it only made her look foolish and desperate. She took on the Royals and she lost. It's true, in the end, Camilla did win. It pains me to say it, but Diana's untimely death was a tragic blessing in disguise... she had serious mental health issues and would have only continued to embarrass herself, her family, and her country had she lived.

by Anonymousreply 17109/07/2013

Also, it burns my biscuits that Diana chastised Camilla for fucking Charles and being the third wheel in her marriage... yet apparently Diana was ok with HERSELF fucking other people's husbands?

by Anonymousreply 17209/07/2013

Well unless Diana was fucking around the day after her marriage, then Charles and his whore were in the wrong. They didn't even bother with being discreet about it. It must have been humiliating that Charles preferred that horse-faced slag. Then again, Camilla came from a long line of whores, so no doubt she picked up some skills along the way. Camilla was and is used-up trash, which is why they were not allowed to marry in the first place. No amount of jewelry can change what she is.

by Anonymousreply 17309/07/2013

R171. You are a screwball. Diana's death was not a blessing in disguise. And she had not embarrassed herself. Diana was more popular than ever as the outpouring of grief in the UK and around the world showed. No one will duplicate that ever.

At the time of her marriage, Diana was a 20-year old up against an institution. She didn't know what to do. It was too late to turn back. Charles and Camilla, in the 30s and much more experienced as a couple were always plotting against Diana. Even Diana's sisters said it was too late; she had to go forward.

Diana had no support, no one standing by her to help reassure her that she didn't have to go forward with this douchebag Charles. She loved him. He on the other hand didn't give a shit as indicated by his response when asked if he loved Diana: "Whatever love means."

Charles knew exactly what he was doing with his deception and affair on the side. He's the one who should have not gone forward with this evil charade that he and Camilla perpetuated. Diana might have had hints that something was wrong--but she didn't know the full degree. But Charles and Camilla knew exactly what they were doing. They were dead wrong.

As far as Camilla winning? Diana had given up Charles. She didn't want him any longer. Her untimely death was a tragedy. There was no winning.

by Anonymousreply 17409/07/2013

"...burns my biscuits."


by Anonymousreply 17509/07/2013

On the royal yacht, r99?

I thought it was the night before, when witnesses reported a "blonde woman" entering a train which held Charles. People assumed it was Diana; she knew it was Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 17609/07/2013

Off topic, but if Charles dies before the Queen, does William still become King? Or does it go to the Queen's next oldest?

by Anonymousreply 17709/07/2013

R177. If Charles died before the queen and he had no children, the crown would go to Prince Andrew, and then the line if succession would go to his eldest daughter, Princess Beatrice and her children should she have any.

However, regardless of when Charles dies--before or after the queen--since Charles does have heirs, the crown goes to his first born, William.

by Anonymousreply 17809/07/2013

William is after Charles, r177, no matter under what circumstances. And yes, George is after Wm.

by Anonymousreply 17909/07/2013

thanks, all.

by Anonymousreply 18009/07/2013

R177 Primogeniture: the Queen's eldest son is the heir. Upon the birth of his first son, the grandson becomes the heir's heir, and the Queens other offspring all fall behind the new line of succession.

The have terms like heir apparent and heir presumptive to codify this.

This is why they had a gyno check for a hymen in Diana's case, to makes sure she wasn't pregnant, cuckolding the German family acting as the UK's roual family.

by Anonymousreply 18109/07/2013

R174, what did Diana love about Charles?

by Anonymousreply 18209/07/2013

"She loved him."

She loved the idea of being married to the Prince of Wales. She didn't love HIM.

Supposedly she wanted to break off the engagement when she realized what she was getting into, that is, the life of a member of the Royal family. When it finally hit her that being the Princess of Wales was not going to be all fun and games she wanted to call it off. But her siblings told her something along the lines of "too late now, your face is one the tea towels" and she went through with it. It was within her power to do the right thing, but she didn't do it. So who was to blame for disastrous decision? Nobody but herself.

by Anonymousreply 18309/07/2013

[quote]"She reckoned she was the star."

She reckoned right, sweetheart. And you are who, again? Some old Kraut's daughter?

by Anonymousreply 18409/07/2013

I once heard a quote that described this situation perfectly: "Diana was a lamb to the slaughter."

As far as someone not going forward and calling off this charade, Charles should have backed out and said no to marriage since he was having an affair with Camilla. Diana did not fully know about all the dishonesty going on behind her back before her marriage.

Charles and Camilla were and are despicable human garbage.

by Anonymousreply 18509/07/2013

"So who was to blame for disastrous decision? Nobody but herself."

It was Charles who didn't want to be married in the first place, and who didn't have the balls to tell the Queen no. And he could have easily ended the affair then and there and started a clean slate.

He chose to do none of that. And when you look back on it, it shows you how little character and strength he really had. Completely powerless in such trivial situations? They really thought he was fit to be King?

They thought Diana would fall in line with these dimwitted, incredibly sexist notions of how women in royalty should behave (and apparently these Mountie women still pathetically cling to) She didn't and blew the doors wide open.

Thankfully Middleton has not had to endure such stupidity, and is living under more realistic and intelligent circumstances.

by Anonymousreply 18609/07/2013

What are people's sources that Diana didn't love Charles? I certainly got the idea from Tina Brown's book that she loved him, and that's the most comprehensive account out there that I know of.

And the extent of how obviously hurt and pained she was by his behavior during the marriage (whether you think she had a right to be or not) seems to indicate to me that she loved him - it's hard to see her being so hurt by him if she didn't. If she married him as a means to an end, thinking, "I don't love this man but I am marrying him because I want to be queen", I would think she would have tolerated his behavior and not rocked the boat in a way that would stop her from being queen. I'm not saying that people can't be self-sabotaging, but why would she have cared if Charles was cold and emotionally unavailable if he was a means to an end who she didn't love anyway?

by Anonymousreply 18709/07/2013

Bottom line, Camilla won the war and came out on top.

Fitting that Diana is literally at the bottom.

by Anonymousreply 18809/07/2013

Yeah, we'll see what kind of public outpouring of grief occurs when that horse-faced hag kicks the bucket

by Anonymousreply 18909/07/2013

No need to defend Camilla. She was and is a whore.

by Anonymousreply 19009/07/2013

Who cares R189. She won the war no matter how much you try to spin it.

by Anonymousreply 19109/07/2013

R190 Camilla only had one affair. You cannot count on both hands the number of affairs Diana had.

by Anonymousreply 19209/07/2013

Diana loved Charles at least for the first few years. She also loved her kids and wanted to keep her family together. She wasn't all that different from women around the world then and now.

The dishonesty of it all was that Charles didn't love Diana. He loved the Rottweiler Camilla. He and Camilla knew what they were doing to undermine Diana's marriage. Charles just didn't have the balls to put his foot down and not go through with marrying Diana.

Charles is the worst type of human: He lacks courage to stand up for himself and in doing so, willingly, intentionally and dishonestly brings another person down with him, in this case his wife, Diana.

by Anonymousreply 19309/07/2013

"Charles and Camilla were and are despicable human garbage."

Most reasonable people would say not. You sound like a very, very fucked up Diana fangurl. Get some help why don't you.

by Anonymousreply 19409/07/2013

Diana should have been tougher than Camilla. Too bad she wasn't.

In a fight to the finish, Camilla won hands down.

by Anonymousreply 19509/07/2013

Camilla's funeral will be private with hardly a flower in sight. Nothing like the outpouring of grief and the gargantuan football field sized depository of flowers in front of Kensington Palace for Diana that will never be duplicated by anyone. Not by the queen, Charles and certainly not Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 19609/07/2013

[quote]She (Camilla) will be Queen one day.

Only if Parliament says so.

by Anonymousreply 19709/07/2013

R196 she could have no one show up at her funeral. The bottom line is that Camilla BEAT Diana and won Charles.

End of story.

by Anonymousreply 19809/07/2013

And yet, Camilla will be the one who goes down in the history books as the queen regnant of the United Kingdom.

Diana? She will be remembered the same way people remember George IV's only child, the Princess Charlotte: only notable as someone popular who died young.

by Anonymousreply 19909/07/2013

"Diana loved Charles at least for the first few years."

Not really. She probably thought she did for a few minutes. But that ended even before they were married. She didn't want to go through with it, but did anyway and tried to make a go of it. But she never really loved him. She hardly even KNEW him when they married.

"Charles is the worst type of human: He lacks courage to stand up for himself and in doing so, willingly, intentionally and dishonestly brings another person down with him, in this case his wife, Diana."

What hysterical horseshit. Charles "brought down" nobody. Honey, DIANA was the one ultimately to blame for her fucked up life. She chose to become involved with Charles. She chose to marry him. Nobody held a gun to her head. So to blame him for the disaster that was their marriage is a crock of shit. It was BOTH of them. BOTH of them made the mistake of marrying each other. To hold him solely responsible for the mess she was is bullshit.

All this insane Diana worship is sickening.

by Anonymousreply 20009/07/2013

R197 not true. Being married to Charles, once the Queen dies Charles automatically becomes King. Camilla automatically becomes Queen.

Nothing Parliament can do about it.

by Anonymousreply 20109/07/2013

Dear madwoman at r199--the Government will never, EVER accept Camilla as queen regnant.

by Anonymousreply 20209/07/2013

Camilla makes the whore Anne Boleyn look like a novice in a convent.

by Anonymousreply 20309/07/2013

Parliament can do what Parliament wants, R201. This isn't the Tudors we're talking about. It's bloody Betty Windsor and her brood.

by Anonymousreply 20409/07/2013

This old bitty in the article is ridiculous.

If Diana was spiteful she had every reason to be after the way she was treated by Charles. Most forget how young and naive Diana was when she married him. She believed it was a love match and he was her Prince Charming. Sadly, she soon found out the truth.

This old broad in the mag expected Diana to sit back and let Charles throw his mistress in her face as well as be treated with disdain by his family. Fuck that!

Diana handled herself and the situation better than 99% would have.

by Anonymousreply 20509/07/2013


Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, appeared alongside Queen Elizabeth II at the state opening of Parliament today in the clearest signal yet she’ll become queen when her husband Prince Charles becomes king, according to an historian specializing in the British royal family.

Camilla’s presence in Parliament’s unelected upper chamber when the monarch announced the government’s legislative program is significant because it demonstrates Elizabeth has accepted her, according to Hugo Vickers, author of books on the royals including “Coronation.” The duchess, who was accompanying her husband, today wore the brooch and blue sash of the Victoria Order, a gift of the monarch signifying personal service. Diana never received one.

“Camilla’s appearance in the chamber of the House of Lords is extremely significant as it confirms her place in the constitution -- not only is she the wife of the future king, she is almost certainly his queen,” Vickers, who has been writing and broadcasting on the royal family for more than 35 years, said in an interview in London yesterday. “Charles is heir to the throne and today is also a reminder about his position in a constitutional monarchy; that he will be the next king and sign off government bills.”

So if Hugo Vickers thinks Camilla will become Queen, who are you R202 ?

by Anonymousreply 20609/07/2013

A citizen and resident of London, r206, in Holland Park. Mr. Vickers can have his fantasy. We, however, believe in reality.

by Anonymousreply 20709/07/2013

[quote] Diana handled herself and the situation better than 99% would have.

She threw herself down a flight of stairs (while pregnant)

She threaten suicide to Charles with a lemon slicer

She pushed her own step-mother down a flight of stairs (then walked over her on the way down)

She threw all of her step-mothers clothes in garbage bags and tossed them over the balcony.

She made hundreds of crank calls over the years.

She used her own children against Charles.

And R205 you call all that Behavior a great way to handle this situation?

by Anonymousreply 20809/07/2013

R206 who are you against a constitutional scholar?

Where did you get your PHd in constitutional studies?

by Anonymousreply 20909/07/2013

Too bad they didn't call me. I speak jive.

by Anonymousreply 21009/07/2013


When the Prince of Wales ascends to the throne his wife will automatically become Queen Consort. Everybody knows and accepts the fact that the wife of a King is a Queen - quite simple really!

An Act of Parliament or Order-in-Council are required to change Monarchical convention and the laws that govern the institution of Monarchy, for the Duchess not to become Queen on her husband’s accession to the throne one of those would be required and the likeliness of one being written up and then approved are quite unlikely.

I personally do not see the Queen signing an Order-in-Council that would change the British Monarchy to something more like the Monarchy of Morocco where the wife of a King is not Queen, but instead only just a Princess!

Further down, the article reads: “The ruling was established in 1936 during the abdication crisis involving King Edward VIII.” – What ruling? That the wife of King is automatically Queen? Oh please! There were no rulings; there were no Acts of Parliament, no nothing! It is a convention that has been around forever that a wife of a King is a Queen! Remember King Henry VIII and his six wives? Who by the way were all Crowned Queens of England.

So again R206 which UK school did you got to to study Monarchical laws?

by Anonymousreply 21109/07/2013

"And yet, Camilla will be the one who goes down in the history books as the queen regnant of the United Kingdom.

Diana? She will be remembered the same way people remember George IV's only child, the Princess Charlotte: only notable as someone popular who died young."

I would think Camilla, Charles, and Diana are all going down in history books as a threesome. I seriously doubt that Charles will do anything during his reign that will overshadow the drama surrounding his two wives and stop it from being the main thing he is remembered for. What would even be within his capability to do to have something other than "Diana and Camilla" be people's main association with Charles III (or whatever he ends up calling himself)? I suppose maybe if there were another war involving sustained attacks on UK soil and he rose to the occasion as an incredibly inspirational leader for the country to rally around.

by Anonymousreply 21209/07/2013

My mistake--Camilla indeed will never be queen regnant (that is, a queen who rules in her own right like Elizabeth II); but she will very likely be queen consort.

by Anonymousreply 21309/07/2013

When QEII dies and Charles becomes monarch at the moment of her death, Camilla also automatically as his wife, per law, becomes HM Queen Camilla (Queen consort, not Queen in her own right like QEII). That will be her rank and title.

In order to make their marriage more palatable to the UK public at that time (they were still in rehabilitative mode), it was agreed that Camilla would be styled "Duchess of Cornwall" rather than Princess of Wales in order to avoid inevitable unfavorable comparison with Diana. It was also said then that she would be -styled- as "HRH The Princess Consort" when Charles became King, again to appease negative factions of the public at that time.

However it's said that now Charles is adamant she use her actual legal title when the time comes (Queen Camilla). If he insists, it will happen. There's no legal blockage or way to prevent it, it's at his discretion.

by Anonymousreply 21409/07/2013

[quote]There's no legal blockage or way to prevent it, it's at his discretion.

Actually, you're wrong: there can indeed be legal blockage if Parliament would vote against her assuming the title. But, why would they?

by Anonymousreply 21509/07/2013

I have to agree with R212 who has a point there.

by Anonymousreply 21609/07/2013

r215 can you tell me that last time Parliament, the governing body of the UK, took up the issue of the titles and stylings of the Royal family as an issue, never mind changed the Constitution over it? What year was it. I truly don't know am asking.

They do not give a - pardon me - Royal Shit about what Camilla is titled or called. That's an issue for Charles and his pr advisors only.

by Anonymousreply 21709/07/2013

I LOVE when the Queen goes bitchy!

"After becoming Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla automatically acquired rank as the second highest female in the United Kingdom Order of Precedence (after the Queen), and as typically fifth or sixth in the orders of precedence of her other realms, following the Queen, the relevant viceroy, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Prince of Wales. It was revealed that the Queen altered the royal order of precedence for private occasions, placing Camilla fourth, after the Queen, the Princess Royal, and Princess Alexandra."

by Anonymousreply 21809/07/2013

I don't see how it's a problem, changing the order of precedence to put the blood royal princesses first. When William married Kate, didn't she get put behind Beatrice and Eugenie in precedence as well? I can't remember exactly how it shook out.

In these times, when many marriages don't last longer than a blink and the royals have had more than their share of marital troubles and breakups, it makes sense for QEII to move the "marry ins" around in the order to reflect modern reality. I don't think she changed anything to slight Camilla or Kate (although I thought I read that Anne pushed for the change behind the scenes as she can't stand Camilla).

by Anonymousreply 21909/07/2013

[quote]Who is the woman on the far left of [R119]'s photo? Margaret actually looks sad.

That is Lord Snowden's mother the Countess of Rosse. If she looks sad it's because she probably thought her son marrying into the royal family was somewhat beneath her. As a diamond hard bitch she made mad dog Diana look like an desperate amateur. Her cunty nickname was "Tugboat Anne" because "she went from peer to peer" -- geddit? Pic at the link of her wearing the family emeralds.

by Anonymousreply 22009/07/2013

Camilla gets a bum rap.

by Anonymousreply 22109/07/2013

Whatever Camilla ends up as, it's Diana's descendants who will take the throne.

If Diana hadn't died, Charles never would have been able to make Camilla Duchess of Tampons, let alone Cornwall.

by Anonymousreply 22309/07/2013

What did Camilla win? An aging playboy who no doubt fucks around when he feels like it? Step children who no doubt have a tolerable relationship with her at best.

Diana will still be talked about LONG after Camilla is gone. Camilla got Charles, but she didn't get respect or relevance. What a victory!

by Anonymousreply 22409/07/2013

People aren't generally all good or all bad. That being said, Diana was beautiful...clearly had the ability to be charming...could be playful...appeared to adore her children...felt stifled by the golden bird cage...and, from what we know now, was clearly confused.

The meaning of "candle in the wind" has been diluted from overuse (cue the song)...but, in Diana's case, it seems apt. It's like she was missing a compass to guide her. She never knew how to get her bearings.

by Anonymousreply 22509/07/2013

R225. For many years, Diana had her bearing just fine. She told the royal family to fuck off and pursued causes that mattered such as AIDS and land mines.

by Anonymousreply 22609/07/2013

Diana will be remembered long into the future. Diana wins history and a public who loved her. The royal family couldn't undo her popularity. The queen didn't even think she needed to leave her holiday in Balmoral. She quickly learned otherwise that she had fucked up and misjudged the situation badly.

Camilla will be forgotten. She won nothing. She had Charles from the start through deception and lies. Diana held her own despite the snake pit she had to maneuver.

by Anonymousreply 22709/07/2013

"The meaning of "candle in the wind" has been diluted from overuse (cue the song)...but, in Diana's case, it seems apt. It's like she was missing a compass to guide her. She never knew how to get her bearings."

I agree, that metaphor did fit her as much as it fit Marilyn. I think the song also gained poignancy from the fact that, even though the following line was changed to "Never fading with the sunset when the rain set in", most people still had the original's "Never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in" in the back of their minds, which obviously was so apt for Diana and her sad tendency, from Charles all the way through to Dodi, to throw her lot in with the wrong people.

I fully expect this to be followed by lots of mocking of me for being a pathetic Diana fangirl because I found the song touching, but I did.

by Anonymousreply 22809/07/2013

Prostitution whore!

by Anonymousreply 22909/07/2013

r228 Spot on

by Anonymousreply 23009/07/2013

I don't know about you but I found this clip surprising. Diana (not surprising) and Bar Bush visiting an AIDS hospice in 1991.

by Anonymousreply 23109/07/2013

Is this guy for real?

by Anonymousreply 23209/07/2013

Hey, poster who craves being CamelAss' tampon-following-Charles (well, her dessicated, leathery, rode-hard snatch hasn't needed plugging in decades, but you know...)

Why didn't the Fucktard of Wales and Panama Canal crotch simply marry each other in the first place and retreat into universal disinterest in the first place?

A fucking first world nation using a young girl like something out of "A Handmaid's Tale" is disgusting.

Charles, Defender Of The Faith, and old accordion vulva - yeah, that's star quality. ..

by Anonymousreply 23309/07/2013

You fools. You stupid little fools. You know you want him.

by Anonymousreply 23409/08/2013

I'd wager the pages of your copies are stuck together...

by Anonymousreply 23509/08/2013

I posted at R88. So my opinion is noted. I found this thread to be one of the most interesting ever. It feels like the subtext is AS telling as the Diana vs. Camilla flame-war.

After reading every post on the thread it really seems obvious that the people who adore Diana understand the insane emotions one feels when our hearts (broken or otherwise) rule our actions, especially when we are very young & inexperienced. My face used to turn red when remembering some of the things I did "for love" (HA!). I can completely identify with making crazy calls to someone who had broken up with me,in my twenties! I also didn't even have the little bit of relationship experience of my straight peers from high school. My heart has been on my sleeve & on the ground many times. True love has ALWAYS been my main objective...&I found it more than once.

I'm 53 & about to marry the man I adore (13 yrs. later). So mission accomplished.

I've been really surprised by the pro-Camilla posters. The general consensus seems to be, she "won", or got the last laugh? There is a guy(?) on here who posted at R188 R191 R192 R195 R198 R201 R206 R208 R209 R211 ?!?!?! At R198 he writes she(Camilla) could have no one show up at her funeral. The bottom line is Camilla beat Diana & won Charles. This statement is the antithesis of how I feel,& why I described myself above. Unless one outlives everyone they knew,having no one show up at our funerals ( even only one person who truly loved us) is a bleak end, & does matter.

There are some HARD (and hard drink'n apparently ) bitches on here & I am glad I'm not one of them. Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 23609/08/2013

Diana who?

by Anonymousreply 23709/08/2013

She may be married to Charles but she still looks like Bet Lynch.

by Anonymousreply 23809/08/2013

r231 Interesting video. And, yes, surprising!

by Anonymousreply 23909/08/2013

[quote]What did Camilla win?


Note the Koh-i-Noor in the central cross.

by Anonymousreply 24009/08/2013

Some Camilla swimsuit pictures from last week:

by Anonymousreply 24109/08/2013

R211, only two of King Henry VIII's six queen consorts were crowned: Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. Anne's coronation was said to be particularly splendid. Jane Seymour was going to be crowned but the Plague was raging in the areas near Westminster Abbey so everyone avoided going there. The other three had no coronations.

by Anonymousreply 24209/08/2013

[quote]And yet, Camilla will be the one who goes down in the history books as the queen regnant of the United Kingdom.

I think you mean Queen Consort. Bitch is ambitious, but not even she can make herself the monarch.

by Anonymousreply 24309/08/2013

If I have to live to 115, my horse-fucking, cock-sucking bloody tampon of a son will never be king (or queen).

by Anonymousreply 24409/08/2013

[quote] What did Camilla win?



Being Crowned Queen one day

Other than Grandma Middleton, the only other grandmother Prince George will know.

What did Diana win? A coffin.

Face it bitches, no matter how you try and spin it Camilla won the war. And it just kills you!

by Anonymousreply 24509/08/2013

We all end up in a coffin, R245. However, like others have already said, Diana is iconic. Nobody cares about Camilla NOW, much less once she croaks.

Marrying gross, old Charles, looking like a dried up prune, and sitting on a crusty throne don't seem like winning to me.

by Anonymousreply 24609/08/2013

[quote] Nobody cares about Camilla NOW

No matter in a battle between Camilla and Diana, Camilla won.

by Anonymousreply 24709/08/2013

[quote]Other than Grandma Middleton, the only other grandmother Prince George will know.

How do we know what the relationship will be between George and Camilla? Right now it seems like the Middletons are the primary grandparents. Are William and Camilla close? Because if not, I don't really see much of a relationship forming between that kid and ol' Cam.

by Anonymousreply 24809/08/2013

[quote] How do we know what the relationship will be between George and Camilla?

Wherever Charles goes, Camilla sticks by him like glue.

William will want Charles to have a relationship with his own Grandson. Naturally Camilla will be around as well, simply because she never sticks by Charles 24/7

by Anonymousreply 24909/08/2013

But it's also likely that Charles will never be King. Liz II ain't going anywhere and, even though Phil is a hardy sole, luck only gets you so far. Liz II might decide that she wants to outlive her mother and she ain't giving up the throne until she goes.

by Anonymousreply 25009/08/2013

Someone actually buys the Charles/Camilla love of a lifetime shit? You do realize he was fucking other women when he was seeing her as well as when he was married AND fooling around with her on the side.

If she sticks with him like glue, then she clearly doesn't trust him. And she certainly can't complain, because she'd look even worse in the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 25109/08/2013

The hysteria, the selfishness, the vindictiveness, the conceited independence: all bloody Diana needed was a Rasputin and she could have played the last Tsarina.

by Anonymousreply 25209/08/2013

R251, I buy it. It does not matter how many other people he or she screwed their hearts belonged to each other. They are the total antithesis of the fairy tales in that the Prince (though unattractive) loved the ugly girl.

If Camilla sticks with Charles like glue it is because that is what they both want. Neither have a lot of time left perhaps both are choosing to spend as much time with each other as possible.

by Anonymousreply 25309/08/2013

The Spencers are a far more English family than the Johnny-come-lately Windsor-Mountbattens. Diana had a right to look down her nose at those Germans.

by Anonymousreply 25409/08/2013

It is also a fact that William is closer to Charles family than the Spencer family.

So by default Camilla will be the Grandmother this child will know.

by Anonymousreply 25509/08/2013

I doubt the child will call Camilla 'grandmother' and it seems a fact that William is closer to the Middletons than his own family. Kate seems to get her way a lot and that means being close to HER family. Not Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 25609/08/2013

As if One wants a ghastly bawler under One's feet while reading the Racing Post. That's what nannies are for. Dear Mrs Middleton. So affordable.

by Anonymousreply 25709/08/2013

"The Spencers are a far more English family than the Johnny-come-lately Windsor-Mountbattens. Diana had a right to look down her nose at those Germans"

No, they aren't...

by Anonymousreply 25809/08/2013

I had heard that the Mountbatten sisters were cast to be on the next season of MTV's Buckwild, before that poor boy died when his truck got stuck in the mud pit.

by Anonymousreply 25909/08/2013

R256 wherever Charles goes, Camilla follows.

by Anonymousreply 26009/08/2013

[quote] and, even though Phil is a hardy sole

That sounds fishy.

by Anonymousreply 26109/08/2013

Oh I think little Georgie will learn from an early age that she's NOT his grandmother.

by Anonymousreply 26209/08/2013

Wow, this article is obviously slanted towards favouring Charles and Camilla, but the comments are filled with outrage on Diana's behalf. Camilla will never be accepted, never be viewed in a favourable fashion. The vitriol is amazing.

by Anonymousreply 26309/08/2013

A lot of fraus deeply identified with Diana--the whole wronged, sinned-against pampered Princess fantasy is very powerful.

God knows what she was really like, but it's unlikely that she was as saint-like as some of her admirers profess.

by Anonymousreply 26409/08/2013

I don't doubt that the day will come when Charles becomes king and he decides to make Camila his queen and not just a consort. It's been several years now and the hoopla over the affair and Diana's death has died down but I and many others will never accept they rottie as a queen, she will always be remembered as the interloper that destroyed a fairy tale marriage. That's the bottom line.

Diana may be dead but she will be remembered forever for her charity work, beauty and grace. She was not perfect but she was the people's princess and her legacy will live on through her sons.

by Anonymousreply 26509/08/2013

I aqree with your comments except this one, r253: :Neither have a lot of time left...."

Charles' heritage is a VERY long-lived one, and he is not quite sixty-five (November).

I think it is William who will have the longest waiting period.

by Anonymousreply 26609/08/2013

R245 You're a raging cunty loon.

by Anonymousreply 26709/08/2013

It's 3 or 4 angry alcoholics posting about Camilla "winning".

Anyone posting anything insightful is followed by, " oh yeah? Well she's dead, & she was a stupid slut! So Camilla wins...& gets all the jewelry"!?

by Anonymousreply 26809/08/2013

Had Diana lived, she would have won and would still be winning all over the world--without douchebag Charles. And had Diana lived, Charles may never have married the Rottweiler Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 26909/08/2013


by Anonymousreply 27009/08/2013

R270 No. No bitty. You've just had lunch.

by Anonymousreply 27109/08/2013

My guess is that R269 has it exactly backwards: that, had she not died so tragically at a relatively young age, the complexities and contradictions in her life (socialite vs. charity worker vs. loving mother vs. athletic young woman) would probably have had unfortunate consequences for her reputation. Hard to know, of course, but there was an eventual cost to be paid, in the public eye, for her exotic life style.

by Anonymousreply 27209/08/2013

Yes, R258 they are. As her loving brother pointedly pointed out,in her eulogy, they have also been around England for MANY more centuries than the(ahem) Windsor's.

by Anonymousreply 27309/08/2013

"Had Diana lived, she would have won and would still be winning all over the world"

At the time of her death, she was fucking a deadbeat loser playboy. No doubt after that played out she would have gone on to more disastrous couplings and would continue to make a fool of herself and lead the life of an aimless, directionless rich person.

Her charity work? Just something to pass the time. In an interview she was asked about her dedication to it and she said "what else do I have to do?", punctuating her comment with an "airhead screech", as one observer noted.

Most of her life she was miserably unhappy. She kept going for awful men right up until the end. She had no education, no focus; she was shallow and self-absorbed and suspicious and erratic. If she had lived, she would have gone along the same path. She was a supremely fucked up woman and would have continued to be for the rest of her life. I don't think most people would consider that "winning."

by Anonymousreply 27409/08/2013

Many callous things being said in this thread based on mere assumption and heresay. The sad thing is, none of you can take back these words.

by Anonymousreply 27509/08/2013

[quote]The sad thing is, none of you can take back these words.

Mary! I'm clutching my pearls and weeping for the sins of the world right along with you!

by Anonymousreply 27609/08/2013

Nasty people here, speaking of the dead nefariously, you ought to be ashamed, yet the unabashed cretins wallow in this type of fantastic projection.

by Anonymousreply 27709/08/2013

[quote]Nasty people here, speaking of the dead nefariously, you ought to be ashamed, yet the unabashed cretins wallow in this type of fantastic projection.

You sound like one of those ancient Mountbatten scolds yourself.

by Anonymousreply 27809/08/2013

I'm just relieved these posts are anonymous because if I could put a face and a name to those with such hate in their heart for Diana, my heart would be sick for days.

by Anonymousreply 27909/08/2013

r279, that takes the Mary! Comment Prize of the 21st Century.

Are you putting us on?

by Anonymousreply 28009/08/2013

What's it like to be a heartless cunt r280?

by Anonymousreply 28109/08/2013

One heartless cunt coming right up!

by Anonymousreply 28209/08/2013

I don't think R274 is off-base. I think her life, had she lived, would have been a series of increasingly embarrassing events.

I also don't think she was a "bad" or "evil" person. There was probably a good deal of genuine good in her makeup.

She was in the wrong place. A quieter life wouldn't have exacerbated the suspiciousness she acquired during her terrible childhood. She might have been relatively happy married to a country squire or some dim aristocrat. She should have avoided the limelight as much as possible after her divorce, but I don't think she found that option very attractive. And it would have required a much stronger ego than she possessed to make that option work.

by Anonymousreply 28309/08/2013

Diana wanted to be a social worker of some kind.

by Anonymousreply 28409/08/2013

""Had Diana lived, she would have won and would still be winning all over the world"

Had Diana lived she would have inspired countless threads about her plastic surgery.

by Anonymousreply 28509/08/2013

[quote]'m just relieved these posts are anonymous because if I could put a face and a name to those with such hate in their heart for Diana, my heart would be sick for days.

[quote][R279], that takes the Mary! Comment Prize of the 21st Century. Are you putting us on?

I thought Mary! prizes only went to gay men.

by Anonymousreply 28609/08/2013

She probably would have been much happier if she'd married a commoner and remained a kindergarten assistant (she sure wasn't a kindergarten "teacher"). Too bad she didn't go that route. But she made her choices in life. Too bad all her choices were terrible ones.

by Anonymousreply 28709/08/2013

"Her charity work? Just something to pass the time."

Doing charity work to pass the time is something to be frowned upon? Do you feel the same way about the minimal work the royals do for that Princes Trust charity?

Diana for all of her faults is the reason the British royals are on the public map today. Post-death, they've tried making them into something interesting, but it has failed miserably each and every time. With the exception of Harry's escapades, of course. There's just nothing fascinating about any of them other than ridiculous fashions and photography posing.

Camilla is largely seen as a pathetic doormat who sat around waiting for her dopey suitor to finally propose. The wedding went unnoticed and was more a case of things finally getting done than a true cause for celebration. And Camilla simply isn't photogenic to put it nicely.

Charles has largely stayed out of the public eye. The man has never had much charm to spare to begin with, so this is probably the best scenario for him. I can't imagine him being king, because aside from his wife's ghastly taste in fashion and lack of poise, he lacks true presentation and charm.

Elizabeth got a much needed public boost from the Helen Mirren movie. It wasn't a love letter per se, but the casting of the attractive Mirren (ludicrous as Liz is at best homely) and the attempts to make Elizabeth seem warm and maternal (she was always extremely cold and distant) brought about a more kinder and gentler view from the public. But her asinine stunts in recent years are doing much harm. From not being able to keep her hands off Michelle Obama during their visit to appearing in that extremely tacky and ill advised Bond sketch and sitting at her party with earphones on because the music was too loud. All show an extremely frail woman completely out of touch.

William and Kate stand the best chance of reigniting the status of the royals. Both have Diana's smarts and sensibility about the whole thing, and have done away with the moldy pomp and circumstance The Queen forced upon everyone, decades long after it's shelf life ended. They lack the interest as of now, but you never know what the future holds.

by Anonymousreply 28809/08/2013

R288, you imply that the Royals want attention. I would submit they do not. I suspect they would rather do their duty and live a otherwise quiet life. Further you cannot judge Camilla by the same standard of Diana. Diana loved that attention, I suspect Camilla does not. Camilla is not a fashionista and mostly likely have no desire to be one. In the end Charles and Camilla are probably living the life they both desire.

by Anonymousreply 28909/08/2013

[quote]From not being able to keep her hands off Michelle Obama during their visit to appearing in that extremely tacky and ill advised Bond sketch and sitting at her party with earphones on because the music was too loud.

Eh? Abominations all.

by Anonymousreply 29009/08/2013

The other part is that NO ONE is interested in Camilla - what she does, knows, or wears. She has as much allure as a moldy horse blanket

by Anonymousreply 29109/08/2013

If they don't get public attention they aren't doing their job correctly. A royal is supposed to show up, do their little bit and no one is supposed to know they are there? That's the whole point of all their meet and greets and show and tells.

by Anonymousreply 29209/08/2013

William and Kate are as dull as dishwater. They have no charisma whatsoever.

Thank goodness for Diana and Sarah who brought the royal family kicking and screaming into the 20th century just before the 21st century began. The royal family is now benefitting from the openness, accessibility and approachability that Diana and Sarah provided for everyone.

It had its downside from the family's point of view, but the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York were the catalysts and the vehicles that gave this stodgy crew its relevance today.

by Anonymousreply 29309/08/2013

R293. Right on about Diana and Sarah. Especially agree with you about boring Will and Kate.

by Anonymousreply 29409/08/2013

R279/R281 and myriad other posts here is quite the maniac. You either tow her line or you are heartless, sick and all sorts of things. And of course don't show intelligence. That she can't take. Never mind that her knowledge of English history and current British affairs is completely wrong.


by Anonymousreply 29509/08/2013

Mine was just better, dear.

by Anonymousreply 29609/08/2013

She was a spiteful, big nosed, bug eyed ham who loved to be the center of attention. Showing that documentary on the day of the Queen's anniversary showed how low she would go. Poor Elizabeth.She's just living by protocol. Diana was a silly, borderline psychotic.

But I do wonder if her love for an Indian doctor (who showed her the door, two times) had anything to do with her being part Indian herself.

Remember the stunt where she showed up at the doctor's family home unannounced? He freaked the fuck out because privacy was one of his top desires. He ended it there.

How about the time she acted like a 5 yr. old on a flume ride? Too bad she only looked stylish at the end with the parted hair and navy dress. I thought she was cute when young but in reality her face was pretty homely. I guess some people can't get over the color of eyes. She just didn't age well and her brother got the looks there.

by Anonymousreply 29709/08/2013

R247, I actually think the whole Charles/Camilla relationship proves an never dying love. It would make a fine romantic story had they both not been so homely. They really stuck it out...and he's really bloomed again so much later in life. He's a very fortunate man in love and life. Too bad about his looks, though

by Anonymousreply 29809/09/2013

R258. Wrong. The Spencers are an older,more established British aristocracy than the Windsors.Then Battenberg being "Greek". Not an ounce of Greek blood. You should post his pedigree.

by Anonymousreply 29909/09/2013

The Spencers are one of the oldest and best connected aristocratic families in England. The Windsors are arriviste trash in comparison.

by Anonymousreply 30009/09/2013

Charle and Camilla's story romantic?

He doesn't marry her because Mommy and Daddy want a virgin. She dupes some guy into marrying her. He does the same. They fuck each other despite being married to other people. They finally divorce the dupes and one of them dies so they can finally get married and keep on fucking as they 've always fucked. Plus he has guys on the side.

Ah, romance!

by Anonymousreply 30109/09/2013

r299 / r300 -

Wrong. But why bother arguing?

by Anonymousreply 30209/09/2013

R293, Diana and Sarah brought a House of Grimaldi-like two ring circus to an otherwise private family.

by Anonymousreply 30309/09/2013

I will admit that Charles and Camilla's romance is fairy tale worthy.

Two hideous looking people fall in love and it overcomes all obstacles so that they can be together in the end, yes it sounds romantic but what killed it was how many people they fucked over and trampled in the process. Ugly people and ugly circumstances.

by Anonymousreply 30409/09/2013

[quote] Ugly people and ugly circumstances.

So it was okay for Diana to push her step-mother down a flight of stairs, and then walk over her like nothing happened?

by Anonymousreply 30509/09/2013

R305 And you're point is?

by Anonymousreply 30609/09/2013

Diana wasn't at all innocent as she is being portrayed. She has done some pretty hurtful things to people over the years.

She too could be just as mean, as evidenced to what she did to her step-mother.

Like the crank calls she did over the years.

by Anonymousreply 30709/09/2013

r301, how do you know he has guys on the side?

by Anonymousreply 30809/09/2013

r234, notice how Charles and William both have HUGE "baskets"?? Hmmm....I think many would be stuck like glue to Charles and follow him around with that sort of royal endowment.

Kate is one lucky gal.

by Anonymousreply 30909/09/2013

"So it was okay for Diana to push her step-mother down a flight of stairs, and then walk over her like nothing happened?"

Have you ever encountered "Acid Raine"?

by Anonymousreply 31009/09/2013

I have posted in her dozens and dozens of times about Diana being the true whore and Charles being her victim. She was a lying narcissist - she was not a virgin - if you count BJs and handjobs...

by Anonymousreply 31109/09/2013

Interesting that whenever anyone brings up some of the hurtful things Diana has done over the years, the Diana fans ignore it.

And instead still insist how wonderfully she is admired all over the world.

Yet they pick apart every single mean thing Charles and Camilla have done.

But Diana? They just gloss right over it, like it never happened.

by Anonymousreply 31209/09/2013

There are no perfect people on either side of this story, R312, and there is certainly no romantic element for any of these characters, i.e. no fairy tale wedding, no romantic story of love that survived hardships, no innocents duped, no poor prince who needs our support, etc.

by Anonymousreply 31309/09/2013

Diana's actions toward Charles as the years went on were a reaction to his original cheating, lying, deceiving actions that provoked this whole ugly situation. Charles and Camilla were the original whores.

by Anonymousreply 31409/09/2013

R314 what about all the crank calls she made to her spurned lovers. You have excuse for that too?

by Anonymousreply 31509/09/2013

Diana is a Byronic heroine. Every act of affection was heartfelt. She hurt, she raged, she loved. She was an incredible human being with many colours.

by Anonymousreply 31609/09/2013

[quote] She was an incredible human being with many colours.

Who also physically assaulted her step-mother

by Anonymousreply 31709/09/2013

[quote]Diana and Sarah brought a House of Grimaldi-like two ring circus to an otherwise private family.

Hardly. Diana and Sarah made the family relevant and taught them not to mess around with future royal women as is evidenced by the respectful way theyb treat Kate.

There was a reason the family was so private in the past: It was all the better to carry on the status quo of their evil dysfunction and treating people like shit.

by Anonymousreply 31809/09/2013

r317 - she was still an extraordinary person. Her childhood was emotionally impoverished.

by Anonymousreply 31909/09/2013

[quote]According to the Andrew Morton biography, early in her marriage she went to a psychic who told her (correctly) she would never be queen. She took that prediction to heart and stopped caring about becoming queen.

Jesus Christ, what a stupid bitch she was.

by Anonymousreply 32009/09/2013

Who is the psychotic who keeps repeating "Camilla won the war"?!?!

by Anonymousreply 32109/09/2013

R319 lots of people have childhoods that was emotionally impoverished.

Doesn't give them license to go around and assault people.

by Anonymousreply 32209/09/2013

Did they actually have a gyneocologist examine Diana's hymen to determining her virginity? Isn't it true the hymen doesn't always break anyway?

by Anonymousreply 32309/09/2013

I love the emotional connection Diana made with everyone. She was physically close, loving, tender, intimate. She had an emotional understanding, an emotional intuitive genius that the Queen, Charles and Camilla and now even Diana's own boys are incapable of and will never have.

by Anonymousreply 32409/09/2013

[quote] She was physically close, loving, tender, intimate.

She also assaulted her step-mother and made countless crank calls to her spurned lovers.

by Anonymousreply 32509/09/2013

As far as Di's concerned, the humane quality she exuded outweighed any of her mistakes.

by Anonymousreply 32609/09/2013

So it is okay to assault the elderly, gotcha R326

by Anonymousreply 32709/09/2013

[quote] Isn't it true the hymen doesn't always break anyway?

I don't know about this, but the hymen is easily broken without sexual activity so an examination wouldn't have been conclusive about virginity.

In North African villages, older women by tradition test newlywed girls before her husbands attempt intercourse. The woman is supposed to puncture the membrane with her finger and show blood to prove virginity. They managed to figure out that hymens break regardless of sexual activity. So some of these women have a long, sharpened fingernail which they use to cut the vaginal wall to produce blood. Honor demonstrated, etc. Except some of the poor girls die of infections. Just as some of their cohorts died of infections following forced clitorectomies at puberty.

by Anonymousreply 32809/09/2013

r327, when you're a confused and emotionally neglected teenager with a need for your father, stuff like that happens.

by Anonymousreply 32909/09/2013

R329 Diana PUSHED her step-mother down a flight of stairs out of pure malice.

And you are going to give her a pass for that?

Stuff like that happens?

by Anonymousreply 33009/09/2013

Yes. It happens. Diana and Acid Raine came to love each other.

by Anonymousreply 33109/09/2013

Diana's letter to Raine:

by Anonymousreply 33209/09/2013

Team IRA

by Anonymousreply 33309/09/2013

R324, you call it an "emotional understanding" and I call it narcissistic borderline personality disorder.

by Anonymousreply 33409/09/2013

r334, if anything that's Charles and Camilla. You're just a vindictive twat.

by Anonymousreply 33509/09/2013

The "Camilly won the war" psycho needs to learn the difference between winning the battle and winning the war.

by Anonymousreply 33609/09/2013

R336 she won both

by Anonymousreply 33709/09/2013

Please. Diana was and is an icon. And will be for years to come. Camilla was and is a slutty interloper. She's a blip on the radar. Albeit an exceptionally ugly one.

by Anonymousreply 33809/09/2013

If Diana had used the N word like Paula Deen, you guys would still give her a free pass.

In your minds she can do no wrong.

by Anonymousreply 33909/09/2013

Does anyone remember this Dateline show with videotaped interviews of Diana being very candid with her former speech coach? ( I don't recall seeing this show)

Interesting stuff for Di fans.

by Anonymousreply 34009/09/2013

R340. Fascinating. Diana was really something else. She would have been an amazing international figure had she lived. I wish she were still with us.

by Anonymousreply 34109/09/2013

When I see that magazine picture of the Mountbatten sisters I just want to punch them in the face.

by Anonymousreply 34209/09/2013

Wow, R340. What a fascinating interview. A nine-part interview, and it was compelling, impossible to stop watching. Diana was one tough cookie. Ann Curry did an outstanding job presenting the princess. And her acting coach friend broght out the best in Diana.

Thanks for posting.

by Anonymousreply 34309/09/2013

I just love looking at pictures of Raine, Countess Spencer's hair. It is beyond amazing.

by Anonymousreply 34409/09/2013

What exactly is the procedure to make your hair look like Raine's in r344's link? (Or is that a wig?)

by Anonymousreply 34509/09/2013

You can get our at "Le Lipstique, the Lipstick Beauty Salon. Or you can try Mr. Ray's Wig World...

by Anonymousreply 34609/09/2013

But does that come from curlers? Blow-drying? Hairspray? Teasing?

by Anonymousreply 34709/09/2013

Whoa. That is some serious Thatcher hair.

by Anonymousreply 34809/09/2013

Diana was a nasty bitch, just like her alcoholic mother and even nastier piece of shit, nitwit brother. The Spencers were and are nutcases.

Luckily, her two boys have turned out to be nothing like her, which is a sigh of relief for The Queen. Diana was a good mother and did teach her boys to be humble and of service.

Charles made a terrible mistake marrying Diana. They had absolutely nothing in common and she was too young and immature.

by Anonymousreply 34909/09/2013

Charles was a pompous douchebag cheater. Camilla was a whore.

by Anonymousreply 35009/10/2013

Wow, if ever there were a wrong turn to take in defending Diana, r350 has found it.

Diana was a much, MUCH bigger whore than Camilla ever was.

by Anonymousreply 35109/10/2013

Sadly, it was an overlooked truth. Diana's extra-marital conquests far surpassed Camilla's in quantity and breadth. And, perhaps, obsessiveness?

by Anonymousreply 35209/10/2013

*And I mean her own affairs with the married men she chose.

Hypocrisy never suited Diana. Why should it suit her admirers?

by Anonymousreply 35309/10/2013

Camilla set out to break up a marriage in which she succeeded. She's a whore.

by Anonymousreply 35409/10/2013

Again, people, no winners here. Charles is a whore. Diana was a whore. Camilla is a whore. One is rotting in the ground. Two are rotting while still alive.

Lillibet and Phil don't win any prizes as parents either.

by Anonymousreply 35509/10/2013

Please, just let her rest. This thread is beyond tasteless.

by Anonymousreply 35609/10/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!