Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Diana, Princess of Wales

Remembering Diana on her birthday: 1 July 1961. She would have been 58 today.

Yes, she deserves her own thread aside from the ongoing one about the British Royal Family.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 488September 22, 2019 5:19 AM

Diana was something else. I still miss her.

by Anonymousreply 1July 1, 2019 5:50 PM

What she would have looked like today if she lived.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2July 1, 2019 5:59 PM

Gorgeous photo, one her last.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3July 1, 2019 5:59 PM

Lovely lady, but mad as a hatter.

by Anonymousreply 4July 1, 2019 6:03 PM

This will end in tears.

by Anonymousreply 5July 1, 2019 6:07 PM

R4 how do you mean?

by Anonymousreply 6July 1, 2019 6:24 PM

A phenomenon.

by Anonymousreply 7July 1, 2019 6:35 PM

I don't think she had any major psychiatric disorders, maybe some garden variety ones, but she was modestly educated, prone more to gut than reason, had a healthy mean streak and was thrust into - to quote her annoying brother - the most bizarre life imaginable - but without the skills or support to navigate it. And so, as emotional vs. rational, she went batshit.

by Anonymousreply 8July 1, 2019 6:37 PM

My mother still has a Diana haircut, after all these years.

by Anonymousreply 9July 1, 2019 6:40 PM

I loved her. And thank God, she injected some actual aristocratic English blood into the the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Kate Middleton helps them out in the same way. William's children are far more English than their most famous great-grandmother is, even if she is the bloody Queen.

by Anonymousreply 10July 1, 2019 6:42 PM

Queen of 💗💗💗

by Anonymousreply 11July 1, 2019 6:44 PM

I never understood the "she's so beautiful" crap. Look at that first picture. Yuck! Big nose, matronly hairstyle. I will say though, her final hairstyle from 1996/1997 (slightly longish hair tucked back behind the ears) was nice.

by Anonymousreply 12July 1, 2019 6:44 PM

R10 The Queen's mother was British (from Scotland) through and through.

Kate Middleton may be very British (no-one in the UK says English any more) but she's in no way aristocratic.

by Anonymousreply 13July 1, 2019 6:50 PM

[quote]she injected some actual aristocratic English blood into the the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Not much actually. Only through her father's side. Her mother was part American and had some Armenian and Indian ancestry.

by Anonymousreply 14July 1, 2019 6:51 PM

Diana was the most iconic woman of the 20th century, and she came to prominence nearly at the end the century. I don't think she was crazy at all. I think she was frustrated and then angry as Charles and Camilla undermined her marriage from the start, and didn't care that they were tearing her and her kids apart. But so often Diana rose above and did her job, and she considered it a job that she was obligated to fulfill. The reason there are so many photos of Diana is because she was always out there doing something. And she made her mark through a variety of causes.

Diana entered into the stratosphere that few ever reach. a place that has advantages and pitfalls. But she took on a lot. It's almost like she's still with us. A great, complicated woman who affected the world. There's never been a funeral like Diana's. The world loved her.

by Anonymousreply 15July 1, 2019 6:56 PM

When things were fun or so we thought...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16July 1, 2019 7:02 PM

R12 me, neither. She was definitely attractive, but nothing more than that. I remember in 1999, when they were having those end-of-the-year/decade/century/millennium lists. One of those was from Time (I think) that was "The Most Beautiful Woman of the Century" and Diana topped the list. I reasoned that had more to do with her recent death.

by Anonymousreply 17July 1, 2019 7:03 PM

I remember that Chris Rock once said she wasn't THAT pretty and they would never let her be the woman pointing at a toaster on The Price Is Right.

by Anonymousreply 18July 1, 2019 7:10 PM

Love Diana forever. She was my girl. Always fascinating. She has "it."

by Anonymousreply 19July 1, 2019 8:46 PM

There will never be another Diana. Very charismatic no matter what was happening.

by Anonymousreply 20July 2, 2019 3:51 AM

You bitches are slipping.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21July 2, 2019 12:56 PM

More legs... I love what sounds like the semi clueless 'what?' at the end.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 22July 2, 2019 1:00 PM

I can't imagine being among the first five new anchors who had to break that news.

Because you'd be sitting there thinking: this can't be true... (or this news isn't confirmed enough)... I'm going to completely fuck my career because I'm going to tell the world Diana is dead and she isn't. I'm dreaming.

by Anonymousreply 23July 2, 2019 1:02 PM

DAMN YOU R21 and R22!

**I** wanted the honors!

by Anonymousreply 24July 2, 2019 1:03 PM

[quote] the first five new anchors

As opposed to the first five old anchors?

by Anonymousreply 25July 2, 2019 1:04 PM

Sticky keyboard, R25. Like your shirtcuff. Only mine's down to coffee.

by Anonymousreply 26July 2, 2019 1:05 PM

I still laugh at how the one queen in the Diana scream videos hides his smile at the end.

by Anonymousreply 27July 2, 2019 1:48 PM

I loved her. And thank God, she injected some actual aristocratic English blood into the the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Kate Middleton helps them out in the same way.

Oh dear, Kate Middleton an aristocrat? Hmmm, sure, Carole Middleton went home to her country pile in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce after her trolley dolly shifts.

(You do also know that royalty are not aristocrats? They're above that. )

by Anonymousreply 28July 2, 2019 2:06 PM

We never got the biopic starring Natasha Richardson.

by Anonymousreply 29July 2, 2019 2:08 PM

Diana would have married Dodi for his money and the lifestyle and security his father could provide her ala Jackie Kennedy and Onassis. She would have divorced him, took his millions, and have moved to the USA where she would become more of a celebrity; go on Oprah, fill her face with botox and fillers, probably marry again and again.

She'd stir shit amongst the royal family and be generally vengeful. She'd be in therapy for life and possibly even do a reality show. Ultimately she'd lose the love of the world with her attention-seeking ways and her sons and family would disown her out of embarrassment. She would detest her sons wives out of jealousy. Even Elton would get the shits with her and ghost her.

Ever the fag hag, her only friend in the world would be Paul Burrell (who she would fire and rehire on a weekly basis) with whom she could be seen with in the clubs of West Hollywood and Palm Beach being fawned over by the queens who still worship her. In the end she would die in a Californian McMansion, pulled and stitched like Cher, skeletal and malnourished from eating disorders with Burrell by her side.

by Anonymousreply 30July 2, 2019 2:26 PM

She wanted to fuck me.

by Anonymousreply 31July 2, 2019 2:27 PM

Utter bullshit, R30. She was the mother to a future king. She had plenty of security. Her sons would guarantee that.

by Anonymousreply 32July 2, 2019 2:32 PM

r32 Actually, she's dead because she gave up (or had to give up) her royal protection officers and so had the fools who worked for Al Fayed looking after her the night she died. Otherwise she had no protection. I also think somehow that r30 means it as a joke, but it all does sound plausible.

by Anonymousreply 33July 2, 2019 2:35 PM

I have 3 strands of her pubic hair, a used tampon, her colonic irrigation hose, and a false eyelash (provenance provided) for sale.

by Anonymousreply 34July 2, 2019 2:38 PM

Ken Wharfe, her ex bodyguard when she was an HRH has said she wouldn't be dead if she'd been on his watch that night as he'd have made wear a seatbelt.

by Anonymousreply 35July 2, 2019 2:40 PM

[quote]moved to the USA where she would become more of a celebrity;

I remember her saying that she really liked the US and felt that people liked her better here. I never really followed the Royal Family, though I did read People and she was always featured on there, especially when she'd visit stateside.

by Anonymousreply 36July 2, 2019 2:41 PM

I'd like to buy the 3 strands of pubic hair, the used tampon, and colonic irrigation hose...for Melania

by Anonymousreply 37July 2, 2019 2:42 PM

That story about Diana if she hadn't died sounds pretty true to life actually.

by Anonymousreply 38July 2, 2019 2:44 PM

She's a princess, but I'm Diana, Queen of Motown.

by Anonymousreply 39July 2, 2019 2:53 PM

Diana Forever. Damn, I was obsessed with her. Still am. I still miss her.

by Anonymousreply 40July 2, 2019 7:06 PM

I wonder, would she have married Dodi Al Fayed, and would they have had any children? I suppose it would have been an actual happy marriage, since he was a man she was actually in love with. Had she not died, it would have been nice to see what a doting grandmother she would have been to William and Harry's kids.

by Anonymousreply 41July 2, 2019 7:19 PM

Diana would not have married Dodi. At the time of her death, they had been dating about six weeks. It was a summer fling. She was quoted by a friend as saying she needed another marriage at the time like she needed a bad rash.

But yes, it would have been so great to see how her life unfolded, the further impact she had on the world, the good works she may have done and her involvement with her sons, their relationship with each other, their marriages and grandchildren.

by Anonymousreply 42July 2, 2019 8:00 PM

I agree it's ridiculous how some quarters made out like she was terrifically happy and in love when she died. She was alone that August and Dodi offered her the luxury, "security" and attention she wanted.. For that summer. I'm sure the fact he was non-White and it whipped the press up gave her a little glee too.

She was one of a kind and suffered a horrible death. Her son is now older than she ever got to see.

by Anonymousreply 43July 2, 2019 9:54 PM

[quote]I'm sure the fact he was non-White

Where do you people come up with this crap?

by Anonymousreply 44July 2, 2019 10:07 PM

R44 we were alive at the time and the press made a big deal about him being swarthy and Egyptian.

by Anonymousreply 45July 2, 2019 10:19 PM

R44 it is part of what caused the furor in the press that summer, that she was cavorting with a Muslim Egyptian. I'm not "you people", I remember all the newspaper headlines that summer and the major comment from many was his religion and colour.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46July 2, 2019 10:23 PM

[R46] That is clearly a white man. "Non-European" would be more appropriate.

by Anonymousreply 47July 2, 2019 10:33 PM

It was summertime. He had a big boat. He wouldn't have lasted.

by Anonymousreply 48July 2, 2019 10:33 PM

R47 he doesn't look white and the European/American press didn't treat him as such.

by Anonymousreply 49July 2, 2019 10:40 PM

One of the all time greatest clotheshorses of all time.

by Anonymousreply 50July 2, 2019 10:46 PM

What I admired was the devotion to the boys and the love and kisses and hugs she showered on them. She did s terrific job in raising two fine lads. She would have made a wonderful grandmother and mother-in-law.

by Anonymousreply 51July 2, 2019 10:47 PM

Dodi was a coke addict with a model girlfriend stashed nearby. Doubt Di would have married him.

Her true love was Dr. Khan, the Pakistani surgeon.

by Anonymousreply 52July 2, 2019 10:51 PM

R47, At the time Dodi would not be considered "White" especially because he was Muslim. The term "White adjacent" wasn't yet in common use. Nor was it the norm for WASP women to marry those from the Middle East. The relationship shocked many especially since he was known to be a playboy.

I think Diana's marriage to the Pakistani heart surgeon would have at least been more acceptable because he was so admired for his skills, talents, and education. Still gossips asked if the princess would be asked to convert to Islam.

Major point I remember most about Diana is that she was very present when visiting the extremely sick and dying rather than just participating in a mere photo op. Yes she got criticized by the BRF for breaking protocol by her involvement.

by Anonymousreply 53July 2, 2019 10:54 PM

I suspect Diana would have been fine, albeit bored, with Kate. Meghan? She would have either adored her or detested her...no middle ground. Charlotte she would have groomed into a clone of herself, much to our delight, lol!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54July 2, 2019 11:13 PM

As far as legacy and posterity, I think it's good she died when she did, like Elvis and Monroe. Had she lived her light would have dimmed, people would have grown sick of her attention seeking and shit stirring.

by Anonymousreply 55July 2, 2019 11:24 PM

We only remember her because she was beautiful. If it was the Duchess Of York who had married Prince Charles instead and had the life Diana had, died the way she did, we would not be talking about her now.

No amount of charity work, haute couture and emotional pain could create the same sympathetic response that made Diana memorable and saint - like had she been ugly, a fact no one likes to admit, with the probable exception of Princess Margaret, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Queen Mother.

by Anonymousreply 56July 2, 2019 11:35 PM

The last summer was not a high point for her... I don't know what would have become of her but I think it was a real risk people would tire of her as she tried to find a place in the world. I remember feeling really pissed off with her that summer... which I know is ridiculous... but she was Diana... we all had a piece of her. She was acting beneath herself that summer.

I know she was miserable but she'd have done better, I think, to find a way to have made the marriage work. But she wasn't that rational and you can't blame her... pretty crap situation.

by Anonymousreply 57July 2, 2019 11:35 PM

She was an attention-seeking cunt

by Anonymousreply 58July 2, 2019 11:38 PM

I will always think well of her for doing her part in fighting the stigma AIDS patients had at the time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59July 2, 2019 11:42 PM

She touched AIDS patients because she had a death wish and was crying out for help and attention. 'I'm touching the diseased, putting my life in danger, perhaps my husband will take notice of me and love me now,' and when that didn't work; 'I'll walk through a fuckin minefield then!' That failed too so she got in a car driven by a drunk and didn't wear a seatbelt. She got her wish.

by Anonymousreply 60July 2, 2019 11:59 PM

She was the People's Princess in every sense of the word. The people would not have tired of her. She was destined to continue doing good work. Plus, Diana has a great sense for the pulse of the public. If she felt she was wearing out her welcome, she knew when to pull back and when to go public. She also had a great sense of the issues of the day that truly mattered. Her international impact would have continued.

By the way, she would have hated Markle. Read about Diana and the early days. Part of the reason Diana had such a tough time at the beginning in addition to her fucking douchebag husband and his Rottweiler cheating on her was that she considered what she did--and what the royal family did--as an important job. Diana was killing herself trying to keep up with all of her royal duties and demands. The popularity was overwhelming, Diana was similar to Sarah Ferguson in the respect that they had no mentors, no one to guide them. As a result, they dove right in and did what they thought they were supposed to do...and sometimes made mistakes. But they did their job and duties. Diana considered it all a job that she was responsible for and that needed to be done for the country and the monarchy. Markle is nothing like that with her bullshit pr, privacy, woke-ness and being self-centered. Aside for maternity leave, Diana would have pulled her aside and told her to knock off the crap and do her job, which Markle still hasn't grasped and seemingly doesn't care to do.

by Anonymousreply 61July 3, 2019 12:45 AM

R61, Agreed. Diana was far, far better suited to the "work" of the BRF than MM but was stuck with an incompatible mate.

R60, I don't think you realize the tremendously positive impact Princess Diana had on the way those dying of AIDS were treated by the general society. The BRF repeatedly told her to create distance with the poor and very sick, and to definitely stop touching them. Diana did the opposite. There were so many prejudices and crazy stories in those days, irrational fear was the norm. Kudos to the paps for featuring Diana on magazine covers, promoting acceptance.

by Anonymousreply 62July 3, 2019 12:58 AM

[quote]That is clearly a white man. "Non-European" would be more appropriate.

North Africans are Caucasian, but not white.

by Anonymousreply 63July 3, 2019 1:12 AM

If Diana had lived to see her grandchildren, she would've been one of those grandmothers who ran roughshod over the parents and took right over, as if the grandkids were her own kids.

by Anonymousreply 64July 3, 2019 1:14 AM

I don't think all her outgiving of care and empathy was altogether genuine. In part it was, but I also think she was manipulative in the way she did things to show up and get back at the royal family. 'You won't touch the sick and poor so I will and it will make you look bad. I will wear couture and look fantastic to show up you dowdy royal women.' She courted the media, she certainly did not hate it as much as she professed.

by Anonymousreply 65July 3, 2019 1:38 AM

R65. However she helped those less fortunate, she did it when no one in her social stratus would. And helping people was sincere. Other things might have manipulative, but helping others wasn't. Besides, the media used her; she had to use them sometimes. And she looked great doing it.

by Anonymousreply 66July 3, 2019 4:17 AM

Diana and her revenge dress, also known as the "fuck you dress."

Charles admitted that he cheated on Diana on national television. Diana decided to attend a museum opening that night in her revenge dress. Charles' face was splashed on the front page of the newspapers the next morning beside Diana in her revenge dress. He looked like a fool. She looked like a million bucks. She knew how to work it. Bravo, Diana.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 67July 3, 2019 4:26 AM

Whatever you may call Diana - attention whore, mental case, scatter-brained, drama queen, self-serving - she was, to the very end, magnificent and memorable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 68July 3, 2019 4:40 AM

R68. Magnificent and memorable. Love it.

I'll add one more: Unforgettable

by Anonymousreply 69July 3, 2019 4:46 AM

Simple. Superb.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 70July 3, 2019 4:57 AM

R67, that photo ran on TV and in newspapers worldwide, alongside a photo of Camilla looking, I'll kindly say, nowhere near as stunning as Diana, with Charles confessing to a long-standing affair. In that moment, virtually every man, woman and child on planet Earth thought the future king was crazy.  It was one of Diana's all-time best looks and perhaps her most finessed revenge moment.

by Anonymousreply 71July 3, 2019 5:22 AM

Manipulative, scheming, manipulative, stylish, manipulative, manic, manipulative, deceptive, manipulative, vulnerable, manipulative, borderline personality disorder.

It's no wonder she has so many fans on DL.

by Anonymousreply 72July 3, 2019 5:26 AM

Camilla's public image has really changed over the years. Most people don't mind her now. It's a shame she and Charles were not allowed to marry back in the 70s. It would have saved a lot of pain and drama if they'd been able to.

by Anonymousreply 73July 3, 2019 5:31 AM

But then we wouldn't have Meghan Markle.

by Anonymousreply 74July 3, 2019 5:34 AM

The black dress is ok but look at the size of that sapphire! Wonder where it is today and who has it?

by Anonymousreply 75July 3, 2019 5:41 AM

R67. Diana looked smashing that night. It was look and a shot heard round the world. Ironically, the revenge dress was made for Diana three years earlier; however, she decided it was not quite royal and perhaps a bit too risque at the time. But on the night Charles admitted adultery with the Rottweiler, Diana wanted to look sensational. That she surely did, and that night was the time for the dress.

No one has ever come close to the Diana, her style, grace, her empathy and understanding of others and her ability to connect to people. Certainly not Camilla or any of the current crop of royals. Diana was one of a kind, truly unforgettable.

by Anonymousreply 76July 3, 2019 5:47 AM

[quote]What I admired was the devotion to the boys and the love and kisses and hugs she showered on them. She did s terrific job in raising two fine lads. She would have made a wonderful grandmother and mother-in-law.

She hadn't seen her sons in over a month when she died.

by Anonymousreply 77July 3, 2019 5:49 AM

R76 et al, Diana in her revenge dress made her connect with and empower everyone who'd ever been a victim of cheating, and it won her many new fans. It said, "Get out of bed and stop licking your wounds, as there's those out there in the world who will really appreciate your positive attributes." It's what so many needed to hear.

Never knew the dress had been made for her 3 years beforehand.

by Anonymousreply 78July 3, 2019 5:57 AM

R77. During the summer of 1997, it was all planned that Diana's bpys were going to Balmoral to spend part off their summer holiday with their grandparents and cousins, and their father would be with them for part of the time--you know, when he wasn't leaving for extended periods to hideaway with Camilla. It wasn't like Diana left her boys on the street. It may not be quite how the average person lives, but it is how the royals and the wealthy live regarding summer vacations and divorced parents with kids. There is no doubt Diana loved her sons.

by Anonymousreply 79July 3, 2019 6:12 AM

You Queens who think Diana was perfect, sane, intelligent, saintly and so hard done by are probably the very same Judy Garland was a victim and Joan Crawford never abused her children apologists.

by Anonymousreply 80July 3, 2019 10:15 AM

What r80 said and I write this as someone who never could get enough of the latest pix of Diana. Her charisma was like a tractor beam and I was pulled in.

Still, she would have been unhappy with, and would made unhappy, any spouse she had, whoever he was. Both things can be true- she did a lot of good AND could be hell on wheels to deal with.

Tina Brown, between the lines, strongly suggested that, in conversation, Diana was a bore. I find that easy to believe. Of course, that didn't stop Brown from profiting off her own essays and book about Diana.

by Anonymousreply 81July 3, 2019 10:52 AM

[quote] It's a shame she and Charles were not allowed to marry back in the 70s. It would have saved a lot of pain and drama if they'd been able to.

Won't someone literally think of the children...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 82July 3, 2019 11:14 AM

Diana, one for the ages. There will never be another.

by Anonymousreply 83July 3, 2019 3:38 PM

[quote]Still, she would have been unhappy with, and would made unhappy, any spouse she had, whoever he was. Both things can be true- she did a lot of good AND could be hell on wheels to deal with.

She was also said to be suffering from an eating disorder. Bulimia I think.

by Anonymousreply 84July 3, 2019 5:28 PM

R84, With a hyper critical spouse complaining about her weight from Day-1 how could Diana possibly have a normal relationship with food?

by Anonymousreply 85July 3, 2019 6:21 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't like the revenge ensemble? I think it did nothing for her upper half and those black stockings weighed down the bottom half. Thumbs down.

by Anonymousreply 86July 3, 2019 7:44 PM

Until her separation from Charles, when she'd have one of her crying "episodes", she would immediately scoop William up in her arms and take him to her bedroom and lock the door. She used that poor child alternately as her therapist or as a teddy bear to cling to while she sobbed. She was an emotional cripple who was an emotional burden to her sons. I cannot imagine the damage it did to them.

by Anonymousreply 87July 3, 2019 7:51 PM

R86 One of the problems with Diana's style of dress overall was it was too matronly for her. This was a woman in her 20s and 30s mind you. The revenge dress was ok for me, but those Barbara Bush style pearls ruined the look. I think Diana's look overall would've benefited from a nose job and a return to her natural medium-brown hair.

by Anonymousreply 88July 3, 2019 8:04 PM

R87 I remember reading at the time that Diana leaned a lot on Will whom she often called "DDG" (drop dead gorgeous). I thought that was a little odd.

by Anonymousreply 89July 3, 2019 8:05 PM

[quote] [R10] The Queen's mother was British (from Scotland) through and through.

R10 said English. There's a difference

by Anonymousreply 90July 3, 2019 8:52 PM

^Well I certainly wasn’t an adventuress from Baltimore!

by Anonymousreply 91July 3, 2019 8:55 PM

R88, Diana repeatedly asked her hairdressers to make her more blond as that's what Charles wanted.

by Anonymousreply 92July 3, 2019 8:59 PM

R90 - the Queen Mum was actually born in England but raised mainly in Scotland by her Scottish aristocratic family.

by Anonymousreply 93July 3, 2019 9:07 PM

"how do you mean?"

She was anorexic and bulimic. She cut herself (supposedly with a lemon slicer). In a fit of pique she threw herself down some stairs while pregnant. She was highly manipulative and immature. She had numerous affairs with unsavory types like James "The Love Rat" Hewitt and the deadbeat playboy Dodi Fayed. She was suspicious, mistrustful, paranoid. A truly fucked up woman.

by Anonymousreply 94July 3, 2019 9:07 PM

"Diana, one for the ages. There will never be another."

Thank God for that? She was a total nut job.

by Anonymousreply 95July 3, 2019 9:09 PM

I think Diana's parents, especially her mother, damaged her much more than Charles or the royal family did. We all forget she was damaged goods before Charles even met her, albeit not her fault. Her parents fighting and her mother leaving when she was young then Raine becoming her stepmother. Diana was also immature and not greatly intelligent and possibly mentally unstable. She wanted Charles to marry her, love her and take away all her problems, which he just wasn't equipped to do owing to his own dysfunctional unloving background, It was bound to fail. Diana didn't need marriage to a prince, she needed a good psychiatrist.

by Anonymousreply 96July 4, 2019 2:45 AM

Just thinking about Prince Charles' and his Camilla "scandal".

With Charles, there was only one.

With Diana, there were many.

by Anonymousreply 97July 4, 2019 3:00 AM

R51 Yes, the footage with her on a boat hugging and kissing William and Harry and them being just elated to see her.

Less than a minute later Charles showed up and he was just as happy to see the boys and they were as equally elated to see him as they were their mother. The press just never showed that footage.

Diana did know how to "work it". With "it" being the media and people's emotions.

by Anonymousreply 98July 4, 2019 3:05 AM

r97 you're a fool. Diana didn't have extramarital affairs until Charles did first. How man lovers she had is irrelevant to the fact that had Charles never had an affair neither would Diana. She was a young woman with needs her husband was denying her, but she didn't throw the first stone.

by Anonymousreply 99July 4, 2019 3:13 AM

Diana was mentally off from the beginning. Even if she'd never married Charles and instead been an anonymous housewife she'd have had problems.

by Anonymousreply 100July 4, 2019 3:19 AM

This thread made me think of this scene from European Vacation. LMAO

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101July 4, 2019 3:20 AM

"Diana didn't have extramarital affairs until Charles did first. How man lovers she had is irrelevant to the fact that had Charles never had an affair neither would Diana. "

Uh, no. She thought Charles was cheating on her from the beginning of their marriage (he wasn't) so she started screwing around. Once Charles knew the marriage was beyond salvaging he took up with Camilla as a love interest. But Diana cheated on him first, with a succession of men: James Gilbey, Oliver Hoare, James Hewitt, Will Carling, Barry Mannakee. She really got around.

by Anonymousreply 102July 4, 2019 3:52 AM

Charles and Camilla undermined Diana's marriage from before it even began and throughout its duration. Charles never gave up Camilla ever. Camilla gave her okay for Charles to marry Diana thinking they could manipulate Diana and continue their affair. Charles cheated first and never fully committed to his marriage with Diana, and he expected Diana to put up with it. However, Charles made Diana feel unstable, she was not going to put up with his cheating and she said no in many different ways. Camilla was even calling him on his fucking honeymoon.

Diana was 20 when she married. Charles and Camilla were 33-34. They were despicable to her and tried to drive her crazy. In doing so, Charles created a terrible home life for his wife and sons. Once Diana separated from Charles she began to emerge much more independent and strong. The talk about her being unstable was not the case as she approached 30 and made her way on her own against the asshole Charles and piece of shit Camilla, who should have backed away but never would.

by Anonymousreply 103July 4, 2019 4:04 AM

[quote] Diana was mentally off from the beginning

So was Charles. And he admits to being in therapy for 15 YEARS

And don't forget all the gaslighting he and his friends did to Diana. I'm sure you are either ignorant to the fact or just choose to ignore that for many years friends of Charles gave interviews saying Diana was insane because she thought Charles and Camilla were having an affair (and they were). How it was all her vivid imagination, blah, blah, blah. Camilla used to host dinner parties at High Grove. The staff were forced to lie that nothing was going on. But after Diana would leave High Grove on Sundays, Camilla would arrive 20 minutes later and spend the week there where she would host these dinner parties. These same friends who said she was imagining all of this were guests at these dinner parties

When Charles would have to travel for royal duties, his friends would loan him their homes so he and camilla could get together and fuck. And remember, William and Harry have only recently had a rapprochement with their father. For many years they LOATHED him, didn't mention him and went out of their way to talk about their mother every chance they got

Now that William has been caught cheating and Harry is dealing with his choice of a wife, they've started to be open to the help their father can be to them

by Anonymousreply 104July 4, 2019 4:16 AM

" Charles cheated first and never fully committed to his marriage with Diana, and he expected Diana to put up with it."

No, he didn't. That was just a delusion of Diana's that some people choose to believe. She played the victim card to the hilt. Diana was devious, manipulative, and mentally ill.

by Anonymousreply 105July 4, 2019 4:19 AM

R104 is absolutely insane. What a nutcase! Just like Diana.

by Anonymousreply 106July 4, 2019 4:20 AM

[quote] Uh, no. She thought Charles was cheating on her from the beginning of their marriage (he wasn't)

YES, he was. Don't be a moron. He lied for years, over a decade about having an affair, and you are going to believe him that his affair only started at the end of his marriage? You're a fucking fool

Camilla was in a car accident right near Charles and Diana's country house late at night (right after Diana left). But they were just good friends? Sure

Charles was caught on vacation with the parker bowles woman. Again, just GOOD FRIENDS. Right? Don't all married people go on vacations and secretly bring along a friend of the opposite sex (without their spouse)? SURE Jan

His valet and a housekeeper published books saying that Charles had cheated on Diana and all their friends knew it, condoned it and abetted it. The valet said charles and camilla NEVER STOPPED having an affair. And the book was published in 1983. He used to have to scrub the grass stains out of Charles pajamas. Camilla used to come over to High Grove and Charles would sneak out and they would fuck in the garden.

And just a reminder, Charles and Diana married in 1981. Do the math moron. The valet was just simply telling the truth. He died almost a decade before Charles finally admitted to cheating. You can't be that fucking stupid to believe this man wrote this book and then ten years later Charles coincidentally decided to begin an affair with camilla. Maybe you can

by Anonymousreply 107July 4, 2019 4:34 AM

R106, refuses to believe the truth

by Anonymousreply 108July 4, 2019 4:35 AM

R107, you are insane. And the very definition of "moronic."

R108, you are also insane. And as moronic as R107. Couple of moronic, insane Diana trolls.

by Anonymousreply 109July 4, 2019 4:37 AM

You just refuse to believe the truth. And charles has a long history of lying

He lied that he never had an affair. Then he finally admitted it

He lied when he said he never wanted to marry Camilla. They married a few years later

He's lied that she won't be Queen. She'll be Queen

by Anonymousreply 110July 4, 2019 4:40 AM

Charles and Camilla should've been together from the beginning, but the old rules wouldn't let them. It was only natural they kept seeing each other. The whole thing was such a shame.

by Anonymousreply 111July 4, 2019 4:44 AM

R104 is absolutely correct. Charles was a lying, cheating asshole from the very start, and Camilla was his accomplice. She was his other half. When Diana objected, they called her crazy. She wasn't; she just didn't have anyone who believed her. They tried to drive her crazy. Did she have some problems? Sure. But she wasn't crazy. She was being lied to all the time, and it caused a lot of problems with a husband who thought he was entitled to be a cheater. Not to mention what he was doing to his kids. He didn't care.

R105. Do you know anything? Charles and Camilla were in a relationship before and when he married Diana. Camilla gave Charles cuff links just before he married Diana with the engraved pet names Charles and Camilla called each other. Diana found them and he lied about them. They were having an affair. Charles spent countless days and weekends at Highgrove House. He would fight with Diana, leave Kensington Palace and drive to Highgrove to be with Camilla. It wasn't until Diana decided to attend a birthday party there and confront Camilla that she was able to confirm the affair in person since all of Charles' friends had been lying to Diana.

Camilla approved of Diana marrying Charles; they planned this whole marriage set-up together because they thought they could control "Shy Di." Diana did not realize at the time she was being offered up as lamb to the slaughter so that Charles and Camilla could carry on their affair. Camilla was calling Charles while he and Diana were on their honeymoon on the Royal Yacht Britannia. Charles was cheating from the start. And Camilla wouldn't leave. She undermined Diana the entire time. By the time Diana knew all this, she was already married to the piece of shit. As Diana said, "There were three people in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded,"

by Anonymousreply 112July 4, 2019 4:50 AM

I defend Diana. However, Charles was brought up to believe that the world should kiss his ass. He was old school royalty. He thought he should be able to be married and have an affair on the side. Given that Diana was 12 years younger than him; 20 when she married, she was almost a different generation in years and mentality. She was a young woman when times were changing, and women didn't feel that they should be cheated on.

So Charles and Camilla thought they were getting the shy, unassuming Diana. They were wrong. They were getting a young, perhaps a naive woman, but nonetheless, a woman of her generation who thought that her husband shouldn't be cheating on her, at least not from the start. This was an attitude that was foreign to the privileged and pampered Charles.

And don't forget, when Charles married Diana, Camilla was already married to another man. Camilla was cheating with Charles on her own husband., Tom Parker-Bowles, at the same time. Charles and Camilla were having an affair and were cheaters in the '70s, '80s and '90s and continued to lie about it until the mid-'90s. These people were never honest about anything. Despite any problems of Diana, the affair of Charles and Camilla was not Diana's fault. She was a victim of it. No matter what Charles and Camilla are now, they were not nice people to their respective spouses for most of their adult lives.

by Anonymousreply 113July 4, 2019 5:12 AM

r102 is the Duchess of Cornwall

by Anonymousreply 114July 4, 2019 7:05 AM

Ungrateful bitch! She had a crown!

by Anonymousreply 115July 4, 2019 7:07 AM

[quote]Camilla was cheating with Charles on her own husband., Tom Parker-Bowles

Tom is Camilla's son. Her (ex) husband is Andrew Parker-Bowles, whom she married because of his reputation as the best fuck in London.

by Anonymousreply 116July 4, 2019 7:17 AM

Okay fine, Camilla's former husband is named Andrew, not Tom. The fact remains, while Camilla was married to Andrew, she was cheating on him with Charles while Charles was married to Diana.

Charles and Camilla never stopped cheating on their spouses and both continued lying about it. Diana suspected it, and when she confronted them, they continued lying.

by Anonymousreply 117July 4, 2019 7:28 AM

What do William and Harry REALLY think of Camilla?

by Anonymousreply 118July 4, 2019 7:32 AM

R118. I would think William and Harry resent Camilla terribly even if they have learned to get along and tolerate her. Camilla was responsible for a great deal of their mother's unhappiness. It's not something a kid forgets.

by Anonymousreply 119July 4, 2019 7:40 AM

R119, Similar to the Sinatra family. Frank's kids tolerated stepmother Barbara while Frank was alive, but after he died their true feelings emerged. They despised the bitch, didn't even attend her funeral.

by Anonymousreply 120July 4, 2019 7:50 AM

Good lord, when will we hear then last of this silly bint, made iconic by her untimely death?

by Anonymousreply 121July 4, 2019 8:46 AM

R121. When you show a little respect.

by Anonymousreply 122July 4, 2019 9:10 AM

Ultimately, Diana was a victim of the antiquated notion that Charles had to marry a virgin.

It's said the closet kills. Well, so does the stateroom.

Charles never should have proposed to Diana. Apparently, Charles felt the weight of conventional pressure to marry. In that state, the worst in which to make such a choice, he could not have made a worse one. That's not a slam on Diana, it's a slam on the Windsors.

My ex-sister-in-law's husband was born in and grew up in the UK. In the mid 90s during the height of the tabloid headlines of the impending divorce, I asked him if he had any reaction to the news ( this conversation took place in, of all places, Oklahoma). He said, "I blame him. One of the easiest things to do at that level is to marry correctly and he couldn't even get that right."

Diana's cheese was off the cracker. Acknowledging that doesn't mitigate any effect of the behavior of Charles and Camilla, but I'll repeat what I posted earlier- She'd have been miserable with, and would have made miserable whoever her spouse was.

I read that, post-divorce, she herself said that she wished she had come to terms with her marriage. Too bad her and Charles couldn't have made it work, her with her lovers, he with his.

by Anonymousreply 123July 4, 2019 11:56 AM

[quote]Charles felt the weight of conventional pressure to marry.

"Conventional pressure" looming large in the guise of his grandmother, the Queen Mum. And Diana's grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, who just happened to be the Queen Mum's lady-in-waiting. Charles wasn't impressed with what was on offer (his heart being firmly elsewhere and all), so the Queen Mum moved things along by counselling "Don't dismiss the Spencer girl (Diana)".

by Anonymousreply 124July 4, 2019 12:03 PM

And don't forget my influence, R124!

by Anonymousreply 125July 4, 2019 12:06 PM

I warned Lilibet that that Spencer girl was dumb and mad as a box of frogs but no one believed me.

by Anonymousreply 126July 4, 2019 12:35 PM

Charles apparently only loved one woman... his present wife. Whatever might or might not have been wrong with Diana, to not be that woman and married to him was a big ask. A grounded woman would probably have been miserable, if not quite as destructive as Diana managed to be.

The marriage of Charles and Diana set in motion the events that forced the Royal Family and the people at court to part with much of the conventional thinking... the expectation any wife would, without full knowledge and consent, agree to such an Edwardian arrangement is a joke but that's how they thought. The court was frozen in time. Now it is less so.

by Anonymousreply 127July 4, 2019 12:59 PM

[quote]Charles apparently only loved one woman... his present wife.

Frankly, I think Charles & Camilla's love story is one for the ages! It was forbidden and clandestine and has lasted for decades despite initial strong reaction from the populace. I really hope Camilla becomes queen someday. I don't know why some people still despise her.

by Anonymousreply 128July 4, 2019 4:11 PM

The public's opinion of Camilla has changed r128. People don't mind her anymore, since all of the drama was so long ago and now of course it's very obvious that she and Charles should've been together from the beginning.

by Anonymousreply 129July 4, 2019 4:26 PM

Camilla imposed herself on another woman's marriage , namely Diana's, from the very start. She wouldn't leave and Charles wouldn't give her up even though he was marrying--and then married to someone else. These two were incredibly destructive in the most clandestine and public way. They had no decency toward Diana, her sons or the monarchy...or to the fact that Charles was not married to Camilla, who was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles at the time. These two did nothing but cheat. When Charles said at his engagement announcement to Diana, "whatever loves means," Diana should have stood up, smacked him upside the head and walked out. But she was 19. Charles and Camilla did nothing but lie, plot and conspire against her. They were horrible. It's not what they are now as two senior citizens; it's what they were, which was despicable while destroying everyone in their path..

by Anonymousreply 130July 4, 2019 4:52 PM

Charles made a huge mistake thinking he could operate the way monarchs did for hundreds of years—have His cake and eat it too. But times changed—very few women would tolerate that from their husbands today. Certain,y Diana married him because she loved him (AND wanted to be queen), but if she married him only because she wanted to be queen, she might have been able to look the other way. That’s what many women who marry for money do.

For those who don’t believe Charles and Camilla were a couple throughout his marriage to Diana, I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.

by Anonymousreply 131July 4, 2019 5:27 PM

"What do William and Harry REALLY think of Camilla?"

They like her. They've always liked her. She's an unpretentious, down to earth woman. She has no mental problems. She's the perfect mate for their father.

by Anonymousreply 132July 4, 2019 6:45 PM

Team Diana, always. Was she perfect? No. But she was used and emotionally abused by Charles and his family. They wanted a brood mare, she wanted love.

by Anonymousreply 133July 4, 2019 7:20 PM

Charles and Camilla are down-to-earth homewreckers. William likes Camilla as much as he likes Markle.

by Anonymousreply 134July 4, 2019 7:22 PM

Markle is not a homewrecker.

by Anonymousreply 135July 4, 2019 7:47 PM

Markle is an opportunist.

by Anonymousreply 136July 4, 2019 8:50 PM

"But she was used and emotionally abused by Charles and his family.

No. She was just never meant to be a Royal and never fit it. Of course she wouldn't; when she married Charles she was an emotionally disturbed young woman from a broken family. A poor candidate for a high pressure, demanding position like the Princess of Wales. But she looked good on paper; young, without much a a past, pretty. But even she could see she it wasn't right for her to become a Royal. She got cold feet and wanted to call it off but her siblings told her it was too late; "your face is on the tea towels." If only she'd had the guts to call it off. It would have been the best thing for everybody concerned.

by Anonymousreply 137July 4, 2019 9:07 PM

"It would have been the best thing for everybody concerned."

Not for William and Harry.

by Anonymousreply 138July 4, 2019 9:13 PM

R137. If only Charles had the character not to be cheating on his wife throughout his entire marriage and before it began. If only Camilla had the decency to back out of Charles and Diana's marriage and not set out to ruin it. If only Charles had the guts to not marry someone to whom he never intended to make a commitment.

Diana was up to the job despite her age. She did the job of Princess of Wales just fine. She was not up to having her husband cheat on her, never love her and make a mockery of her marriage with his mistress. Whatever problems she had, there was also the issue of dysfunctional and psychologically abusive husband and a system who coddled him and another woman who was not his wife and who didn't belong there.

by Anonymousreply 139July 4, 2019 9:36 PM

Diana knew all about Charles and Camilla before the marriage. As she walked down the aisle in the church, she was scanning the crowd to see if Camilla was there.

by Anonymousreply 140July 4, 2019 9:49 PM

"If only Charles had the character not to be cheating on his wife throughout his entire marriage and before it began. If only Camilla had the decency to back out of Charles and Diana's marriage and not set out to ruin it. If only Charles had the guts to not marry someone to whom he never intended to make a commitment."

Oh shut up, you crazy, yammering, idiot troll. And by the way, Diana was NEVER "up for the job despite her age." She never "did the job of Princess of Wales just fine." She was constantly having tantrums and crying jags and fits of anger. She constantly manipulated the press to make herself look like the "good" one in her marriage. And of course she couldn't keep her legs closed, fucking a variety of men, ending up dying a nasty death with her "true love", the deadbeat playboy loser Dodi Fayed. She was NUTS. And so are you, obviously.

by Anonymousreply 141July 4, 2019 9:57 PM

R140. Charles and Diana had fights about Camilla. Diana expected that Camilla was over once Charles married. And Charles told Diana Camilla was not a factor in his marriage. He lied all the time. Because Camilla was at Diana's wedding did not give Camilla a right to continue invading someone else's marriage and ruin it.

RR137. If Charles and Diana's face were already on the tea towels, then Charles had an obligation to stop cheating. He was a fucking mess being pushed around by his parents and Camilla. He had no backbone; otherwise, he wouldn't have given in and married someone he didn't love and intentionally, along with Camilla, set out to destroy Diana's marriage. That's nothing but pure evil and selfishness.

by Anonymousreply 142July 4, 2019 10:02 PM

R140. Camilla was married (1973-1995) to another man at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding. She was cheating on her husband nearly the entire time and lying about it as she escaped to Highgrove every week. She also had a couple of kids at the time. She's a piece of shit. And so is Charles.

by Anonymousreply 143July 4, 2019 10:21 PM

Charles and Camilla should've been together from the beginning, they were meant for each other. In their case, it's understandable that they continued their affair. The whole thing was just sad and unfortunate.

by Anonymousreply 144July 4, 2019 10:45 PM

A favorite Charles and Camilla moment . . .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 145July 4, 2019 11:08 PM

R145 what the hell is going on there?

by Anonymousreply 146July 4, 2019 11:13 PM

R137 Diana was descended from James 1. She was also directly descended from Charles 2. Charles isnt a direct descendant. She was Royal, she was more pedigreed than Charles, if you're into that sort of thing. And she was more royal than the horse faced cheater he subsequently married.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 147July 4, 2019 11:22 PM

R144. It's understandable that Charles and Camilla continued with their affair doing what they could to ruin Diana's life, lying and making a mockery of marriage and the monarchy? Would you have put up with it from your own parents if your father was stepping out leaving your own family in shambles? Would you put up with it if your own partner were doing it to you? Probably not. Why do you give Charles and Camilla a pass?

by Anonymousreply 148July 4, 2019 11:37 PM

R147. Interesting post. Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 149July 4, 2019 11:38 PM

r148 if that had been my parents, I would've recognized that they never should've been married in the first place and they needed to get divorced ASAP. If my father had still been carrying on with the woman he was meant to be with from the very start, instead of my mother, I would've said "just go and be with the old whore already! You're making everyone fucking miserable!" I would've encouraged my mother to find another man.

by Anonymousreply 150July 4, 2019 11:41 PM

I love Diana's obsession with the chain-smoking, junk food gobbling heart surgeon.

She would show up in the hospital waiting room just to see him while people were waiting to hear if their loved one would live or die and she would call the hospital and the staff would have to tell her that he was too busy performing heart surgeries so, no, he was not available to chat with her.

I guess when Diana said she wanted to be the "Queen of People's Hearts" she meant healthy hearts. Apparently she didn't give a toss about rickety, broken-down, icky, yucky damaged hearts.

No wonder this heart surgeon turned down her marriage proposal.

by Anonymousreply 151July 4, 2019 11:42 PM

I don't know, perhaps I have a more European view of things.

by Anonymousreply 152July 4, 2019 11:42 PM

OMG that big fat ugly heart doctor Diana was obsessed with. Nobody could figure that one out. Even Diana's closest friends were like "WTF is wrong with you?"

by Anonymousreply 153July 4, 2019 11:44 PM

R153 And HE was the one who told HER to go away. What does that say about Lady Di?

by Anonymousreply 154July 4, 2019 11:45 PM

"I want to be a tampon and live inside you."

by Anonymousreply 155July 4, 2019 11:50 PM

All this fuss about a manipulative, self-pitying, vindictive, jealous, scheming attention-addict who had piles of money to spend on the nicest, most expensive clothes and expensive experts advising her on how to dress and how to do her hair and makeup.

This great woman dropped about 99.9% of her charitable causes as soon as she divorced Charles.

Diana seemed to go into a full-blown panic after she lost the royal status she claimed caused her so much anguish. There is post-divorce footage of her standing on the beach in a bathing suit telling reporters to "expect something big". I believe that was either in reference to the heart surgeon or Dodi.

(Are we sure that she wasn't more like a wealthy aunt who visited once in a while where her sons are concerned?)

by Anonymousreply 156July 4, 2019 11:52 PM

I wonder what Andrew Parker Bowles feelings are about the whole situation. The man clearly has class and dignity enough not to comment however he did start divorce proceedings as soon as it was made public about the affair but he must have always known.

by Anonymousreply 157July 4, 2019 11:54 PM

Hasnat Khan was kind, compassionate, a man who saved lives. I think Diana was attracted to him for those qualities. I think he was a stabilizing influence on her. She felt "safe" with him. They were seriously involved for a time. But her neediness was off putting and no way would he have put up with the insanity of being the husband of one of the most famous women in the world. So the relationship ended and she rebounded into the arms of the appalling Dodi Fayed. As someone who knew her once said "when it came to men Diana was 15 years old."

As for his looks...well, if he hadn't had a tendency to be overweight he would have been quite a nice looking man in his younger days. Although their relationship ended, he really did care a lot about Diana. There is footage of him in the church at her funeral; it shows him with his head lowered and shaking. He appears to be weeping.

by Anonymousreply 158July 4, 2019 11:59 PM

Of course, as usual, we here at DataLounge know with absolute authority the intricate dynamics of the private lives of public figures because we've read about it in tabloids and books! We're all of us more than qualified to pass judgment and make assumptions about long-dead people we've never met.

by Anonymousreply 159July 4, 2019 11:59 PM

Quoting a private conversation that was recorded without Charles' knowledge and then leaked to the public, low-blow R155.

In any event Camilla obviously didn't mind, she and Charles loved each other for years, weathered the storm and now have a happy, stable marriage.

Their story is an example of true love rather than Diana and many affairs.

by Anonymousreply 160July 5, 2019 12:04 AM

I must admit, when you see Charles and Camilla together you can see the spark between them, something that never existed between he and Diana. Just very sad all round really. They should have been allowed to marry when young. Yes, we'd have had no Princess Diana or William and Harry but Diana Spencer would probably still be alive, albeit still somewhat troubled.

by Anonymousreply 161July 5, 2019 12:14 AM

People are indifferent to Camilla because they don't care about her. Charles is yesterday's news. He's not getting the throne at this point, and if he does, it will be for a short time with zero interest and fanfare, much like their wedding. There's no story there.

At this point, they will most likely pass it off to William and Kate. They're the future of the royals.

by Anonymousreply 162July 5, 2019 12:25 AM

Diana had a positive affect on the world, and the world was deeply affected by her. People were interested and fascinated by her, and in turn she was genuinely concerned and compassionate toward those she met. The outpouring of sadness and loss when she died was overwhelming. The whole world was in shock. We will never see that again. It was the saddest death of a public figure ever experienced on an international level. No one comes close.

by Anonymousreply 163July 5, 2019 12:28 AM

r162 the Royals can't just "pass it off." It would take an act of Parliament.

The Monarchy is not run like a reality show.

by Anonymousreply 164July 5, 2019 12:33 AM

[quote]Diana was descended from James 1. She was also directly descended from Charles 2. Charles isnt a direct descendant. She was Royal, she was more pedigreed than Charles, if you're into that sort of thing.

More pedigreed? The webpage that you posted mentions that Diana descended from an ILLEGITIMATE offspring of Charles II. He did not have any legitimate offspring. I woudn't say Diana was Royal. She was a member of Nobility (aka an aristocrat). Unlike Diana, Prince Charles descends from everyone who has been King or Queen of England/Britain since 1714. Both his parents are direct descendants of Queen Victoria.

by Anonymousreply 165July 5, 2019 1:14 AM

The BBC's announcement of Diana's death. There's an eerie moment at 5:26 when a man walks over to the control room. You can hear him saying "Princess Diana is dead" twice in the background. The newsreader tells the viewers the same thing roughly a minute later.

I was weirdly creeped out by Diana's death as a child. I think it's because hers was the first celebrity death that I was properly aware of, and it was all over the news for at least a year here in the UK. When you're a kid, you don't tend to think about death much (unless you've lost someone close to you, which I hadn't at that point). Then, all of a sudden, the media were endlessly discussing this dead woman, her funeral was shown on TV, magazines were full of details about the way she died, etc. It made me aware of mortality in a way I hadn't been before. I've heard Americans of my age say they felt the same way about the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 166July 5, 2019 1:41 AM

You have to admit it's very romantic that after everything Charles and Camilla ended up married.

by Anonymousreply 167July 5, 2019 6:12 AM

R167. The wrong person died.

by Anonymousreply 168July 5, 2019 6:17 AM

R165, yes, Charles is descended from German peasant stock. We know. Diana is a descendant of actual English kings.

by Anonymousreply 169July 5, 2019 6:46 AM

I feel sorry for the Queen, the majority of her family are dysfunctional fuck ups, she's seen a lot of changes in royal protocol in her time. I admire her for her stoic attitude, and she's the only one of them that really works.

by Anonymousreply 170July 5, 2019 10:17 AM

[quote]Charles is descended from German peasant stock.

The Hanovers and the Hapsburgs might disagree but people like to buy the fantasy.

by Anonymousreply 171July 5, 2019 11:56 AM

Charles and Camilla's story reminds me of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III.

His true love was the wife of a knight who had died, Katherine Swynford. He did his duty and married 2 royal women. And when his second wife died, he slowly moved to legitimize his relationship with Katherine. He married her and had his children with her legitimized as the Beauforts. Henry VII's claim to the throne was through his mother, Margaret Beaufort.

by Anonymousreply 172July 5, 2019 1:31 PM

Before everyone feels too sorry for Andrew Parker-Bowles, keep in mind that he was fucking around throughout his marriage to Camilla. He was not the faithful injured party. According to Tina Brown, his repeated infidelities are why Camilla went back to Charles in the late 70s.

by Anonymousreply 173July 5, 2019 1:31 PM

" It was the saddest death of a public figure ever experienced on an international level. No one comes close."

You're nuts. Just like Diana.

by Anonymousreply 174July 5, 2019 2:16 PM

R174, JFK???

by Anonymousreply 175July 5, 2019 3:11 PM

We've made the front page of all the world's papers today!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 176July 5, 2019 3:22 PM

r2, if you think she would have looked her age at 58 and would not have had tons of Botox and plastic surgery, you're a dreamer.

by Anonymousreply 177July 5, 2019 3:23 PM

[quote] It was the saddest death of a public figure ever experienced on an international level. No one comes close.

That's just willfully ignorant.

Churchill

JFK

George VI

Gandhi

FDR

All were more greatly mourned on an international level.

by Anonymousreply 178July 5, 2019 3:26 PM

As will QE2 when the time comes. I don't think people realize how much of a loss that will seem to many. I think it will probably even be bigger than Diana's. The end of an era and all that jazz!

by Anonymousreply 179July 5, 2019 3:30 PM

R178

Marilyn Monroe

Elvis Presley

Michael Jackson

by Anonymousreply 180July 5, 2019 4:09 PM

I remember watching EVITA in theaters in early 1997 and being enthralled by the opening scene of her state funeral. When Diana's own funeral took place 8 months later, it felt like déjà vu all over again. The millions of visible mourners in the streets. The massive piles of flowers. The funeral procession.

by Anonymousreply 181July 5, 2019 4:34 PM

I don't think anyone in this post-Internet era could have the outpouring of grief the Diana caused.

by Anonymousreply 182July 5, 2019 4:40 PM

R178, JFK is the modern equivalent, but r163 has a point. The era of modern media allowed people to experience the event communally, which is something unique to our generation. QEII will definitely be one of those events as well.

by Anonymousreply 183July 5, 2019 4:40 PM

The death of Elizabeth II will certainly be a massive cultural event, but in a different way from Diana's. She's already ninety-three, so there will be no shock factor (unless Charles cracks and murders her or something). Also, much of the sadness surrounding Diana's death came from the fact that two young boys had lost their mother.

by Anonymousreply 184July 5, 2019 4:51 PM

Not only JFK's death, JFK Jr.'s death became a memorable moment in recent history.

by Anonymousreply 185July 5, 2019 5:59 PM

R169 You mean Scottish kings. The Stuart dynasty (James, Charles, etc) hailed from Scotland. And the kings in Diana's ancestry come from her father's side of the family. Her matrilineal descent goes back to an Indian maid born in India who was half Armenian. If William and Harry did a DNA test of their maternal lineage, you would see that their DNA comes from India not England.

by Anonymousreply 186July 5, 2019 6:09 PM

R171 yes, thank you for reminding me. German peasant stock, and the incestuous Hapsburgs.

by Anonymousreply 187July 5, 2019 6:14 PM

R180 John Lennon

by Anonymousreply 188July 5, 2019 8:44 PM

This Pope had 4 million present at funeral and over 130 foreign leaders and dignitaries. The funeral of Pope John Paul 2 is perhaps the most viewed event in human history.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 189July 5, 2019 9:20 PM

The added elements with JFK and Diana was the unexpectedness and violence of their deaths. The Pope’s death was unifying but expected. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but there are few moments like that in modern history. Certainly JFK and yes, Diana. Events would be 9/11 and the first Space Shuttle accident as well. Maybe Michael Jackson but he was a divisive figure, so there was more shock than sadness. Any more out there that I missed? (At the risk of going OT.)

I would say that the shootings of MLK and RFK were stunning, but they were part of a year-long nutso time in our country.

by Anonymousreply 190July 5, 2019 9:27 PM

I think she was at the height of her beauty when she died.

Take that, twinks!

by Anonymousreply 191July 5, 2019 9:44 PM

Everyone makes comparisons between Diana and Kate Middleton. Personally, I can see Diana deciding she didn't like Kate or that she was jealous of Kate and meddling in Kate's and William's relationship and ruining everything.

by Anonymousreply 192July 5, 2019 9:49 PM

R2 Is a that pic of Diana if she were alive today and was in that accident, or is it a pic of her with someone imagining that she avoided that accident?

Either way she looks terrible.

I can see Di having her face sandblasted and everything fixed, re-touched and everything that is sagging hiked back up, ala Christie Brinkley.

by Anonymousreply 193July 5, 2019 9:52 PM

It is estimated that 2.5 BILLION people watched Diana's funeral, which was about a third of the entire world's population--one of the largest television audiences ever except for maybe Pope John Paul, but he had people steaming into Rome over the course of a week to view the body--and he was considered a head of state--the Vatican. Diana was not a head of state, but instead an international figure with a position that was ceremonial. She also died before the widespread use of the Internet, which would have increased the 2.5 billion viewers to even more. The sea of flowers that looked to be nearly the length of a football field was covered with flowers in Diana's honor. The television viewing of the one-day funeral was a worldwide event. The week-long mourning for basically a private citizen was unprecedented.

by Anonymousreply 194July 5, 2019 9:56 PM

Diana was into doing the job of a princess--and she viewed it a job. She would have admired Kate. She would not have been in favor of Meghan and this private nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 195July 5, 2019 9:58 PM

The point is that Diana leaned on William a lot and probably would have resented any woman who came between that bond.

by Anonymousreply 196July 5, 2019 10:00 PM

Of the celebrity deaths that I remember (90s onwards), the only one that came close to the impact of Diana's was Michael Jackson's. But even then, the reaction to Diana's was on another level (in the UK, at least). I would say they were probably equally famous, but MJ's death was less of a shock. There was always a strong chance that someone as clearly disturbed as him was going to end up dying early, either by suicide or drug abuse.

by Anonymousreply 197July 5, 2019 10:03 PM

If Diana hadn't died, she'd be America's First Lady now instead of that Slovenian whore I married.

by Anonymousreply 198July 5, 2019 10:03 PM

R198. Trump, you piece of shit...Diana thought you were repulsive, and you have gotten even more repulsive since the days when you thought you knew her but when she never gave you the time of day or even considered who the fuck you were.

by Anonymousreply 199July 5, 2019 10:13 PM

Diana’s death was on another level. Whether you like her or not, it was near the same level as JFK. (Notice I said “near”.) no one has approached it in the last 25-30 years. There are a few people today whose death would approach the “epic” -ness. I don’t want to even imagine if BHO died in an unnatural way (I can’t even type his name). It would be a sob-fest world-wide of epic proportions. I would lead the way in sobbing.

by Anonymousreply 200July 5, 2019 10:14 PM

R196. Diana may have leaned on William during the days when Charles was disrupting the house, but she had a great sense of William's future role and its importance. She would have been very supportive. She would have supported Harry too, but she wouldn't have put up with the contempt that Markle is showing.

by Anonymousreply 201July 5, 2019 10:17 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to compare the tragic assassination of JFK, the POTUS - and then considered the leader of the free world - with the death of a wealthy socialite/philanthropist who died while cavorting with her substance-abusing playboy lover.

The deaths of JFK and his brother RFK had far-reaching impact on the US and across the world.

by Anonymousreply 202July 5, 2019 10:32 PM

R200. Diana's death, mourning period and funeral was on the same level of international sadness and profound affect as JFK's. What makes this comparison so unusual is that JFK was president, head of state and the most powerful man in the world. Diana was a princess with no power other than the staggering affect she had on people all over the world. The affect Diana had is generally reserved for heads of state and religious leaders. Diana transcended all of that and became almost as big in people's minds, not only in the UK but worldwide.

And while the pope may have had more visitors to his funeral and/or heads of state, no one even talks about the pope any longer, and he just died in 2005 when the Internet was widely used. Diana died in 1997 before the Internet. Michael Jackson had a lot of viewers to his funeral, but even his legacy has not been as lasting as Jackson's, of course for several other reasons. The BRF is more than 1,000 years old. The title of Princess of Wales is now almost reserved for Diana. Yes, Kate will get it, but Camilla never would. That's unheard of in British history, and there has been a lot of cheating in that family throughout the ages. They don't change lightly or for anyone. To survive and have favor with the public, they changed for her.

by Anonymousreply 203July 5, 2019 10:37 PM

R202. There's a difference between JFK's and Diana's impact on people's day-to lives. It seemed like in the above posts people were comparing mourning periods and the actual spectacle of the funeral and outpouring of emotion. In political terms, yes, JFK probably had a greater impact. But funerals and sadness emotional comparisons: Diana's funeral was just as big if not bigger worldwide than any number of world leaders including JFK's.

by Anonymousreply 204July 5, 2019 10:44 PM

JFK’s death is still the most profound in the modern era. To this day.

by Anonymousreply 205July 5, 2019 10:49 PM

Part of the emotional punch was also that Diana and Mother Theresa died so close together, especially for those of us who saw Diana as a humanitarian.

by Anonymousreply 206July 5, 2019 11:31 PM

I don't think it is a good idea, or healthy, to compare tragic deaths and try to decide whose death caused more pain and grief or whose death was more meaningful.

It's a moot point and these comparisons are kind of ugly.

To some it was President Kennedy, to others it was Princess Diana, to others it was John Lennon - it depends on the person and how the death or the loss affected them.

This is turning into one morbid contest and crossing a line where comments made are going to be very hurtful to others.

Let's get back to what Princess Diana meant to different individuals.

by Anonymousreply 207July 6, 2019 1:25 AM

OMG enough!! It's been over 20 years, unless family or close intimates come forward with shock new revelations about the woman, there's nothing more that can be said, it's all been said! Close this thread and stop living in the past!

by Anonymousreply 208July 6, 2019 1:30 AM

R208 what are you, prejudiced or something?

by Anonymousreply 209July 6, 2019 1:33 AM

Diana died at the dawn of the Internet era, before it took over. No social media, everybody wasn't in their own little bubble. We still, as a society, had a much bigger communal experience. All of that is gone now and it's impossible to imagine something holding sway over the whole population in this time.

by Anonymousreply 210July 6, 2019 2:15 AM

When JFK died, society overall behaved with a degree of stoicism that most people today have no concept. When Diana died, it was in the era of publicly spilling one's emotions in the street and baring one's soul to complete strangers in an effort to garner attention and sympathy.

I know which I prefer.

by Anonymousreply 211July 6, 2019 2:51 AM

R207, To some it was Jayne Mansfield.

by Anonymousreply 212July 6, 2019 3:35 AM

Diana's death was the most profound of the modern era particularly for its lasting affect. More than 20 years later, it is still profound. It was worldwide and touched all ages, races, nationalities and countries. JFK's could be argued was on the same level, but primarily in the United States. I would venture to guess that Communist countries didn't cover it the same as the U.S, and he was only president for three years. Twenty years after JFK's death in 1983, the emotional effect was not the same as Diana's. That could be due to the effect of television. Not as many people had televisions in 1963. Whereas, in 1997, 2.5 billion watched Diana's funeral, one-third of the entire world's population of all political persuasions. And now in 2019, her death is still very much a part of the world's collective conscience.

Pope John Paul may have had a larger funeral, but it's mostly long since forgotten except by the most devout Catholics, and it happened in 2005 when there even more available media and the Internet. And even then he wasn't in the news everyday like Diana. John Paul's affect didn't last. Diana's death and funeral was pre-Internet, and it was still the nearly the biggest event of the 20th century. There were others and other events that came close and perhaps even exceeded Diana's, such as the end of WW I, WW II, the Great Depression of 1929, the death of Winston Churchill. But Diana, as an apolitical person viewed as a humanitarian, royalty, celebrity into the stratosphere, her every move chronicled for 17 years, unloved by a husband who was not liked at the time at home or abroad and who was viewed as unfaithful and the cause of most of Diana's unhappiness, along with the fact that she was a young mother with two young boys....her death changed and affected the world like no other. It was almost like the perfect storm collided to cause an overwhelming outpouring of grief in every corner of the world.

by Anonymousreply 213July 6, 2019 3:51 AM

Diana should be an elective course at university.

by Anonymousreply 214July 6, 2019 5:34 AM

"no-one in the UK says English any more"

That is a bald-faced lie.

by Anonymousreply 215July 6, 2019 9:19 AM

"no-one in the UK says English any more"

That is a bald-faced lie.

by Anonymousreply 216July 6, 2019 9:19 AM

R212 To some it was Billy Mays, the OxiClean spokesman.

Those whose hearts he shouted his way into wailed, mourned, publicly grieved, bought lots of flowers, laid them 'neath the OxiClean shelf at their local Walmart and angrily demanded that national leaders show them they care.

You just can never predict who is going to come through your television screen one day and forever change your life.

by Anonymousreply 217July 6, 2019 10:26 AM

When he died, Billy Mays didn't have a sea of flowers in front of Kensington Palace that you could see from the moon. And neither did the pope. And neither did Jayne Mansfield.

Only one person had that distinction.

by Anonymousreply 218July 6, 2019 10:48 AM

She's fuckin dead, has been for 21, almost 22 years, she was dead last week, she was dead yesterday, she is dead today and will be dead tomorrow and the day after that! GET OVER IT!!!!

by Anonymousreply 219July 6, 2019 12:13 PM

I lost my head when Jayne Mansfield died.

by Anonymousreply 220July 6, 2019 12:14 PM

R219, Hasn't there been an unexpected lack of interest in visitors to her final resting place?

by Anonymousreply 221July 6, 2019 12:18 PM

She's supposedly not buried on that island on her family's estate, but in an unmarked tomb in the family crypt.

by Anonymousreply 222July 6, 2019 1:14 PM

R222, So is John Wilkes Booth.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 223July 6, 2019 2:00 PM

The TRUE beauty of the 80s/90s royal houses was Princess Caroline. But she was largely overlooked by the world's fascination with Diana.

by Anonymousreply 224July 6, 2019 8:17 PM

"Diana's death was the most profound of the modern era particularly for its lasting affect. More than 20 years later, it is still profound. "

You are deranged. What was "profound" about her death? She was a rich airhead who died in an accident caused by a drunk driver who was procured by her deadbeat, dimwit playboy lover. Her death truly affected no one, except her immediate family. It's not like JFK or RFK, who could have gone on to do things that would affected the lives of millions of people. It's not like Gandhi or MLK, whose efforts resulted in political change. It's not like FDR or Churchill, both monumental leaders who governed during a World War. All the hysteria at her death was a kind of mass insanity. Here's some commentary on it from The Guardian:

"It has become an embarrassing memory, like a mawkish, self-pitying teenage entry in a diary. We cringe to think of it. It is our collective moment of madness, a week when somehow we lost our grip. A decade on, we look back and wonder what came over us.

There were some who felt that way at the time, but they were the minority. Indeed, they complained they were a marginalised, even oppressed, group - gagged dissidents in a new totalitarian state of the emotions. Some looked at the mountain of Cellophane-wrapped bouquets that piled up outside Buckingham Palace - a million of them, it was said - and sniffed "floral fascism" in the air. Later, Christopher Hitchens wrote that in the week after Princess Diana was killed in a Paris car crash, Britain became a "one-party state", such was the coercive nature of the public reaction. He sought out the Britons who had been forced to close their shops or cancel sporting events on the day of the funeral, lest they feel the rage of the tear-stained hordes outside. The writer Carmen Callil was more specific: "It was like the Nuremberg rallies."

That view was not much heard in the first week of September 1997. Indeed, Granta magazine adopted the tone of a samizdat newsletter a few months later when it dared to publish a piece titled Those Who Felt Differently. But how things have turned around.

Now Hitchens' and Calill's view has become the settled one. The conventional wisdom of 2007 holds that Diana week was an outburst of mass hysteria, an episode when the British public lost its characteristic cool and engaged in seven days of bogus sentimentality, whipped up by the media, and whose flimsiness was demonstrated when it vanished as quickly as it had appeared."

by Anonymousreply 225July 6, 2019 8:57 PM

I remember that throughout the summer of '97 everyone I knew thought Diana was really out of her mind to be with Dodi. People were essentially saying "WTF is she doing with that sleaze?" The feeling was that Diana was really lowering herself in that relationship, because Dodi was so tacky and trashy.

by Anonymousreply 226July 6, 2019 9:07 PM

R224, Her daughter Charlotte is gorgeous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 227July 6, 2019 9:09 PM

R224 - were you alive in the 70's? Don't you remember that Caroline of Monaco was the IT girl before Diana arrived in the early 80's?

by Anonymousreply 228July 6, 2019 9:13 PM

R227 And identical to Caroline. She gets her looks from her mama.

by Anonymousreply 229July 6, 2019 9:44 PM

R225 I can't find it now but I remember reading an article that stated that the Princess Diana was "in a spotlight that was becoming increasingly hostile".

Basically, people were getting tired of her. Until she died unexpectedly, that is, and until the media whipped the public into a frenzy with their "SHOW US YOU CARE" type of headlines.

Before Princess Diana died there was a joke going around about the "Di No!" card. This joke card was available to anyone who was sick and in hospital and who wanted to avoid a visit, and being on camera, with "a member of the Royal Family who just wants to 'love' you".

Watching the mass mourning I understood that people were shocked, saddened and even grieving her death. I respect the feelings of those who were and are deeply hurt by her passing.

But this, "She was a saint, she was the center of the world, her death was the most significant death in all of history, we a goddess living among us and now she's gone!!" stuff that persists to this even after all of the uncomfortable truths that have been revealed about Princess Diana?

Come on folks, at least be able to admit that Princess Diana has dropped at least a few rungs on the sainthood ladder.

by Anonymousreply 230July 6, 2019 10:37 PM

She wasn’t a saint, r230. Mother Theresa was a saint and she was sidelined by the Diana wave. People want a human tragedy, not a saint.

by Anonymousreply 231July 6, 2019 10:44 PM

^ and she may have dropped a few rungs on the sainthood ladder, but I guarantee you, if there is any fresh or new news about her, she climbs back up.

by Anonymousreply 232July 6, 2019 10:46 PM

[quote]I can't find it now but I remember reading an article that stated that the Princess Diana was "in a spotlight that was becoming increasingly hostile". Basically, people were getting tired of her. Until she died unexpectedly, that is,

I was a gayling with a People magazine subscription then. I vividly recall some letters to the editor as late as August 1997 complaining about the excessive Diana coverage. Then when she died people couldn't get enough of her.

by Anonymousreply 233July 6, 2019 10:58 PM

There’s a weird revisionist history that goes on with Diana. People forget how earth-shattering her death was, because they’re embarrassed.

by Anonymousreply 234July 6, 2019 11:03 PM

"People forget how earth-shattering her death was, because they’re embarrassed."

"Earth-shattering?" In your deranged mind, maybe.

by Anonymousreply 235July 6, 2019 11:12 PM

Biggest attention whore ever...

#TeamCamilla

by Anonymousreply 236July 6, 2019 11:18 PM

R235 you live in a hole. I’m no fan of the royal family but I recognize a rodent when I see one.

by Anonymousreply 237July 6, 2019 11:26 PM

WE ONLY REMEMBER HER BECAUSE SHE WAS YOUNG AND BEAUTIFUL

by Anonymousreply 238July 6, 2019 11:45 PM

She was privileged and spoilt. Had she had to get an education, keep a fulltime job, keep a house, cook and clean for herself, change her children's nappies herself, etc. etc she wouldn't have had time to wallow in self pity. Plenty of people have a rotten childhood, a cheating husband and a mother in law who doesn't like them! She never made her own bed in her entire life, didn't know how to boil water, lived in couture. Her only responsibility was her appearance. She hadn't seen her children in 6 weeks when she died! And yet the world feels sorry for her!

by Anonymousreply 239July 6, 2019 11:54 PM

Yeah, and you’re still talking about her more than 20 years later r239.

by Anonymousreply 240July 7, 2019 12:16 AM

I think a LOT of people wouldn't see their kids for six weeks if they could afford it.

by Anonymousreply 241July 7, 2019 12:30 AM

Team Diana always. Her death shocked the world. The attention she received during the week and at her funeral was perfectly appropriate and deserved.

The Rottweiler and sour puss Christopher Hitchens are banished.

by Anonymousreply 242July 7, 2019 1:11 AM

When I think of Diana, I can't help but think of this verse from "High Flying, Adored" from EVITA. I think it perfectly describes what happened to Diana upon becoming princess and spouse to the future king at just 20.

[quote]High flying, adored / What happens now/ Where do you go from here / For someone on top of the world the view is not exactly clear / A shame you did it all at 26 / There are no mysteries now / Nothing can thrill you, no one fulfill you

[quote]High flying, adored / I hope you come to terms with boredom / So famous, so easily, so soon is not the wisest thing to be / You won't care if they love you -- it's been done before / You'll despair if they hate you / You'll be drained of all energy / All the young who've made it would agree

by Anonymousreply 243July 7, 2019 1:13 AM

When cheating boorish Charles and the Rottweiler kick the bucket, no one will care the day after it happens. And no one will be talking about it 20 years later.

by Anonymousreply 244July 7, 2019 1:13 AM

R234 Her was earth-shattering. That's how it felt.

I am an American, born and raised. I liked Princess Diana and I liked Prince Charles but I never a Royal Watcher or a Royal fanatic.

I was working at The Field Museum at the time. Princess Diana had come to Chicago and attended an event at the Museum a few months earlier. It was the talk of the building, I remember calling my parents and telling them that she was going to be there. All Museum employees hustled out of there early due to security concerns that day. I think we were told to leave through specific exits too, which was also unusual. (So, no, I didn't actually get the chance to see her.)

A few months later, I was living in my one-bedroom apartment near the lakefront on the far-north side of Chicago. I was eating dinner and watching the regularly scheduled program . When they were supposed to cut to commercials there was a news report saying that Princess Diana had been in a car crash and "may have been seriously hurt".

I was alarmed and shocked. How could this have happened to who I thought was one of the most protected people in the world? What did "seriously injured" mean? Multiple broken bones? Paralysis? Head injury?

After the television show I was watching was over every single television station went into uninterrupted news coverage of the crash for the rest of the night.

I poured a glass of wine and called a Museum co-worker and asked her, "Have you heard? Are you watching the news?" We watched the coverage together by phone. As time wore on I said to my co-worker, who was older than me, "I don't think she is going to survive," and she solemnly agreed with me.

The condition of the car should have logically told me that hours beforehand.

I said to my co-worker, "At my age I wasn't there for the Kennedy assassination and I was a little kid when Elvis died. I guess this is my Kennedy moment and my Elvis moment."

Her death was finally confirmed and I was shocked and went to bed very late. The next morning I immediately went to the corner store and bought the two major newspapers in Chicago, the Tribune and the Sun Times.

The Tribune had picture of her in a kind of pastel jacket and skirt outfit. It looked perfect on her. It was a great and subtle pic of her, she was turning slightly and seemed to be waving good bye and the headline read something about good bye to the People's Princess or a sad farewell to the Princess of Wales. Something like that.

Sorry naysayers, but this was a huge event.

Most people at work were pretty quiet that and everyone seemed to be talking about it. That night I watched the news coverage of people in Chicago lining up to sign the condolence books.

There is such a weird and eerie feeling when people around the world are having the same simultaneous reaction to a sad and tragic event or the death of major public figure. Be it Princess Diana, President Kennedy or - go ahead and laugh if you must - Elvis.

That's why the coverage of President Kennedy's murder gives me goosebumps. The all global eyes on this one event feeling.

I think that's why these deaths affect people the way they do. Someone who was always a big part of the fabric is no longer here and the public goes into a virtual grief.

(So where were you when you heard that she had been in a car crash?)

by Anonymousreply 245July 7, 2019 2:58 AM

[quote]Sorry naysayers, but this was a huge event.

No one is saying that it wasn't a big event, just that Diana's loss wasn't that big of a loss, in the grand scheme of things, especially when compared to people like FDR, JFK, MLK, or Gandhi. Some people realized it then and were the Che's to Diana's Evita, but many people do now in retrospect.

by Anonymousreply 246July 7, 2019 3:22 AM

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 247July 7, 2019 4:57 AM

R247. The loss of Diana was an enormous and touched nearly the entire world. Yes, there were other international figures whose loss was also enormous, but that doesn't make her death any less..

by Anonymousreply 248July 7, 2019 5:56 AM

R112 R113 R124

There was a mini-series about what you're telling. It's on YouTube.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 249July 7, 2019 6:42 AM

Supposedly she was a rather tiresome, weepy person. The entire staff and household tiptoed around while she holed up in her room, crying. For. Days.

Maybe antidepressants could have helped this proverbial wet blanket.

by Anonymousreply 250July 7, 2019 6:55 AM

R250. Charles was a pain in the ass and a bore to be around and very disagreeable. Charles was extraordinarily depressed and made those around him including Diana feel the same. He was on the phone telling Camilla he loved her after he had just married Diana. Charles gave Camilla a bracelet with their pet names engraved on it the night before the wedding. When Diana confronted him about the bracelet, he said Camilla was just a friend. Then he then wore the cuff links Camilla gave him on his honeymoon with Diana. She asked him about it, and he said Camilla was just a friend. He was constantly lying. He had a picture of Camilla on the honeymoon. Again he lied. He didn't love Diana and he was dreadful to her. If Diana was upset, she had every reason. Charles was a ass, and he was mean.

by Anonymousreply 251July 7, 2019 8:34 AM

Charles was pissed that people weren't kissing his ass including his mother. He wanted to be king, but the queen was not giving in to any of his wishes to assume some duties. Elizabeth said, "There will be no changes." He was a crashing bore and always angry, And Camilla wouldn't leave. This was no way to begin a marriage.

by Anonymousreply 252July 7, 2019 8:49 AM

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was as revered internationally in the 1960s and beyond as Diana was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Jackie's death at 64 was a MAJOR news event around the world. 25 years after her death, she's still discussed and books are written about her continuously.

by Anonymousreply 253July 7, 2019 9:25 AM

I agree Jackie was revered but her death was not a major news event around the world, she was expected to die. Diana's death had shock value, she was also very young compared to Jackie and it was glamorous, a controversial rich lover in Paris, the Ritz, a car chase, a Mercedes; sorry but Diana's death trumped Jackie's quiet end at home.

by Anonymousreply 254July 7, 2019 10:17 AM

I think in hindsight we (the world) will be embarrassed by the way we behaved after Diana's death, history will view us as a bunch of celebrity-obsessed hysterics. The flowers outside Kensington Palace, the tacky Diana mementos, Candle In The Wind played continually on the radio, everyone buying a copy, ick! I also think history won't remember Diana as fondly as we think. An immature, neurotic, attention-seeking shit-stirrer is how she'll be remembered.

by Anonymousreply 255July 7, 2019 10:23 AM

R255. You are wrong. We have already lived through history, and Diana is still respected and beloved around the world.

by Anonymousreply 256July 7, 2019 10:54 AM

I think the 'we will be embarrassed by our feeling' camp does a great disservice to that moment in time. Undoubtedly it was in many ways excessive by some, and indeed there may have been social coercion to share the feeling as the thing fed itself, like a hurricane, if you will. (And there are lots of social pressures that demand group think - it's how Britain got through the war, for example.) But I always felt, for the majority, the feeling at its core was genuine and that deserves the respect due to sincerity.

She was a mythic figure and a phenomenon (and I don't say a perfect figure or saintly, she wasn't.) But she was young, attractive, seemingly feeling and kind, omnipresent in media, so therefor omnipresent in our lives, seeking a happy ending but killed shockingly, unexpectedly, brutally and young. I think a lot of the excess was in relation to the shock, fed by the nascent internet/social media. I bet if JFK had been Kennedy in 1997 or 2010 or what have you, the excess would have been quite similar.

by Anonymousreply 257July 7, 2019 1:11 PM

I do think it's time for the annual "Look at Mommy" tradition to end.

The water table is just too high on that island and it made Charlotte cry.

Louis, of course, just tried to fix her hair in a more contemporary style.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 258July 7, 2019 1:34 PM

As soon as the smoke from the funeral clears we're all going to see -- and how -- she did NOTHING for years!

by Anonymousreply 259July 7, 2019 2:33 PM

R249 I had forgotten that Charles had dated Diana's older sister before her. Eeeeewwww! She married the man who had previously dated her sister.

by Anonymousreply 260July 7, 2019 6:22 PM

R260, And they're calling ME weird.

by Anonymousreply 261July 7, 2019 7:01 PM

R249. Thanks for posting. Didn't think I would watch the whole thing, but I did. While Diana might have had the 'Shy Di' label early on, it was a media creation because it rhymed and she didn't talk to the press. But she was hardly shy. She confronted Charles over his cheating with Camilla from the very start of her marriage . He of course denied it. He was such a pain in the ass. The conflict arose because Charles was a stick in the mud and wound very tightly. He expected people to kiss his ass and never confront him. Diana confronted him from the start. He was so conflicted all the time. His parents pressured him into getting married. He didn't really want to marry anyone at the time. He just thought he could be an asshole and treat people badly. The not-so-shy Di said No to his disagreeable antics, and he couldn't believe his wife was not going to live inside his head to the exclusion of this family.

Charles was also very jealous of Diana because she became more popular than him, and he had always been number one. Charles also thought his mother would give up some of her duties because she said that she would like to see him to become king in her lifetime. But then when Elizabeth saw how disagreeable he was and how he cracked under pressure, Elizabeth decided she would never give up any control and Charles was crushed and lost as a man without a job.

by Anonymousreply 262July 7, 2019 7:10 PM

If the Queen should suffer a stroke, would she be forced to relinquish the throne?

by Anonymousreply 263July 7, 2019 7:18 PM

[quote]r251 If Diana was upset, she had every reason. Charles was a ass, and he was mean.

She needed to do more nude layouts, to lift her spirits.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 264July 7, 2019 7:25 PM

Mitchell & Webb: Princess Diana Conspiracy Theories (Hilarious!!!)

"And the good news is this only involves only swearing 15 or so people to perpetual silence."

"She's so beautiful and popular that we need to kill her now so people will go off her. If she's dead she'll be forgotten in a week."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265July 7, 2019 7:38 PM

Remember when they tried make the whole 'Diana and Dodi, tragically victimized lovers, now eternally bonded in Heaven, they are the ultimate example of true love" thing happen?

I was waiting for the set of commemorative plate collections to come out.

Turns out she was still pursuing the heart surgeon and he had handed out engagement rings to quite a few women.

"Diana died reaching for Dodi, 'I love you Dodi', Diana's dying words." (Puke!)

Even Mohamed Al-Fayed admitted defeat and finally removed that ridiculous statue from Harrods. That tells you something.

by Anonymousreply 266July 7, 2019 7:45 PM

R263 No real reason that The Queen would relinquish the throne whatever happened to her.

Her Father (King George VI) had lung cancer in his final years and was rarely seen in public.

She couldn't be 'forced' to step down in any case.

by Anonymousreply 267July 7, 2019 7:46 PM

[quote]If the Queen should suffer a stroke, would she be forced to relinquish the throne?

R263. She doesn't have to abdicate, but if she cannot perform her duties, then Charles would be appointed King Regnant until she dies, meaning he would reign as king but not be the official sovereign while the queen is still alive. Of course if she abdicated, then Charles would be king.

by Anonymousreply 268July 7, 2019 7:46 PM

[quote] If the Queen should suffer a stroke, would she be forced to relinquish the throne?

No. It would be like when George II went insane for the second and final time in 1810: the Prince of Wales would step in as Prince Regent while she was incapacitated, but she would remain sovereign until she died (the last Prince Regent had to wait until 1820 before his father died).

by Anonymousreply 269July 7, 2019 7:47 PM

[quote]Even Mohamed Al-Fayed admitted defeat and finally removed that ridiculous statue from Harrods. T

What statue?

by Anonymousreply 270July 7, 2019 7:49 PM

[quote] I think in hindsight we (the world) will be embarrassed by the way we behaved after Diana's death, history will view us as a bunch of celebrity-obsessed hysterics.

Actually, it will be forgotten (it mostly already is).

The UK already went through something very similar to Diana's death twice before: in 1694 when Queen Mary II died in her 30s, and in 1817, when Princess Charlotte of Wales (the heir to the throne, as the only child of George IV) died in her 20s.

In both cases, a much-loved young royal woman very close to the throne died when the nation wasn't prepared for her early death, and everyone freaked out.

In both cases, the hysteria over the death was quickly forgotten. Who really remembers Mary II or the first Princess Charlotte today? Yet both funerals were up until that time the largest and most over-the-top the British Isles had ever seen.

by Anonymousreply 271July 7, 2019 7:53 PM

R270

This one.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272July 7, 2019 7:55 PM

Her anorexia was so bad that she refused to brush her teeth because she didn’t want the extra calories. As a result, she had bad halitosis.

by Anonymousreply 273July 7, 2019 7:58 PM

Did Mohamed al-Fayed remove it, though? I think Harrod's was bought from him, and the new owners got rid of it.

by Anonymousreply 274July 7, 2019 7:58 PM

The new owners sent it back to Al-Fayed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 275July 7, 2019 8:04 PM

If thinking of all of the stylish outfits Princess Diana would have went on to wear doesn't stir something in your heart then....then I just don't what this world is coming to!!!

by Anonymousreply 276July 7, 2019 8:06 PM

Diana's death was terrible and sudden and therefore quite a shock to most people. I remember that week quite vividly. She was everywhere, splashed on newspapers, TV and magazines. It was almost like we grew up with her and she was like a member of the family.

I was surprised at the depth of grief and the outward demonstration of emotion. In general, the English are a stoic, no nonsense kind of people. I've never seen so many English men and women openly cry like that for anyone. It was like the nation had a simultaneous emotional breakdown or a bad case of mass hysteria. It was unnerving and strangely comforting.

by Anonymousreply 277July 7, 2019 8:14 PM

The Onion: Horrific 120-Car Pileup a Sad Reminder of Princess Diana's Death

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 278July 7, 2019 8:17 PM

The Onion: Remembering Princess Diana

This Friday marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana of Wales. What tributes are being paid to her memory?

Prince Philip, Buckingham Palace: Muttering, closing drapes

Sarah Irvine, Pensacola, FL: Sharing her six-stanza poem "Hymn for a Princess" on the MSNBC.com Diana tribute message board

Elton John, London: Auctioning off his tearstained throw pillow from when he heard the news; donating proceeds to charity

Mohamed al-Fayed, London: Giving all-night reading of names of people he believes were involved in the conspiracy to break up Dodi al-Fayed and Diana

Marc Kampa, Freeport, IL: Placing a tiara on the dashboard of his car

Kathy Briquelet, Philadelphia, PA: Continuing to remain in a loveless marriage for the sake of her two sons

Douglas Bright, Seattle, WA: Comforting attractive women who are crying because Diana is dead

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 279July 7, 2019 8:21 PM

R271. They didn't have the media in 1694 that we have today. Diana will be remembered for as long as is reasonable, which is a long time to come. Hell, even the monarchs of the 1600s are forgotten. Besides you can't compare Diana to someone who actually reigned. Trying to say that she is forgotten or will be forgotten is just wishful thinking. She was one of the well-known, iconic figures of the 20th century. It takes a long time to live that down.

by Anonymousreply 280July 7, 2019 8:26 PM

R280 History and how it remembers people doesn't always turn out the way you expect it to. History may be a little more blunt, a little more truthful about Diana and her scheming and manipulative ways and it may end up being a little kinder to Charles and Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 281July 7, 2019 9:06 PM

They had different media in 1694 from what we have today, but they did have media (pamphlets, newspapers, poems, songs), and people will have very different media in 2394 from what we have today. Diana probably will not be remembered at all then, except by historians; but then neither will any of the royal family other than the actual monarchs--and then they will only be names, just as the British monarchs of the seventeenth century (James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, William and Mary) are mostly just names to us now.

by Anonymousreply 282July 7, 2019 9:14 PM

" Charles was a pain in the ass and a bore to be around and very disagreeable. Charles was extraordinarily depressed and made those around him including Diana feel the same. "

Seem you're mixing him with with his crazy wife. It was Diana was "a pain in the ass and a bore to be around and very disagreeable. She was the one "extraordinarily depressed" and "made those around her feel the same. It was Diana who was mentally ill, emotionally unstable, a nutcase. Not Charles.

by Anonymousreply 283July 7, 2019 9:21 PM

[quote]You bitches are slipping.

r21 I don't even need to watch that video anymore; the damn thumbnail has me cracking up!

by Anonymousreply 284July 7, 2019 9:25 PM

R281. Charles will not be widely remembered because he has never been massively liked or admired, and now his reign will be relatively short, so he won't make much of a mark historically. Camilla will be a minor blip or after-thought. She will not be remembered and will be of no consequence historically speaking.

R282. Of course there is different types of media throughout history. What is remembered is how a leader or figurehead affected the greatest number of people, accomplished anything, changed the course of history or became know for something. Elizabeth will be remembered for obvious reasons. And so far, Diana is doing a pretty good job of maintaining her appeal for someone who didn't become queen. Time will tell just how much we remember and how. Unless we are students of history, the vast majority of people are ultimately just names. But that takes a long time.

by Anonymousreply 285July 7, 2019 9:27 PM

R283. Read the book, read multiple books from several different authors, study history, watch the movie rather than this knee-jerk name-calling. Charles was a pain in the ass who thought everyone should be deferential to him. Diana called him on his shit from the very start, and he didn't like it. They were ill-suited for each other. They both had problems. Labeling either of them mentally ill is inaccurate regardless of issues outside of the marriage. Diana didn't like his cheating. He didn't like being questioned or told that he couldn't cheat. Other problems flowed from that, and there were many. Charles was a cold son of a bitch even toward his children and was told by the queen and the firm to be a better person, but he couldn't; he didn't know how. But blaming only one person is simply wrong and not looking at the facts and series of events from the very start of the marriage.

by Anonymousreply 286July 7, 2019 9:38 PM

Some of the above posters cannot imagine the impact the beautiful, young, widely admired Princess Diana had on the US public when she appeared on TV so sad re her consistently cheating husband. Women of all ages thought that if she couldn't make her husband faithful then what hope was it for them? Worse that Prince Charles had 2 young sons and should therefore be a shining example.

So many couldn't wait for Princess Diana's revenge, that is a truly loyal, loving, widely admired husband who'd be a responsible father too. That in part is the tragedy of Diana's too early death.

by Anonymousreply 287July 7, 2019 9:38 PM

"Read the book, read multiple books from several different authors, study history, watch the movie rather than this knee-jerk name-calling. "

Oh shut the fuck up about reading books and studying history and watching the movie, you yammering nitwit. Any credible source reveals that Diana was a wacko and Charles did his best to tolerate her insane behavior until he couldn't tolerate it anymore. You're a nutjob. Just like Diana.

by Anonymousreply 288July 7, 2019 9:44 PM

R288 is like any other ignorant person who refuses to read, learn history and recognize the context in which things happen. Talk about a nutjob.

by Anonymousreply 289July 7, 2019 9:57 PM

Some Monarch's and their history is remembered long after their demise.

Henry VIII and his wives, Elizabeth 1st, Charles 1st and Queen Victoria instantly spring to mind.

Others who should be are quickly forgotten, how much do most people know about George V who led the UK through WW1 (The Great War). I doubt even most British people could write more than half a page about him.

by Anonymousreply 290July 7, 2019 9:58 PM

Takes one to know one, r288. Yes, let’s ignore written history and listen to YOU!

by Anonymousreply 291July 7, 2019 9:59 PM

Admittedly I am on Diana's side, and I believe Charles was more at fault. However, among all the many problems, if ever there were a relationship when age made an enormous difference and played a big role its demise, it was this marriage. Age was a huge factor and too much of a difference. She was 20 when they married; he was 32. Some relationships might survive, but not this one. She was too young; he was too old. She was becoming an independent woman of her generation. He was becoming more and more set in his old-school ways that did not include fidelity in a marriage. If she were 30 and he were 42...or if she were 40 and he were 52, the marriage might have stood more of a chance. Both would have grown and matured, and several of the problems may have gone away in later years. Or neither would have bowed to the pressure to marry at a more mature age. But as it stood, the two personalities and wanting/needing different things at that time were simply not compatible. It doesn't mean either partner was mentally ill even if they had issues in their lives, but trust and mutual understanding was missing--again, largely due to the age difference that added to the other problems.

by Anonymousreply 292July 7, 2019 10:16 PM

Yeah - her husband was cold, and an ass, and din't really love her ... but this was a society wedding where she got riches dumped on her head. WHAT DID SHE EXPECT?? Get yo shit TOGETHER, Di, and get ON with it, like society matrons throughout history did. Dry your eyes and spend your time on your kids, clothes, charities, and the kickbacks benefiting your family of origin. Don't lock yourself in your room and drag everyone down with you.

Or, simply file for divorce and get out - it's not like you need anyone's permission.

by Anonymousreply 293July 7, 2019 10:23 PM

R293, True but the totally dishonest way Prince Charles chose to handle his marriage made it all the worse for Diana. Initially criticizing her for supposedly being too fat then questioning why she was so anorexic is but one example.

by Anonymousreply 294July 7, 2019 10:26 PM

True R294 but I would have asked him why he's so fug

by Anonymousreply 295July 7, 2019 10:33 PM

Well, she needed a good therapist from the start, that's for sure. And surely that was discouraged.

Marriages like that are a series of transactions. She should have given them all hell and made more demands as to what she'd be getting out of it - but, realistically, she was too young to assert herself in that way, straight out of the gate.

I'd love to see a key family member tell the queen to SHOVE IT. I mean, they all have plenty of money, for all practical purposes in this world, and don't really need the tight assed old bitch except to leech more more MORE.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 296July 7, 2019 10:33 PM

"R288 is like any other ignorant person who refuses to read, learn history and recognize the context in which things happen. Talk about a nutjob."

What would YOU know about "reading" and "history, you pitiful twat? You have the IQ of a block of wood. You're also crazy, a crazy Diana worshipper. Talk about an idiot! You're as stupid as Diana.

by Anonymousreply 297July 7, 2019 10:50 PM

[quote]Or, simply file for divorce and get out - it's not like you need anyone's permission.

R293. Yes, they needed permission. They couldn't just get divorced--as you say, like any other society matron. For a long while, the queen would not allow divorce. And the Buck House pr team descended upon them to present a more unified image, they tried that route. Read the book, watch the movie--it was not that easy or even allowed. The queen also asked Diana if she were ready to give up custody of her kids. Diana said no. And Charles told Diana that the kids belonged to England sort of holding the kids over her as a hostage prize--the same kids that he ignored for years. Charles should have been honest and never had gotten married. But he didn't have the balls to stand up to his parents. And Diana was seeing a therapist. Charles wouldn't do that. He wasn't giving in because he didn't want to do so..

At the beginning, Charles wasn't obsessed with marrying Camilla. He was happy having an affair with her since Camilla was married to another man. So an affair with Charles was fine. Diana is the one that objected to him continuing the affair. But aside from all that, what Charles really wanted was to be king--that was his focus, not marriage. He wanted his mother to relinquish some of her duties so that he could be more like a king. When Elizabeth saw that he was a mess and couldn't even handle a marriage, she determined that he couldn't handle the duties of the country and refused to give him much to do. The queen played a big factor in Charles' problems and hangups. That's when he turned to garden for therapy and "talking to his plants." This was not all Diana. Charles was a basket case because of his parents.

by Anonymousreply 298July 7, 2019 10:58 PM

By 1997, Diana was on her way to becoming irrelevant. Sadly, it took her dying tragically at 36 to secure an everlasting place in history.

by Anonymousreply 299July 7, 2019 11:27 PM

R299, my memory from then was that the paparazzi were nuts. She was front page fodder in every tabloid. As for r297, he/she can only yell TWAT. Really, r297–that’s not a good argument for your position as an anti-Diana troll. Makes you look like, well, a TWAT.

by Anonymousreply 300July 7, 2019 11:39 PM

R300 is right. The paparazzi were out of control in 1997 as they were almost always no matter the year. However, while a drunk driver caused the actual car accident, the reason he was driving so fast was to get away from an a surge of paparazzi who were chasing Diana. It was insane everywhere she went. Whatever the circumstances whether they chased her or she alerted them sometimes, she never had a moment's peace. Besides, if Diana alerted the media sometimes, it was a strategic move to get coverage for a particular moment. Where the media crossed the line was mobbing her at an airport when she couldn't get away, cornering her in an elevator or hotel lobby or staking themselves outside her front door so she or her kids couldn't move. There is a big difference between telling some members of the media that you will be having lunch at a certain restaurant versus them hunting her down so that she was unsafe.

by Anonymousreply 301July 7, 2019 11:56 PM

You have to admit, she had star quality and charisma in spades.

And separate from the photo ops, she visited AIDS patients frequently, quietly, with no press present.

by Anonymousreply 302July 8, 2019 12:03 AM

R299 True. I can see another failed marriage under her belt, maybe a big controversy involving a new relationship, an incident after a night of having had one too many, her making a public statement that is considered offensive, etc.

By the time Kate and William got married I can see her having become a less than beloved figure.

She seemed to panic at the thought of no longer being "Poor Diana, a victim of the evil Royal Family" and not getting the attention she was used to.

Her constant sad eyes during the "our marriage became a bit crowded" interview. An obvious ploy for sympathy and an obvious vindictive swipe at the Royals. I guess she had a makeup artist help her create her "sad" look.

Her publicity clock was definitely ticking.

by Anonymousreply 303July 8, 2019 12:04 AM

R302 Her star quality only emerged after she was given all the money in the world to spend on clothes, professionals helping her to look camera-ready, airbrushing, being photographed at the perfect angle, high-priced photographers and being told how to look her best in pictures, such as advising her on how to hold her head so that her nose wouldn't look quite so big.

by Anonymousreply 304July 8, 2019 12:07 AM

R303. Wishful thinking. Diana was a lot stronger than you thought. She may have had some setbacks, but when she wanted to come back or devote herself to a cause, she knew what she was doing and would have grown into an even more international figure if that's what she wanted to pursue.

R304. Again, wishful thinking. Diana had star quality from the start and incredible charisma. It only got stronger as the years went on. She may have ups and downs along the way, but Diana's star continued to rise. And yes, having money and knowing how to shape an image is usually how star quality is further developed. That's how it works. On the other hand, Charles had all the money in the world and pretty much had no charisma.

by Anonymousreply 305July 8, 2019 12:14 AM

"Diana is just as tiresome in death as she was when she was alive." On watching the crowds outside Kensington Palace.

" a (Mountbatten) always did enjoy making a splash." As her coffin was buried at sea.

by Anonymousreply 306July 8, 2019 12:14 AM

"Diana had star quality from the start and incredible charisma."

You're an idiot. Before she obtained all the perks of being a Princess, she was a reasonably pretty, somewhat plump, uneducated Sloane Ranger. Her hair was a mousy dark blonde, not the gold of later years, and she had no idea how to dress, wearing sheer skirts with no undergarment beneath it. And "charisma?" She came across in her first public interview announcing her engagement to Charles (the one where she's wearing the ill-fitting blue Harrods suit and the blouse with the unflattering bow) as uncomfortable, ill at ease, and very articulate. Even after she got the Royal makeover she had nothing that could be called "charisma"; she just had the pull of great wealth and celebrity. Diana was an emotionally disturbed dunce. No charisma, there.

by Anonymousreply 307July 8, 2019 12:24 AM

Bullshit r307. Europe—hell, the world—is full of royals with just as much advantage as Diana. She definitely had a way with the public. Made even more impressive with what you describe as her frumpish looks. No doubt she had help in the looks department but there are plenty of royals who were just as advantaged but did not make the impression she did. And I says this as someone who is not enamored of the royal family and the free extravagant life they’re given.

by Anonymousreply 308July 8, 2019 12:33 AM

R304 Diana spent way more on clothes when she was married to Charles, she billed The Foreign Office around $300,000 for their first 16 day Australia tour in 1983.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 309July 8, 2019 12:38 AM

R307. No charisma? Yeah, right. Look at the tapes of Diana and Charles walking the rope lines when they would pay a visit anywhere. Part of Charles' moodiness, bitchiness and jealousy of Diana is that very few wanted to greet him any longer. They wanted Diana. There were hundreds of people everyday who were visibly disappointed if they were on the wrong side of the street when Diana and Charles would work their respective crowds. They wanted her, not him. It drove him mad.

And sure, a 19-year old kindergarden teacher is not going to have as much charisma as a royal woman, but once Diana got the knack of how to connect with people, reach out to the disadvantaged, turn on the charm, mix with the people and heads of state and yes, to to wear nice clothes and look beautiful representing her country, no one could touch her. That's what charisma is. Compare Diana to Princess Anne. Both had access to extreme wealth, clothes, fashion, etc. And both were hard-working royals. But Diana had it way over Anne in charm, personality, style, grace and let's face it, looks. It doesn't diminish Anne's good works, but Diana the outsider now the insider was the star of the show, and everyone else was a supporting player.

by Anonymousreply 310July 8, 2019 1:04 AM

"No charisma? Yeah, right."

Yes, right. There's no 'charisma" in wearing expensive clothes and having your hair perfectly coiffed. There's no "charisma" in being touchy-feely with simpering fans. As a personality Diana was a big zero. She was, as they say, all flash and no substance.

by Anonymousreply 311July 8, 2019 1:12 AM

[quote]r298 they needed permission [to divorce]. They couldn't just get divorced--as you say, like any other society matron. For a long while, the queen would not allow divorce.

Pure and utter bullshit. Even if Big Liz discouraged a divorce, Di had enough dirt to spill on Charles the palace would have supported anything.

[quote]And the Buck House pr team descended upon them to present a more unified image, they tried that route.

No one said divorce is EASY, or painless. Or cheap. But she was no prisoner.

by Anonymousreply 312July 8, 2019 1:17 AM

Let's all just take a moment to step back, let tempers cool, and put on her face.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 313July 8, 2019 1:21 AM

Diana's sisters looked like they were in their 60's when they were in their 40's; that dowdy matronly tweedy upper class British set who wear very minimal makeup- if any at all- don't colour their hair, restrained to the point they look like 1950's middle class housewives despite their wealth. Diana certainly got all the looks in that family, but she also took the time to enhance what she had.

Diana's brother Earl Cunt Spencer has always pinged to high heaven; bloated old queen mincing around Althorpe like Louis XVI sans pancake makeup and powdered wig, could be Elton's twin brother. Did anyone see Diana's sisters' Dick Tracy outfit at Prince Ginger Nigger's christening? She looked like an old lesbian on vacation, she made Camilla look good, which isn't easy. Prince William looks like a boiled egg in a suit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 314July 8, 2019 1:28 AM

Do the Diana experts here think she waxed her muff?

Is there any evidence?

by Anonymousreply 315July 8, 2019 1:43 AM

R312. You are ridiculous. Hardly anything you say is based on fact. No, Charles and Diana could not divorce for a long time. The queen would not allow it. The gray men who ran Buckingham Palace and set the schedule for the entire royal family would not allow it. They just continued scheduling commitments for everyone. Elizabeth would only agree to a trial separation. You seem to have no idea of the importance of the monarchy to Elizabeth. She would not given custody of the boys to Diana if she divorced when Charles and Diana first brought up the subject. Yes, Diana was in effect being held hostage. Elizabeth is always keenly aware of how fragile things can become. Elizabeth herself is only on the throne because her uncle abdicated in the '30s leaving her father to become king. And the queen mother (Elizabeth's mother who was the Duchess of York at the time) continued to blame the Duke and Duchess of Windsor for her husband's (Elizabeth's father) poor health and being unprepared to be king. As a result and to preserve the monarchy, Elizabeth pledged as a young queen to devote her entire life to her country no matter what--and that included anything that would put the monarchy in danger. So no, when divorce was first brought up, the queen would not allow it because she thought it would damage the monarchy.

As for Diana "spilling the dirt" as you say--thinking that would have done the trick? No, that didn't even work. If you recall, Diana worked with author Andrew Morton on the book, "Diana: Her True Story,." That book was huge and spilled all the beans in 1992--and even then the queen did not allow divorce. The queen eventually gave in, but Charles and Diana did not officially divorce until 1996. It took a long time. Both Charles and Diana were essentially held hostage. They were miserable with each other, but it took time to break up the marriage.

by Anonymousreply 316July 8, 2019 1:45 AM

Diana's sister Sarah (the redhead) dated Charles. That's how Diana first met Charlies; her sister Sarah introduced her to him. She was 16 years old at the time and bedazzled by the Prince of Wales. Charles and Sarah dated for a while, then the relationship withered. She really wasn't interested in a permanent relationship with him. He reconnected with Diana at a Sussex house party and one observer noted that she was "looking up at him...giggling, trying furiously to make an impression." She had set her cap for him. Charles' valet said "she went after the Prince with single-minded determination and she got him." He was flattered the attention he got from the attractive teenager. So they ended up married, these two people so ill-suited for each other. If it was a huge mistake, it was one they both made.

by Anonymousreply 317July 8, 2019 1:59 AM

R312. The incident that finally triggered the divorce of Charles and Diana was when Diana did the "Panorama", which was a 60 Minutes-type interview with Martin Bashir in 1995. It was then that Diana talked about how miserable things had become and she wasn't sure if Charles was equipped to become king. She then verbally named a "third person in the marriage," referring to Camilla, who she charged was the root cause of Charles' infidelity. And then she admitted to an affair herself. The queen finally then gave in.

But it was the year before Diana's interview--in 1994--when Charles had gone on television admitting to cheating with Camilla, and yet there was still no divorce. Diana wore the little black "revenge dress" the night of Charles interview when he admitted to cheating. Diana was looked at as this sophisticated beauty and ultimate Princess of Wales, while Charles was viewed an an asshole all over the world.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 318July 8, 2019 2:06 AM

r315 I have 3 strands of her pubic hair for sale on ebay, for some reason Sotheby's and Christie's refused to auction them. I also have a used tampon of Diana's and a colonic irrigation tube she used.

by Anonymousreply 319July 8, 2019 2:14 AM

R317. Yes, Diana's sister, Sarah, wanted Charles. But the reason the relationship withered is because Sarah talked to the press about her relationship with Charles. That is a major no-no in royal circles. Those dating a member of the royal family cannot talk to the press. Sarah did and and as a result, Charles lost interest and put an end to the relationship.

When Charles met Diana, he was under enormous pressure from his parents to find a wife. He was losing his mind, tormented and conflicted. Sure Diana set her sights on him and Camilla even gave her approval. Back then, the future wife of the Prince of Wales and future queen had to be a virgin of so everyone thought because the royal family didn't want past boyfriends coming out of the woodwork saying they had sex with the future queen. At a young age, Diana qualified; Camilla did not. Camilla was not a virgin; she was already married to someone else and she was cheating on him. So Diana, even though early on she may have wanted Charles, was as she said, "lamb to the slaughter." These two never should have gotten married. Their ages and their life's goals were hugely different.

Diana changed everything regarding the virgin thing. Kate wasn't a virgin when she got married, but by then it was okay. The royal family had learned its lesson. Back the fuck off every woman who might marry into this dysfunctional family. And the future Prince of Wales and future king cannot be openly or otherwise cheating on his wife. You can't have that double standard any longer. So at least that archaic notion of virginity along with the Internet of nailing people at every turn if they stray has made the royal family a bit more realistic.

by Anonymousreply 320July 8, 2019 2:25 AM

[quote]r316 No, Charles and Diana could not divorce for a long time. The queen would not allow it. The gray men who ran Buckingham Palace and set the schedule for the entire royal family would not allow it.

You are going off tradition, not legality. You are confusing what would be seemly with what would be possible.

Had Di been serious, she was free to file divorce papers at any time. Even if this were later challenged in court by the crown. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE that she would have been legally ordered to stay lashed to a marriage she demanded out of.

But, she chose to stay. And that's why I don't see her as a victim.

by Anonymousreply 321July 8, 2019 2:39 AM

" Diana was looked at as this sophisticated beauty and ultimate Princess of Wales, while Charles was viewed an an asshole all over the world."

You don't speak for the masses, you idiot. Diana was "looked at" as a slutty (couldn't keep her legs closed, that one), whining, loony airhead by a great many people. She was all of those things. My God, her last lover was the atrocious Dodi Fayed! If that doesn't prove she was a slutty dimwit I don't know what does.

by Anonymousreply 322July 8, 2019 2:48 AM

R321. Neither one of them really wanted a divorce, which is why it took so long. But before going forward with divorce, they did have to consult the queen and consider family matters, obligations and kids. That's why they agreed to a separation at first, which is not all that unusual with any married couple. Sarah and Andrew agreed to a separation and then eventually divorced. You separate first to see if that sort of works--if it doesn't and in most cases it doesn't--then you divorce. Royal couples don't just divorce right off the bat.

Diana wasn't a victim of divorce. She was a victim of a shitty marriage. I believe she always loved Charles and wanted the marriage to work somehow. She loved him, but he loved another woman and always did so from the days when his parents were pressuring him to marry a suitable woman which Camilla was not . Diana came from divorced parents; she did not want that for her own kids as illogical as that may sound, but a lot of parents think that way before they divorce. They thought the separation might work: Charles would fulfill his public duties and Diana would fulfill hers. But ultimately, the separation didn't work because the monarchy couldn't have the prince and princess going on television airing dirty laundry. It was then the queen--and finally Charles and Diana also agreed to come to the table and end this thing.

by Anonymousreply 323July 8, 2019 3:04 AM

What did we think of this?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 324July 8, 2019 3:16 AM

R322. No, Dodi was not a suitable partner. He was a summer fling who she dated for six weeks, and which would have ended had they lived. On the other hand, Camilla was not popular at all. She was viewed as the evil other woman. She was pretty much loathed by the public and largely blamed for interfering in Diana's marriage. While her approval among the public has improved now--we're not talking now--we're talking in 1997. Diana was still enormously popular. She was not looked at as you say as "slutty who couldn't keep her legs closed." That's utterly ridiculous and simply not true. After her holiday with Dodi, in August 1997 she embarked on her campaign against land mines in Angola. Her popularity was back on the rise.

If you want to argue facts, then argue facts, dates, projects, public appearances, but these outrageous, shoot from the hip "slutty" claims were not the sentiment of the general public even if some people might have said it. By the end of August when she died, there would not have been the outpouring off emotion and grief if people didn't like her. Quite the opposite, they loved her.

by Anonymousreply 325July 8, 2019 3:19 AM

[quote] r33 Actually, she's dead because she gave up (or had to give up) her royal protection officers and so had the fools who worked for Al Fayed

Wasn't there speculation she was blowing the driver, and THAT'S why they crashed?

by Anonymousreply 326July 8, 2019 3:33 AM

R326. With paparazzi chasing them, I doubt it.

Yes, in the terms of the divorce, Diana never should have given up royal protection. She would still be alive today because the royal protection officers never would have allowed her into that car with that driver. She would have been driven by the royal protection personnel. Diana wanted to be an independent woman and so she agreed to give up the royal protection. Charles and the queen knew she would need royal protection staff, but they didn't push her because they were trying to save money. An all-around bad decision by everyone.

by Anonymousreply 327July 8, 2019 3:44 AM

She certainly could have afforded her OWN security. After a lot of haggling she settled for 22 million, all her jewelry except one tiara, her 3 floor apartment in Kensington Palace, $600,000 in annual salary for her personal staff, and use of the royal jets.

It never pays to be cheap where it counts. As she learned.

by Anonymousreply 328July 8, 2019 3:55 AM

Whilst in the thick of the divorce

by Anonymousreply 329July 8, 2019 4:57 AM

Link should work this time

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 330July 8, 2019 5:03 AM

00:18 mark "I'm going to get three quarters of what I want...."

She was haggling for MORE? She probably didn't file for divorce a decade earlier because they wouldn't meet her mercenary demands.

by Anonymousreply 331July 8, 2019 5:39 AM

R330. Great to hear both Diana and George Michael so upbeat and cheerful. Thanks for posting.

by Anonymousreply 332July 8, 2019 6:19 AM

If you don't see what a BEAUTIFUL and perfect precious ANGEL idolized by MILLIONS that Princess Diana was, and what a MONSTER Charles is, then I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU!!!

READ SOME HISTORY BOOKS!

[italic]LEAVE. DIANA. ALONE!!!![/italic]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 333July 8, 2019 7:55 AM

She dated Dodi Al Fayed and was rumoured to be negotiating to star in a sequel to The Bodyguard with Kevin Costner... she was all class....it would have been a quick decline to d- grade celebrity. A mother of the future king of England dating a mussy and acting in a trashy movie! I think her sons are lucky she died when she did, she would have embarrassed the hell out of them otherwise. She'd probably be living in Beverley Hills now, she might even have her own reality show ala Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Douching with Diana perhaps?

by Anonymousreply 334July 8, 2019 11:12 AM

She was not going to do that Bodyguard idiocy. There is a whole bunch of stories the Daily Maul just ran with memories of Diana by people who knew her. There were several and I can't be arsed to find the one I mean (but they're good reading, truth be told.). In any even she found Costner's ridiculous notion quite amusing, but as a joke, not an opportunity. One thing that comes across quite clear is that for all her warmth, Diana was inherently aristocratic... she knew what she was about, where she came from, who here people were and that gave her an instinctive response to crass and trash and the ability to be snobby, if she wanted to be. Just as she could indulge in trash if she wanted. The difference was she knew exactly what he was doing.

by Anonymousreply 335July 8, 2019 12:20 PM

Oh for fuck's sake, r335. She wore skintight jeans and bopped around Kensington Palace listening to early 80s Britpop on her Walkman. Her favorite movie star was John Travolta. The only books she ever read were the trashy erotica written by her stepmother's mother, Barbara Cartland.

This wasn't some sort of aristocratic slumming she did in order to be ironic. She had awful taste.

by Anonymousreply 336July 8, 2019 12:26 PM

Yes, she was a total disaster in fashion. You're an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 337July 8, 2019 1:02 PM

R336 can't even comprehend aristocracy. You're. an idiot. And blocked.

by Anonymousreply 338July 8, 2019 1:02 PM

A visitor to her apartment at Kensington Palace once observed a framed photo of Elton John in her toilet and asked why it was there, Diana had the shits with him so banished his photo to the loo, which apparently she did regularly with photographs of intimates she was cranky with. If all these people who worship at the altar of Diana really got to know her, the real her; petty, manipulative, melodramatic, unhinged, snobby, elitist, selfish, moping victim mentality, they'd have a vastly different opinion of her. She needed a psychiatrist and some lithium long before Charles came on the scene.

by Anonymousreply 339July 8, 2019 1:13 PM

She made up with Elton the day Versace was murdered and attended Versaces funeral with him, 8wks later he sang at her funeral....

by Anonymousreply 340July 8, 2019 1:49 PM

What was their feud about? Both Elton and Diana were high strung hysterics with precious egos.

by Anonymousreply 341July 8, 2019 2:11 PM

[quote]r339 A visitor to her apartment at Kensington Palace once observed a framed photo of Elton John in her toilet

Actually IN the toilet? Like, she was shitting on it??

Why am I not surprised?

#classy

by Anonymousreply 342July 8, 2019 2:23 PM

More like Princess of WHALES!

by Anonymousreply 343July 8, 2019 2:24 PM

Well said R339, well said.

You summed her up perfectly.

by Anonymousreply 344July 8, 2019 2:57 PM

Diana always acted as though she was the People’s Princess, but she sure as hell didn’t mind letting you know who she was

by Anonymousreply 345July 8, 2019 3:04 PM

I was 17 when she died and didn't really follow the royals, but since the rags insisted on featuring her in their issues, including the cover a lot of the times, she was inescapable.! Anyway, the impression I got was that she was starstruck with celebrity and Hollywood and seemed to enjoy the attention. At least the adulation. She really did seem lie a yacht girl toward the end.

by Anonymousreply 346July 8, 2019 3:20 PM

If Diana had not died, she probably would have wound up like Princess Margaret.

by Anonymousreply 347July 8, 2019 3:21 PM

Diana was a beacon of light who lifted us up. I still miss that aristocratic, good ol' broad.

by Anonymousreply 348July 8, 2019 5:37 PM

The thing about Diana, yeah she wasn't a raving beauty, bu she had a gentle quality to her that made her endearing.

I remember when she walked across the landmines. It was a big deal and she brought so much awareness to the issue. You just don't get that same level of awareness with other royals, who do the same exact thing.

You're not getting it with Kate, Camilla, or Meghan. Diana hugged an AIDS patient, and suddenly it was ok to have AIDS. She had some kind of power like that. It's extra sad from a humanitarian standpoint, because she could have thrown her notoriety towards so many good causes. All the good she could have done had she lived on, gone.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 349July 8, 2019 5:48 PM

[quote]Diana's sisters looked like they were in their 60's when they were in their 40's

LOL, so I guess that now that they ARE in their 60s they must look 80

by Anonymousreply 350July 8, 2019 6:00 PM

R331 & R332 To me that doesn't sound like either one of them. George had a softer more high-pitched voice. The way he sounded when he sang was how he sounded when he talked. The man in this recording has a deeper voice. Diana spoke with a 'posh' accent. She didn't sound common like that.

by Anonymousreply 351July 8, 2019 6:08 PM

I heard that Diana paid a poor person to walk through the minefield before she walked through it. You know, just be safe. I mean she could be charitable but get-her-foot-blown-off-in-order-to-bring-attention-to-a-horrible-tragic-problem charitable.

by Anonymousreply 352July 8, 2019 9:20 PM

R349. So true, nicely stated. It would be wonderful to have an international figure shine a light on those who need help. Diana had so much good work ahead of her to do. So sad she's gone. No one since has been able to take the humanitarian mantle as she did.

by Anonymousreply 353July 8, 2019 9:33 PM

Diana had so many future yachts to pose on, Diana assumed that the people of Pakistan would worship her as their "Queen", Diana had so many more sad faces she wanted to make while being interviewed, Diana had so much relationship meddling to accomplish as far as her two sons are concerned, Diana had so many more snazzy outfits she wanted to share with the world, Diana still had a list of all of the mean things the Royal Family did to her that she wanted to share with us...

Diana would not be at all relevant by now.

by Anonymousreply 354July 8, 2019 9:46 PM

If Margaret had died in the early 60s, the world would have had a similar reaction. The loss of a young(ish) and beautiful royal woman really ramps up the public grief tsunami.

If Diana had lived as long as Margaret, I truly believe she'd have had met a similarly ignominious end. They were both vain, vapid, and selfish creatures.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 355July 8, 2019 9:52 PM

Beautiful-ish. Well, not ugly anyway.

by Anonymousreply 356July 8, 2019 9:54 PM

Can't wait for the frau-fury when this thread goes behind the paywall.

by Anonymousreply 357July 8, 2019 9:55 PM

Ha--agreed, R356. Margaret was lovely for a normal woman, plain for an actress, and beautiful for a princess. The standards are different when you have an HRH in front of your name.

by Anonymousreply 358July 8, 2019 9:56 PM

What do you mean 'beautiful for a princess'? Isn't it the standard for princesses to be physically beautiful?

by Anonymousreply 359July 8, 2019 9:58 PM

I'm excited too R357!!

by Anonymousreply 360July 8, 2019 10:03 PM

You people who can only name call and act like morons are free to leave.

by Anonymousreply 361July 8, 2019 10:04 PM

Yeah, all you morons who are calling Diana beautiful, worthwhile, genuine, important, a nice person, a person of value - get out of here!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 362July 8, 2019 10:07 PM

R359, the standard for princesses is to be called beautiful. But most of them aren't, unless they are beautiful women who married in. Margaret was attractive when young, but no more so than your average pretty housewife. But stick a tiara on her head and an HRH in front of her name, and suddenly she's a goddess to the press and public. She was never even close to the level of beauty Diana or Kate Middleton had when they were in their twenties. Compare Diana and Kate in their thirties to Margaret at that same age, and the comparison is almost more painful. She turned into a leathery skinned matron shockingly quickly.

by Anonymousreply 363July 8, 2019 10:09 PM

Princess Grace was the only truly beautiful princess.

by Anonymousreply 364July 8, 2019 10:13 PM

R363 Same thing with President Kennedy. "He was so young and so handsome!!! Well, young and handsome when compared to how the presidents who came before him looked. In the real world? Nothing special."

by Anonymousreply 365July 8, 2019 10:14 PM

The OP photo of Diana is gorgeous. She was a beautiful woman. Her style, grace and good works made her even more so.

by Anonymousreply 366July 8, 2019 10:16 PM

Agree R364.

by Anonymousreply 367July 8, 2019 10:17 PM

Seriously R365?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 368July 8, 2019 10:19 PM

[quote]r359 What do you mean 'beautiful for a princess'? Isn't it the standard for princesses to be physically beautiful?

Mmmmmmm .... well, in fairy tales, yes.

But in life they're mostly inbred rabbits. I mean, look at Big Liz when she was young. This is a local librarian's face (at best). Not horrible - but not beautiful, either.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 369July 8, 2019 10:20 PM

Yes, Princess Grace was classic old-school Hollywood actress beautiful, and those were some of the toughest standards of beauty imaginable. There is no comparing her to other beautiful royals, even beautiful married-ins like Kate and Diana.

JFK Jr. was Hollywood hot. His father was not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 370July 8, 2019 10:20 PM

Beatrice and Eugenie aren't even princess beautiful, poor dears. Anne was for a hot minute in the very early 70s, but as soon as she married the matron came out and never left.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 371July 8, 2019 10:23 PM

I agree that Elizabeth was never beautiful. Margaret was princess-beautiful when she was quite young.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 372July 8, 2019 10:25 PM

Some interviewer asked her why she did charity work and she said "what else do I have to do?!" and punctuated her statement with an "airhead screech." Silly cow.

by Anonymousreply 373July 8, 2019 10:25 PM

Queen Victoria's daughters. Not one beauty in the bunch.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 374July 8, 2019 10:27 PM

Diana was striking. She became even more beautiful in her 30s. There haven't been many who came close to her. Diana was the "it" girl.

by Anonymousreply 375July 8, 2019 10:28 PM

We can thank Princess Margaret for her hunky grandson, Arthur Chatto.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 376July 8, 2019 10:36 PM

Your point R374?

by Anonymousreply 377July 8, 2019 10:37 PM

We can thank Princess Margaret for her hunky grandson, Arthur Chatto.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 378July 8, 2019 10:38 PM

At one point during all of the cover of John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s death a news anchor asked, "Will this [Jr.'s death] affect business? Does this have political significance?"

As if to say, "How do we justify all of the attention we are giving to what amounts to a celebrity death?"

Diana and John-John, they were both celebrity deaths. Nothing more. Celebrity deaths that received a disproportionate amount of media attention and public reaction.

by Anonymousreply 379July 8, 2019 10:41 PM

My point, R377, is that most blood princesses are not beautiful. Many are not even attractive.

by Anonymousreply 380July 8, 2019 10:45 PM

R379. You're wrong. But believe whatever makes you happy and wrong.

by Anonymousreply 381July 8, 2019 10:45 PM

R380 Oh.

My point was that not many U.S. Presidents were attractive which is why President Kennedy was repeatedly called handsome. You and I made the very same point.

by Anonymousreply 382July 9, 2019 12:21 AM

[quote]Princess Grace was the only truly beautiful princess.

Now there was a slut!

by Anonymousreply 383July 9, 2019 12:57 AM

Princess Madeleine of Sweden is the prettiest princess by blood that I can think of.

by Anonymousreply 384July 9, 2019 3:38 AM

William and Harry talk about their mother:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 385July 9, 2019 4:57 AM

[quote] You're. an idiot. And blocked.

Not THAT! Anything but THAT!!

by Anonymousreply 386July 9, 2019 6:40 AM

[quote] Isn't it the standard for princesses to be physically beautiful?

Not in real life.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 387July 9, 2019 6:48 AM

(30) Dutch - you are absolutely correct. Diana was not that special except for her tallness and anorexic figure, had a good head of hair and really needed a nose job. Her bro has a cute nose, so does her mother.

by Anonymousreply 388July 9, 2019 7:14 AM

[quote} she's dead because she gave up (or had to give up) her royal protection officers and so had the fools who worked for Al Fayed looking after her the night she died. Otherwise she had no protection.

You hire chauffeur named Toonces and you'll get what you asked for.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 389July 9, 2019 7:20 AM

R351 George himself recorded it on his answer phone, he was very open about that, suppose he wanted to cover his ass incase media started making things up.

by Anonymousreply 390July 9, 2019 7:25 AM

Remember when some radio station rang her pretending to be Stephen Hawkin using some aut0- tune like voice distortion device and asked her stupid questions and the dumb cow believe them!

by Anonymousreply 391July 9, 2019 11:38 AM

she sounded like she had bipolar

by Anonymousreply 392July 9, 2019 12:14 PM

R391/2 While still married?? How did a dj get her personal number, imagine that went down well with palace security!!

by Anonymousreply 393July 9, 2019 1:04 PM

^Her number was on my caller ID

by Anonymousreply 394July 9, 2019 2:01 PM

The Princesshesh of Waleshesh!

by Anonymousreply 395July 9, 2019 2:43 PM

Diana probably thought she was an intellectual at Hawkin's level and that she'd had a real intellectual conversation and that he consider her his equal.

by Anonymousreply 396July 9, 2019 2:51 PM

R391 could you elaborate more on that?

by Anonymousreply 397July 9, 2019 3:45 PM

Ok, well I was 14 at the time of her death and I remember it was like Oprah and Michael Jackson combined dying. I mean she was huge. She was on Paris Match tabloids. The French movie Amelie even has a scene where the characters talk about Lady Dee.

I remember looking at the newspaper "Princess Diana killed in car crash" and my mom just saying how sad it was. My dad was like yep, oh well. That's life. I was devastated. I had just gotten a "Look Who's a Teen Idol" People Magazine with Prince William. Towards the end of her life she really was ramping up the charity stuff.

Course now that I'm her age I look at her interviews and its like she knew what she was doing, playing for peoples' sympathy. She's just as nutty as Meg. At least she was the best at pretending to care . The royal family should put Bono to shame.

by Anonymousreply 398July 10, 2019 12:48 AM

R398. Yes, when Diana was participating in her charity events, she knew what she was doing. Would you prefer that she didn't? By knowing what she was doing, her participation led to greater public awareness and more financial contributions, which was generally the point. The rest of your post and its implication is ridiculous and ignorant. And by the way Diana was nothing like the entitled, self-aggrandizing while demanding privacy, Markle.

by Anonymousreply 399July 10, 2019 1:07 AM

Any of you who fucked the Princess of Wales, step forward.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 400July 10, 2019 1:12 AM

She was one of those fake people who constantly wailed about being in the public eye while never staying OUT of it.

by Anonymousreply 401July 10, 2019 5:05 AM

Remember when the press gave George Clooney the cold shoulder at the premiere of his movie THE PEACEMAKER (co-starring Nicole Kidman) because he had made some disparaging remarks about the paparazzi upon Diana's death. It was so weird how he (a mere TV actor at the time) inserted himself in that whole mess.

by Anonymousreply 402July 10, 2019 6:00 AM

Exactly 401. She didn't want to give it all up. If you don't like it, abdicate and marry wallis simpson.

by Anonymousreply 403July 10, 2019 9:00 PM

Personally, I wonder why Chuck/Big Liz couldn't find a blue blood girl who knew the score: You get to be Queen someday, you get to be Queen Mother someday, you get the jewels, the money, etc etc, but you don't get a love match. Surely SOME aristocratic girl would've been like "Fine by me!"

And for all the stories of people warning Di not to go through with it, did any of them say "He's a mess, his heart is spoken for, it's just an arrangement"

by Anonymousreply 404July 10, 2019 9:27 PM

R404. Charles had several girlfriends, rumored girlfriends and dates along the way. None of them wanted him or that fishbowl life. Camilla even married Andrew Parker-Bowles in 1973 when Charles left to join the military. But Camilla was a cheater too and cheated on her husband Andrew. Fidelity and trying to hold a marriage together is not something these people value. Although everyone thought she was "Shy Di," Diana was not a subservient wife and put her foot down and demanded Camilla be gone before and after Diana and Charles married. Charles was one fucked up, tormented person who was forced into a marriage by his parents and had no regard for Diana or being faithful to her.

by Anonymousreply 405July 10, 2019 9:57 PM

[quote]r406 Charles had several girlfriends, rumored girlfriends, and dates along the way. None of them wanted him or that fishbowl life.

This really goes a long way toward showing what miserable company he must be.

Practically no one would marry him, even to be the future queen of england (!?!?)

by Anonymousreply 406July 11, 2019 12:08 AM

PS: it sounds like Di was basically a star fucker, setting her sights on him.

by Anonymousreply 407July 11, 2019 12:09 AM

I give Meghan five years maximum before we have another Fergie-like departure.

by Anonymousreply 408July 11, 2019 12:12 AM

Diana was not some common girl. She was nobility and grew up in wealth. Before she hooked up with Charles, she was slumming it as a nanny and then a daycare center because she wasn't doing anything with her life, not because she needed the money. Her parents were paying for her London apartment. Diana was a poor student and didn't seem to have any lofty ambitions.

by Anonymousreply 409July 11, 2019 12:15 AM

R408. Fergie never really left. She and Andrew are joined at the hip forever. They like each other no matter what. On the other hand, if Markle leaves, she is never coming back. She won't want to--and they don't like her there now anyway.

by Anonymousreply 410July 11, 2019 12:23 AM

R409. Diana had lofty ambitions; she just didn't know what they were going to be. It was one of the reasons she remained a virgin. She was to have said when she was about 18 or so that she was saving herself for something/someone special. She just didn't know what it would be. During her daycare/kindergarten work days, she was a bit directionless as many 18-year olds are. She was still young, and while she was wondering where life would take her, she was not without ambition.

by Anonymousreply 411July 11, 2019 12:29 AM

[quote]She was to have said when she was about 18 or so that she was saving herself for something/someone special.

Many girls are like that. It's not unique to Diana.

by Anonymousreply 412July 11, 2019 12:35 AM

[quote] and had no regard for Diana or being faithful to her.

It's good to be da king, or at least da prince.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 413July 11, 2019 12:39 AM

By all accurate accounts, Charles was faithful to Diana until he finally realized the marriage was a lost cause. All the shit about him being unfaithful to her virtually from the day they were married was sheer paranoia on Diana's part. By the way, there's a very good biography of Diana called "Diana In Search of Herself; Portrait of a Troubled Princess" by Sally Bedell Smith. It really does a great job of showing Diana the way she really was, without any fawning or sugarcoating. Of course Diana worshippers don't like it because it does not flatter their Princess and does not portray Charles as evil incarnate. It's an unbiased account of Diana Spencer's life. Sally Bedell Smith also did a biography of Charles. That's pretty good too, and it does the same thing; it shows him for what he is, a troubled man who has been under extreme pressure his whole life, but by no means the monster Diana fans like to paint him as.

by Anonymousreply 414July 11, 2019 1:12 AM

R414. By all accurate accounts? By whom, Charles; friends who defended his cheating no matter what? Charles was cheating from the start--even before the start of his marriage to Diana. He and Camilla were talking on the phone, exchanging gifts, telling her he loved her, etc., even on his honeymoon with Diana he was having secret phone calls with Camilla. Then very early on in his marriage he was escaping to his country house, Highgrove, every weekend where he was basically living with Camilla, entertaining their friends, having dinners, staying overnight together, etc. Was he escaping to Highgrove to meet Camilla to play charades and read books? And Camilla was married too. Please, he must have thought his marriage was a lost cause very early on because he was cheating from the start. Don't defend him. He was douchebag, selfish, self-centered and expected everyone to kiss his ass and let him do what he wanted. He was miserable because his parents pressured him into getting married because he didn't want to and couldn't find anyone. He may not have been happy with Diana, and perhaps he tried for a bit with her, but he was a moody, unhappy man even before he married Diana, so he left the marriage very early on. Charles played a huge part in breaking the marriage due to his own unhappiness.

by Anonymousreply 415July 11, 2019 1:41 AM

Diana knew about Camilla. Wasn't Charles asked "are you in love?" during the engagement photo op; he answered "whatever in love means". Diana must have been able to process the meaning of that answer. Yet she chose to continue with the engagement and marriage. She wanted fame and fortune. She had a narrow, boring life and wanted more. Yet she was dull and of low intelligence (failing her O levels...). Charles was her ticket to adventure and wealth.

by Anonymousreply 416July 11, 2019 2:05 AM

R414. Elizabeth said she wanted to see Charles become king in her lifetime. Elizabeth was not going to abdicate, but instead was going to start giving him more responsibilities, which is what he wanted. Becoming king was Charles' one and only focus. Marrying Camilla was not even a priority. He would have been okay if he were allowed to continue his affair with her. But Diana was not going to let that happen because she was married and wanted to make things work. However, Elizabeth totally backed off when it became apparent that Charles was unhappy and disagreeable, and she saw that he was not even trying to hold his marriage together, long before it fell apart. The whole family knew he was taking off to the country with Camilla. Elizabeth then said if he couldn't handle a marriage, no way was she going to share any of her sovereign duties. This significantly added to Charles's depression. The breakdown of the marriage was not solely Diana's doing. Charles was a basket case, full of unhappiness and a bag of nerves not knowing what he was doing trying to juggle a wife and a mistress.

by Anonymousreply 417July 11, 2019 2:06 AM

"Charles was cheating from the start."

Is that you, Dimwit Diana, speaking from the grave? People who knew BOTH of them knew Charles was NOT cheating on Diana from the beginning, unless you consider "cheating" remaining friends with a woman you'd once been involved with. Charles was still FRIENDS with Camilla. He thought Diana was mature enough to understand but until the day she died she had the maturity of a jealous, insecure 15 year old.

by Anonymousreply 418July 11, 2019 2:18 AM

Oh yes, Charles and Camilla were just friends. They didn't touch each other or spend the night together every time Charles stormed off to meet Camilla at Highgrove. Diana never caught Charles exchanging gifts and telling Camilla that he loved her. Yeah right. Oh yeah, friends always do that. And Diana was just supposed to understand while she was a young married woman then eventually with two small kids. Because all young married women of course understand when their husbands take off to see the mistress, oh I mean, friend. And then he still didn't want a divorce. He just wanted to keep on having his affair with his friend. Neither one of them should have been married to each other. But the fault was not all Diana's. Charles was cheating all the while and justifying it. He didn't even want to be around his kids never mind his wife. Grow up.

by Anonymousreply 419July 11, 2019 2:54 AM

"Charles was cheating all the while and justifying it. He didn't even want to be around his kids never mind his wife. Grow up."

No he wasn't, you hysterical fool. And if anybody needs "growing up", it's you, you loony Di troll. You're about the same mental/emotional age dipsy doodle Diana always was; 14 or 15, maybe.

by Anonymousreply 420July 11, 2019 2:58 AM

Charles, you're never going to be be king because you're a cheater.

by Anonymousreply 421July 11, 2019 3:03 AM

Charles Caught Kissing Boy Toy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 422July 11, 2019 3:04 AM

Re: Diana married Charles for fame and fortune. Of course she did, but no one, least of all Diana, had any idea that she would become the global superstar of the century. Before Diana, royal reporting was a fairly tepid band of about a dozen core photographers and reporters. She came along at the right time and things just took off. For years it was said the Queen and the rest of the royal family kept waiting for interest in Diana to die down. I always wondered if seeing the wife of Prince Charles become so famous, on such a new and totally different level, that a few of Charles’ former girlfriends didn’t feel a twinge of regret at turning him down.

by Anonymousreply 423July 11, 2019 3:40 AM

No matter what they do the ghost of Diana will follow Charles and Camilla around for the rest of their lives.

by Anonymousreply 424July 11, 2019 3:55 AM

^It never bothered them when she was alive, why should it bother them 22 years later?

by Anonymousreply 425July 11, 2019 12:41 PM

^the public will never forget

by Anonymousreply 426July 11, 2019 12:48 PM

A hypothetical. Ask yourself this when considering Charles and Camilla, I'm sure there's been many a gay man in this situation; You're in love with someone; deeply, passionately, lustfully. Your parents don't approve of this person and subsequently encourage/force you to marry someone else whom you don't love and have little in common with. Now you're married to someone you hardly know and have little feeling for but whom you have to remain married and produce children with all the while you're told you're never to see the person whom you do love ever again. What would you do?

by Anonymousreply 427July 11, 2019 2:02 PM

Diana told friends that one reason she was so eager to marry Charles was that, as future King, he could never leave his wife. She was terribly scarred by her parents' divorce and wanted a fairy-tale relationship. She got the fairy-tale wedding, but that's about it. Diana would have been better off staying in London for a few years, dating around (and having sex) and learning a thing or two about life before jumping into marriage. She went into marriage as a starstruck, wide-eyed 20-year-old, and her disillusionment at finding out what it was really like to be married to a stuffy, far older, unromantic man hit her like a train. Tina Brown posited in her bio of Diana that Di's bulimia wasn't just about getting skinny, it was a rage reaction, a desperate attempt to vomit up the sickly sweet remains of a decayed dream. Interesting image!

by Anonymousreply 428July 11, 2019 2:12 PM

Charles is bi?! Wtf. Is that real or photoshop? R422

by Anonymousreply 429July 11, 2019 2:16 PM

I remember reading a story about Charles on a royal train with a blonde when he was engaged to Diana. Many at the time thought Diana the Virgin was with him but I believe it was Charles having it off with Camilla before he married. That's not someone who had any intention of remaining faithful. Charles was - and still is - a spoiled, selfish and entitled prat. Diana had her problems but they got worse over time due to her husband's behavior (leaving her alone, cheating and lying about it). Charles thought he could still live his life as a married man in the same manner as he did during his bachelorhood. Diana was young, insecure and needy and he didn't get that he should make an effort to spend time with his wife, not go off to do his own thing and ignore her. I had little sympathy for the "Old Diana" but I did have sympathy for the "Young Diana".

by Anonymousreply 430July 11, 2019 2:33 PM

I ca't believe how young Diana was when she got married. She was 19 when they announced their engagement and were wed nearly a month after her 20th birthday. That's a college kid!

by Anonymousreply 431July 11, 2019 2:45 PM

She also had William less than a year later.

by Anonymousreply 432July 11, 2019 2:46 PM

[quote]r427 Now you're married to someone you hardly know and have little feeling for but whom you have to remain married and produce children with all the while you're told you're never to see the person whom you do love ever again. What would you do?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 433July 11, 2019 3:17 PM

Diana was descended from at least two royal mistresses. She really should have had a clearer grasp of the situation.

by Anonymousreply 434July 11, 2019 9:54 PM

R434 I mean she was basically a child. But I'm very surprised someone didn't explain it to her. From what I've always heard, she was told by her grandmother "It's not the life for you" but did Granny say "You'll get the jewels, but it won't be a fairy tale"?

Someone should have.

by Anonymousreply 435July 11, 2019 9:59 PM

Diana's upbringing was incredibly provincial. Her father, while an earl, was often short of money, and after his divorce he didn't exactly lead a glittering social life for Diana to witness. She was shunted off to a series of undemanding boarding schools, spent a few months in a Swiss finishing school, and then it was off to London to work in a nursery and prepare for a husband. She had no education, no wit, and no sophistication. At 19 she did have youth, beauty, freshness, and the appearance of a sweet temper; with her looks and pedigree, the Royals assumed she'd be fashionable, fecund, docile, and comfortable around celebrities and heads of state (without stealing the spotlight from her elders and betters). Exactly what they wanted in a Royal bride, and exactly what they got with Kate Middleton a generation later.

Diana wasn't was the BRF thought she was. When she felt stupid and out of her depth, she would go silent or talk endlessly about children and pop music, which made her hard going at state banquets. She learned how to deal with A-list social occasions better as she got older, but the first few years were rough.

by Anonymousreply 436July 11, 2019 10:02 PM

Diana seemed more at home around Hollywood movie stars and pop stars.

by Anonymousreply 437July 11, 2019 11:23 PM

R436, It's a bit shocking that Big Liz/The Men in Grey didn't test Diana before the engagement was announced. "Blue blood? Check. Virgin? Check. End of list"

by Anonymousreply 438July 11, 2019 11:28 PM

[quote]Diana told friends that one reason she was so eager to marry Charles was that, as future King, he could never leave his wife.

If true, I find that so sad it's moving. Whatever her failings, if that was part of her young hope, how sad.

by Anonymousreply 439July 12, 2019 12:16 AM

Didn't Diana know a thing about British history? Seems like King Henry VIII was able to divorce a number of his wives, and even killed 2 of them.

by Anonymousreply 440July 12, 2019 12:24 AM

[quote] Exactly what they wanted in a Royal bride, and exactly what they got with Kate Middleton a generation later.

Yes, it's weird when you think about it. The royals hand-picked Diana as the perfect future queen, and it backfired massively. Then they let William choose his own wife, and he chose a woman who is much less problematic than his mother was.

by Anonymousreply 441July 12, 2019 12:32 AM

but best not to mention Harry and Meg.

by Anonymousreply 442July 12, 2019 12:43 AM

Yes R442 You need to subscribe if you want to overanalyze everything about that couple- and throw in a few racist digs, as well.

Pay up or leave.

by Anonymousreply 443July 12, 2019 12:56 AM

George V , the most boring King in the last century got dumped with his dead Brothers fiance ( the future Queen Mary) and seemed perfectly happy. Never a whiff of Scandal.

by Anonymousreply 444July 12, 2019 12:59 AM

R444 Most boring? Was he dull?

by Anonymousreply 445July 12, 2019 1:05 AM

Diana, shown wearing the Atelier Versace dress, worn for a 1991 portrait taken by Patrick Demarchelier.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 446July 12, 2019 3:48 AM

R446. Your link doesn't work. I'm not sure, but I believe you may have meant this Atelier Versace dress, Diana looks sensational:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 447July 12, 2019 4:24 AM

Diana would be disheartened to see how time has been unkind to her beloved William. She used to boast to her girlfriends that he would someday be "drop dead gorgeous".

by Anonymousreply 448July 12, 2019 4:30 AM

Diana had all the looks in the entire Windsor family, insiders, outsiders. Didn't matter, she had it all. And she got more beautiful and her style of dress got even better as she got older. The OP pic is Diana at one of her mot beautiful looks.

by Anonymousreply 449July 12, 2019 4:38 AM

William looks like an old boiled egg now. If Prince Harry were just a plumber from Norwich no one would have a bar of him, certainly not Sparkles.

by Anonymousreply 450July 12, 2019 5:04 AM

I had the best smile.

by Anonymousreply 451July 12, 2019 5:05 AM

[quote]r442 but best not to mention Harry and Meg.

Meghan Markle? She's utterly lovely. And thankfully for the bloodline, she brings brains to the table, too.

The whole world loves her. Even Big Liz.

by Anonymousreply 452July 12, 2019 5:33 AM

That nigger has tainted our bloodline.

by Anonymousreply 453July 12, 2019 9:21 AM

George V and Queen Mary knew each other as children, and Mary always liked George better than his older brother Eddy. The match to Eddy was arranged and Mary was prepared to do her duty--a couple of less dynastically minded Royal cousins had already turned Eddy down, as he had serious emotional problems and almost no intellect to speak of. When Eddy died and George became the heir, Mary moved into a much more comfortable arranged marriage. They were very well-matched temperamentally and grew to dearly love each other, as their surviving letters show. They were rather shit parents, though.

by Anonymousreply 454July 12, 2019 1:32 PM

"Meghan Markle? She's utterly lovely. And thankfully for the bloodline, she brings brains to the table, too.

The whole world loves her. Even Big Liz."

'Utterly lovely?" Passably attractive. "Brains to the table?" Caramelised calf brains, maybe. "The whole world loves her. Even Big Liz." Sez you, you cretin. And who is "Big Liz?"

by Anonymousreply 455July 12, 2019 8:54 PM

George and Queen Mary are a repeat of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon.

Katherine was briefly married to Henry's brother, Arthur, who died promptly. Henry VII didn't want to lose the Spanish dowry and had Henry marry her.

by Anonymousreply 456July 13, 2019 1:07 AM

I wish they would make this hit a paywall

by Anonymousreply 457July 13, 2019 1:43 AM

There are similarities, R456, except that Eddy and Mary were only betrothed, not actually married, so there was no question over possible consummation of the relationship as there was with Arthur and Katherine.

by Anonymousreply 458July 13, 2019 1:30 PM

George V was ordered to marry her by Queen Victoria. They did form a bond - somewhere from affection to love - but it was pure arrangement out of the gate.

by Anonymousreply 459July 13, 2019 3:25 PM

According to Anne Edwards' biography of Queen Mary, George developed quite the crush on Mary before the marriage, as surviving letters attest. This was probably due to her careful support and cultivation of him in that strange period after Eddy's death but before George popped the question, when her status was very much in doubt. Unlike Eddy, whom none of the Royal cousins wanted to marry, George was a perfectly normal, cute fellow, and Mary knew the competition had just gotten stiff. She read to him for hours, cooed over his beloved stamp collection, helped him with his French and German . . . no wonder he became smitten. She did seem to return his affection, at least to an extent. Neither was emotionally demonstrative, which means they suited each other beautifully.

by Anonymousreply 460July 13, 2019 3:42 PM

And they fucked often enough... five kids ain't nothing.

by Anonymousreply 461July 13, 2019 3:46 PM

Can you imagine how awful it would be to have the unknown Di as a coworker, had she had to work for a living? Moody, uneducated, surely calling in sick half the time because she just wasn't up to it. Youy'd forever have to remind her to speak[italic] up.[/italic]

And that disquieting anteater nose, forever poking out at you over the top of her cubicle...

by Anonymousreply 462July 13, 2019 3:52 PM

Six! David, Bertie, Mary, George, Henry, and John. Everyone forgets about John because he died so young and was kept out of the public eye due to his epilepsy and other issues.

Mary always had her hands full: Her mother-in-law, Queen Alexandra, was extremely possessive of her children, especially her surviving son. She never really forgave Mary for marrying George after Eddy died, as it meant that Mary hadn't really cared for Eddy (of course not--the marriage was arranged and Eddy was a mess). On top of that, George took a lot of care and feeding: He was much better than Eddy, but he was really just a simple sailor shoved into a position he didn't really want or was prepared for. Mary did a great deal to shape him into the king he became, just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the making of George VI, shoved into the spotlight in similar fashion.

Those Windsors always need supportive spouses: Even Philip, though a philanderer, was Liz's good right hand and the family enforcer for multiple decades. Kate obviously does a great deal to support William. One wonders what kind of man Charles could have been, if he'd have been allowed to marry Camilla in the early 70s.

by Anonymousreply 463July 13, 2019 3:52 PM

Diana never would have had a real career. If she hadn't married Charles, she'd have stuck to the undemanding nannying for another year or two and married a nice posh bloke before retiring to a big house in the country. She'd have been happier that way.

by Anonymousreply 464July 13, 2019 3:54 PM

[quote]r464 If she hadn't married Charles, she'd have ... married a nice posh bloke before retiring to a big house in the country. She'd have been happier that way.

Maybe. But there's no guarantee she'd have been happy. He could have cheated on her, or criticized her appearance, or any number of things, and she'd possibly still end up crying listlessly in her room for days on end.

by Anonymousreply 465July 13, 2019 11:51 PM

True R465 but if she'd made a Pippa-esque marriage, she at least wouldn't have all the scrutiny, etc. In some ways, Pippa is in better shape than Kate.

by Anonymousreply 466July 14, 2019 12:31 AM

Being a Royal has its perks, the most desirable one being incredible wealth and privilege. But it's not an easy kind of life; the way you look, everything you do, being constantly scrutinized and commented on and captured on film. I don't envy the Royals.

by Anonymousreply 467July 14, 2019 2:24 AM

When the the Queen and the Duke die, I predict a fascinating wave of gossip that was never published due to respect for TQ.

Andrew’s seedy relationship with Epstein will be revealed, ‘cause Charles won’t protect him like the Queen did.

by Anonymousreply 468July 14, 2019 5:51 AM

[quote]r46 it's not an easy kind of life; the way you look, everything you do, being constantly scrutinized and commented on and captured on film.

And yet, Meghan’s handled it all marvelously.

Leave it to the Americans...!

by Anonymousreply 469July 14, 2019 2:36 PM

R469 - I disagree. Practically everything she does and everything she wears is a disaster.

by Anonymousreply 470July 14, 2019 2:40 PM

Somebody once said that Diana was so famous and so beloved that the Western world more-or-less shifted their idea of what constituted beautiful to include her. She did have many of the requirements, though: she was tall, she was blonde, she had big blue eyes, and she had great skin.

She also looked much better after she had the nose job.

by Anonymousreply 471July 21, 2019 8:33 PM

Thanks for starting this separate thread, OP.

by Anonymousreply 472July 21, 2019 9:42 PM

There are no clubs for partying in Palm Beach. Everyone is ghastly old. You do lunch or dinner, that is it. I lived there.

by Anonymousreply 473August 14, 2019 7:27 AM

How is the British Royal Family going to survive? When at one end its' government is tasking the departure from inclusion into Europe; and at the other end its own survival is dependent on good will and inclusion with common folk... The way Buckingham handles the Prince Edward bullshit will be very telling.

by Anonymousreply 474August 14, 2019 7:36 AM

(R2) She would not have looked that bad with the dark circles, etc. With todays fillers and little nips and tucks, she would probably look close to what she did when young. Unless she got fat, then all bets are off.

by Anonymousreply 475September 18, 2019 2:40 PM

[quote]r475 With todays fillers and little nips and tucks, she would probably look close to what she did when young.

What the girl really needed was a NOSE JOB.

Quite the schnoze on that one.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 476September 21, 2019 12:58 AM

[quote] Didn't Diana know a thing about British history? Seems like King Henry VIII was able to divorce a number of his wives, and even killed 2 of them.

She did. But you don't

by Anonymousreply 477September 21, 2019 1:46 AM

I simply [italic]can't[/italic] get over the size of that nose!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 478September 21, 2019 1:59 AM

[quote] Elizabeth said she wanted to see Charles become king in her lifetime. Elizabeth was not going to abdicate, but instead was going to start giving him more responsibilities, which is what he wanted. Becoming king was Charles' one and only focus. Marrying Camilla was not even a priority. He would have been okay if he were allowed to continue his affair with her. But Diana was not going to let that happen because she was married and wanted to make things work

It wasn't just that they were having an affair, Camilla was living at Highgrove half of the week. Charles made all the servants keep it a secret from her, but she would hear things from other people that Camilla used to host dinner parties at Diana's house. Diana would leave Highgrove and Camilla would drive up 30 minutes later. One night she got into a car accident while she was almost at Highgrove. Charles and Camilla denied she was going to his house. For about a decade many of Charles friends would give interviews (print and tv) that Charles and Camilla were nothing more than friends and that Diana was just imagining it all. They said she was mentally ill. She was right and they were liars. Charles and Camilla have admitted these were all lies. During his marriage when he and all his friends were denying an affair, Charles got caught going on vacation with Camilla. All of this media attention turned her son into a drug addict. He was so humiliated by his mother that he went by the name Tom Parker when he was in college

And when Harry and William were young, Charles barely had anything to do with them. The newspapers used to have a little section on the front page telling how many days it had been since Charles had last seen the boys. One time it was over a month and a half. How little do you care about your kids when you don't see them for a month and a half? William had his skull fractured at school and Charles went to the opera instead of being at the hospital while his son was having surgery. What a great dad

Then when they were older (college age), Charles hired a public relations guy who regularly traded bad stories about W & H (mostly Harry) in exchange for the press writing favorable stories about Camilla. The guy called her the laziest woman in the entire country. She basically never worked a day in her life. And she was a SLOB. Charles has to employ ten people who make her look presentable. A year or two before her wedding she went to NYC and had a facelift and had her teeth fixed. What's hilarious is that she used to make fun of Diana for worrying about her hair and her clothes and Camilla is the one with 10 employees whose jobs are just to make her look half way decent. She still looks like a hag

by Anonymousreply 479September 21, 2019 2:11 AM

William and Harry had a big falling out with Charles when the media reported on the PR guy he hired to rehab Camilla's image actually shopped W & H stories to the press. They barely had anything to do with him for many years. It got to the point where Charles had his friends speak out to the media (that's what the royals do, they never say things, they have their friends say it) about not seeing Prince George or Charlotte. And for about 2 years W & H mentioned their mother (but not their father) in every interview they gave. They did a documentary on Diana. Not one word about Charles. This was one of those things where what they didn't say spoke volumes.

But then Harry met Meghan and William had an affair. Will was able to see his some of what his father may have felt and Harry knew he'd need all the support he could get with his situation in the years to come and they had a rapprochement. They're still not super close. But they have a relationship with their dad. Now william and Harry aren't speaking

by Anonymousreply 480September 21, 2019 2:22 AM

Wasn't Diana a neurotic little whore who deserved to die in a car crash? That's what I heard, anyway.

by Anonymousreply 481September 21, 2019 4:57 AM

with all her money, why DID she never get her nose fixed? isn't that a little strange??

it's very hard to understand

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 482September 22, 2019 2:43 AM

She once said she would love to have her "honker" fixed but I assume that was something Royals were not supposed to do, improve themselves surgically. I don't think that's going to stop Meghan Markle, though. I can see her getting work done in the future.

by Anonymousreply 483September 22, 2019 2:48 AM

Diana should have had it done before the engagement was announced. After, she was stuck with that major deformity, front and center.

by Anonymousreply 484September 22, 2019 2:58 AM

Sigh, I still miss her. I don't care what the UK people think now as they turned on a dime for that horse face home wrecker occupying the castle. So much for loyalty. They were all in the streets crying, now all they do is trash her memory.

by Anonymousreply 485September 22, 2019 3:01 AM

Dr. Phil is going to do a show next week featuring somebody who was "in the tunnel" the night of the fatal car accident. What is the person going to say, that she was murdered? Anyway, it's been proven that she died because the car she was in was being driven by a drunk driver. Case closed.

by Anonymousreply 486September 22, 2019 3:50 AM

R484, Kate had thousands of dollars of cosmetic dental work done in France prior to her and Wills' wedding.

by Anonymousreply 487September 22, 2019 4:09 AM

R485. I'm with you. Forever Diana. But don't worry, there will never be another Diana. The British royal family knows it, the public knows it and the media knows it well. And the Rottweiler and her douchebag husband will never rise to be anything other than the cheating trash they are. Diana will continue to overshadow them until they are buried and even beyond that.

by Anonymousreply 488September 22, 2019 5:19 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

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