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.

New Princess Diana Documentary looks fabulous

Alright I will admit I adored her but this new documentary looks fabulous

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 337September 30, 2022 5:50 AM

Royalty and Equality cannot co-exist.

by Anonymousreply 1August 2, 2022 5:37 PM

Now there's someone we don't hear enough about lately!

by Anonymousreply 2August 2, 2022 5:39 PM

Aww....I miss that world.

by Anonymousreply 3August 12, 2022 8:11 AM

I’m reading The Palace Papers, which is told primarily through the prism of the Duchessses of Cornwall, Sussex, and Cambridge, and it’s nowhere near as interesting as its predecessor, The Diana Chronicles.

Diana wasn’t perfect, but she was fascinating and full of life.

by Anonymousreply 4August 12, 2022 8:30 AM

Sick of hearing about the poor little rich girl, poor poor me.

by Anonymousreply 5August 12, 2022 12:31 PM

This is the coolest story about Diana I've heard in a long time. She had great taste in cars, well, up until the end, I guess 🙄

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6August 12, 2022 12:37 PM

How much more is there to document in her life?

I wonder if anyone's ever made a list of "the most documented lives" of people. I wonder how much longer people will continue to think there is something more to learn about her - or whether there are still secrets that some folks have held close, but time and distance will eventually get them to spill.

by Anonymousreply 7August 12, 2022 12:46 PM

^^^ There is the time she stalked her lover's wife with many thousands of hang-up calls which she made from outside the wife's house at midnight and into the small hours, r7

No documentary has ever talked about that, so far as I am aware.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8August 12, 2022 12:52 PM

I don't know her.

by Anonymousreply 9August 12, 2022 12:53 PM

I'm genuinely convinced at this point Harry sold the rights or something while he's over there. The sheer number of movies, tv shows and documentaries that have focused on Diana the last few years is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 10August 12, 2022 12:58 PM

I'm amazed there's still so much interest in Diana twenty-five years after her death. Yes, dying young often turns people into legends, but most of them - Buddy Holly, Freddie Mercury, Marilyn Monroe, etc. - leave behind a body of work that new generations can discover. Diana, however, was one of those "famous for being famous" celebs, so I thought interest in her would wane over the years. The opposite seems to have happened. I suppose it's a combination of The Crown's popularity and William and Harry's continued presence in the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 11August 12, 2022 1:00 PM

BORRRRING

by Anonymousreply 12August 12, 2022 1:35 PM

Only people with no fucking lives are interested in this puerile bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 13August 12, 2022 1:38 PM

Will this be included?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14August 12, 2022 1:38 PM

[Bold]The World Doesn't Need Another Fucking Diana Anything[/Bold]

by Anonymousreply 15August 12, 2022 1:49 PM

R17- that NEVER gets old!

by Anonymousreply 16August 12, 2022 1:55 PM

Wow she's been dead for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 17August 12, 2022 2:24 PM

Has anyone watched it yet?

by Anonymousreply 18August 14, 2022 4:00 AM

Imagine Diana in the age of social media. She would be the most famous person of all time.

by Anonymousreply 19August 14, 2022 4:05 AM

It sounds as if it might be irretreviably stupid if this quote is anything to go by:

"When you put a modern person in an ancient institution, they will be destroyed.”

Every church, temple and mosque around the world is "an ancient institution". Every medieval university in Britain, Spain, and France is "an ancient institution".

Apparently that quote sums up the "thesis of the film", according to this review. Sounds facile and simplistic.

By FAR the most determinative element to how Diana handled joining the Ancient Institution was her mental illness, which has been underexamined in all the documentaries of her to date. Sounds like it will be ignored by this one too.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20August 14, 2022 4:14 AM

Looking at the yearly estimated death rates the world has seen approx 1.4 billion deaths since Diana died. The bitch is wormfood. Let it go.

by Anonymousreply 21August 14, 2022 4:25 AM

[r14] they made the cut - the big gay bridge party is in the film

by Anonymousreply 22August 14, 2022 4:39 AM

The woman has been dead for 25 years can we just let the poor bitch rest in peace? You have to be older than 35 to even have an active memory of her being alive and a member of the royal family.

R10 Well since moving to the US, Harry seems to milking his mother's memory for $$$. I also think he's got something of an Oedipus complex and he seems Meghan as his mother reincarnated.

by Anonymousreply 23August 14, 2022 4:39 AM

r23, Why, exactly, are you on this thread?

by Anonymousreply 24August 14, 2022 4:49 AM

Midway through. There's a lot of footage I haven't seen before, including the fact that Princess Anne was apparently in the States when William was born.

INTERVIEWER: Have you heard about Diana?

ANNE: I don't know, you tell me.

INTERVIEWER: Your reaction to her having a son?

ANNE (crisply): I didn't know she'd had one.

INTERVIEWER: This morning!

ANNE (unenthusiastically): Well, good.

by Anonymousreply 25August 14, 2022 4:59 AM

Anne knew that Diana was a lunatic who courted the press in a way no one had since the lunatic Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire had done.

by Anonymousreply 26August 14, 2022 5:05 AM

I've always liked Princess Anne. A tough, no-bullshit lady.

by Anonymousreply 27August 14, 2022 5:52 AM

Oh my God!

The Princess Diana SCREAM video is included in this documentary!

by Anonymousreply 28August 14, 2022 6:30 AM

I'm in the middle of it - at the skiing part, and it's so, so clear that she was phoning the media nearly every day, if not every day. You can hear it in the incidentally recorded comments made by the photographers. they had been given to EXPECT she'd give them a photo, os whenever she was less than fully visible, they're complaining "WHAT is she DOING????!!!"

The DM's Richard Kay now admits that she called him every day. He was the last person, in fact, who she spoke to on the telephone on the night she died. Piers Morgan went to lunch with her every two months, even though back then he denied it.

And THEN she keeps doing "Leave me ALONE!"

I agree with the commentator who said "I think she's very close to being a monster." I've never thought that before, and I'm sure the filmmakers did not intend to portray her as such, but it's clear to me that she was more attached to the media she claimed to revile than she was to her own children.

by Anonymousreply 29August 14, 2022 6:38 AM

Interestingly, by even 2/3rds the way in, Harry has yet to make a single appearance, even his birth is ignored.

Since they do, however, focus on James Hewitt, this bit of illogical editing (done no doubt at Harry's request) has the effect of making it seem that Harry might indeed be the result of the three year affair between them.

by Anonymousreply 30August 14, 2022 6:48 AM

James Hewitt & Diana. As we have seen, really bad genetic stew.

by Anonymousreply 31August 14, 2022 7:00 AM

The people who come off best in this, and I am deadly serious, are the original DL faves: The Diana Scream gaggle of gays.

by Anonymousreply 32August 14, 2022 7:17 AM

[quote]I'm genuinely convinced at this point Harry sold the rights or something while he's over there. The sheer number of movies, tv shows and documentaries that have focused on Diana the last few years is ridiculous.

You're a real idiot. A delusional idiot

by Anonymousreply 33August 14, 2022 7:18 AM

I think you're the idiot, r33. Harry is never mentioned or shown until the funeral itself. even then he's only briefly shown.

He and Meghan very CLEARLY had some degree of influence on how this thing was finally edited.

by Anonymousreply 34August 14, 2022 7:20 AM

AHHHH - I just temporarily troll blocked r33 to find out that it's a Sussex Stan constantly denigrating Charles and William.

Nuff said.

by Anonymousreply 35August 14, 2022 7:23 AM

Speaking of Meghan, this documentary does her absolutely no favours.

It REALLY underscores how Meghan was never so much as touched by the media compared to Diana, and reiterates what REAL charity looks like. Compared to the Harkle's shitty little donations of a food cart here, a sandwich there, the only similarity is how they seem to LOVE media attention and couldn't even hide their love for it the way coy Diana could.

Watching this makes the Bower story of Meghan having Harry running around telling Diana's siblings "Isn't she JUST LIKE my mother" (they all denied to him that she was) and of her informing Kensington Palace staff to refer to her as "just like Diana" in communications to the media seem even more starkly and intensely bizarre.

Makes Meghan seem exceptionally mentally ill, and makes Harry seem not far behind her in that.

by Anonymousreply 36August 14, 2022 7:32 AM

I still pray for Diana after all these years.

by Anonymousreply 37August 14, 2022 7:50 AM

Well, isn't that precious, dear. I'm sure she's very grateful to you.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38August 14, 2022 8:04 AM

Anybody who fucked Diana step forward

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39August 14, 2022 8:08 AM

Diana had periods of genuine insanity.

Hundreds and hundreds of hang-up phone calls in the middle of the night...from ACROSS THE STREET!!!

"She would drive to his house and park up outside and then call his house phone from her mobile.

“She’d do it in the middle of the night, so she could watch the lights in the house go on as he scrambled to the phone. She would be there for hours, watching and calling."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40August 14, 2022 8:22 AM

No, shit for brains r34 is a delusional idiot who thinks Harry "sold the rights" to public media footage of his mother. Footage that doesn't belong to Harry

Media footage that's available to the press and probably anyone else who wants to see it.

And shit for brains blocked me. Ha ha. Typical low IQ mother fucker. Just like a racist Trumper who can't accept the truth

by Anonymousreply 41August 14, 2022 8:27 AM

[quote] AHHHH - I just temporarily troll blocked

Don't you get tired of making up shit? There's no such thing as that.

Just like I said, he's a delusional idiot. A low IQ, racist, trumper. He loves to wear his ignorance like a badge of honor

by Anonymousreply 42August 14, 2022 8:31 AM

You do realise, r41, that it is you, and not anyone else, who comes off as mentally ...odd... on this thread, yes?

Everything that everyone else has posted has made sense, except for your posts, r41.

I feel sorry for you that there is no edit button, but, there we are.

by Anonymousreply 43August 14, 2022 8:32 AM

^^^to add: r42 is the same escapee from the asylum as r41. Lunatic Sussex Stan.

by Anonymousreply 44August 14, 2022 8:34 AM

R35 actually stalks me. There no sussex stuff in my previous posts. He's been doing it for months when I called his ignorant ass out for being a trumper

He's a low IQ trumper who is also a bad liar

And something like 25 of the posts in this thread are from him. Fucking nutter

by Anonymousreply 45August 14, 2022 8:43 AM

That exchange between Princess Anne and the reporter should be required viewing for all the nutty BRF defenders who say there is no possibly way that the BRF would be mean and nasty to "outsiders."

by Anonymousreply 46August 14, 2022 8:46 AM

We have sufficient.

by Anonymousreply 47August 14, 2022 8:58 AM

Charles comes off as the biggest dik in the documentary IMO. I mean he is just arrogant and entitled through and through…it eeks out of his pores. He sounds so much like Harry in the early clips with Diana —- insufferably hung up on himself and his “work.” Basically letting Di answer all the hard questions.

I don’t get all the hatred towards Diana. Does anyone think she had any good inside of her at all? Were her charity and people on the street interactions all (in Elaine voice) Fake. Fake. Fake Fake Fake. ???

I am sincerely curious. I watched the film and felt that she genuinely enjoyed and looked forward to her work with the public.

Was she ever shy at all? Or do you all think that was an act too? At age 19 do you think she had a persona planned out? public persona to portray a la Marilyn Monroe ?

I am asking, again, sincerely because I would like to understand the dynamics of why people seem to blame Di for “everything “ ——but leave Charles and his family completely alone.

Thx in advance.

by Anonymousreply 48August 14, 2022 9:00 AM

Has anyone asked Meghan Markle how she's doing?

by Anonymousreply 49August 14, 2022 9:06 AM

Just let her . . .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50August 14, 2022 9:16 AM

r48, I think you need to re-read all the Diana threads on here.

I've never seen anyone say anything like what you claim they said. No one thinks she was "planning" to become "Marilyn". No one is saying here charity was "fake". No one is saying "she had no good inside her at all." No one here even likes Charles all that much.

Many of us have been commenting on Diana books and documentaries for decades. We've been through the Saint Diana/Satan Charles period and now are wondering why her genuine mental illness, much evidenced, is never properly addressed by any of these projects. His MANY shortcomings have been addressed nonstop for decades, so no need to go over all THAT again.

It's the media who want her to be an innocent version of "Marilyn", when her story is FAR more complex than that. After 35 years of hearing the sanitised version of Diana-good and BRF-baddies, it's LONG past time for a fully rounded portrait - of ALL of them.

by Anonymousreply 51August 14, 2022 9:35 AM

R48, I think she had good in her. My sister is a borderline personality, also pretty blonde, but petite and adorable. People have always had a desire to take her under their wing and protect her, too. She did all those crazy things Diana did, but she has a soft heart and she is generous and thoughtful, too. In middle age, she’s a little less crazy but she still does her bad things (shoplifting, disordered eating, spending sprees).

by Anonymousreply 52August 14, 2022 9:36 AM

R48, it’s all the old, obsessed BRF people who obsessively hate Meghan and Harry that have turned on Diana. I think Diana was mentally ill and became obsessed with her own publicity. However, the ill conceived marriage to Charles greatly contributed to her becoming the woman she was when she died. It’s unbelievable to me that he gets a free pass by some when he married her under false pretenses and cheated on her from day 1. Everything I read about him is terrible to this day. The way he solicits for his ‘charities’, he and BRF have used influence to get bills passed that protects them, he’s worth about 1.2 billion dollars, yet the family has asked for an increase when inflation is at an all time high. They are already are most expensive Royal family. A little off topic, but if I was a British citizen, once the Queen goes, I’d push for a republic.

by Anonymousreply 53August 14, 2022 1:01 PM

R1 Oh those poor enslaved Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Spaniards, Dutch . . .

Big PhRma, the corporate Emperors and the dark money influencing elections, economies, income inequality supported by American and UK governments over the last 50 years.

Those are the real enemies of equality.

You're living in the 16th century.

I'll take Denmark's w economic values and its (much liked) monarchy over the corporate money slaves in government in America and Britain any day.

by Anonymousreply 54August 14, 2022 1:15 PM

She shook the hands of AIDS patients who were considered lepers by so many at the time and showed genuine compassion. God bless her.

by Anonymousreply 55August 14, 2022 1:17 PM

For the first time I realized that the problem with Diana and the Royal Family had was jealousy! The Queen was worried that she was being eclipsed. Charles just dripped with nasty - but what about me.......! Even Anne was a bitch.

Diana had her own mental problems. But it has been made clear - she had the compacity to actually make a difference to so many in this world. A true gift. And I get she liked the attention but she was successful in most of her efforts. Not many have been able to do that. And the Royals just were stick in the muds. I don't think they ever appreciated that good side of her.

Every one has flaws. Everyone, famous, not famous, whatever. She never felt loved as a child or as a wife and she continued to fear being abandoned. And that all just got worse and worse. No wonder she loved the limelight. But she earned that limelight.

The Royals were tone deaf about Diana. I bet they still resent her.

by Anonymousreply 56August 14, 2022 1:32 PM

I screamed like the Diana Scream Gays when I saw that the Diana Scream Gays had made it into the documentary.

by Anonymousreply 57August 14, 2022 1:50 PM

It’s not that Diana had no good qualities, but her sanctification of her was so absurd and revolting that it’s only natural and fair that people comment more and more on her flaws. Even now, documentaries don’t dare present a fair and accurate picture of her. For example , the “wronged woman” and “victim of the paparazzi” are enduring components of her myth despite the fact that she was an exuberant adulteress and a pathological fane whore.

by Anonymousreply 58August 14, 2022 1:56 PM

I’m reading the latest Tina Brown book, and it notes that even William and Harry wrestle with the deification of their mother. They loved her and would certainly prefer to still have her on their lives, but they saw firsthand the side of her that was less angelic…the side that was vindictive, neurotic, and manipulative.

Charles is worthy of all the scorn he has received, as is Camilla. However, Diana wasn’t beyond reproach and it’s fair to try and weed through the bullshit in order ti understand who she truly was (a damaged woman weaponized her EQ).

by Anonymousreply 59August 14, 2022 2:18 PM

The person who keeps saying that Harry was barely shown must have seen a different documentary than I did. His birth is covered and there are several scenes with him before the funeral as well. The doc doesn't dwell on Williams either, but I guess when you're only looking to advance whatever your lame ass agenda is. I must say I was happy to see an old crush of mine, Lindon Soles, in the news footage during the Diana scream as well!

by Anonymousreply 60August 14, 2022 2:42 PM

Watching it, it just felt like a thousand collages I've seen thrown together on Youtube. There was nothing special about this doc at all.

by Anonymousreply 61August 14, 2022 2:44 PM

Really, the best documentary I’ve seen about Diana, even better than the one featuring her sons, was Diana: In Her Own Words. It’s based on tapes she made with her speech coach.

by Anonymousreply 62August 14, 2022 4:20 PM

They keep making programmes like these because people keep watching them. That goes double for her younger son, who in one breath pours scorn on those making bank on her life, and on the next making bank on her himself by reminding the world once a week who his mother was.

Not to mention the $20 million he hopes to make on a memoir that will likely feature Diana prominently. No one really gives a fuck about the Man He Became, and his publisher knows it.

Besides, we all now have a pretty good idea of the Man Harry Became via the lying, vicious, spiteful cunt he married, the Oprah lies he left out there, the other lies about the Scobie book, his assertions that his long-dead Mum having finished setting his brother up is now helping him, the lies about the Queen approving his kid's name, etc.

And, of course, his lawsuits against HMG as he tries to get the taxpayer to treat him like his brother.

Don't bother, Harry. We already see how wonderfully you've evolved as you matured.

by Anonymousreply 63August 14, 2022 4:55 PM

WILL YOU STFU, R63? I mean enough already. This is about the documentary, not your insane and pointless ramblings.

by Anonymousreply 64August 14, 2022 4:58 PM

I was an obsessed Di fan. I was hysterical when she got killed. That was 25 years ago and it's like they keep digging her up to make a buck, exploiting a dead woman. This has become totally tasteless. I'll pass.

by Anonymousreply 65August 14, 2022 5:07 PM

R64 seems to become ill when some truth peeks its head.

by Anonymousreply 66August 14, 2022 5:10 PM

Wasn't Anne the one they said resembled a horse?

Diana came in and revolutionized the royal family, singlehandedly bringing them into the modern age. Same with Fergie. Without these two, they would have became relics long ago. Nothing more than a subject for jokes and occasional astonishing patter.

Even now, it's Harry and Megs generating the interest in them. Otherwise, it's just moldy traditions and traditional appearances. Is there a royal couple more boring than Charles and Camilla?

by Anonymousreply 67August 14, 2022 5:15 PM

Good God. How many of these can be made?

by Anonymousreply 68August 14, 2022 5:28 PM

Although I fundamentally agree with you, R67, Diana, Fergie, and Meghan were pretty careless in how they approached revolutionizing the BRF. The period slightly before Harry and Meghan got married represented a template for sustaining a monarchy in the UK. Unfortunately, Harry and Meghan jumped ship and left the family in a position job where they’re continuing 14th century traditions in a 21st century world.

by Anonymousreply 69August 14, 2022 5:31 PM

Diana just had "it". You can't buy it, fake it, make it. She was a shy, tall, blonde, blue eyed English Rose who exploded in fame.

But she burned out too fast, got too enamored of her own star power and couldn't understand the long game quiet fame of the Royal Family. And celebrity fame is merciless, and by 35, worthless. You cannot use the media- they use you. She was foolish in that, thinking she could control her image. She did for a while, but eventually... they won. They always destroy people.

Because we are not stars, we are stardust.

by Anonymousreply 70August 14, 2022 5:31 PM

I agree r61. It was the same familiar footage we've all seen many times before. Nothing new, and no narration.

by Anonymousreply 71August 14, 2022 5:32 PM

Diana in the last year of her life, had gone off the rails turning into Eurotrash. Dying when she did was a great career move.

by Anonymousreply 72August 14, 2022 5:33 PM

Diana really had the perfect timing. I don’t think she would have been as iconic if she married into the family today. The media landscape has changed dramatically since then. Anyway, I’ve been watching The Crown and I FF to the Diana years. She made them interesting. I think there was a lot of jealousy towards her because she stole all the attention. Meghan and Harry were mildly interesting briefly, but that got old fast. They are very wash, rinse, repeat. But the BRF fanatics are obsessed with them, so I guess there is something to it that they keep the family relevant. Charles/Camilla and William/Kate are pretty boring too. Plus the public is hip to a lot of things now. Worshipping and bowing to aristocrats who they financially support isn’t going to fly quite so high in the 21st century.

by Anonymousreply 73August 14, 2022 5:35 PM

Nobody could be as famous and as much of a superstar as Diana was in our digital/social media landscape. It was a totally different world back then.

by Anonymousreply 74August 14, 2022 5:37 PM

[quote]Plus the public is hip to a lot of things now. Worshipping and bowing to aristocrats who they financially support isn’t going to fly quite so high in the 21st century.

We recently had a Jackie O thread, and it was brought up that JFK Jr.'s real passion was acting, but he was forbidden from becoming an actor. If JFK Jr. were a young man today, going into acting wouldn't be an issue but 40-odd years ago that old social hierarchy was still in place. There were certain things that people who belonged to a certain social class just "did not do." That's all pretty much gone now, it's irrelevant in the 21st Century, but back then there was still more of a separation between high class/low class.

by Anonymousreply 75August 14, 2022 5:41 PM

The world has changed so much. 40 years ago, a Royal Prince would never have been allowed to marry a divorced American actress. That would have been unthinkable.

by Anonymousreply 76August 14, 2022 5:43 PM

It seems cruel to admit, but R72 is 100% right. Can you imagine if Diana were in her late 60’s and married to Arab or South Asian trash (which was apparently her type in her later years)? She died with a title that was rather useful, but it would’ve been yanked away the second she got remarried. She’d still be grandmother to the future queen, but she’d be the very definition of “Eurotash.”

A gorgeous 36-year-old known as “The Princess of Wales” is romantic. However, had she lived Diana would be in her early 60’s, stripped of her royal title, and known as Diana al Fayed or Diana Kahn.

by Anonymousreply 77August 14, 2022 5:49 PM

R75, one look at Rupert Murdochs’s granddaughter’s recent wedding confirms how upper class norms are no more. What a trashy spectacle that was.

by Anonymousreply 78August 14, 2022 5:56 PM

r78 I agree, that wedding was just gross.

by Anonymousreply 79August 14, 2022 5:57 PM

R75, there is still stigma against "show people" and show business in some upper class circles. Some old money - who aren't famewhores - don't want it married into the family, hence the problem with Meghan.

Let alone the children becoming actors, unless they're from second or third tacky trophy wives, and the family has already come off the rails.

by Anonymousreply 80August 14, 2022 6:00 PM

[QUOTE]Diana came in and revolutionized the royal family, singlehandedly

How? By being educated, well-spoken, or worldly? Talking about her AIDS projects or good works or portraying the role of a modern divorced Princess with worldly aplomb in hopes of getting more attention and research dollars?

Nope. She was already heading down the territory her son chose by bushwhacking through the media hoping someone would love her and pay more attention.

But by batting her doe-eyes, hoping the mascara ran for Bashir, almost as though on cue, she fucked herselfm

Where's Bashir, BTW? Has he recovered from his fortuitously timed heart event to provide any answers? Especially since the BBC has been paying out to those abused or slandered: the BBC tech person who Bashir asked/tricked into mocking up false bank records, and Tiggy Legg-Bourke, the boys' nanny whom Diana had falsely accused of being impregnated by Charles and subsequently aborted. Bashir falsely stoked Diana's paranoia.

by Anonymousreply 81August 14, 2022 6:02 PM

It’s very good. I’m halfway thru it. It’s really about how the media destroyed her.

I love all the royal gossip so what I’m about to say makes me a colossal hypocrite: what the media does to these people is unconscionable. No wonder she was nuts and it’s remarkable that any marriage could survive that abuse.

It also shows, again, how “special” she was—and I mean that in the true sense of the word. She was genuine and authentic—that was her magic. Yes, she was nuts and could be nasty and destructive, but she was so human that it was easy to forgive her and root for her.

I miss the fruitcake.

by Anonymousreply 82August 14, 2022 6:12 PM

I was a kid but in retrospect, I feel like Diana was young and fresh-faced, tall and elegant looking, and she was considered beautiful primarily because she carried herself with grace and seemed modern in the company of a gawky-looking, stodgy royal family.

She definitely heaped goodwill on top of that with all the photo ops with AIDS babies, etc., and as a child during that era, I know that that really did turn out to be very important.

I was born in 1978, and I was severely anemic throughout my childhood and took iron supplements and my parents forced me to eat everything with high iron because my mom was terrified of blood transfusions because of HIV. Doctors recommended them and she said absolutely not as long as I wasn't critically ill. I outgrew the anemia but I remained laser focused on HIV/AIDS news and I saw how AIDS patients were treated and how terrified people were of those 'contaminated' with AIDS, including children. Whatever her motivation, Diana did help to demonstrate that it was safe to touch people who were infected with HIV, and all the attention she got doing it led to a collective shame about the way society marginalized patients, including children. She doesn't deserve credit for being the one to discover it was safe or anything, but she does deserve credit for leading cameras to hospitals instead of to just fashion shows and swanky events. She could have been dumb as a rock. It wouldn't take away her influence with that crisis.

From my childhood, I recall Diana, Elizabeth Taylor and Oprah Winfrey taking bold stands in the interest of compassion during the hysteria.

by Anonymousreply 83August 14, 2022 6:12 PM

I think Diana is continually viewed as a tragic figure, though as many posters aptly noted, many of her problems & personal drama were of her own making. Yes, Charles was no prize, but they brought out the worst in each other while it's clear Camilla brings out the best, even if that means being a surrogate mommy for a man-child. I also think there is also the belief that Harry would not be such a hot mess if his mother were alive, though I don't know if that's true. He might resent her as much as Charles but she probably wouldn't tolerate his guilt-tripping bullshit.

The irony is that for all of her crazy antics, if she were alive today she'd totally be Team Charles because he's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting/dirty work to give William a successful QEII reign. Regardless of what she actually thought of Kate, she'd be the first one to cut a bitch who badmouthed her son's wife/mother of her grandchildren. Part of the Diana mystique, I think is what would she be like if she lived. She'd be a total social media addict, trading bitchy tweets with Elton John

by Anonymousreply 84August 14, 2022 6:14 PM

[quote] She'd be a total social media addict, trading bitchy tweets with Elton John

Haha...I can't imagine that. I feel like Fergie would be doing this if it were allowed. And I feel like Diana would represent herself on social media the way Ivanka Trump does, careful to curate a 'perfect' personality-free image. It seemed to me when I was young that all of Diana's 'crazy' that we saw was drawn out and amplified by opportunistic journalists who appealed to her feelings of victimization and promised to tell her side of the story and then of course exploited everything she told them.

by Anonymousreply 85August 14, 2022 6:22 PM

She also traveled celebrity during the incredible change of our culture from the still formal, traditional early 80s to insanely sloppy mid 90s, but did it gracefully.

I also wonder how the democratization of technology changed celebrity, just in the sense of any craven asshole being able to afford and access a telephoto lens camera. The paparazzi and celebrity culture exploded in the basically 15 years she was famous, and became uncontrollable.

by Anonymousreply 86August 14, 2022 6:23 PM

I just listened to a Jinkx Monsoon podcast (hear me out) in which she said something interesting: she said her niece thinks it's really cool that Jinkx is famous and she brags to her friends about it, "but she doesn't watch TV. She doesn't know that Drag Race exists. She thinks I am famous because *she sees clips of me on YouTube.* She doesn't understand that anyone at all can post videos on YouTube. It's her TV. Anyone can be famous."

by Anonymousreply 87August 14, 2022 6:26 PM

... so my thesis would be that Princess Diana was the first modern celebrity of the digital era, famous for being famous, and a harbinger of the Instagram influencer era where an individual can manipulate technology to create an image of themself for public consumption.

by Anonymousreply 88August 14, 2022 6:28 PM

I tried to find it on my jailbroke firestick but no luck. I don't have HBO. Anyone know where to watch?

by Anonymousreply 89August 14, 2022 6:28 PM

Diana had to have sex at least twice a day and she drove Charles CRAZY badgering him for sex. Very early on she started having sex with lots of men on the side - practically anyone she could get. Her guards also have sex with her and protected her from being found out. She was a sexual addict.

by Anonymousreply 90August 14, 2022 6:36 PM

There was a good slice of Meghan in her. I remember when a colleague covered her & Chuck's visit to some center and he had to give a scripted speech and then do stuff, and she spotted a piano in a corner and very deliberately went over and started playing it to draw the press to her rather than him. My colleague said it was really immature and selfish, and he lost respect for her right then and there as did the other reporters who were present. They talked about it afterwards and were quite shocked at her behaviour.

by Anonymousreply 91August 14, 2022 6:37 PM

R90 You would be too if you had been pimped out to a creepy old man while you were still a virgin teenager.

Gotta sow those oats.

by Anonymousreply 92August 14, 2022 6:38 PM

R96. Is there any evidence that the Queen was jealous of Diana and thar her family still resents her? Ive not heard of any. In general, the Queen seems to tolerate her celebrity rather than crave it. It’s something life imposed on her and she’s probably found it burdensome. She doesn’t seem to have Diana’s constant obsession with being noticed snd adored. You can say the same of other member’s of the family. If Anne resents Diana’s celebrity, she seems to keep that fact very , very well hidden and should really change her wardrobe and portfolio of engagements, if, like Diana, she is desperate to be followed by paparazzi. To the extent the royal family were worried about Diana’s celebrity it might have ber. concern about turning the royal family into a celebrity vehicle as well as concern over the mental illness and personality defects that drove her obsession.with fame and that ultimately contributed to her death and her son’s psychological problems.

If the Queen did fear Diana would eclipse her, it was certainly a misplaced fear. Forty years later and she’s still one of the most well known and resurveyed people alive. The Queen will always be remembered to some extent, like Queen Victoria. Diana will increasingly be a footnote.

by Anonymousreply 93August 14, 2022 6:44 PM

I had the film on, but wasn't paying 100% attention. I have to watch it again.

Who was that horrible British man arguing with a male British Diana fan, then, he started making a lame comment about the man's looks? The man just walked away.

Was that creep some sort of 'journalist'? He seemed like the type who likely made quite a nice living writing gossip about Diana! Typical abhorrent hypocritical behavior.

by Anonymousreply 94August 14, 2022 6:51 PM

She's like the royal Marilyn Monroe and a less trashy Britney Spears. A pretty blonde white woman who is made into a victim despite her mental illness and stupidity causing a lot of issues for herself. The media is obsessed with this type of woman. Paris Hilton knows the deal and tried to hop on the victim train but fortunately it backfired on her. I can appreciate Diana's charity and standing up for gays.

by Anonymousreply 95August 14, 2022 6:59 PM

I ultimately liked Diana because she was so fallible. Her behavior was definitely out there, but I think marrying into that family drove her mad and seek out attention any way she could get it. She was human though and I think that’s why the public still has sympathy for her. The rest of them before and after are robots, including Kate. Meghan tried to cultivate the tragically maligned new Royal, but let’s be real, only idiots bought that act. Diana was a very tragic figure even with her playing the press, cheating and all the other wild things she did.

by Anonymousreply 96August 14, 2022 7:00 PM

Diana was nineteen marrying a man in his thirties. She was immature, innocent in many ways, and had been badly affected by her parents' acrimonious divorce. In short, she had problems. That no one saw this is unbelievable.

The BRF, their courtiers, and assorted hangers-on all thought she'd turn out like a dutiful, aristocratic, young woman who would turn a blind eye to her husband's indiscretions. They did not realize how much times had changed.

by Anonymousreply 97August 14, 2022 7:01 PM

I thought this was interesting and well worth watching (including for the starring role of DL’s Favorite Home Movie). Diana was tormented in so many ways that it’s hard to know which of her problems were born-in, self-created, created by others, etc. - absent mother, eating disorders, terrible husband, no privacy, thirst for fame, etc.

One moment that really got me was Harry running into her arms after some school race - very poignant. He looked a bit lost even then, and so did she.

So many awful comments from the demanding and delusional public and press sprinkled throughout - it reminded me of many of the comments on DL royal threads - total protection and entitlement to lives that aren’t their business.

[quote] Who was that horrible British man arguing with a male British Diana fan, then, he started making a lame comment about the man's looks?

I thought that was Christopher Hitchens, but I’m not sure.

by Anonymousreply 98August 14, 2022 7:26 PM

R64 - First, needless to say, you're blocked. Second, the comment addressed the documentary in the first sentence and went on to answer posters upthread on why people keep making them - which is to make bank on her, which her own son is doing.

As you actually well know, the points are neither rants nor insane. Harry helps keep the Diana Pot stirring, hence, the appearance of yet another tiresome documentary claiming to tell us something we NEVER KNEW UNTIL NOW ABOUT DIANA - which is, naturally, nothing nada zero zilch.

Meanwhile, take your meds or go see your psychiatrist or drink heavily this evening to calm your nerves, which seem alarmingly frayed today.

by Anonymousreply 99August 14, 2022 7:37 PM

R98. If it was Hitchens, he was not a horrible man.

by Anonymousreply 100August 14, 2022 7:40 PM

I think one of the things that adds to Diana’s enduring popularity is that when she married Charles she really did love him. Her idea of love was perhaps immature, and didn’t extend to the reality of a being a royal wife, but how could she know? The media whirlwind around the royals didn’t exist before 1981. A whole industry grew up around a pretty young woman, who was ridiculously photogenic and smart enough to be nice to the press pack that followed her around. More than the later years, the documentary shows the importance of her early interactions with the press. You get a sense of a very satisfying relationship developing, unfortunately with the press, not her fiancé! She and the press understood each other more than she and Charles ever did.

by Anonymousreply 101August 14, 2022 7:48 PM

Her grandmother Lady Fermoy knew that Diana was not right for marriage into that familly, and took the extraordinary step of actually coming forward to put her neck on the line and urgently tell her friend the Queen Mother that the marriage should not happen.

by Anonymousreply 102August 14, 2022 7:57 PM

R100 Hitchens was a brilliant intellect but sometimes treated his fellow humans like shit when he didn’t think they were up to par. I forget exactly the interaction in the documentary, but someone who resembled Hitchens was making a somewhat snotty comment related to Diana or the common people’s views on Diana, and then proceeded to verbally rip someone who disagreed with him a new asshole. It was very Hitchens.

by Anonymousreply 103August 14, 2022 8:05 PM

Hitchens was right about so much, and he was right about how the hysterical mourning was a national / international moment of deranged insanity.

by Anonymousreply 104August 14, 2022 8:08 PM

R102 That was revisionist history once the marriage began to implode. At the time, her grandmother was beyond thrilled that Diana was going to marry Charles. The whole Spencer family was. No one knew her well enough to be aware of potential problems. In late 70s/early 1980s, mental health wasn’t the big subject it is today. People were expected to just “get on with it.”

by Anonymousreply 105August 14, 2022 8:12 PM

Diana was sexually active with older men before Charles. She gave men BJs to preserve her virginity. One of my friends knew her well then and told me at the time.

by Anonymousreply 106August 14, 2022 8:17 PM

In the late 70s/early 80s, was Diana's kind of fame even imaginable?

by Anonymousreply 107August 14, 2022 8:17 PM

r105 No it wasn't "revisionist history". It caused a rift AT THE TIME between the Queen Mother and Fermoy.

by Anonymousreply 108August 14, 2022 8:21 PM

Additionally, r105, the family was well aware that she'd pushed her step mother down a a tall set of stairs at the age of 15 and gloated about it afterwards.

by Anonymousreply 109August 14, 2022 8:23 PM

[quote]Hitchens was right about so much, and he was right about how the hysterical mourning was a national / international moment of deranged insanity.

People like Hitchens seemed to forget, without the general public, the unwashed masses, which I'm sure he thought most people were, are the reason most people get rich and famous. Without the 'common folk' Hitchens wouldn't have had a career either.

Every single item we purchase, makes some person very wealthy and in most cases, famous. Without consumers, and fans, how did he think famous people became famous?

Who cares if he was "brilliant", so many intelligent people don't possess much common sense.

In the film, Hitchens holding court on some bench and flapping his lips to anyone who would listen. was extremely rude to that man, a man who was simply celebrating the life of someone he cared for. Imagine if every fan of any famous person was derided in that manner?

I cannot believe the hate Diana still gets. Diana might have had mental health issues, but she seemed like one of the nicest celebrities and a decent person, unlike the types of trash celebrities who are exalted these days.

by Anonymousreply 110August 14, 2022 8:24 PM

^^^^ Someone has just outed themselves as never having read Christopher Hitchens....

by Anonymousreply 111August 14, 2022 8:28 PM

R109, oh wow. A truly modern Princess.

by Anonymousreply 112August 14, 2022 8:38 PM

R110. She still gets a lot of adulation. She still receives mostly praise, but people have started to point out her flaws. She may have had her nice side, but there was also a nasty, sinister side. As noted above, she was nasty to her step mother. She was an enormous hypocrite—-building a career as the innocent victim of adultery and destroying Charles’ reputation while concealing the fact she was engaging in industrial scale adultery. She also positioned herself as a victim of the paparazzi while courting them relentlessly. She also seems to have been fairly bad to her children. She always made my flesh crawl.

by Anonymousreply 113August 14, 2022 9:06 PM

Hitchens had his flaws but he was the kind of contrarian who is sorely missed now.

by Anonymousreply 114August 14, 2022 9:08 PM

[quote]Additionally, [R105], the family was well aware that she'd pushed her step mother down a a tall set of stairs at the age of 15 and gloated about it afterwards.

In Diana's defense 99% of the British population would've lined up to push Raine Spencer down the stairs, if given the opportunity. She was the very definition of "rancid cunt."

by Anonymousreply 115August 14, 2022 9:13 PM

A lot of people have hated their step parents. VERY few attempt to catastrophically injure them and then gloat about it afterwards.

Diana had a lot of almost magically wonderful qualities, and was capable of incredible empathy for strangers, but in other ways the Girl Wasn't Right In the Head.

by Anonymousreply 116August 14, 2022 9:17 PM

Raine Spencer deserved to be pushed down the stairs.

by Anonymousreply 117August 14, 2022 9:18 PM

^^^ The Ghost of Princess Di has joined us!

by Anonymousreply 118August 14, 2022 9:20 PM

[quote]^^^^ Someone has just outed themselves as never having read Christopher Hitchens....

I absolutely never read anything by this man, perhaps an article in a magazine. I never read his books, so how did I OUT myself? I judged him solely by his vile comments in the film. Sue me. If he was novelist, it means he made lots of money from people buying his books. I just checked Wiki, he was supposedly a Socialist, who cares.

Yes, that was Hitchens in the clip used in the documentary, the clip is up at YT. Making childish comments about the Diana fan's looks was uncalled for. Hitchens seemed like a nasty piece of work.

Why did he need to bring up someone's looks when discussing the spectacle of Diana's public mourning? One had nothing to do with the other! Why publicly insult a stranger with a camera rolling?

His only comments I agree with, were what he said about Trump, "In 1999, Hitchens wrote a profile of Donald Trump for The Sunday Herald. Trump had expressed interest in running in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election as a candidate for the Reform Party."

"Of Trump, Hitchens said, "Because the man with many monikers in many ways embodies his country and because this election cycle is now so absurd, and so much up for grabs, it is unwise to exclude anything ... The best guess has to be that here's a man who hates to be alone, who needs approval and reinforcement, who talks a better game than he plays, who is crude, hyperactive, emotional and optimistic." Hitchens had previously written that Trump demonstrated how "nobody is more covetous and greedy than those who have far too much."

Too bad Hitchens died before Trump was elected, pretty sure he would have had a lot to say! Trump deserved Hitchens observations, Diana, not so much.

by Anonymousreply 119August 14, 2022 9:34 PM

I had only seen the funeral footage once, on the day it was broadcast live. I'd forgotten how much young Prince William looked like his mother. Poor little Prince Harry looked stricken. It must have been hard for them appearing in public while they were grieving.

by Anonymousreply 120August 14, 2022 9:41 PM

He was a mean drunk.

by Anonymousreply 121August 14, 2022 10:01 PM

Watching those kids forced to grieve in public as if they owed a bunch of strangers their tears makes me a lot more understanding of why one has become so controlling of his public image and the other has lashed out so much.

by Anonymousreply 122August 14, 2022 10:06 PM

And if they hadn’t participated in their mother’s funeral, it would have been wrong, too. A funeral is a communal rite. They were old enough.

by Anonymousreply 123August 14, 2022 10:12 PM

Those princes keep dragging their dead mother around behind them. It’s unseemly.

by Anonymousreply 124August 14, 2022 10:13 PM

R124, in all fairness, it’s mainly Harry who does. William only brings her up if she’s being honored or some news story comes out like that Bashir interview.

by Anonymousreply 125August 14, 2022 10:21 PM

Harry wants to make money off of his Dead Mommy while being married to a scumbag who has convinced him she is all but reincarnation of said Dead Mommy.

He inherited Diana's mental illness, and HOW!.

by Anonymousreply 126August 14, 2022 10:29 PM

Diana was borderline. Borderlines are made not born. It is not hereditary. It usually happens when one loses their mother when they are young through death or divorce. Diana's mother basically abandoned her. Harry is also a borderline who lost his mother young and was raised by a borderline.

by Anonymousreply 127August 14, 2022 10:40 PM

[quote]Harry is also a borderline who lost his mother young and was raised by a borderline.

Harry was raised by a borderline? You mean his nanny was borderline?

Most royalty, and the wealthy in general, don't raise their children. If their kids aren't shipped off to a boarding school, a nanny usually raises their children.

by Anonymousreply 128August 14, 2022 10:43 PM

R108 Then how come the Queen Mother and Lady Fermoy dined together at Clarence House the night before Charles and Diana’s wedding?

by Anonymousreply 129August 15, 2022 12:07 AM

Because they were lifelong friends who had a single falling out over an event which it was then determined was going to go through anyway?

Are you a fucking retard, r129, or are you just someone for whom all fall outs are permanent and non-reparable?

by Anonymousreply 130August 15, 2022 12:14 AM

People don’t “usually” become borderline because their mother died or got divorced. Come on.

by Anonymousreply 131August 15, 2022 12:49 AM

They do when the poster has an agenda to push, R131.

by Anonymousreply 132August 15, 2022 1:15 AM

OP...I'm with you. There was no one like Diana and there never will be. She was something else.

Team Diana forever.

by Anonymousreply 133August 15, 2022 1:21 AM

Was she actually that beautiful? Most of the time she looks to me like a new anchor in a medium-sized midwestern city, but I admit I always found her annoying so perhaps I’m not the best judge. Catherine seems like a supermodel in comparison.

by Anonymousreply 134August 15, 2022 1:36 AM

Diana was far more beautiful and distinctive-looking than anyone in the royal family before or since. Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle look like Sears catalogue models in comparison. I was surprised in this film at how good Fergie looked way back when!

by Anonymousreply 135August 15, 2022 1:41 AM

Of course you "adored" this total stranger who's been dead 25 years, OP. Of course you did.

You basic, shallow old fool.

by Anonymousreply 136August 15, 2022 1:46 AM

[quote] I had only seen the funeral footage once, on the day it was broadcast live.

That funeral broadcast was damn annoying. In addition to the broadcast and cable news networks even 𝐀&𝐄 for crying out loud cancelled its programming to run the funeral. At the time they would normally have been running some old British film or miniseries not generally then available on US television.

I had already become tired of the Diana hysteria and thought A&E joining in was absurd overkill.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 137August 15, 2022 1:56 AM

R134, I guess for that family, she was. I found her to be the definition of a handsome woman. Face wasn’t so great, but she photographed well. I actually think she was at her most attractive facially around the time she died. He posture and body really took her far. She dressed really well and clothes looked amazing on her. Kate has a great figure, but she doesn’t wear clothes like Diana did.

by Anonymousreply 138August 15, 2022 3:38 AM

OP Was she a virgin on her wedding night?

by Anonymousreply 139August 15, 2022 3:46 AM

She had a wonky eye

by Anonymousreply 140August 15, 2022 5:16 AM

[quote]Diana was far more beautiful and distinctive-looking than anyone in the royal family before or since. Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle look like Sears catalogue models in comparison. I was surprised in this film at how good Fergie looked way back when!

[quote] Was she actually that beautiful? Most of the time she looks to me like a new anchor in a medium-sized midwestern city, but I admit I always found her annoying so perhaps I’m not the best judge. Catherine seems like a supermodel in comparison.

I perceived Diana to be a “handsome” woman with tons of charisma. Taken feature by feature...say from a plastic surgeon’s perspective, she was not a classic beauty. Catherine Middleton possesses more classical beauty features.

What Diana did possess was that certain “je ne sais quoi” which when combined with her ability to lure and bend the media to her will created a phenomenon in the 1989s/1990s.

She was very different than Catherine Middleton. She was an intensely dramatic figure and her death only accentuated this drama. She’s become somewhat eulogized and mythologized in the ensuring 25 years. Her youngest son and his wife seen to be obsessively (and pathologically) attached to The Myth/Fame of Diana....fortunately, others who knew her seem to be more grounded in the reality of Diana, Princess of Wales.

by Anonymousreply 141August 15, 2022 5:39 AM

R51

Yeah, you are right, I do ned to read 2000 threads about Di and the BRF, but I have some stuff going on atm.

Just to refresh your memory, this is what I wrote.

“Charles comes off as the biggest dik in the documentary IMO. I mean he is just arrogant and entitled through and through…it eeks out of his pores. He sounds so much like Harry in the early clips with Diana —- insufferably hung up on himself and his “work.” Basically letting Di answer all the hard questions.

I don’t get all the hatred towards Diana. Does anyone think she had any good inside of her at all? Were her charity and people on the street interactions all (in Elaine voice) Fake. Fake. Fake Fake Fake. ???

I am sincerely curious. I watched the film and felt that she genuinely enjoyed and looked forward to her work with the public.

Was she ever shy at all? Or do you all think that was an act too? At age 19 do you think she had a persona planned out? public persona to portray a la Marilyn Monroe ?

I am asking, again, sincerely because I would like to understand the dynamics of why people seem to blame Di for “everything “ ——but leave Charles and his family completely alone.”

And you wrote “ I think you need to re-read all the Diana threads on here.

I've never seen anyone say anything like what you claim they said.

No one thinks she was "planning" to become "Marilyn".

NO. NO ONE SAID THAT. INCLUDING ME. CAN YOU READ IT AGAIN. PLEASE.

No one is saying here charity was "fake". No one is saying "she had no good inside her at all." No one here even likes Charles all that much.

Many of us have been commenting on Diana books and documentaries for decades. We've been through the Saint Diana/Satan Charles period and now are wondering why her genuine mental illness, much evidenced, is never properly addressed by any of these projects. His MANY shortcomings have been addressed nonstop for decades, so no need to go over all THAT again. (REALLY? I HAVEN’T SEEN THAT. SHE ALWAYS GETS BLAMED B/C she “cheated first” which BTW, is complete bull$hit. Not once have I seen his teddy bears or separate bed mentioned. Or his paints and canvases on day 1 of their honeymoon. Or how he took off 1 hour after Ginger’s birth to play polo. OK, maybe I have read it or heard it here & there but it IMO not discussed enough. Yes his cash scandals & all the Camilla stuff has been done to death.)

It's the media who want her to be an innocent version of "Marilyn", when her story is FAR more complex than that. After 35 years of hearing the sanitised version of Diana-good and BRF-baddies, it's LONG past time for a fully rounded portrait - of ALL of them.”

(I WAS USING MARILYN ASAN EXAMPLE. NOT COMPARING THEM IN ANY WAY. MM turned her “Marilyn” persona on& off at will. That was my reason for mentioning her. My question was, do you think Diana had a “persona” she turned on & off at will ? I specifically asked if she had these possible personas all worked out at age 19.

For example —- A shy Di and a camera hungry Di?

by Anonymousreply 142August 15, 2022 7:45 AM

R90 “Diana had to have sex at least twice a day and she drove Charles CRAZY badgering him for sex. Very early on she started having sex with lots of men on the side - practically anyone she could get. Her guards also have sex with her and protected her from being found out. She was a sexual addict.”

I am guffawing. I realize this is a site for gay men, but do you hear yourself?

OMG! Poor Charles!!!

The world’s most desired woman (at the time) wanted to have sex twice a day. WITH HIM! HER HUSBAND!!!

The horror of it all, My hands are. quivering as I type this, it is so disturbing.

Maybe pu$$y Charles should not have married a VIRGIN, at age 20 When he was age 32.

A virgin, you see, would desire sex with her husband. Being a virgin and all. It would be - like maybe one of the things she was eager about? If that makes sense? To your deluded mind?

FFS this is exactly what I just posted about. Charles comes out like he is oh so angelic & perfect & correct and she is a villain and a sex addict for wanting to have sex.

W T F

by Anonymousreply 143August 15, 2022 8:12 AM

Make it stop!

by Anonymousreply 144August 15, 2022 9:26 AM

R105 Actually, those two truths co-exist. Lady Fermoy knew her granddaughter was, in her own words, "an actress and a schemer" and that Diana was marrying Charles because he was the Prince of Wales. Lady Fermoy had also watched Charles grow up, adored him as so many older ladies did, and had legitimate fears about Diana's unsuitability as a wife for him. Whether and how she expressed those fears to her close friend, the Queen Mother, I don't think is really known.

But Lady Fermoy was not the only one to express those fears to someone, somewhere. Princess Anne had doubts, and so did several others in the royal circle, most of whom (except Anne, of course) were swiftly exiled from that circle by Diana.

Lastly, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his memoirs that were excerpted, was appalled at how ill-suited the couple were when they made their obligatory pre-Cana visits and to plan the wedding service. He wrote that all that could be hoped for was that she would grow into her role (irony of ironies, she did just that, she just never grew into the role of the right wife for Charles).

The Queen also felt Diana was at heart "a bolter", like Diana's mother.

The fact is, and here the parallels are startling again, there were plenty of people who thought Diana, virtually a school-leaver with no intellectual attainments, who had grown up reading nothing heavier than Barbara Cartland novels and who was at heart an urban Sloane Ranger, a bad choice for a man in his early thirties who had been educated at Eton and Cambridge, with a strong interest in history, art, country life, and classical music.

But, as with Harry and Meghan a generation later, the rocks began to show during the engagement but were hidden from the public. And, despite the handwriting on the wall, everyone crossed their fingers and hoped for the best. But the Wales marriage was on the rocks by the time they got back from honeymoon.

Charles and Harry both married actresses who created endless drama. It's just that one was a professional, and the other a very gifted amateur.

by Anonymousreply 145August 15, 2022 1:01 PM

another one who fails to see Charles’ part in all of this

it sickens me

You do realize she was 19, he was 31

by Anonymousreply 146August 15, 2022 1:11 PM

I can’t stand Meghan Markle, but she graduated from Northwestern with a degree in international studies. Harry is an idiot who could barely finish high school.

by Anonymousreply 147August 15, 2022 1:18 PM

No more Diana for me, thanks. In fact, I'll fight tooth and nail to avoid Diana.

by Anonymousreply 148August 15, 2022 1:21 PM

R146 Actually, he was 32 and she 20 when they married.

No one is asserting that Charles was Husband of the Year.

But the fact is, Diana was, functionally, an adult; she was determined to marry him come hell or high water; and with the help of the press, that she corralled very early on with her charm, beauty, and demure persona, a man who felt ambivalent about her, Charles was caught between a rock and a hard place: ditch the beautiful adoring young blonde arista already beloved by press and public, or go through with it with his fingers crossed.

She WAS the active party in this. It was Charles who was the quarry, not Diana, much like the goddess whose name she was given.

He didn't love her, she knew it, and she went for it, anyway. He wasn't placed the way other men were at the time. Her own mother warned about that, and said she needed to think about whether she was marrying the man or the prince. Diana merrily replied, "Is there a difference?"

Diana made the mistake women much older than she was make repeatedly (my sister has a long history here): she figured he'd change his mind once the deed was done.

Her demands were unreasonable not because she was twenty, but because of her emotional hunger, which didn't change as she got older, as her behaviour stalking Oliver Hoare showed.

It was personality, not youth.

by Anonymousreply 149August 15, 2022 1:21 PM

Side note: Imagine your last name was “Hoare”.

Too much Diana now.

by Anonymousreply 150August 15, 2022 2:29 PM

R145/R149, give it a rest. Diana was nothing like Meghan. Charles is a world class POS. He married her, and was encouraged to do so, because he thought she would fall in line and take all his crap. He basically had a mistress from day 1 that he even invited to his wedding. You are comparing a sheltered, 20 yr old barely out of school virgin bride in the 80s to a 30-something, college educated, American divorcee, actress of the 21st century?!! It’s a ludicrous comparison. Charles was 100% the at fault for that marriage; he should’ve never married her. He set the wheels in motion for all her antics thereafter. This revisionist history to paint Charles as a victim is nauseating. He’s shady as hell, long after she’s been gone, but all that seems to be overlooked by royalists.

by Anonymousreply 151August 15, 2022 2:59 PM

It is laughable to describe Diana as the hunter and Charles the quarry given the context and their ages, he was immensely more powerful than she could ever be. And to imply his academic background is a sign of intellect rather than connections is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 152August 15, 2022 3:03 PM

Diana was sleeping with married men ni her 30s. Is she like Charles, a PoS? Charles was also responsible for all her antics.l? Is it just a coincidence Diana was nuts before she married him and that many members of her family are dysfunctional? Are you absolutely sure Charles cheated first? The chronology of Diana’s many adulteries may be hard to ascertain.

Wasn’t Harry’s ex girlfriend also at his wedding?

by Anonymousreply 153August 15, 2022 3:18 PM

Yes, she was R153. You see one doesn’t have to negate the other. I don’t think anyone is claiming she was a virtue of morality, but that marriage set her down a dark path. You seem to want to demonize a 20 yr old girl and absolve a 30-something grown man who has been in the Royal institution his whole life and knew how the game was played. Her family was dysfunctional, but his wasn’t with his brother hiring underage prostitutes?!

Please, Harry married for love. He and his ex were long broken up when he got married. Unlike his father and his now wife.

by Anonymousreply 154August 15, 2022 3:40 PM

R154, do you know how condescendingly paternalistic your argument is? How you deny 20 year old "child bride" Diana any agency?

I am genuinely curious, because I'll bet you don't think it's a misogynistic stance.

by Anonymousreply 155August 15, 2022 7:42 PM

R152 - You really know nothing about women, do you?

Of course she was the hunter and he the quarry. Ffs, he was the world's most eligible bachelor and she was heard to say before she even started dating him that "There could be nothing more desirable than being Princess of Wales" and "It's Westminster Abbey or nothing for me!"

For god's sake, you think being twenty doesn't mean you're a skilled manipulator?!

Don't condescend to her. Those doe eyes and under the lashes glances and that demure charm.

By the time they got back from honeymoon she was screaming at him half the day and embarrassing the Queen at dinner by her glowering face and sullen silences.

And she learned in an eyeblink how to handle the press.

Do you know that the entire field of child psychology agrees that personality is set by the age of four or five?

She wanted him, she played her cards right when the opportunity came, and she got him.

She didn't care whether he was passionately in love with her or not.

And she was far from the first young woman to use looks and charm to hook a mark.

Get real.

by Anonymousreply 156August 15, 2022 11:22 PM

R151 - It really isn't a well kept secret that troubled men with unresolved Mummy issues seek out women whose behaviour echoes their mother's, through which they can replay their family drama.

The narcissism, the borderline quality, the actressy personas . . . I didn't say they were identical twins. I said that both of them were actresses, which is the truth. Or have you forgotten Di onstage at Covent Garden in that Uptown Girl number with Wayne Sleep? The photos of her in her pointe shoes at Althorp?

The girl wanted to be a star. She had little talent to get her there, but she found the right stage with Charles.

Meghan also had little talent except for tireless self-promotion, and then she got handed a card that she played to the max, too. And she finally got the fame and the big stage she'd craved all her life.

They aren't carbon copies - Diana was genuinely beautiful, genuinely charming (when she wanted to be), fantastically photogenic, and charismatic. Meghan is none of those things, I quite agree.

But the qualities both possessed of narcissism, pathological lying, and the generation of endless drama, which Charles, a bitter survivor of life with a drama princess, warned Harry about, were plain to see.

Nothing alike? I beg to differ.

by Anonymousreply 157August 15, 2022 11:41 PM

Old saying: A girl lets a man chase her until she catches him.

by Anonymousreply 158August 16, 2022 11:59 AM

I agree with your thoughts, R157, but it’s interesting how Charles and William gravitated toward more affectionate versions of their mothers…even though they have unresolved Mummy issues as well. Is the key word “troubled?” Charles might be misunderstood, and William might be temperamental, but Harry’s the only one of the bunch who’s genuinely troubled.

by Anonymousreply 159August 16, 2022 12:07 PM

Whatever happened to Linden Soles, the handsome CNN anchor featured in the documentary reporting the news the news that fateful night 25 years ago?

by Anonymousreply 160August 16, 2022 4:37 PM

I remember Diana gushing about how - like JFK, Jr - William was so gorgeous. Best that she didn’t live to see him lose his looks.

by Anonymousreply 161August 16, 2022 4:44 PM

The reasons William was able to move past the adored Mum, hated Papa, and look for a woman who was the polar opposite of Diana and test the relationship out over eight years, is likely twofold" 1) innate temperament - Harry was a problem kid long before Diana died and the reality of what being born second would mean over the long term, and 2) William had the advantage of Diana's adoration of him.

I think both parents loved both their children equally, but differently. But you cannot explain that differential to a small child.

Personality is inborn. Nurture takes over as the child has to develop responses to the family dynamic around him. In Harry's case, I think he drew the short straw on both counts. He has never moved past his toxic envy of his brother, first for being Mum's perceived favourite, and second for being the heir.

I'd have more sympathy if Harry showed the slightest self-awareness and stopped using his self-pity to hurt others. That he still wants to hurt others is evidence that he hasn't moved past anything, and that means that he is probably inflicting a different sort of "genetic pain" on his own two children.

by Anonymousreply 162August 16, 2022 5:21 PM

It's weird that Chris Hitchens makes a cameo after Diana is killed. So random.

I love Hitch, but man they edited him to make sure he came across as the biggest asshole ever! Not the hardest thing to do, mind you...

by Anonymousreply 163August 16, 2022 5:35 PM

Just finished watching HBO's The Princess, an outstanding piece of doco film making. The director, Perkins, is to be commended for his zen approach to doco making, allowing the cloth to weave the cloth, letting the story of the life and death of Diana, Princess of Wales to tell itself through comments in and film footage from a variety of media by everyone from government officials to the British public to journos, photographers and TV interviews/talk shows to the Royals themselves. DL favorites Lady Colin Campbell and Christopher Hitchens make brief appearances, as well as an extended view of DL's hallowed Diana Death Scream video.

The doco is available online for free streaming and highly recommended.

by Anonymousreply 164August 18, 2022 9:51 AM

[quote]Only people with no fucking lives are interested in this puerile bullshit.

Hi Camilla! Wake up on the wrong side of the barn today?

by Anonymousreply 165August 18, 2022 10:37 AM

R164 That must be why the world went nuts when Diana died and the media exploded when Megxit occurred, and why the Wales, Cambridge, and Sussex weddings each got tens of millions of viewers all over the world.

Most of the world doesn't have lives, just you, that must be it.

The royals are only THE greatest ongoing gossip story since Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine.

They're still making films about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and staging the Bard's Wars of the Roses plays.

Did we forget to mention the huge success in tracking up awards of The Crown and Victoria?

Mate, you're the outlier here, so suppose you roll away like a hoop back to the topics you feel are legitimate and leave the rest of us to our fun.

As you leave, keep repeating this:

THIS IS A GOSSIP SITE THIS IS A GOSSIP SITE THIS IS A GOSSIP SITE

by Anonymousreply 166August 18, 2022 10:52 AM

It seems like Charles had puffy fingers as far back as the engagement announcement. There's a brief shot of his and Diana's hands touching, and his fingers seemed way too puffy for the young, trim man he was back then.

by Anonymousreply 167August 18, 2022 11:34 AM

After Diana died, the UK public was very much in favor of canceling the Royals and letting it just phase out of society. She was like the hope for them to change and they pissed all over it until her untimely death. So it's no surprise there was a 20 year campaign to demonize her in the public eye and canonize the Camilla as the new Diana. It kind of worked, just look at how even some of the gays on here just want to play Whataboutism when it comes to Diana vs Camilla. A young girl vs a middle aged ugly horse. I think now the truth is finally coming out which is why there is renewed interest in Diana with all these documentaries and movies.

by Anonymousreply 168August 19, 2022 8:10 AM

I thought this was well done. No shitty voiceover or voxpop with ‘royal experts’ or ‘former friends’.

Watching the footage was chilling at times, she really was hounded.

The DL gay screamers we’re a delight and surprise.

by Anonymousreply 169August 19, 2022 8:15 AM

Why won't she lie quietly in her grave! I'm sick of her!

She was too tall. Her nose was too large for her face. Why was she ever so insanely popular? BTW, I was a kid when she married Chuck. (Fergie's wedding dress was much prettier than Di's was, FYI). I remember watching the long, boring ceremony on TV, and her face on most People magazine for more than a decade. Ugh. I just don't know how much more I can stand before I become anti-BRF. Whenever she comes up, I start thinking just like anti-monarchists in the UK. (Harkles does the opposite. IDKW)

by Anonymousreply 170August 19, 2022 9:13 AM

In her new book about the Royals, Tina Brown notes how much more beautiful Diana was in person. When we comment on the looks of celebrities, it’s always best to take into account how some can be very photogenic & others, like Diana, are not.

by Anonymousreply 171August 19, 2022 9:27 AM

"Concerned European" has stopped authenticating. Hmmmm . . .

by Anonymousreply 172August 19, 2022 9:30 AM

R160 I was part of that "UK public". I was not, nor was anyone I knew, in favour of abolishing the monarchy when Diana died. The monarchy's "popularity" poll ratings fell, but show us a poll that, when asked at the time, turned up a large majority (which would mean at least 75% to make the claim anything but laughable) in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

The monarchy, especially Charles, took a hit. But it was never remotely close to "the UK public" being in favour of abolishment. And it recovered remarkably well.

In fact, the monarchy came closer to a serious challenge during the Abdication crisis of 1936.

Public hysteria fed by tabloid headlines doesn't actually translate into an absurd statement like "The UK public".

You forget that her already stunningly handsome and popular older son was second in line for that same throne.

If the piblic could have cancelled Charles, you might have a story.

And, oddly, that remains plausible. I suspect and polls occasionally have supported, that about half the Great Unwashed, given a choice, would swap Charles for William if possible.

The monarchy was never in danger of anything but a pad patch in 1997.

That's the real question re Charles' reign: will it be a bad patch or the beginning of the end?

If William were first in line, no one would even ask the question.

by Anonymousreply 173August 19, 2022 10:51 AM

Another Di doco is The Diana Investigations, a 4-part look into the events surrounding the Di's death in the Alma tunnel. Lots of talking heads, but still worth a look. Available online for free streaming.

by Anonymousreply 174August 19, 2022 2:07 PM

R172 No I haven't, you creepy stalker.

by Anonymousreply 175August 19, 2022 5:02 PM

Diana came along at the right moment in time, just as cable news was taking off and the British tabloids were hungry for something, anything that would get attention and increase circulation. Diana was young, photogenic and hopelessly naïve. She would say things to reporters, as Tina Brown remembers after a theatre performance, “I’ve got pins and needles in my bottom from sitting so long.” Can you imagine the queen saying something like this? She was something the new, willing to engage and chat, but still mostly stay on message in those early days. This was a whole new world in terms of royal coverage. Looking back, if you take Diana out of context, she was a pretty aristocratic of no particular distinction or accomplishments. She dressed well, but so did most of her peers. She married the goofy looking next king and most people understand that, well, yes, they could understand why she married him. To really understand why Diana was such a big deal, you have to really put her in the context of the time and place that she first became famous.

by Anonymousreply 176August 19, 2022 5:25 PM

R147 Markle has a bachelor's in "Communications" which at Northwestern is Showbiz 101.

by Anonymousreply 177August 19, 2022 6:42 PM

R177, if she had really wanted to become a good actrees, Northwestern would've been a great place, alas ... she picked the easiest degree since she can't be arsed to do any work or put any proper effort into anything.

by Anonymousreply 178August 19, 2022 6:47 PM

R268. Nothing you’ve typed has any basis in fact. As another post has noted, the British public was never in favour of abolishing the monarchy, even at the height of the Diana insanity. There is no poll you can cite to support that claim. You made that up. And clearly itje monarchy has survived quite well for the 25 years after her death.

You also say the royal family pissed on what she did without citing a single example. Because they didn’t. And didn’t need her ditsy approach to modernisation. The institution has been more stable since she died.

The criticism of her is also not whataboutism. Her whole image was of the wronged wife. It is not whataboutism to point out she had affairs with married men, which means she is exactly the moral equivalent of Camilla. Exactly equivalent. But she was an enormous hypocrite about it. Did she say in her famous interview that the marriage was crowded, but that she could understand how that could happen because she personally found married men delicious? No she didn’t

And of course we a had to believe she was the tragic martyr of the tabloids when in reality she loved press attention and was actually killed by the drunk driver hired by her loser boyfriend while failing to wear a seat belt.

It was nauseating enough to watch thousands of people make fools of themselves at the altar of this hypocritical adulteress and press hound at the time of her death. Do we have to continue to behave like idiot children 25 year later?

by Anonymousreply 179August 19, 2022 7:39 PM

The other recurring delusion of this thread is that Diana had some special magic that left other members of the family in jealous awe. People speak as if Diana’s popularity would have left the Queen dumbstruck. If you watch any footage of the Queen’s early years on the throne you will quickly realise she had a grip on the public at that time that Diana never equaled. (Part of this is simply the decline in deference to hereditary monarchies.). Diana was popular, first because of the respect the monarchy enjoyed, which was largely the result of the Queen’s behaviour, which then reflected on Diana. Second, she was young. Third, she was attractive (although her attractiveness was exaggerated). Fourth, she was a woman. Fifth, she died before growing old. If the Queen had died suddenly at Diana’s age, the public response would have eclipsed what Diana received

by Anonymousreply 180August 19, 2022 8:56 PM

To the poster who said that William and Charles both married more affectionate versions of their mothers, I could not disagree more when it comes to William.

Kate is the anti-Diana. She is ultra-private and as unlike Diana as possible, aside from the fact that she is affectionate and empathetic.

Diana called members of the press literally every single day to get her 'side of the story' forward and make deals with them for favourable coverage and pap coverage, from about year 2 of her marriage onwards (see Richard Kay's account of this). She went to a public gym when there was already a private gym at Kensington Palace, knowing the paps would mob her there. She then acted like a hunted animal in the photos, to hide the fact that she herself was often the source of their knowlege of where she would be and when.

Kate, far from confiding in members of the press, has probably never even confided to any of her friends when she and William had a tiff, even though she has a close group of friends from school and university and her rowing team. She's level-headed, sane, and not an egomaniac. She has no aspirations to make herself the centre of the family, or to change the family through her actions. And of course, unlike Diana, Kate is genuinely beloved by nearly all who are close to her (see how the Queen, Philip, Charles and Camilla have all visibly shown real affection for her, even in public.

Diana had almost no friends. She had psychics, speech coaches, and journalists, but no real friends to speak of, because her borderlinism drove most people, including her own sisters, her brother, her grandmother, and her only friend in the family Fergie, away. The rest of the family saw her good qualities but grew to distrust her because of her secret life as a constant press source who mangled the actual facts to promote a narrative of her own victimhood.

William could not have chosen someone more different from Diana if he had made it his life's mission to do so (which he may well have done at one time).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 181August 19, 2022 10:20 PM

It’s astonishing the degree to which people overestimate Diana’s value to the royal family. The royal family’s contribution to Diana was almost infinite while Diana’s contribution. to the royal family was minuscule, if not negative.

What would Diana’s public importance have been if the royal family never existed? Absolutely zero. Where would the royal family have been if Diana never existed? Pretty much in the same place and likely better off. Since Charles doesn’t seem the type to fall for a Meghan Markel, almost any spouse he picked would likely have been more intelligent and more stable than Diana. In the process, two decades of her antics could have been avoided.

And contrary to what is so often claimed, the public was not dissatisfied with the royal family when Diana married into it nor was she necessarily to its modernisation. Diana was an instant worldwide celebrity upon marriage precisely because of the esteem and popularity of the family. If you think she ever could have achieved that popularity on her own you are seriously delusional.

The royal family has consistently modernised itself. The queen has shown herself of moving the monarchy with the times without the help of dim witted teenagers. The monarchy Diana married into was not the monarchy of 1952.

by Anonymousreply 182August 19, 2022 10:34 PM

R14...Actually, it was. That scene was in the documentary....lol.

by Anonymousreply 183August 19, 2022 10:57 PM

Completely agree with posters above puncturing the balloon of Saint Diana. Also completely agree that William has, in fact, followed in his father's footsteps by marrying a down to earth, sensible, clear-sighted woman who is the polar opposite of Diana - it was Charles' tragedy to end up with the right woman only after marrying the wrong one the first time around.

Harry ignored both examples and married a woman as much like Diana as possible, only minus the charm and beauty.

by Anonymousreply 184August 19, 2022 11:25 PM

The documentary detailed how the paps chased Di relentlessly. But she also cultivated them, she needed to get her fix and be on the front page of the tabs to spite Charles. They didn't include anything about her relationship with Richard Kay of the Daily Mail. She was constantly phoning and meeting him to give him scoops to alternatively infuriate Charles or try to make him jealous.

Di was her own worst enemy.

by Anonymousreply 185August 20, 2022 12:01 AM

[quote] [Diana]’d still be grandmother to the future queen...

So, we're going all out on DL that George is going to be a queen?

by Anonymousreply 186August 20, 2022 12:54 AM

R186 you fool

----Queen Charlotte the Great

by Anonymousreply 187August 20, 2022 4:21 PM

Is there some kind of inverse relationship between sheer number of books/documentaries/films etc. based on a person's life and the accuracy or objectivity of those works? It seems most of the output inspired by Diana has been invested in portraying her either as the ultimate betrayed, hunted innocent or the biggest narc operator ever. She was obviously both of those things and it would be so nice to watch a serious documentary that took in the wholeness of who she was without getting trapped by trying to sell one narrative or the other.

by Anonymousreply 188August 20, 2022 8:46 PM

R188 For that you have to go to the books. Sallycl Bedell-Smith's Diana in Search of Herself, Lady Colin Campbell's first book about Diana (Dinana in Private?), and Tina Brown's first on her, The Diana Chronicles, provide a more nuanced view of Diana.

Brown's is the most entertaining. Smith's is the most serious, Lady C's in-between. All three feel extremely authentic and excruciatingly well sourced.

The public these days don't have the attention span for much nuance in film and tv.

The books are much, much better.

by Anonymousreply 189August 20, 2022 9:07 PM

Im not saying that Diana was anywhere near as vile as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, but the public embrace of the Windsor’s “love story” persisted for almost 70 years. Now almost everyone acknowledges what sad, disreputable characters they were and that they lives anything but a great romance. I trust that as the public that was duped and manipulated by Diana die off she will be remembered as the vapid, manipulative, and hypocritical human being that she was.

by Anonymousreply 190August 20, 2022 10:57 PM

It's very well done, with fascinating interviews and footage, and by the end, rather moving.

by Anonymousreply 191August 20, 2022 11:02 PM

Thank you R189. There's something that puts me off about Tina Brown so I might look into getting my hands on the Bedell-Smith book. Thanks for the recs.

by Anonymousreply 192August 21, 2022 12:20 AM

Sally Bedell-Smith also wrote one of the best books about the Kennedy marriage I’ve ever read.

by Anonymousreply 193August 21, 2022 12:36 AM

Who’d have thought I’d be sick and tired of the media shoving this woman down my throat AGAIN? She died and that should be the end of it.

by Anonymousreply 194August 21, 2022 1:33 AM

[quote]It was nauseating enough to watch thousands of people make fools of themselves at the altar of this hypocritical adulteress and press hound at the time of her death. Do we have to continue to behave like idiot children 25 year later?

Will someone give Camilla a carrot to munch on?

by Anonymousreply 195August 21, 2022 3:31 AM

And yet R194, you are probably not complaining about the endless books, movies, paintings of other dead Royals. The Monarchy has always celebrated itself and it's dead relatives ad nauseam so I dont see how this is any different.

by Anonymousreply 196August 21, 2022 3:35 AM

I like Camilla a lot. She breezed though years of public vilification and mockery ("How could Charles prefer dowdy old Camilla to young fashion plat Di!!") without any fucks to give. She "kept her powder dry", played the long game and won.

by Anonymousreply 197August 21, 2022 9:49 AM

R196 The endless books and films werent made or written by the royals themselves. The paintings are a standing tradition in all courts and are only of the Sivereign and the next heir.

It's the writers and filmmakers who keep trying to make bank on the monarchy you should blame. And these days, it's often less than celebratory.

The only two senior royals who have written or are writing books about themselves are the Duke of Windsor and Prince Harry Duke of Sussex.

That should tell you something about whonthe self-celebtatory types are.

by Anonymousreply 198August 21, 2022 10:33 AM

I despised Camilla for years. But I have to say while she hasn't won me over, she doesn't bother me anymore. She seems to be normal and down to earth. Princess Di was exhaustingly needy.

by Anonymousreply 199August 21, 2022 9:19 PM

^To call Diana "high maintenance" is to seriously understate the case.

And Harry married someone right off the same assembly line.

by Anonymousreply 200August 21, 2022 9:32 PM

You anti Harry/Meghan people are just desperate to work them into everything.

by Anonymousreply 201August 21, 2022 9:33 PM

^ Just like you pro Harry/Meghan people love to mention Diana whenever possible. Just like Harry does, in fact.

by Anonymousreply 202August 21, 2022 10:34 PM

It’s a thread about Diana. And who speaks more about her than Harry does? It’s not randomly off-topic to discuss how he married a woman who’s just as fucked-up as his mother.

by Anonymousreply 203August 21, 2022 11:21 PM

Diana was right about Charles not being fit to be King. His reign will be the beginning of the end of the Monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 204August 21, 2022 11:39 PM

^ Charles's reign likely will be shorter than the 15-year rule of his grandfather.

by Anonymousreply 205August 21, 2022 11:46 PM

R201 - Dear, I don't know if you've noticed, especially as he keeps bringing it up, but Harry is Diana's son and his wife thought she would be Diana 2.0.

So, this thread isn't "everything". It's about Harry's Mum and Mum's life, of which Harry is a part.

And they named the baby "Lilibet Diana", remember?

It's not even a good try. My next guess: early onset dementia.

by Anonymousreply 206August 22, 2022 12:12 AM

[quote]The endless books and films werent made or written by the royals themselves.

Yes, of course, why would they? They have people they can pay to do that for them. Stop, stop, you are making us more famous, oh please stop talking about us and our endless public displays to show the commoners we see them.

by Anonymousreply 207August 22, 2022 9:39 AM

[quote]I despised Camilla for years. But I have to say while she hasn't won me over, she doesn't bother me anymore.

That's the same thing I say about anal warts. I used to hate them, but haven't bothered me for years. They kind of grow on you.

by Anonymousreply 208August 22, 2022 9:42 AM

[quote] Diana was "high maintenance"

Really? Do tell?

"Charles, Prince of Wales, reportedly, takes his bed, toilet, toilet papers, and paintings, along with him, wherever he goes."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 209August 22, 2022 9:46 AM

[Quote]So it's no surprise there was a 20 year campaign to demonize her in the public eye and canonize the Camilla as the new Diana. It kind of worked, j

This times 1000. I was a Uni student in London when Diana died. Daily life was quite bleak in the City for some time. Diana's photo was in shop windows everywhere. She was beloved and there was a lot of grief.

Over time one could see there were forces working to tear down Diana while attempting to legitimize the rottweiler.

by Anonymousreply 210August 22, 2022 10:35 AM

R210 never went to university, let alone in London.

Or was there a Trump University branch somewhere in London?

by Anonymousreply 211August 22, 2022 11:00 AM

R207 Sure, Jan. The Queen paid Andrew Morton (thrice by my count by now), Robert Lacey (twice), Tina Brown (twice), Robert Jobson, Lady Colin Campbell (at least twice), Penelope Mortimer, Elizabeth Longford, Tom Bower, James Patterson, Dimble, and the host of others over a century and more if you count Victoria'a reign, feeding merrily at the monarchy trough.

And we won't even bring up Thomas More turning poor Richard III into the monster we were all trained to think of him as. and the Bard spinning the Wars of the Roses into gold for authors, theatre directors, television programmes for the next 500 years.

Because, honestly, no one would even know there IS a British monarchy if it hadn't paid all those writers, biographers, and filmmakers to get their names out there, right?

They pay PR and "Communications" for that shit.

The others didn't need to be hired.

Although, onw could make the case that Omid Scobie is a quasi-hired of the Sussexes.

Even Shakespeare wasn't paid by the monarchy, although every one of those theatres belonged to the Sovereign. And he had to write the Wars of the Rose's plays with one ear cocked at the Tudor on the throne, because it would have been as much as his life was worth to tell the truth about Richard III.

Sure, the monarchy paid them all.

Ah, well, it probably wouldn't have been as iconic a Rolex if he'd told the truth about Richard.

by Anonymousreply 212August 22, 2022 11:15 AM

^*iconic a role (not Rolex)

Jesus, some days the autocorrect really goes off the deep end.

by Anonymousreply 213August 22, 2022 11:17 AM

Hey r211 the London School of Economics is in London. I'm Spanish so WTF does your Trump pal have to with anything?

by Anonymousreply 214August 22, 2022 11:43 AM

This photo was enclosed in one of the Sunday newspapers at the time of Diana's death. Many shop owners put it in their windows.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215August 22, 2022 11:56 AM

Congrats on being able to look up some London-based school on the internet, R214.

by Anonymousreply 216August 22, 2022 12:01 PM

R210 Right, it's not true that she blithely did to other wives what she was done to her by having affairs with their husbands. She never stalked Oliver Hoare (also married), although she issued a public apology for doing so.

And she didn't quite willingly hop into bed with that sleazy playboy with a fiancee parked on a yacht not too far away

It was all made up.

Diana was no saint. It wasn't a campaign that was the truth. And "canonise" is a ludicrous assertion. It was a campaign to get Camilla reasonably accepted by the public so that after 15 years of marital misery and endless drama, Charles could move on to decent private life.

And I was there at the time. The city wasn't "bleak", after the hysteria died down, life went on as usual

The campaign to turn Diana from a lunching shopping Sloane Ranger into the Saviour of the People took years, too.

But you wouldn't remember those pesky truths, would you?

by Anonymousreply 217August 22, 2022 12:01 PM

Hey r216 everybody on the planet knows the LSE, but you need to consult the interwebs to learn of of it? DL sees you, troll.

by Anonymousreply 218August 22, 2022 12:06 PM

R210's attempt at coming up with that Saint Diana / Evil Camilla shit is incredibly ludicrous.

Diana will never be replaced by Camilla anyway, so R210 doesn't need to shit bricks out of fear of Saint Diana being forgotten and demonized. Don't forget one of Princess Charlotte's names is Diana --- christening a person in direct line to the throne "Charlotte Elizabeth Diana" was a powerful sign of William making clear his mother will not be forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 219August 22, 2022 12:07 PM

R218, please learn to read. It's YOU who had to consult the internet.

No way you dumb bitch went to LSE.

by Anonymousreply 220August 22, 2022 12:09 PM

[quote] Don't forget one of Princess Charlotte's names is Diana --- christening a person in direct line to the throne "Charlotte Elizabeth Diana" was a powerful sign of William making clear his mother will not be forgotten.

What am I? Chopped liver?

by Anonymousreply 221August 22, 2022 12:11 PM

Jaja. Funny troll, you. Hey, listen to this, pal. I also speak 4 languages. That always kills vapid Americans like yourself.

by Anonymousreply 222August 22, 2022 12:12 PM

Idiot R222, four languages? You're probably about as proficient in them as Melania "Vairst Letty" Trump is in the five languages she's supposed to speak.

by Anonymousreply 223August 22, 2022 12:15 PM

Hey R220 ^^ that was for you my lowly educated pal.

by Anonymousreply 224August 22, 2022 12:16 PM

Hey r223. Tell me about your dick. I'm starting to like you. Do you like the music of Rocio Jurado?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 225August 22, 2022 12:23 PM

Btw, idiot Sussex stinkfish @ R222 (because your crap reads exactly like the shit the Sussex stinkfish used to post here with her dozens of accounts), I'm not from the United States, and I speak more languages than you allegedly do. And unlike you, I'm able to say more than "Put the money on the drawer" and "Up the ass is extra" in these languages.

And now kindly fuck off. Time to get another account, bitch.

by Anonymousreply 226August 22, 2022 12:24 PM

The Meghan obsessives ruin every royal thread.

by Anonymousreply 227August 22, 2022 12:27 PM

LOL, now the Sussex stinkfish has switched to another accounts of hers @ R227.

by Anonymousreply 228August 22, 2022 12:29 PM

Says of all people the Sussex stinkfish @ R227.

by Anonymousreply 229August 22, 2022 12:30 PM

Hey 223 you've got a friend at r226. Are you both Rocio Jurado fans? I don't know WTF r226 is talking about but it does amuse.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 230August 22, 2022 12:31 PM

How come these Church of Diana loons always end up on the DL? Instead of infesting this place, why don't they keep praying to Diana Dea Divinissima and the Church of Diana's high priest, Harry?

by Anonymousreply 231August 22, 2022 12:40 PM

Hey, my new friends I'm wondering. Do you think Diana met Rocio Jurado? Princess Grace did so why not Diana? I'm quite sure the rottweiler did not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 232August 22, 2022 12:43 PM

Someone here is pretty much obsessed with Diana, Camilla, and some Spanish singer nobody neither knows nor cares about . . .

by Anonymousreply 233August 22, 2022 12:51 PM

See. Here they are. Princess Grace and Rocio Jurado. No Diana though. Maybe she's on the other side of the table or in the loo.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 234August 22, 2022 1:04 PM

R227 Meghan Markle IS a royal, remember?

She and Harry have been shoving their royalty, clinging desperately to it whilst trashing its source, for the last 2.5 years.

Any discussion of the two belongs legitimately in any royal thread - including devoted to the Mum that Harry never stops talking about, and whose wife has some uncanny characteristics in common with his late Mum.

Including, rewriting history to suit her own agenda, which Diana was legendary for.

You don't like it, move on.

by Anonymousreply 235August 22, 2022 1:27 PM

You wont see this kind of mass grief when the old horse Camilla dies. Just saying. Look at the wall of flowers that sprung up in front of the palace, it was in response to the "no response" from the queen at the time. Until it became too unbearable that she had to speak. She waited for FIVE DAYS!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236August 22, 2022 10:16 PM

That was nothing but mass hysteria, my dear.

by Anonymousreply 237August 22, 2022 10:25 PM

R209 yes, of course Prince Charles is incredibly high maintenance. Obviously. But Charles being high maintenance doesn't somehow mean Diana *wasn't*. She very much was.

What is with people who think like this? Person A is a thief so it is impossible for Person B to also be a thief. Person X is a horrible bitch so there's no way Person Y can be a horrible bitch. That just isn't how it works. This is what the Sussex stans do with Kate. Even if everything they say they believe about her (horrible person, awful mother, fugly, weak, uninteresting, stupid etc. etc.) is 100% true, that still doesn't make Meghan Markle *not* any of those things.

by Anonymousreply 238August 23, 2022 4:36 AM

Was Princess Diana homophobic?

by Anonymousreply 239August 23, 2022 4:37 AM

To the Spanish Diana fan, I'm sorry you're being attacked for liking Diana. People can be very hostile here, to even a slightly differing opinion. But out of curiosity, how do you defend Diana as this perfect person when she herself was an adulteress (with multiple men!) who stalked at least one of them and tormented the wife of another with 100s of phone calls to their private home.

I'm not of the opinion that Diana had no redeeming qualities and it's true she was shockingly young and naive when she married, but she had a very manipulative, selfish side to her as well and to be honest she wasn't a great mother, especially to William who she parentified.

by Anonymousreply 240August 23, 2022 4:39 AM

Madonna and Diana have similar personalities.

by Anonymousreply 241August 23, 2022 4:47 AM

[quote]Was Princess Diana homophobic?

Are you high? She loved gay men. She loved gay music, her best friends were gay and the ONLY person of the Royal family who would set foot in an AIDS ward of a hospital to show some kindness. Elton John even changed the lyrics to one of his songs in honor of her passing. Goodby Norma Jean (Marilyn Monroe) = Goodby English Rose.

by Anonymousreply 242August 23, 2022 10:16 AM

[quote]Madonna and Diana have similar personalities.

Uh, no they dont. Camilia are more like Madonna. Looks almost as bad by the way. Both selfish cunts.

by Anonymousreply 243August 23, 2022 10:17 AM

[quote]yes, of course Prince Charles is incredibly high maintenance. Obviously. But Charles being high maintenance doesn't somehow mean Diana *wasn't*. She very much was.

Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout. Give it up already. Diana was not used to the trappings of the Royal family. She was very humble by most people's standards. In fact part of her struggle was adjusting to the demanding and entitled behavior of the Royals. That's why she was so beloved at the time, she was relatable to the commoners.

by Anonymousreply 244August 23, 2022 10:21 AM

R237, the reason there was mass hysteria is because she was so loved by so many people. It was a shock that she died so young. You have never seen people grieve for someone young before?

by Anonymousreply 245August 23, 2022 10:23 AM

Wow. I think there is a genuine Diana Psycho in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 246August 23, 2022 10:26 AM

Oh be quiet Camella, don't you have a few more cocktails to suck down before noon?

by Anonymousreply 247August 23, 2022 10:34 AM

[quote] Camilia are more like Madonna.

Oh dear. Off to English Grammar 101 with you, Diana loon.

by Anonymousreply 248August 23, 2022 12:31 PM

R245, oh I have. But they didn't behave like hysterical lunatics like many people did back then and like you do now.

She's been dead for 25 years now and life goes on. Everybody has moved on --- everybody but you.

by Anonymousreply 249August 23, 2022 12:33 PM

No one anywhere ever suggested that the public would indulge itself in mass hysteria when Camilla dies.

But if Camilla died tomorrow, her HUSBAND would be crushed with grief and loss.

Charles' grief over Diana was tangential, not personal: for the impact on his sons, and his likely knowledge of impending public crucifixion because his ex dismissed her RPOs, didn't wear a seat belt, and chose to get involved with the idiot scion of one of the most corrupt men in Britain.

Camilla, on the other hand, succeeded in generating the love where it counted: at home.

In which arena the hysterically venerated Diana totally failed.

Diana was a star. Camilla isn't. But Camilla is the deeply loved wife Diana couldn't be. Diana was a fae defter hand with the public than at relationships. Charles went on to form a deep and fulfilling successful marriage. Diana went on cocking it up every time, cf. Carling, Hoare, Khan, Fayed - married men, unsuitable men, sleazy men.

I'd take the hubby's love and respect over the public's on the following days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

Diana had youth, beauty, charisma, arista pedigree, extraordinary photogeniety, a tragic early death, and a fantastic, quickly mastered aptitude for press and image manipulation. Meghan is a rank amateur in comparison.

So, no, the public won't put on the same show for the dead Camilla.

But it will likely far more respect Charles' grief for the very real thing it will be.

by Anonymousreply 250August 23, 2022 12:36 PM

[quote]Nothing you’ve typed has any basis in fact. As another post has noted, the British public was never in favour of abolishing the monarchy, even at the height of the Diana insanity. There is no poll you can cite to support that claim. You made that up.

I doubt he made it up just to troll, as you imply. He's probably going off of memory from US reporting. Tony Benn's bill to abolish the monarchy was read first in 1991 but it was repeatedly read afterwards, and in the US, it was reported as "gaining support" when it almost surely wasn't. There was also that "Monarchy: The Nation Decides" show in 1997, and a slight dip in monarchy approval in polling in the late 1990s. When the House of Lords removed the hereditary peers in 1999, and when Australia just barely voted to keep the monarchy, we also got more articles about how the monarchy wasn't popular in the UK anymore.

In retrospect, that was clearly just some entertainment news mumbo jumbo, but I can absolutely see someone remembering all that and thinking there was a strong movement to abolish the monarchy after people were upset about Diana's treatment.

However, if you look at the historical polls, you won't see a significant dip in approval of the monarchy until 2018.

by Anonymousreply 251August 23, 2022 1:08 PM

The person who keeps harping on about Diana being an "adulteress" is hilarious to me.

by Anonymousreply 252August 23, 2022 1:10 PM

Documentaries are the way to go with Diana. No actress can compete with the charisma of the real woman.

by Anonymousreply 253August 23, 2022 1:16 PM

^ Same with the Kennedys.

by Anonymousreply 254August 23, 2022 1:22 PM

Why is it hilarious to point out she was an enthusiastic about adultery, except when it happens to her?

by Anonymousreply 255August 23, 2022 2:51 PM

Anyone agree that Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe were similar?

by Anonymousreply 256August 23, 2022 9:05 PM

R256 Yes, there is definitely a similar quality to their respective fates, the way the camera loved each woman, their pathetic narcissism, and their vulnerability and search for something outside themselves that would anchor the chaos inside.

by Anonymousreply 257August 24, 2022 12:43 AM

R257, agreed

by Anonymousreply 258August 24, 2022 2:25 AM

[quote]Anyone agree that Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe were similar?

I agree.

by Anonymousreply 259August 24, 2022 2:28 AM

[quote]She's been dead for 25 years now and life goes on. Everybody has moved on --- everybody but you.

I didnt start this thread or produce the new movies and videos about her life that just came on line recently. Perhaps it's you who can sit well with the past. History is history just like the Monarchy, people will still talk about them, be interested in their lives long after they are gone. Something in the past bothering you Dear?

I know you want us all to embrace Camilla and shove all the bad stuff under carpet, or in "her nickers", sorry to burst your bubble, the public wants to know about Diana and keep her memory alive. I am not the one making these movies. You are the one who seems to have issues with Princess Diana, the only one the people actually liked in the last 50 years.

by Anonymousreply 260August 24, 2022 4:30 AM

[quote]he British public was never in favour of abolishing the monarchy,

Perhaps you should be. What do they actually do except take tax money from the public and act as ceremonial figure heads?

by Anonymousreply 261August 24, 2022 4:34 AM

The posters propping Charles up are a joke. The guy is awful.

R261, I agree. On a practical level, it’s shocking how long they’ve lasted. They suck the tax payer dry and keep asking for increases from the government when they’re worth billions. They also meddle in government affairs, including getting bills passed that protect them. The more I read about them, the more I wonder why they are so beloved in England.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 262August 24, 2022 4:52 AM

Prince Charles is not too bright or beloved when it comes to his opinion on Architecture. He wants to live in the past and doesn't understand its an evolving art form, not a style you just pick out of a guided crown.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 263August 24, 2022 5:06 AM

[quote] her nickers

Oh dear, Diana lunatic @ R260 . . .

by Anonymousreply 264August 24, 2022 11:31 AM

Jesus, sucking the taxpayer dry????!!!!

Where ate you, sweetie, stuck somewhere in the reign of Richard II?!

Taxpayers, including in America, are being "sucked dry" by global corpratists in the fuel, medical, pharmaceutical, military, and tech industries.

The monarchy hasn't "sucked the taxpayer" dry in centuries.

It's the least of Britain's problems.

Make yourself a cuppa, open a history book, and catch up.

by Anonymousreply 265August 24, 2022 11:45 AM

R260. Princess Diana is the only one people liked in the last 50 years? Do you Diana fanatics make the slightest attempt to anchor your claims to reality?

by Anonymousreply 266August 24, 2022 12:00 PM

R251. You do realise that pretty much every European country has someone who receives taxpayer money “just to act as a figurehead”?

by Anonymousreply 267August 24, 2022 12:03 PM

Yes, Diana was the "only" person in the royal family anyone in Britain "liked" in recent memory.

Jesus. The beloved King George VI and his wife, the Queen Mother, who led the country through WWII? Have you looked at the footage of his funeral, with throngs as big as those for Diana lining the streets? The crowds filling the Mall to forever under the balcony of BP after VE Day, and for Elizabeth's wedding in 1947?

Have you checked YouGov for the polls for the monarchy and its family members lately?

The Queen has an 82% approval rating and remains one of the most admired women in the world - wait till you see HER funeral.

She is closely followed by William and his wife, Catherine. Everyone else in the family, including the next King, are well behind the three in the top places, who, respectively, represent the past and the longer-term future of the monarchy. Charles' will be a "bridge" monarchy and everyone will be looking over his shoulder toward the Cambridges.

The only royal anyone liked? Seriously? Are you mental?

by Anonymousreply 268August 24, 2022 12:26 PM

R258. But she was the only one we knew about and liked in America!!!

by Anonymousreply 269August 24, 2022 12:57 PM

Keep tooting that tired horn, R265.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 270August 24, 2022 2:13 PM

You do realise that all heads of state have official buildings that cost money to maintain?

by Anonymousreply 271August 24, 2022 2:25 PM

R271, you do realize they are privately worth billions of dollars and can maintain the properties themselves?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272August 24, 2022 2:43 PM

R272 aka complete moron, do you realise most of these nice properties don't belong to them but to the state?

by Anonymousreply 273August 24, 2022 2:46 PM

I knew that would be your reply R273, haha. Do they pay fees to live there? You’re ridiculous and not worth my time.

by Anonymousreply 274August 24, 2022 2:50 PM

R274. They don’t actually like living in Buckingham Palace but they do so to fulfil their functions. I doubt they would be sad to give up that one at the very least.

by Anonymousreply 275August 24, 2022 2:53 PM

R272 Who fo you think maintains state buildings elsewhere?

If they did, they could keep the revenues earned by the tourists who pay to ser the places.

But they don't. That goes back into the Treasury.

You can't be a public state building AND ask the residents to pay for it privately AND ask them to serve the public in that role.

You're either the fox or the hounds but you can't t be both. If you want zero taxpayer involvement, vote the monarchy out. Bit whilst on, it IS part of the fabric of public life AND an arm of the Ship of State.

As it happens, both Charles and the Queen make hefty voluntary contributions to the Treasury annually as well as income tax (that has included the Queen since 1992).

And, as it happens, Charles did pour a million or so into refurbishing Clarence House.

Really? With the massive fuel cost crucifying households this winter, inflation projected at 18%, and the NHS crumbling before our eyes, and you want us to believe that the taxpayer's real problem is the monarchy?

The 1930s that Chips Channon called "the thin-faced thirties" will have nothing on what's facing Britain now - save your indignation for the successive governments that got us here.

The monarchy are pikers.

by Anonymousreply 276August 24, 2022 3:07 PM

They don’t actually like living in Buckingham Palace but they do so to fulfil their functions. I doubt they would be sad to give up that one at the very least.

Poor dears! Forced to live in a palace!

by Anonymousreply 277August 24, 2022 5:19 PM

Enough already!!

by Anonymousreply 278August 24, 2022 5:22 PM

[quote]You do realise that pretty much every European country has someone who receives taxpayer money “just to act as a figurehead”?

In Europe? Yes, and it's a stupid legacy when you have a parliamentary government.

by Anonymousreply 279August 27, 2022 7:06 AM

The next generation of Brits leaning toward abolishing the monarchy. According to the survey by YouGov, 41% of those aged 18 to 24 thought there should now be an elected head of state.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 280August 27, 2022 7:11 AM

Just watched the documentary.

Does Camila having a painting in the attic? She hasn't aged in 40 years....still looks like an old bag.

by Anonymousreply 281August 27, 2022 8:01 AM

r281: And she doesn't give a fuck. She wins.

by Anonymousreply 282August 27, 2022 8:58 AM

The problem with those polls is that, eventually, those 18-24 year olds turn into 40-60 year olds. People tend to become more socially conservative as they age.

Case in point: the age group now most supportive of the monarchy are the kids from the Swingin' Sixties, a decade of supersonic social upheavals and massive rebellion against traditional structures - especially the monarchy.

And, yet, here they are, amongst the 3 out of 4 Britons (75%, hmmmm? If only, sighs Biden and Truss) supporting the monarchy. Clearly, they've reassessed their stance over the last half century.

That's the thing about monarchy, especially Britain's: it plays the long game.

by Anonymousreply 283August 27, 2022 12:10 PM

^and if Charles had the decency to step aside or die before he finally gets the top job, and lets the immensely popular, youthful Cambridges take over, I wouldn't wager a farthing against the Windsors.

by Anonymousreply 284August 27, 2022 12:13 PM

Charles' reign won't be a very long one anyway. Plus, the Cambridges will have a lot to say then. But there's no way of Charles stepping aside in favour of William, because, let's face it, by the time he will become monarch at last, he will have been waiting to do so literally his entire life.

by Anonymousreply 285August 27, 2022 12:44 PM

R279. Good point. That’s probably why European countries have failed to elect outstanding political leaders love Trump, Bush, Nixon, and Carter. It’s amazing so few European countries have profited from the American example. I mean, why have a separate person perform the ceremonial functions of state when the head of government could be opening schools, hosting leaders, etc? He or she doesn’t need to run the country full time. It would also ensure we had political leaders we would like to have a beer with, like you Americans do.

At the same time they could instituted the electoral college and a senate where 500 000 people as 40 million people.

Americans are so lucky and admired!

by Anonymousreply 286August 27, 2022 1:53 PM

R283, that is not the same thing at all.

by Anonymousreply 287August 27, 2022 1:57 PM

R287 What are you talking about? The people in the age group now supporting the monarchy WERE the 18-24 year olds in the Sixties.

by Anonymousreply 288August 27, 2022 7:12 PM

I don’t think being socially conservative has a lot to do with supporting or opposing the monarchy. I would imagine that the majority of 18-24 yr olds in the 1960s favored the monarchy. The article even says “Just 10 years ago monarchists were consistently boasting that three-quarters of the population supported the royals. Now support stands at just 60 percent." The other article also mentions 65+ yr olds are the largest monarchy supporters, which means they lose support with every generation that comes after. I don’t see younger people changing their minds on this kind of subject, even less so when the Queen dies. I don’t think they’re in imminent danger, but it’s very possible William will be the last King in the traditional sense.

by Anonymousreply 289August 28, 2022 5:21 AM

Most hippies were never really liberal, they were the ME generation and just mostly selfish assholes. It's not a surprise most of them turned into conservative assholes. It's a foolish assumption to say every generation fallows that pattern.

by Anonymousreply 290August 28, 2022 8:29 AM

[quote]That’s probably why European countries have failed to elect outstanding political leaders love Trump, Bush, Nixon, and Carter.

Oh for fucks sake, yeah, Europe is such a great example of picking leaders like Hitler, Mouslini and Stallin? Funny how you conveniently forget your own history when you are playing Whaaboutism.

by Anonymousreply 291August 28, 2022 8:33 AM

R291 And Macron.

by Anonymousreply 292August 28, 2022 8:38 AM

[quote]why have a separate person perform the ceremonial functions of state when the head of government could be opening schools, hosting leaders, etc? He or she doesn’t need to run the country full time. It would also ensure we had political leaders we would like to have a beer with, like you Americans do.

Actually, most leaders of a country want to meet with the other leaders, not ceremonial figureheads. The figurehead like a Queen of England is not the guy who can get things done or who you can directly negotiate with. It might be nice to have a spot of tea and see her fancy digs but it's all a waste of time if you are a leader from another country that needs and immediate response to a international crisis.

FYI, in spite of who you think you know about Americans from the media, most of us are not beer drinkers. And out of that, mostly the low brow lower class are obsessed wit that. Only 65% of Americans drink any alcohol at all! This is probably shocking for a Brit to understand who typically drink every day and never occurs the them they might have a problem.

by Anonymousreply 293August 28, 2022 8:46 AM

In a global comparison the US is in 17th place for per capita beer consumption

The top spot goes to the Czech Republic with 181.9 liters of beer consumed per capita (BCPC), followed by Austria (96.8 BCPC), Poland (96.1 BCPC), Romania (95.2 BCPC), and Germany (92.4 BCPC).

From time to time I'm put in a position I should have one for courtesy but it's nothing I ever actually wish or drink at home.

by Anonymousreply 294August 28, 2022 9:07 AM

But, R290, it’s a universal truth that, generally, people, whatever their generation, become embittered by age, a factor that informs their increasing conservatism.

by Anonymousreply 295August 28, 2022 4:54 PM

R289 - You "imagine" wrong. Every last social structure existing was under attack by youth in the Sixties. I was there, in Britain. Support for the monarchy is, according to that poll, STILL supported by 75% of respondents because 1 in 4 means 25% against and 75% for.

Anti-establishmentarianism was THE watchword of the day. Take a listen to the Kings' songs, to the lyrics of "Satisfaction" and the other songs on, e.g., High Tide and Green Grass . . . Christ, just look at Angry Young Men films from the mid-1950s through the late Sixties.

No way the British youth of the Sixties was as supportive of the monarchy as their elders, and, what do you know, that's still the case today. Only the elders are the kids who packed the Cavern in Liverpool, flocked to films like Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Billy Liar, Morgan (my personal favourite, by the way) . . . all Up Yours Establishment films.

Now all those people are in the age group most supportive of the monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 296August 28, 2022 6:01 PM

^*Kinks' songs (not King's)

Oh, and add to that The Who, Jimmy Hendrix (discovered by ex-Animals bassist, Chas Chandler, thank you very much) . . .

by Anonymousreply 297August 28, 2022 6:02 PM

Diana's has far exceded smegs acting, at least with diana ALOT of people bought her act, the " poor poor little princess act" . ! Now that the truth has come out ( diana was a little bedhopper too ) and how she continually called the press will complaining about them, well ,not alotof people look at her in the same way. Dianas legacy is mostly over , it was a good run while it lasted. But now we have a monster of a human portraying herself as the bestest best ever, which is the farthest thing from the truth as one could get.

by Anonymousreply 298August 28, 2022 6:29 PM

R293, almost all fully-functioning democracies have a separate head of government and separate head of state. Just take a look at Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Even France, which is primarily a presidential system, has a prime minister. The US is probably the only democracy which doesn't have this separation, aside from the often dysfunctional Latin American countries.

by Anonymousreply 299August 28, 2022 6:42 PM

R289 = American

by Anonymousreply 300August 28, 2022 6:42 PM

R284 clearly doesn't understand the concept of hereditary monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 301August 28, 2022 6:44 PM

Tell us about Juan Carlos, r214.

by Anonymousreply 302August 28, 2022 6:47 PM

Do you think Diana ever encountered smegma in her lifetime?

by Anonymousreply 303August 28, 2022 7:38 PM

Seeing the extended cut of the Diana Scream video has been life changing, second only to the Zapruder film Does that mean the director is a DLer?

by Anonymousreply 304August 28, 2022 10:23 PM

The story of a privileged girl who had an emotionally rotten childhood who tried to transform the monarchy by pretending she could relate to the poor having never been poor in her entire life and loving Muslim dick until the day she died.

by Anonymousreply 305August 28, 2022 10:29 PM

[quote] Do you think Diana ever encountered smegma in her lifetime?

Will Carling

James Hewitt

Bryan Adams

James Gilby

Oliver Hoare

Barry Mannakee

by Anonymousreply 306August 28, 2022 10:35 PM

R306 - Haven't you omitted a couple of people?

by Anonymousreply 307August 28, 2022 11:55 PM

I think he’s excluding the circumcised ones. The heart doctor isn’t listed either.

by Anonymousreply 308August 29, 2022 12:28 AM

R307 Charles and Dodi were circumcised, so not smegma factories.

by Anonymousreply 309August 29, 2022 12:29 AM

It's actually YOU, R244, who is whatabouting at R209. That's literally what the post at 209 is: "but what about Charles?! He wuz also high maintenance!" - that's it. That's whatabouting, and it's you doing it.

This, at R238:

[quote]yes, of course Prince Charles is incredibly high maintenance. Obviously. But Charles being high maintenance doesn't somehow mean Diana *wasn't*. She very much was.

is actually just pointing out the error in whataboutery. Charles being high maintenance doesn't mean Diana wasn't. Diana being high maintenance doesn't mean Charles wasn't. They BOTH were/are.

by Anonymousreply 310August 29, 2022 1:08 AM

R262 I agree with you that Charles is awful, and have thought for a long time that he'll be a shit king. He's almost lucky his brother and second son are such fuck-ups, because it's really pulling the focus off all the dodgy characters he's accepted huge sums of money from "for his charity."

But Diana was also awful. She was a shit wife, just as Charles was a shit husband. And she was a shit mother just as Charles was a shit father. A person could almost (note: almost) get to feeling sorry for Harry when you think about the environment in which he was brought up, parented by 2 spoiled, self-involved idiots.

Both also have aspects of themselves that could be softening or sympathetic and on this count I think Diana has more than Charles, mainly in the form of her extreme youth and immaturity when they married.

by Anonymousreply 311August 29, 2022 1:15 AM

She really was a blushing, shy, very young girl...even for a nineteen year old. She could barely look at anyone or open her mouth. She kept her head down, using her large eyes to look up, which gave her that appealing, demure look that drew in people. It was am arranged marriage because of the pressure on Charles to produce an heir. She was the perfect, sweet and virginal choice. It wasn't expected that she would break out into a superstar, upstaging Charles....who had a lot of resentment. The world fell in love with her. She spoke easily to all people and seemed to relate to them. She wasn't a stiff royal. There will always be a lot of interest in her....for years to come, even if the information is repetitive. Like Marilyn Monroe... we've heard just about everything about her, yet we can't seem to get enough. There's a fascination.

by Anonymousreply 312August 29, 2022 1:48 AM

*an arranged marriage..^

by Anonymousreply 313August 29, 2022 1:49 AM

R309 Charles is cut? I should have remembered Dodi and Khan being Muslins, but I didn't know Charles was.

by Anonymousreply 314August 29, 2022 11:06 AM

Charles is only cut on DL, r314.

by Anonymousreply 315August 29, 2022 11:10 AM

R210 is partly right, but only as a somewhat distorted snapshot of the particular moment he was in London. He is completely - almost willingly - ignorant of the full picture. Before she died, Diana was generally considered by the public a pain in the arse, a mess and a bit of an idiot. After she died, she was, of course, sanctified. Of course there was a lot of grief - she was a young woman with two young sons who had died completely needlessly in an avoidable accident, while she could also have avoided death if she had worn a seatbelt. Camilla - as with all women who enter the royal family (including Diana and Kate - Markle was, in fact, initially the most warmly welcomed) - was initially vilified, especially given the fact that she was "the other woman".

Over time, Camilla has come to be respected and admired, and Diana admired and remembered in a nuanced way. There were no "forces" attempting to tear down Diana in order to "legitimise" Camilla. Diana will always be the mother of the future king, and that is the sole thing that "legitimises" her (her public image is irrelevant). I find it amusing that so many foreign purported supporters of Diana use her to attack the royal family, when her greatest legacy is William.

by Anonymousreply 316August 29, 2022 11:21 AM

The bigger irony exhibited by the people who lionise Diana at the expense of the royal family is the fact that Diana would be some loser no one had ever heard of without the royal family. Diana fanatics seem to imagine that Diana became a global celebrity through sheer hard work, charisma and beauty. In fact she had fame and respect because the royal family handed it to her. She did then turn that into personal fame. That, however, is not a sign that she was anything special. It’s a sign that a person like the queen wasn’t as mentally Ill, sleazy, and narcissistic as Diana to turn a public institution into a celebrity vehicle. What you see on Harry is what Diana was aiming to be. She is her reflection and legacy.

by Anonymousreply 317August 29, 2022 12:46 PM

That wedding, though. It was the perfect fantasy of a fairy tale wedding in many little girls' dreams. You could't get more fairy tale than that....a handsome prince (well, maybe in this case) ....a young, pretty, seemingly inexperienced girl....taken from a more ordinary life (kindergarten teacher)...though she had further ties to royalty. There were the crowds cheering....taken to the cathedral in an elaborate, horse drawn carriage. Her gown was over the top, puffy with a very long train (I didn't like it). She was so beautiful that day. I think many people, especially women, were taken in by the fanfare...seeing their fantasies in front of their eyes. They viewed her vicariously.

by Anonymousreply 318August 29, 2022 1:19 PM

What did/do straight men think of Princess Diana?

Just wondering.

by Anonymousreply 319August 29, 2022 11:28 PM

I don’t think they really thought/think about her at all.

by Anonymousreply 320August 30, 2022 12:08 AM

To they extent they thought of her at all, they were probably just grateful not to be married to her.

by Anonymousreply 321August 30, 2022 1:56 AM

Why do some people think Princess Diana was ditzy?

Just wondering.

by Anonymousreply 322August 30, 2022 2:33 AM

Well, she didn't have a stellar educational career, did she? And she was into astrology.

by Anonymousreply 323August 30, 2022 2:51 AM

And she did that crazy dance routine

by Anonymousreply 324August 30, 2022 2:54 AM

That dance routine was a red flag if ever there was one.

by Anonymousreply 325August 30, 2022 9:34 AM

[quote]it’s a universal truth that, generally, people, whatever their generation, become embittered by age, a factor that informs their increasing conservatism.

No Dear, that may be true in your pathetic family but there are billions of people around the world that are dirt poor, old and still happy as a clam. It's all about mindset and I have met more people who are happy at the bottom of the spectrum than at the top. People at the bottom usually have made peace with life while people at the top tend to still be bitter in their old age because they still want more and are unsatisfied with their shallow existence. And there is a lot more poor people in the world than the 1% at the top.

by Anonymousreply 326August 30, 2022 11:05 AM

Just finished watching this. Charles comes across as a shitty little drip, without much intelligence or any charisma. Pompous and above it all. Yet somehow very dull at the same time. He’s not pompous and privileged in a fiery, dramatic way - more in a limp, damp way.

Diana comes across as quietly enigmatic, which I guess was her appeal. She’s guarded, though somehow on her that becomes intriguing. There is something immediately sympathetic about her (which of course may have nothing to do with who she really was.)

The other eye opening thing was seeing the crowds of Londoners thronging the streets for the wedding, the birth announcements, royal carriages - it’s like the BRF are fancy dolls those ordinary people get to pull out and play with a few times a year. It’s their connection to glamour. I hadn’t expected their frantic, thrilled awe, which seems so childish and misplaced in a modern world. I mean, we Americans would be interested in meeting a president, but most wouldn’t be overwhelmed by it. There’s much more of a democratic equality, without the baggage of myth.

by Anonymousreply 327September 29, 2022 7:52 AM

[quote]Charles comes across as a shitty little drip, without much intelligence or any charisma. Pompous and above it all. Yet somehow very dull.....Diana comes across as quietly enigmatic, which I guess was her appeal. She’s guarded, though somehow on her that becomes intriguing.

That's exactly how I remember it. Good to see a documentary captured that spirit and not polluted by the 30 year long dismantling of Diana's legacy via the Royal Family publicity campaign through the media to replace her with that horse faced Camilla. UK subjects are mostly sheep and easy to manipulate. Royals know this and for the most part, after 30 years it's worked. Those who loved her at the time would now never admit it today.

by Anonymousreply 328September 29, 2022 8:03 AM

I started watching The Princess and it’s good so far, but I was shocked to learn Diana was hounded by the press as soon as she was first linked to him. Reporters following her as soon as she left the house, while asking the most invasive questions imaginable…it was difficult knowing she was only 19 years old and had to endure that level of scrutiny.

by Anonymousreply 329September 29, 2022 8:21 AM

Yep, she was only 19 and not prepared for what was being thrown at her. Shy and good natured not her scene at all. She was a elementary school teacher taking care of little kids not some upper crust office cunt looking to upgrade. Unlike Camilla who was a married gold digging homewrecker in her 30s on the prowl for the future King of England.

by Anonymousreply 330September 29, 2022 11:07 AM

R330 she wasn't an elementary school teacher. Diana never even graduated from high school. She was a kindergarten helper.

by Anonymousreply 331September 29, 2022 5:25 PM

R328, Diana was a royalist and looked forward to the day when her son would become king. William is her greatest legacy, so you obviously support him.

Marriages break down and it's never pretty. Of course, you've never had a relationship that failed because you've never had a relationship so you don't understand these issues. The idea that the public should take one side or the other when the marriage of public figures breaks down is ridiculous.

Kate was also very young when the tabloids started targeting her and her family. Presumably you sympathise with them too.

by Anonymousreply 332September 29, 2022 7:21 PM

Why do people say Diana wasn't intelligent?

by Anonymousreply 333September 30, 2022 1:51 AM

Do they?

by Anonymousreply 334September 30, 2022 2:04 AM

R330. The shy and good-natured woman who pushed her stepmother down the stairs and slept with other women’s husbands.

by Anonymousreply 335September 30, 2022 4:19 AM

[quote]The idea that the public should take one side or the other when the marriage of public figures breaks down is ridiculous.

And yet there are endless threads started daily about Meghan Markle and how her marriage to Harry has ruined his life and damaged the Monarchy. Seems no one has a problem with taking sides with that marriage. Pot meet Kettle.

by Anonymousreply 336September 30, 2022 5:45 AM

[quote]The shy and good-natured woman who pushed her stepmother down the stairs and slept with other women’s husbands

Oh yes, lets quite from someone writhing a book to profits of Diana's death as if it were fact. 🙄

The FACT is there is no proof or evidence of that behavior. However we DO HAVE FACTS with regards to her good nature as evidence of her work as Princess even bucking the Monarchy to do things like visit gay men with AIDS long before it became socially acceptable to embrace them as victims instead of treating them like leapers.

by Anonymousreply 337September 30, 2022 5:50 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!