The 20th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death is coming up quickly. It’s sad to think that 20 years ago today, she was in the south of France, on the Fayed yacht with Dodi, happily posing for paparazzi photos in an assortment of one-piece swimsuits. The frenzy over her brief love affair with Dodi would become a deadly train reaction. God, it’s depressing to think about all of this. And that’s the point – this is the Summer of Diana, where the most captivating figure of the British royal family still haunts the Windsors in such profound ways. Everyone is thinking, talking and obsessing about Diana this summer. And in the middle of the Summer of Diana, there is no peace for the two people who made Diana’s life a living hell. We already discussed how Camilla’s poll numbers have sunk to a record low this summer – very few people in Britain have any interest in seeing Camilla declared Queen Consort, or even Princess Consort. And now there’s historically bad polling on Prince Charles too.
It started with a story in Prospect Magazine in which a royal source “at the heart of the royal family” said that the biggest fear for the royals is that “Charles’s accession could be the greatest threat to the British monarchy since the abdication. There’s a great danger he will make it all about him. He needs to play it very carefully. He’s capable of getting it right, but also of getting it drastically wrong.” Ouch. This is the year that people have been coming to terms with the very real possibility that QEII could pass away in the next few years, so of course there’s been polling about what a King Charles III ascension would look like, and if he would actually have support. From the Daily Beast:
A recent story in Prospect magazine asked whether Prince Charles might bring down the monarchy. The author, Emily Andrews, The Sun’s well-briefed royal correspondent has a reputation as something of a Republican, but there is no denying the fact that the ever-closer reality of King Charles III remains deeply troubling to the British people.
Just this weekend Charles was forced to effectively give up any intentions of taking over his mother’s job before her death. A front page story in The Sunday Times, stuffed with quotes from the queen’s courtiers, shot down notions which often seem to emerge from Charles’ supporters that the reins of power should be transferred to his care sooner rather than later. Charles people made no attempt to counter the story; a wise move. However, they also took the opportunity to reinforce the message that Charles would not be stepping aside in favor of his eldest son, William.
Charles defiant insistence on claiming his destiny comes despite a slew of opinion polls showing terrible approval ratings for Prince Charles, as the annual wave of Diana-related stories to mark the anniversary of her death on Aug. 31, 1997, has been given added impetus by 2017 being the 20th anniversary of her demise. Now a new poll carried out by YouGov for the Press Association has found that only a third of Britons believe the Prince of Wales has been “beneficial” for the royal family—half the number who believed the same thing four years ago. And the rehabilitation of Camilla has gone into a major reverse. Just 14 percent of those surveyed said they want to see Charles’ wife Camilla as queen when be becomes king.
The disgust many feel at Charles marrying the “third person” in his marriage with Diana is evident in the fact that a third of respondents said she should have no title at all. Aside from the queen and Prince Philip, William is regarded as having made the best contribution to the royal family with a 78 percent approval. This is followed by Harry on 77 percent, Kate with 73 percent, Charles on 36 percent, and Camilla on just 18 percent. Thirty-seven percent felt she had a negative impact on the monarchy—including 18 percent who regarded her as very negative.
The signs today are that Charles has an even poorer hand to play than many suspected. The best thing he could do for the institution of the British monarchy would be to stand outside, to concede that the disastrous mess he has made of his own life and the very public way his malfeasance has been revealed disqualifies him from the role of spiritual and symbolic leader the nation. But Charles has always made it very clear he will not do that, and hence his arrogant procession toward the moment of greatest danger rushes on.
I understand the argument that Charles should show some humility, and at least openly acknowledge that he royally f–ked up his life and his first marriage and really own that. That kind of acknowledgement would be antithetical to how the royals conduct themselves, and people would probably complain about it if Charles did do that. Still, I feel like these numbers are all over the place mostly because it’s the Summer of Diana. And no, I still don’t believe that William would make a better monarch than his father. I just don’t.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
so tired of “Summer of Diana.” In another five years this whole media frenzy of faux-grief is going to replay all over again.
ITA, I feel like it’s almost ghoulish at this point. Let the woman rest in peace, it’s been twenty years!
Right? With so much else happening in the world, it’s kind of pathetic to keep nitpicking over this. FWIW I believe Charles has earned his kingship, certainly more than William.
Amen!
does no one learn history anymore? or at least read Shakespeare? Charles’s messy life is peak king of England. see: any other king of England pretty much.
Right?! Perhaps they should have thought of that before they had her bumped off!
1. The Summer of Diana is a good reminder of just what a jerk he and the royal family were, which largely has been forgotten. I think the past 20 years they have worked hard to make the changes Princess Diana was trying to make.
2. The last 20 years, and the last 5-10 in particular have exposed how spoiled the young royals are, and thus exposing how much harder the older royals work/worked under the “old image”. I used to think of Prince Charles as a lousy person for the job of King but as compared to Prince William, and even Prince Harry since he complained, I think he’s currently the most qualified person for the job.
Spot on. What matters is who is the most qualified person for the *job*.
plus: Charles really wants this job. William.. not so much.
Not really. It’s a monarchy, not a meritocracy. That said, Charles has been the best Prince of Wales ever. Probably. I admit, my understanding of British. history isn’t 100%.
I have had the same thoughts, seeing all the public appearances by both Diana and Charles made during their 20s and 30s in the recent tributes really put William and Kate to shame. Seriously, they were out with the public constantly, and many many events in the UK.
++100000
TOTALLY SPOT ON!
Lady Di was no victim. She may have love being HRH and very p… to have lost it. At least she used her status for mankind – wasnt idle and entitled like whiny billnot cannot and middletons mafia.
Meh, his approval rating improve, particularly whenever the Queen passes on. I do think people will give him a chance.
I do too. I think this is now because of the hoopla. A few good PR moves and he will be fine.
I agree. I think not crowning Charles upon the death of the Queen would damage the monarchy more than anything and I am sure the Queen knows that. It isn’t a job, you don’t get to abdicate and the succession should not be determined by a tabloid popularity contest. However, Just like they brought the rules of succession up to date, I do think they should look again at the title given to the spouse of the monarch. Philip is not a King, so Charles’ wife should not be called Queen, whoever she is.
Prince Charles has some sterling qualities, and I hope the focus can be on those when he is crowned. He needs to hide Camilla – perhaps bring her out when he’s proved himself as kind as much of what he has written and created (his garden is supreme!). He needs to be more sensitive to his public, and let people see his good side. His focus should always be on others. (hide his selfish tendencies) Camilla represents selfishness, however deserving he feels he was. Perhaps he can try to heal the relationship with his boys, and be emotionally supportive of them.
He doesn’t need to hide Camilla, nor will he.
He has proven himself over and over in his tenure as POW. Review what he’s done if you don’t believe me.
He’s always shown his good side if you are unbiased enough to see it.
It takes two sides to heal a relationship.
I disagree. The Do Cornwall is POW other half – she seem to appreciate her role and status, her stepsons- RF- is humble dedicated to duties Royal causes, and hardworking. T
And support her POW without needing the spotlight!
bluhare, I feel like I need to follow you all over CB and KMR and just plus one you. Maybe as the result of the eclipse, we’re suddenly more in agreement than not 😉
I agree, Bluhare.
Charles and Camilla treated Diana horribly but there are always 2, or in this case 3 sides, to every story and we only ever have had Diana’s version of events in any detail.
Charles can’t win in the “summer of Diana”. If he says nothing, he is criticised and if he tries to put forward his version of the story he will be accused of bad-mouthing the dead mother of his children. Charles has been the lone parent to William and Harry for 20 years now but very rarely do they acknowledge his contribution to their lives or support him in his work. Once the summer has passed it would be nice to see them carry out some public events with their father.
As for giving the crown straight to William when the Queen passes, I think Whiny Willy would run away as far as he could due to having to take on more royal duties and responsibilities. So, I think it is fair to say that we will have King Chuck first.
In what side of the story were they not having an affair?
people seem to forget Diana had a couple of affairs with married men. Also it’s been said she never really liked Balmoral. After the ring was on her finger, she found it boring. IMO, if Charles had seen the real Diana, he probably wouldn’t have married her. Not saying he’s a prize but there are two sides to a story and then there’s the truth.
William did an event recently with Charles. I think the public perception of the relationship between Charles and his sons is not really accurate.
@Merritt – I don’t understand what you mean. Were you saying that their relationship could be good? Just asking, no criticism. My take is that even if they did not stand each other, they could still be appearing at events together. Colleagues that hate each other can still work together because they gave to. A few hours at an engagement, pretending, cannot hurt them. But not appearing together at all is bad PR.
I’m growing tired of all the Diana coverage. A little was fine but it has been overkill. I can’t flip though channels without something being on about Diana.
I also don’t think Charles will pick Charles III as his name, I think he will go with George VII.
I think he might have done that in honor of his grandfather, until his grandson own was named George. Now he’d be accused of trying to trade on the PR attached to a child.
I guess if people want to be petty and stretch for things to attack him for. But Charles III would be a far worse choice of name.
That’s a good point, nas. I vote for King Arthur! 😉
I vote for King Lear.
Arthur is his only chance really. As long as one doesn’t examine the end of the Arthurian legend.
Philip….might be good, but people think Philip is a racist. Not true, but that is the perception.
Charles….not a good one for previous Charles
George…people would assume he is piggybacking on his grandson instead of honoring previous line of Georges.
On what planet is Phil not an entitled racist? Everything he has is because he married well but some of the garbage that comes out of his mouth…I can’t.
@LAK! Are you referring to the name he supposedly likes to be called by? By Camilla?
SoulSPA: his full set of names is Charles Philip Arthur George. He can choose any of them to be his Rex name.
Enough Already: let’s agree to disagree on that point.
Deal 🙂
Oh for goodness sakes, he wasn’t molesting children or murdering people–he had an affair. That hardly makes him unworthy to be King. He’s done a great job as Prince of Wales and certainly takes his position more seriously than his eldest son does.
Yes, IMO he’s a sober, serious person who will try to do his best. I don’t think there will be any “crisis” when he becomes king, he’s been preparing for it his whole life. William, on the other hand….
ITA @minx!!!
So many people cannot separate “king” from “husband”. They act as if they were personally betrayed.
Fair point! Also, nearly 75% of Britons think Kate has made a contribution to the royal family?? With the exception of having popped out two adorable kids, she’s done NOTHING.
If Charles and Camilla’s approval rating could go up at all after Diana’s death, they’re sure to recover after this “summer of Diana”. Give it time.
@Alix – not 73% of Britons, 73% of the people polled. Huge difference.
I take any polls regarding the royals with a large dose of eyeroll. Those figures could be based on the views of as few as 1,000 people so it’s not remotely a reflection of how the individual royals are actually in reality viewed.
Unfortunately, he picked the wrong wife to go on about his business and have an affair like pretty much EVERY other royal male before him. The real mistake was picking Diana in the first place and that’s not even entirely on him, if at all. If you marry a kid, you don’t know who the adult is you’ll be married to. None of them saw the times changing either. And to be fair, nobody could’ve spotted the singular charisma that was about to emerge. It was a perfect storm and yes, he was a terrible husband but it doesn’t mean he’ll be a terrible king.
And it’s not like William didn’t cheat on Kate before they were engaged and he isn’t seen much around her post marriage either. I suspect that journalists are aware of what he really does when he pretended to fly and it’s not being the perfect father and husband. If word got out that he was still cheating on Kate (which is very likely) the public wouldn’t think he was that great for the job.
Who would sleep with him other than Waity Katie? And how come there isn’t any word on it. In any case, the British media has been silenced. Except for some info on royal tours and the choice of school for George, and some church visits, there is nothing out there. I refuse to believe they spend their time locked inside their many residences. And when was their last holiday that we know of? There is barely no factual information on their daily lives whatsoever except, again, for their very limited public outings. The British press has been silenced. And the Ordinary and the Innocent stick their both middle f*ingers to the British people.
thank you. the man is far ahead of his time..organic fruits and vegetables, helping the youth start their own business. I think he’ll be a marvelous King and Camilla a great consort.
Diana wasn’t was enjoying her life with a new man when she died. smh
TZotslly Spot on!
Happens everyday and second – in aristo world. We would think he left his young beautiful aristo wife for a teenager. When he only continue with his love happens to be closer his age.
But, Cynicalann, he didn’t just have an affair; he cheated on DIANA, the most perfect, amazingly wonderful, incredibly beautiful, kind, compassionate, generous, saintly paragon of virtue who ever lived.
Okay, so maybe she lied to him at the beginning of their relationship about what she wanted out of life, and whether she preferred living in the city or the country, and what kind of music she liked, and whether she liked reading anything more challenging than Barbara Cartland. But those are just minor things, right? Except they’re not minor things, but hugely important issues in a marriage.
And maybe she was “in love with” the Prince of Wales and not Charles the man. But Charles the man doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, because he has odd ideas about things like organic gardening and architecture, and anyone who has odd ideas should just keep their mouth shut, right? Except that he’s been proven right on organics, and renewable energy and sustainability, and job training, and programs like the Prince’s Trust and Dumfries House have made huge differences in people’s lives.
And maybe her upbringing was so damaging that she would have destroyed anyone she married, but Charles was supposed to know exactly what to do and how to help her and be completely supportive to her even when she was being completely unreasonable and undermining him and the Royal Family at every opportunity, right? Except that it wasn’t just Charles who didn’t know what to do and every suggestion anyone made was met with refusals and cries of, “You’re not being supportive! You’re supposed to spend all your time with me and pay attention to me and tell me how wonderful I am!”
And maybe she had affairs with several men, but that was okay, because the woman he loved wasn’t as beautiful as Diana, and that’s the most important thing, right? Well, isn’t it?
I was sick if all this before the summer started!
I don’t give a damn, Prince Charles is a royal prick and coward. Even though he’d be a figurehead, I don’t see why he should be rewarded for the toxic masculinity that indirectly led to Diana’s death. I know the royal p.r. machine has erased Diana’s image from England, pretty much, too. When I visited Buckingham Palace within the last 5 years, I asked a palace guard why there was no representation of Diana there. The answer: “She isn’t a royal and she doesn’t live in the palace.” How callous and ruthless, the manipulators of public perception.
Erased Diana’s image from England? First of all, it’s Great Britain, and secondly the royal pr machine has not even come close to erasing her image. Her brother did that by burying her on an island where no one can see her. Diana was divorced from Charles when she died; most families don’t bring ex-spouses into the forefront, and neither do the Brits. I imagine William will when he is King — if he is King.
And the guard was correct. She was no longer a royal — she was divorced and no longer a member of the family — and she never did live in Buckingham Palace except for a few months before she was engaged.
Well said!!
Kensington Palace is pretty much all about Diana (and Queen Victoria). Even the wall paper has her image.
I mean again, Charles was a terrible husband but you can’t just throw around toxic masculinity for every instance of bad behavior. And the palace guard gave you a very polite and correct answer. And her sons just made a documentary about her, where is this erasure happening??? She is everywhere!
I don’t think either Charles or William has what it takes to renew the monarchy after Elizabeth’s death. Charles will try to reign as a stay-the-course king. But I understand that he holds some loopy beliefs, which combined with the whole, distasteful Camilla business, will undermine his support.
William and Kate are so spoiled and shallow—just can’t see them bringing anything exciting, fresh, new.
The main issue though, is that none of them inspire affection. People will overlook a lot in their leaders, if, somehow, they possess qualities they love.
I don’t get why William and Kate are so popular. Maybe because their kids are cute?
@Megan: that’s what I do not understand, either. Bill the Ordinary had a clean state as he was a victim of the circumstances of his mother’s life and death. It’s so easy to put the two of them against each other. Children help in the way of PR but it’s not like we get to see much of the kids either. Nor him and Keen Waity Kate for that matter. He and his Dolittle wife are a w*aste of sp*ce. And Bill is glorified more as a figure. Not that he is out there for people to see him. He hides from work and the public in the Court of Middleton.
I think the remaining love of Kate was the fantasy that she was going to be the millennial Diana (which she clearly is not). For a great deal of the population, Diana was so interesting and famous and everywhere it was impossible not to expect the same of Kate.
I wonder if Charles will give the crown to William when he’s in his late 80s or if he’ll push to the end. He seems to be quite hale.
No, I don’t think he will. He’ll make WIlliam wait his turn just like he has.
In that case William will make sure Charles has the world’s finest healthcare.
Post of the day Enough Already! 🙂
At this point I really don’t care about the BRF. There’s absolutely nothing about them that carries any mystique or good looks similar to the Kennedy’s or a strong sense of passion and compassion like Barack and Michelle Obama. The only royal family that that I truly believe has any sense of allure in their demeanor and image is the Spanish Royal Family. They should be only the royal family we even talk about.
Historically, with rare exception, the future reign of the heir is dreaded. Doom is predicted and everyone knashes their teeth about it.
Once heir is monarch, and Palace PR deployed, heir-turned-monarch becomes beloved.
He’ll be a decent king from the point of view of the population, I think. And, as you say, once installed it’ll be as though he was always there. I do think he’ll be a pain for the politicos and the civil servants in ways his mother wasn’t though. He’ll definitely be a bigger pain-in-the-arse correspondent than Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells!
I think the problem will eventually come when the various heirs start saying no thanks. Because unpicking the Crown (not the monarch) from our institutions will be a nightmare bigger than Brexit. Republic think you could just sign a bill and transfer all functions of the Crown to a non-executive president but I think that’s wishful thinking.
Because everyone hates change.
I think this huge outpouring has mainly been because Diana enabled people to feel sorry for themselves, no matter HOW GOOD they have it. Diana had looks, charisma, wealth, youth, and the main focus of her life was what she DID NOT have. Infidelity cuts to the bone, but she had no right to commit treason by suggesting that the succession be changed to accommodate HER ambition. I am certain that much of her life was spent trying to ‘win’ against her father’s wife Raine, to somehow push out someone who in her view, had taken over HER role as center of the universe in the eyes of the men in her life. If Diana had not been titled, wealthy, and attractive, she would have ended up in the loony bin long ago. I do resent that she got away with pulling so much BS her entire life.
I kind of agree.
She had some bad breaks, but she kind of made bad choices too. Her taste in men post-Charles and, even including him (whoever thought it’s ok to marry a 30+ guy at 19 after not even having a boyfriend!!), was awful. For eg: Dodi Fayed seemed like such a loser. And this is who she thought was worth spending time with after access to all sorts of available, educated, accomplished people.
Those choices tell you a lot about a person. I know narcissistic people like this, who cast around for acolytes and enablers who help them project the image they want. By definition, the acolytes cannot be on the same ‘level’ as the goddess they are required to serve.
Was Diana good for personalizing the monarchy and taking charity work to the next level of compassion and accessibility? Absolutely.
Was she someone who was a difficult friend to have? I suspect yes.
Her family seemed dysfunctional, and the fact that her employees like the butler were the (self-professed) bff’s should be a red flag. This was not a person who could exist without drama, high fashion/profile, big name friends, and a halo. It would have been so interesting if she had lived to see how she would have negotiated the new frontiers of social media and the Kardtrashianing of celebrity.
Unfortunately, for her and us, we are doomed to revisit this dusty glass dome over a frozen Princess Di every half decade or so. Till we all die out, and then hopefully the memorials come to an end.
I’ll never get why she fell for the horse-riding instructor.
I think she made a good choice with the heart surgeon, but he seemed to be her polar opposite in not wanting to be in the spotlight.
She didn’t really seem to have a “type,” which I find interesting. Charles, the bodyguard, the horse-riding instructor, the soccer dude, Dodi, the heart surgeon – each man seemed so different from the next. At least she had the common sense not to fall for Trump.
@perplexed – please tell me I am wrong, maybe you know it better than I do: wasn’t she willing to marry the doctor and move to Pakistan to live with him? And that she had met his family too in a visit over there but he didn’t want to go to Pakistan and marry her?
ETA: no criticism of Muslim here, but she’s had relationships with two. Didn’t she want to p*iss off the BRF with her choice of those two men? Even though the narrative I knew before was that 1. she was madly in love with the doctor and 2. she was with Dodi out of convenience because of his family’s wealth.
I think she wanted to marry him, and I do believe she did go over to meet his family (without his knowledge, maybe?). I thought he was a good choice in the sense that he never betrayed her privacy. He never wrote a book or did tell-all interviews about her. He’s kept silent about her all these years. The only thing I never understood about their relationship is why he dated her in the first place if he knew she’d never be acceptable to his family. Like, duh. That was his one flaw, I think — that he’d be willing to have a woman as romantic in her head as Diana fall for him and then dump her because they were different religions.
My understanding of the Dodi relationship is that she wanted to make the heart surgeon jealous. Maybe making the royal family unhappy was a bonus (although I assume dating Dodi made her less popular so I never got why that was her plan).
Diana’s immaturity in relationships has always baffled me, but maybe she had to go grow up so fast at 20 or whatever. I’m assuming whatever was going on with Dodi was a crisis. I never got why she was attracted to him either.
Weirdly enough, as much as people mock Charles’s looks, I think he was the “hottest” one she dated (and, well, obviously married). Seriously, I think he was the most handsome one and the one with the best personality, and if the rest of the field was what she was stuck with, it kind of makes sense she’d be so obsessed with keeping Charles (just kidding, sort of?). I’d want to keep Charles too if the only other guys available to date me are horse-riding instructors that like to tell the world I smell like fish.
Interesting analysis…agree with most of it. But I do think abandonment was a huge issue that you leave out. I think she felt abandoned (and not loved enough) by her mother. This is huge for any child—-and I think it played a major part in her behavior along with all that you mention.
True enough re: abandonment.
Many people have lost parents however, and process the same issues differently. I know narcissistic children of narcissistic parents (who didn’t abandon them) and people-pleasing children who enabled difficult parents, and yet became needy adults at the same time. And then married narcissists in order to continue the same trajectory.
It’s very difficult to break these causal chains. If we are lucky enough to break through, we may seek out people that are healthy relationships; and if not, just acquire ‘stage props’ to our internal play. At 19, I would have picked out terrible partners. I had to mature enough to see/feel more confident of who I was and THEN connect to a real and balanced person.
But we were all complicit in the stupid fairy tale scenario, so there it is. She was the perfect receptacle for the big spotlight, and then she started going off-script for the BRF, but on cue for everybody else. And we all went along for the ride. If she was a victim, it was of her own weakness for the spotlight. The current summer specials or whatever has been going on is flogging a dead horse (no pun intended), since there isn’t any other high drama about the BRF to blither on about.
WK is the Valium they sought.
I’m not expecting to change your mind, as you clearly have a strong opinion about Diana based on your own experience of her and how the media covered everything. However, I would like to put forward, tentatively, another viewpoint: yes, Diana was ridiculously sheltered and naive when she married Charles, but she can hardly be blamed for that – she was a product of her upbringing and class. When she married him, it’s clear that she felt herself to be “in love” – or at least swept off her feet by him. Who, given her limited experience, wouldn’t have been? It must have come as a real shock to discover that the man she adored was in love with somebody else, with whom he spent the night before he married Diana, and whom he had no intention of giving up. I cannot fault Diana for wanting, needing, and ultimately trying to insist on a marriage based on love and mutual respect. It was the late 20th century, after all. Charles lied outright in his marriage vows. All visual and written evidence shows him lying completely in discussing his feelings for her (evasion; awkward body language; eyes flicking away, etc.). I think this should raise serious questions about his moral compass. Diana was completely isolated in the palace and felt she had no-one to turn to. Why should it be surprising that her butler turned into a confidante? She tried to confront Camilla at one point, but Camilla condescendingly laughed at her and reminded her, “oh, poor you, you’ve got nothing to complain about – you’ve got your children.” !! In addition, Charles and possibly the rest of the RF were hopelessly jealous of her increasing ability to attract the affection and attention of the public (he had a public, petulant melt-down in Vienna in the late 80s, when more people wanted to see her than him, literally yelling out “look at me! I’m over here! I’m on THIS side of the street!” instead of being content to let her, his beautiful and charming wife, have the limelight for a change).
Fast-forward post-divorce: Diana was clearly metamorphosing into the person she was meant to be: charismatic, empathetic, and with an innate ability to connect to the public. She had identified a number of charities with various purviews, to which she made a significant difference (hello, Kate?). She was a fashion icon who had finally grown into her own style and was the most-photographed woman in the world. One might be critical of her choices in men, but chacun a son gout…. And, her life was tragically cut short on the DAY her “Schweigevertrag” (confidentiality agreement) (with the palace?) ran out. This was a new detail which has recently been broadcast in European documentaries, and which I find sinister as hell.
So, no, I obviously don’t agree that she would have “ended up in the loony bin long ago”, nor that she “pulled BS” her entire life. I find that conclusion incredibly mean-spirited, to be honest. Her living legacy is her sons, and say what you like about their work ethic/choice of females/whatever, they obviously adored their mother, as she did them – and that in itself is no small achievement. I for one will have no problem whatsoever taking more than a few moments on the anniversary of her death – this and every year – to remember her with compassion and affection. And I have no problem with other people choosing not to honour her, either.
@MacScore – the “Schweigevertrag” (confidentiality agreement)” is new to me. Do you mean it covered a certain time frame and expired on the day of her death? Do you have any links to articles or videos about it? In English, LOL. I’d be very grateful. 🙂
We can’t hope to change your mind, but using fanfiction and conspiracy theories as your facts is not helping persuade us to your argument.
“Why should it be surprising that her butler turned into a confidante?”
Just to be clear, I’m not being a snob and saying you can’t be friends with your butler. I was making the point that when your butler is your bff (if that was true…since he apparently ended up with some of her personal stuff)…it’s clear that your close friends cannot take the risk of telling you the truth, such as when you need help or when you are being self-destructive. That is not good. I would feel incredibly sad to think that if I died that only an employee of mine could safeguard my personal belongings and papers. What about siblings, cousins, good friends, even ex-husband?
That’s how you build up a real life. Which I don’t think she had, with all the advantages of wealth and access.
@ SoulSPA: the confidentiality agreement was news to me, too – it was mentioned in a documentary aired in German, directed by Lisabeth Bischoff, on 26.08.2017; I am not sure how to check her sources for that, but clearly it does deserve fact-checking. I will be doing what research I can, including contacting the television station that aired the documentary.
@ LAK – I’m not sure that I need to have “my mind changed”. My feelings about Diana are based on years and years and years of simply observing her persona in the public realm, reading a lot, and, ultimately, making my own conclusion about whether I find her a sympathetic character or not. I clearly do; you do not. That is your prerogative. But please don’t be condescending. I’m not trying to “persuade” anybody of anything, simply offering an alternative _opinion_, as I made very clear at the beginning of my post. I normally agree with most things that you post here. This time, let’s agree to differ.
@dawnchild – yes, I agree with your standpoint completely. When it became apparent after her death that Paul Burrell had a lot of her personal objects in his possession, and he was charged (charges later dropped after the palace acknowledged that they knew about this), it was abundantly clear how lonely she must have been. The other shocking fact that emerged from the documentary I saw was that, after her body was brought back to the UK, the palace ‘allowed’ her coffin to be delivered to Kensington Palace, where guess who was the only person who sat next to it all night? Yup, Paul Burrell.
@ Macscore you don’t have to believe everything you read in the papers you know!
If she had signed such an agreement she wouldn’t have been so indiscreet with so many different people.
LAK, there are people who will never look at the facts about Diana, and her history pre-Charles of questionable behavior will be ignored. Ditto the horrible things she did as an adult, like affairs with at least three married men and pushing her step-mother down the stairs at her brother’s wedding (when Diana was 28). Everything has to be Charles’s fault, instead of seeing two flawed people who never should have married and how that bad marriage played out in the public eye.
@MacScore, thanks very much indeed. Please, if you have the time and you are willing to do so, share some of the research you’ll have.
I am very intrigued re: the confidentiality agreement. In hindsight, I tend to believe that the BRF must have some sort of non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement with the men and women that enter the BRF by marriage. Also in hindsight, it would be impossible not to require some sort of agreement as such. Or at least a pre-nup contract that I have never heard of in the case of any member of the BRF.
In light of the hypothesis of said alleged agreement, something that makes me wonder is the end date. Diana and Charles’ divorce was concluded in 1996 if I remember correctly. She unfortunately passed a year or so later. So that is something that rings a bell. I assume that her death was absolutely unexpected. I do not believe conspiracy theories regarding the car accident. I think it was a very unfortunate event. But what would be the end date of such an agreement? I would assume that it would end with the passing of the person signing it. And that it would apply at least to close members of the family.
There is another thing that rings a bell is the following: let’s say that Diana had signed such agreement as a 19 years old. I assume that she had the capacity to sign such contract at that age, in the UK, thus she became legally responsible for it. She talked very, very negatively about the BRF even before the divorce was concluded. And she was not held accountable legally. Maybe British CBers could shed a light on it.
So my conclusion is that the theory of the agreement could be fake respect of the end date and the fact that Diana talked a lot of negative things about the BRF. Or maybe the BRF could not envisage that a member by marriage would be able to do it.
MacScore – one just has to agree to disagree. This site has many commenters that are pro-Charles. That’s just a fact. Unfortunately, they demean Diana to promote their views. There are two camps – and only one of them is fully represented here.
Personally, I could give a rat’s ass about Charles “kingship”. He will be, duh. He is who he is, and no amount of excusing his behavior will change that. Who cares? Diana is dead, so who the hell cares? His sons are now saying what a good father he has been over the past 20, so they are emerging into royal tradition and propaganda. Quite frankly, I find it offensive that because I love Diana best, that I am told that I am unwilling to acknowledge the facts about her. I too watched Diana from the beginning, and have read a great deal. I had a little library about her before I moved and downsized. I purchased two of the books that LAK recommended, one by Warfe, and another by Sarah Bradford – there are so many books! I enjoyed Lady Collins best – so gossipy. People can read the same facts and come to different conclusions and opinions. Certainly, the opinion of Charles and his sons differ in this respect.
Very interesting.
Seriously, wolfpup? There isn’t an eyeroll big enough to respond to your comment. If you aren’t totally zonks about Diana you’re against her? People here don’t demean her; they point out what she did and said. I was a huge fan of hers; still am, and I read all the books too. That doesn’t mean I think she walks on water. It also doesn’t mean I think her ex husband was the devil.
@bluhare – I know! I always thought there was pretty reasonable discourse here about Diana. There are a few people who can’t see a shred of good in her and a few who are still swooning in a Diana fever dream, but they are the edges.
She was complicated. She wasn’t a total innocent victim (and who would admire that?).
Macscore/Wolfpup: i defend Charles because so many easily verifiable lies are told about him. Mostly by Diana.
Defending him doesn’t mean i condone his behaviour. I can write an entire book about Charles’s poor behaviour, and it won’t be fanfiction or based on my opinion of the various ladies in his life.
…but it is appalling to read these fanfictions forwarded as facts and defended as facts and anyone who dares point them out is painted a hater.
Well, you know what, as of today, i will proudly wear the hater hat. If it means pointing out every single verifiable lie that was told by Diana then yes, i am a hater.
We shall discount my defence of her work ethic which is frequently denigrated to elevate William or Kate.
We shall discount my defence of her professionalism and care of people
We shall discount all that because i refuse to join into the lies she told to denigrate the father of her children and we all suspect damaged her son, William.
Don’t let those eyes roll too far back into your head, bluhare – we might not be able to get them back! All I said was that I like Diana more than Charles – not that one is a saint, and the other a devil. She was a superstar, and I enjoyed watching her from the vantage point of the USA.
LAK, I never called you a hater. Just pro-Charles, which you are. Just as I might mention Charles’s sterling qualities also means that I do not I do not discount the nice things that you say about the princess. You have your suspicions, I have mine, and we both have a right to express them. If William was damaged by his mother, then perhaps this is what he is trying to address in all the loving videos he has contributed to recently. He’s a grown man, and he will and should be the one to figure it out.
Yes, that’s exactly it, CorporateStepsister!
I don’t know one single person who gives a flying feck about the so-called ‘Summer of Diana’. Not one. And from the little I’ve seen/read of these endless anniversary docs, Diana seems to have been even more nightmarish than I already thought she was. No surprise that she produced two such whiny and needy sons.
Charles will make an excellent king imo, with the equally suitable and hard-working Camilla by his side. And those polls are meaningless.
How the frak does William have such a high approval rating at this point? Over the past 5 years I’ve grown to respect Charles a bit more (I always hated him bc I loved Diana so much) and have come to see William as the worst of the entitled guys playing victim that we see too much of these days. Harry is the only one I c an tolerate at this point.
@ Jess.
I have no idea. I think it’s the case that most people don’t pay enough attention. They just think of him as the golden haired son of Diana, they don’t actively read into his lacklustre work ethic.
just because he cheated doesn’t mean he will be a bad king. If King is his destiny. Just like a cheating husband doesn’t mean a bad father. I think people hold on this beautiful angelic face with blue eyes and how fragile she looked, her terrible death with her lover and 2 orphans thrown into the unknown and a mistress who might be “rewarded” as a future queen. In their mind Charles and Camilla don’t deserve to be on the throne because of their “salacious” behavior. It’s a Greek tragedy. There is no happy ending.. but at this point it’s just all about business for media and nostalgia. It’s 2017 and people should move on. What’s the good in chewing over and over some past events. What’s good in releasing again her interviews where she decries her life as being the 3rd person? Enough in capitalizing on a story those soundtrack surely involves violin/cielo and flute..
I think it was a mistake for Camilla to cooperate with Penny Junor on her biography which coincides with her 70th. That has caused a lot of damage.
But, the world will get over the Summer of Diana, which is totally overkill. Charles was in love with someone other than the sainted Diana, he made a mistake, let it go,it’s twenty years ago. He works hard and so does Camilla, I think he will make a decent king. Whether she is made Queen or not, we don’t really know, but what comes after them when Charles passes on is much mor of a worry.
I’m old enough to remember the summer of 1997 very well. Before her death, she was widely praised for her work on the land mines issue and other causes, but she was also widely criticized for her attacks on the monarchy and her involvement with the Fayed family, who did not have a good reputation. She was considered manipulative and vindictive by the media and royal-watchers alike.
As a non-British ergo outsider to the UK with no vested interest, I see Charles as a very good future King. He’s had decades to prepare for his role. I assume that he is well read and knowledgeable of problems facing Britain and the world. With side academic and practical interests. Has managed (himself with a team’s support) the Duchy. I think he has a working relationship with TQ as well.
Regarding his private life, it is a shame that he is the one who is vilified. I was wondering about Diana the other day wrt the fact that she was so unstable. Despite the finger pointing to her family (she was troubled when she entered the marriage), I find it very, very difficult to believe that she was not offered psychiatric care by the BRF to help her deal with her difficulties. She admitted to throwing herself on the stairs, while pregnant!! Self-harming!! Major, major red flags regarding her health. There is no way she could have not received psychiatric support, had she accepted the idea. IIRC she only admitted to accepting specialized support to treat her bulimia. There’s been much talk about her being stubborn and not accepting advice. She has only done things her way (astrologists and psychics vs. medical doctors). I believe she made a life mission to destroy the image of the monarchy and promote William as King at the expense of Charles. And Charles is vilified for being a bad husband with a mistress. I am not saying Charles did it right having Camilla. And Diana knew about Camilla from before getting married.
As for William: I am not saying that being young would be a major disadvantage. There are people at his age with exceptional jobs, PhD and other professional achievements. But William does not show any interest whatsoever for the “top job” other than participating at official events from time to time. His last know “job” as air ambulance co-pilot part time and once again part time, has no relevance whatsoever to the “top job”. In the real world people get jobs that are qualified for. William does not have any qualifications that I know of to be deserving of reigning the UK. And he does not show any interest for it either. Only laziness and contempt towards the British people.
‘I am not saying that being young would be a major disadvantage.”
The Queen was 25 when she became monarch, so no, I don’t think being young is a problem. What I think you need is a commitment to duty, which William doesn’t seem to have.
I always thought that Diana’s biggest revenge plan was to see William as King over Charles, so the fact that he doesn’t want to be King is somewhat ironic to me. Everyone keeps claiming that William wants revenge on the royals because of what happened to his mother, but I don’t think he has any inkling for revenge since becoming King would have fulfilled her master plan.
Either that, or his desire for revenge is superseded by his far more pressing desire to be the entitled, begrudging, petulant dolittle that he is.
He’s even too lazy to do revenge properly.
Prefer Charles to Wm any day. Whatever his faults he tries to do his duty (which is probably what led to his disastrous first marriage)
So Charles did not or failed to love Diana in a romantic happy-ever after way. He caved in to pressure in marrying her. Ok. This happens everyday to ordinary people living ordinary lives but we aren’t crucified for it and neither should he.
They were BOTH emotionally damaged and stunted people. They never could have or would have been able to support the other in having their respective emotional needs met simply because as individuals their emotional wounds were too deep and gaping. They were too damaged to support the other in his/her needs. People fail to say that she couldn’t or didn’t meet his emotional needs either. The story is both that simple and complex. It’s a shame that 20 years in people still need a clear and simplistic victim and a villain in this.
Charles abuse diana why would a 31 year old man want with a 18-19 year old girl? What could diana had too offer Him? “Hmm” i know how about a womb to bare his heirs💡 which he didn’t need because he had Andrew as a spare, charles is a child abusers people making excuses for a man that intentionally sought out a 18-19 year old teen is just sad. charles had no business with diana he said he never loved her so why would he married her if he didn’t want too abuse diana. No person on god green earth deserves what charles did too diana, yes she made mistakes after she found out why he wanted to marry her yes i know their different sides too a story but diana adds up with the circumstances.
Child abuser????????Come on now.
Whiny billnot waity and the middletons have polluted Diana’s memory. If whiny was sincere genuine in her memory and life he wouldnt buy in to disrespecting his father -RF-duties and charities by being Throne Idle entitled lazy secretive while degrading the family business and life.
@Apple
Are you off your rocker? Did you just call Charles a child abuser for marrying a legal adult? Wow. Just wow.
What in the actual hell?! I feel like these “polls” were absolutely made up or a “poll” was taken in the office to support this stupid article. Are there actually people in the UK that truly believe Will and Kate have contributed anything?!
I’m sorry, but really . . . Diana behind the scenes made Charles’s life a living hell . There were three perps in this marriage.
I watched the special about Diana last evening. It reminded me of that letter she wrote just a few months before her death in which she said she thought she would be murdered in a car wreck.
Does anyone here believe Charles and/or his henchmen had anything to do with her death?
I know the chauffeur supposedly had a high blood alcohol level. But “his” blood sample also showed a high carbon monoxide level which was never adequately explained. Mater of fact, I do not recall the CO being explained at all. None of the chauffeur’s friends or family members ever believed that was actually his blood sample,
and
No, I don’t think Charles or anybody in the royal family had anything to do with her death.
It wouldn’t make sense to freeze her in time as forever beautiful and angelic. Had she lived, she would have made some mis-steps and probably would have become less revered over time. And unlike someone like Jackie Kennedy, I think she thrived on sharing her problems with the public. Her mystique would have diminished as she aged as the public became tired of a rich older lady with all the gifts of beauty, charisma and public adulation complaining about her lot in life.
Diana had a vindictive streak which would have become less attractive on a 50 something year old than a 30 year old.
Why people might think the royal family would want to freeze Diana as the most beautiful, haunting ghost of all time is beyond me.
No, I really dont think there was any conspiracy around her death. It is almost insane to think that arranging for a drunk chauffeur willing to end his own life would be remotely feasible.
In my opinion there is no conspiracy wrt to the accident involving the British gvt.. I think the big fault lays with Dodi and his father:
1. The vehicle was faulty.
2. Maybe Henri Paul was not drunk but I still don’t understand the blood results. On the one hand the surviving bodyguard mentioned in an interview that he was not drunk. Both had been employed by Fayed and unless Trevor gave evidence under oath, I do not believe him. Fayed would have been legally responsible for a drunk employee committing a car accident. Trevor would have not stated anything against his employer.
3. From the picture I’ve seen with the four of them in the car, it was clear that Diana and Dodi were looking behind their car. Must have seen the paps cars following them. Dodi must have instructed Henri-Paul to speed up. And the car crashed.
BUT there are still some major red flags for me:
1. I’ve seen a documentary that showed that the French government had refused to reveal certain information in the investigation concluding document on grounds of national security. I am still wondering what those national security consideration implied. Unless the French government had been a party to the accident involving a French citizen and three foreigners.
2. The results of Henri-Paul’s blood work.
The major player in all this situation is the French government wrt the national security issues I mentioned above. The French and possibly by extension the British government know the absolute truth.
Diana must have been delusional to believe that the BRF would give orders for her to be killed. She was already very worried about the implications of having royal protection. She had the feeling that she would be spied on. Thus she refused royal protection twice.
I honestly believe that she left the info on the alleged plan of the car accident in WRITING, in a letter to I don’t remember who, to put the BRF in a very bad light. She’s done a lot of harm to the BRF out of spite and lack of maturity. The alleged plan of the car accident to have her killed, the treason as someone said on a thread to try change the course of succession in favour of Bill, alleged lack of support leading to five suicide attempts, statements about her self-harming, infidelity with several married men (it takes two to tango, but still), her collaboration with Andrew Morton for the book and so on.
And all this is not revisionist attempts by the BRF to try to erase her image and help Charles gain points with the British people. What I wrote above comes from her own words plus Andrew Morton’s book, with the prove that she had indeed gave him information for the book.
In my opinion Diana has done more harm than good. Notwithstanding her charity achievements.
What I do not get at all, but this is another issue, is the perceived lack of interest of her family in her. She had two parents and three siblings. Is it really possible that her entire family was against her? I don’t get it.
Didn’t she claim in that letter that Charles was planning car break failure in her car in order to marry their kids’ nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke? Which kinda never happened.
E: here’s the letter
http://i.imgur.com/bltGeCu.jpg
One thing is certain about the next monarch. They will not be Catholic. They are barred from the throne. Another ridiculous anachronism in a ridiculous anachronistic system. But I’m sure tampon man will make a fine Head of the Church of England.
Anachronistic but understandable given the job duties. Many of the monarchies in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark) have a requirement that the sovereign be of a particular Church, and even that you have to be a follower of that Church to stay in the line of succession. From the official BRF website
The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’. These titles date back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who was initially granted the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ in 1521 by Pope Leo X. When Henry VIII renounced the spiritual authority of the Papacy in 1534 he was proclaimed ‘supreme head on earth’ of the Church of England. This was repealed by Queen Mary I but reinstated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was proclaimed ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England.
The Queen’s relationship with the Church of England was symbolised at the Coronation in 1953 when Her Majesty was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and took an oath to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England”.
On the advice of the Prime Minister The Queen appoints Archbishops, Bishops and Deans of the Church of England, who then swear an oath of allegiance and pay homage to Her Majesty. Church of England deacons and parish priests also swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign.
Isn’t it interesting that Charles drove himself to Crathie church at Balmoral this past Sunday. The Queen goes regularly. I saw an interview some years ago where Charles said that he believes in bits and pieces of all faiths, no one faith had the answers. So his going to church puzzled me somewhat. Is he ready to take over the reins?
I’m surprised that Will & Kate’s numbers are so high. Prince Charles definitely works harder than either of them.
When this whole hysteria over Diana dies down and Willy and Waity’s numbers come out in January, it will be different. They are now caught up in the summer of Diana. People are willing to cut him some slack because he lost his mother twenty years ago.
I think Charles should be king as he is the next in line, so be it. That’s not to say I like him, I don’t, but he the next one up. Camilla should have no title.
I think Charles should be king as he is the next in line, so be it. That’s not to say I like him, I don’t, but he the next one up. Camilla should have no title.