Princess Diana Her life stirred so many feelings.

In a recent thread, Princess Diana was mentioned. This prompted a lot of discussion about her. Diana's touched a lot of people. In 2001, my ex and I went to Paris. (It's not like we do this every other week.) The thing,she was so awed by , was a full size Statue Of Liberty's Flame. Because directly under was the pier, where Diana met her death. My ex teared up. It does seem Princess Diana's life stirred so many feelings, especially in women. It's almost 20 years since her passing, I wonder what it was that so endeared her to women.
 

Diana was young, naive and in love with Charles, and expected that the feeling was mutual. She certainly didn't expect that he was still in love with Camilla and that they still had a relationship. Many women can relate to that betrayal so empathised with her. Also her mother left when she was very young and she felt abandoned.

She was not a saint by any means but she did a lot of good and had a good heart. She was a good mother and wanted her boys to be down to earth. I remember watching her funeral all day and what made me cry the most was those two boys walking behind her coffin.
 
I saw her only once, in London. It feels like a lifetime ago. In fact she was carrying William (Wills) at the time.
 

Diana was a breath of fresh air to the Royal family, warm, loving and not afraid to show it, especially to her children (who can forget a four year old prince Charles being greeted by a handshake after a five month separation from his mother)

In my opinion she was used and treated very shabbily, and it was heart breaking for her to lose her life before finding the happiness she so deserved
 
Diana was young, naive and in love with Charles, and expected that the feeling was mutual. She certainly didn't expect that he was still in love with Camilla and that they still had a relationship. Many women can relate to that betrayal so empathised with her. Also her mother left when she was very young and she felt abandoned.

She was not a saint by any means but she did a lot of good and had a good heart. She was a good mother and wanted her boys to be down to earth. I remember watching her funeral all day and what made me cry the most was those two boys walking behind her coffin.

I often wondered if the family ever felt responsibility for what happened to her. I know there was some suspicions that they may have had something to do with her death though it was never proven. I just thought it was terribly sad the way Charles treated her--she deserved better than that.
 
My boys are clones of the princes. I'm sure there was a conspiracy there beyond the driver being drunk. But who will ever know in our lifetime?
 
I often wondered if the family ever felt responsibility for what happened to her. I know there was some suspicions that they may have had something to do with her death though it was never proven. I just thought it was terribly sad the way Charles treated her--she deserved better than that.

Charles was horrible to her. He is the cause of her eating disorders. From what I've read he always critized her and never praised her. No wonder she had affairs. I guess it was okay for him, but not for her. When she split with him is when she really blossomed. As shown in the movie 'The Queen' the royals had no idea just how much she was loved by the public.
 
The light of her candle was snuffed out too soon, and I sometimes think about all the good she would have done in the world all these years.
 
I considered her a very special person and was extremely sad when she died. She was a beautiful human being who was not afraid to show her vulnerability or emotions, unlike the robots she married into.
 
When my ex and I got back from our trip to London and Paris, my ex met with her best friend to talk about. The very first thing my ex talked about was standing at the Torch, under which Diana died. She had lots of pics. And her fiend was all ears. Again, there was that special bond had with women.
 
I felt sorry for her from the beginning. It was obvious to me that she was brought in to bear children. She was used by the royal family.
 
I felt sorry for her from the beginning. It was obvious to me that she was brought in to bear children. She was used by the royal family.

Absolutely end of story, he should have married Camilla from the git go.
 
" It was obvious to me that she was brought in to bear children. She was used by the royal family. "

I wasn't going to contribute for obvious reasons, but that statement shows a total lack of understanding of the monarchy.

Why do you think Henry VIII tried six wives? Why do you think Albert was picked for Victoria, or Princess Alex and Mary of Teck were brought in (Elizabeth Bowes Lyon doesn 't count as she was not marrying an heir)? Why do you think Mountbatten, a major power behind the scenes (that's why PIRA killed him) picked his nephew for the Queen? The succession is everything.

William, with his father determined not to have his son forced into an unsuitable alliance, as he was, is the first heir for centuries to marry his own choice, and make no mistake, if Catherine had not passed the job interview with HM, she would have been rejected just as Camilla was in the first instance.
 
We are aware of this Laurie, we have read the books, studied it at school and seen the documentaries. Its obvious what the monarchy is about, perpetuating itself, which is not to say that its not repugnant. In Canada only the old white people care about the monarchy, mainly from only 2 out of 10 provinces, the rest couldn't give a darn. And Kate Middleton did sign up for the job if you want to call it that.
 
We are aware of this Laurie, we have read the books, studied it at school and seen the documentaries. Its obvious what the monarchy is about, perpetuating itself, which is not to say that its not repugnant. In Canada only the old white people care about the monarchy, mainly from only 2 out of 10 provinces, the rest couldn't give a darn. And Kate Middleton did sign up for the job if you want to call it that.

I don’t think I have entirely grasped the point you are trying to make.


If you “don’t give a damn” (your words) I am at a bit of a loss to understand why you are reading, and posting to, a thread which, from its very title, is clearly about the royal family.


I am not trying ti impose my views on those who could no give a damn, simply trying to amplify, for those who apparently do give a damn because they post to this thread, the reasoning and the machinations behind royal marriages and the absolute imperative of the succession.


You and I have been brought up with this, and as you say are aware of it, but many on this forum are from blow the 49th and used to a more democratic way of doing things. I was simply trying to clarify the mindset on this side of the pond.


Speaking personally, it wouldn’t bother me if we became a republic tomorrow, but I suspect I'm in a minority, and at the moment I am the subject of a constitutional monarchy and live by those rules, repugnant though it may seem to you!
 
This thread is about Diana, not really the monarchy. If you read my post you will notice that I said the rest of Canada (other than the two provinces who care) don't give a darn about the monarchy. I'm posting because I like Diana.
 
What we all think of the monarchy makes no difference in the way it functions. They start out as a bunch of spoiled rich kids generation after generation. It's amazing any of them can rise above that, and become nice people. Diana was just trying to survive that monarchy as best she could. I did not admire her at all, because I didn't know her. I only knew what the media thought I should know.
 
"This thread is about Diana, not really the monarchy"

But since, in the opinion of millions, the monarchy wronged her, the two two are irretrievably intertwined, or do you believe that only one side of an argument should be heard?
 

Back
Top