The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV?

by Syl Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

This Sunday Channel 4 will show the so called 'hidden tapes' where Diana talks openly to a speech therapist (who she had only just met yet agreed to be taped) about her life and relationships.
She is honest and open, and many of the things she says shocked the world...the tapes have been seen in other countries and online but never shown on TV here.
Opinion varies about whether the tapes should be shown. She recorded them 25 years ago, 5 years before her death, when she was very distressed due to the way she was treated by her husband and the royal family, her brother tried to prevent Ch 4 showing them.
Others say she was well aware of what she was doing, feared for her life at the time, and wanted the world to know exactly how she was being treated....and this was one way of ensuring that one day they would.

Either way the speech therapist who was a previously a failed actor has already lined his pockets by selling them to the US years ago...and now stands to make even more.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4133826/princess-diana-tapes-channel-4-prince-william-harry/

by Syl Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:It was aids of Price Charles who insisted Nicko....and who do they take their orders from?

Um...Charles Schwab?

Never heard of him.

But on the note that it was Charles's courtiers who wanted the boys to walk behind Dianas coffin....surely as a father any man would NOT want their children to do something so taxing when they had both said they didn't want to do it.
It was cruel imo.

by magica Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:37 pm

No they shouldn't have been made to walk behind the coffin, such a hard thing for boys to do.

Mind you, Charles and Philip had no business walking behind either, but then nor did her brother.

May be would have been better for cars to be behind with Harry and Wills in first car, directly behind their mother.

by HoratioTarr Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:10 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Now the above really takes the biscuit. As this is not the 19th century or the 20th century anymore where Royal marriages were arranged. To say they are married as baby making machines. When this is exactly how many women are treated in certain parts of the world and as no more than cattle. Shows how poor your views are. Marriage is a way of committing to love and children should be conceived out of love. No marriage should be about producing babies, no matter if they are Royals. Hence why there is an extensive amount in line for the throne. So if you think that is what being married is all about, then you have your priorities all mixed up.

So I see now where your hate for her is derived from. That she was born into wealth, hence the reference to "ilk".. So I take you are bitter towards people who have money? At the end of a day she is still a woman, open to being used, as some others sadly are and like some others open to being hurt. The fact you think because she has wealth, this somehow makes her plight acceptable. Shows how and why people form their poor views of people. Which have nothing to do with the character of the individual, but because they are jealous of their wealth. As just because someone is born into privilege, does not mean they do not deserve sympathy for any pain they suffer.

@ Hi Syl

Not against the tape being shown, as nothing should be censured and i think the sons are not going to change their opinions of their mother based on them. They are very well aware of her life and even more so where so much has been written and by the mass of people that knew her. Hence i do not think she used her sons and nor have they ever expressed that she did.

I just do not understand the hostility of people towards here. Where again she was just human and a woman that yearned for love. I fail to see how that is a crime.

I don't think she used her sons either...her love for them was genuine.
If anyone used their sons Charles did....even insisting they walk behind Dianas coffin, something they themselves, and Dianas family didn't them want to do...they were still children fgs..
If you ever watch the funeral procession you will see its Diana's brother who speaks to them and offers comfort as they begin the walk....Charles doesn't interact with them in the same way.

Your last sentence I agree with 100%.
She was a woman first and foremost....coming from a broken home herself all she wanted was her children and a husband who loves her....everything else I believe she would have coped with admirably.

Didn't Diana's loving brother refuse her sanctuary when she most needed it? Wrote a letter to her calling her manipulative and deceitful and accused her of having mental problems? Now, why on earth would he do that?

by magica Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:26 pm

Her brother didn't want her living at Althorp but buried her at Althorp, so he looked the good brother. When he spoke at her funeral, he rightly spoke about the Royals but he should've included himself too.

by HoratioTarr Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:54 pm

magica wrote:Her brother didn't want her living at Althorp but buried her at Althorp, so he looked the good brother. When he spoke at her funeral, he rightly spoke about the Royals but he should've included himself too.

He was a serial cheat himself, so he was in no position to criticise Diana.

by eddie Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:06 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:
Syl wrote:

Obviously Charles would have been happy to have his mistress kept a dirty secret from the public, so naturally he didnt court the press about that.
He did however have his friends speak openly about Dianas mental state.....he also did the Dimbleby interview, which did him no favours at all.
They both courted the press in different ways.

Hmmmm. She used her kids a lot.
There. I said it.

They both did.
Will you watch the programme Eddie or have you allready watched the tapes?

I'll watch it if someone reminds me when it's on...?

by Syl Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:59 pm

Diana: In Her Own Words is on Sunday 6th August at 8pm on Channel 4

by Syl Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:00 am

Ooooh, i managed to c&p on my tablet. /\ Cool

by eddie Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:10 am

Syl wrote:Diana: In Her Own Words is on Sunday 6th August at 8pm on Channel 4

There are two eclipses in August (the major one is the solar one on the 21st August) and I went to a site a while back and the author said that this August eclipse will "reveal some truths about Diana" as it is linked to the one in August 1999 (see article for relavancy)

Here's the link: http://www.jessicaadams.com/2016/08/17/the-great-american-eclipse-of-august-21-2017/

This eclipse in the USA in August has always been linked to the total solar eclipse in England in 1999. It rules Royalty and rulers.

Interestingly, Donald Trump was born on a lunar eclipse. http://solarisastrology.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/donald-trump-being-born-under-lunar.html

It's a bit of fun reading. Have a look.

by Syl Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:21 am

Hmmmm, i wonder what will be revealed in connection with Diana and the white house?
I hope it wont be she had an affair with Trump. Shocked

Its no secret she could pick some very unsuitable lovers, but there are limits.

by magica Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:26 am

Trump fancied her, but I don't think it was reciprocated.

by Syl Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:29 am

magica wrote:Trump fancied her, but I don't think it was reciprocated.

Understandably. pig

by Cass Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:46 am

Syl wrote:Hmmmm, i wonder what will be revealed in connection with Diana and the white house?
I hope it wont be she had an affair with Trump.
Its no secret she could pick some very unsuitable lovers, but there are limits.

I highly doubt it. My guess is it will be talk about her dance with John Travolta and how great she looked but her husband didn't love her.

It's sounding more and more like a sleazy tabloid program in my opinion.

by 'Wolfie Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:42 am

eddie wrote:
Syl wrote:Diana: In Her Own Words is on Sunday 6th August at 8pm on Channel 4

There are two eclipses in August (the major one is the solar one on the 21st August) and I went to a site a while back and the author said that this August eclipse will "reveal some truths about Diana" as it is linked to the one in August 1999 (see article for relavancy)

Here's the link: http://www.jessicaadams.com/2016/08/17/the-great-american-eclipse-of-august-21-2017/

This eclipse in the USA in August has always been linked to the total solar eclipse in England in 1999. It rules Royalty and rulers.

Interestingly, Donald Trump was born on a lunar eclipse. http://solarisastrology.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/donald-trump-being-born-under-lunar.html

It's a bit of fun reading. Have a look.

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 3489511464

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 1681210668

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 2187004795

by Syl Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:26 pm

Cass wrote:
Syl wrote:Hmmmm, i wonder what will be revealed in connection with Diana and the white house?
I hope it wont be she had an affair with Trump.
Its no secret she could pick some very unsuitable lovers, but there are limits.

I highly doubt it. My guess is it will be talk about her dance with John Travolta and how great she looked but her husband didn't love her.

It's sounding more and more like a sleazy tabloid program in my opinion.

I remember that dance being on the news. They looked so good together, Ronald and Nancy Reagan looked on like doting parents. Laughing

Oh the power of illusion....he is gay and she was tormented and suffering from raging bulimia at the time.

by nicko Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:03 pm

I didn't know he was gay, although looking back he did look a bit girlish in some parts.

by Syl Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:17 pm

He has never said himself he is, and he IS married with children....but many who know him personally have spoken out and said he is.
Whether he is or not...I was just pointing out the image a photo can show is often an illusion.

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 Buy-the-dress-princess-diana-wore-when-she-danced-with-john-travolta

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 Buy-the-dress-princess-diana-wore-when-she-danced-with-john-travolta

by eddie Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:36 pm

Syl wrote:Hmmmm, i wonder what will be revealed in connection with Diana and the white house?
I hope it wont be she had an affair with Trump.
Its no secret she could pick some very unsuitable lovers, but there are limits.

No there's no connection between them apart from the eclipses.

Or maybe Trump is actually Harry's biological father. Shocked

by eddie Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:37 pm

nicko wrote:I didn't know he was gay, although looking back he did look a bit girlish in some parts.

So all gay men "look girlish"? Fuck aduck!! What are you on about????

by eddie Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:40 pm

Does he look gay?

The Diana tapes...should they be shown on mainstream TV? - Page 2 Img_7318

by nicko Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:41 pm

Did I say ALL gay men?

by Original Quill Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:58 pm

eddie wrote:Does he look gay?

Looks like he's giving an obscene gesture, and someone photo-shopped a football into the picture. Is that a gay thing?

by veya_victaous Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Does he look gay?

Looks like he's giving an obscene gesture, and someone photo-shopped a football into the picture. Is that a gay thing?

yep Football is totally gay Cool

by Syl Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:01 pm

Well did anyone watch last night?

I thought the programme, though interesting didn't deliver what it promised.
All in all there was so little of her actually speaking on the tapes, they were constantly interrupted by comments from people who worked with her throughout her life, voice overs from an actress speaking for Diana....and slow motion film of her looking very pensive.

They should have just shown the tapes as she recorded them...it would have been far more informative and not so deliberately emotive.

by HoratioTarr Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:53 pm

Syl wrote:Well did anyone watch last night?

I thought the programme, though interesting didn't deliver what it promised.
All in all there was so little of her actually speaking on the tapes, they were constantly interrupted by comments from people who worked with her throughout her life, voice overs from an actress speaking for Diana....and slow motion film of her looking very pensive.

They should have just shown the tapes as she recorded them...it would have been far more informative and not so deliberately emotive.

It was very biased. I think the truth is very much down the middle. And much of the blame lies at the feet of the whole machine running the Royals that's remained unchanged for too many years.

by Syl Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:08 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:Well did anyone watch last night?

I thought the programme, though interesting didn't deliver what it promised.
All in all there was so little of her actually speaking on the tapes, they were constantly interrupted by comments from people who worked with her throughout her life, voice overs from an actress speaking for Diana....and slow motion film of her looking very pensive.

They should have just shown the tapes as she recorded them...it would have been far more informative and not so deliberately emotive.

It was very biased. I think the truth is very much down the middle. And much of the blame lies at the feet of the whole machine running the Royals that's remained unchanged for too many years.

I think they made it biased in the way they edited the programme.
Had they just shown the tapes as she spoke in them it would have been clearer without all the padding out.

The initial blame lies as it always has imo...Charles loved another woman, and he married Diana knowing this.

by magica Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:47 pm

I didn't watch them, but read about them.

Now it's out there, nothing new really.

by Syl Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:05 pm

magica wrote:I didn't watch them, but read about them.

Now it's out there, nothing new really.

Actually she spoke about quite a lot which had been swept under the carpet....well she would have done if they had shown more of the actual tapes which was promised.

by magica Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:46 pm

Exactly Syl, its all hype tbh. Funny how its all come to light when Wills and Harry are doing something for her 20th anniversary.

Wouldn't mind betting Harry will get engaged on that day. I'm sick of his romance tbh.

by eddie Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:53 pm

We will never know the truth.

by Raggamuffin Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:00 pm

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

It was very biased. I think the truth is very much down the middle. And much of the blame lies at the feet of the whole machine running the Royals that's remained unchanged for too many years.

I think they made it biased in the way they edited the programme.
Had they just shown the tapes as she spoke in them it would have been clearer without all the padding out.

The initial blame lies as it always has imo...Charles loved another woman, and he married Diana knowing this.

Diana knew about Camilla before the wedding and thought about calling it off, so she went along with it all.

by Syl Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think they made it biased in the way they edited the programme.
Had they just shown the tapes as she spoke in them it would have been clearer without all the padding out.

The initial blame lies as it always has imo...Charles loved another woman, and he married Diana knowing this.

Diana knew about Camilla before the wedding and thought about calling it off, so she went along with it all.

She did ...but she probably thought the affair had ended.
I was shocked to hear her say that they had only met 13 times before the wedding day.....so they hardly knew each other.

by magica Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:55 pm

They were set up for this, love had nothing to do with it.

Arranged by the royal family, namely Queen mum and Diana's Grandmother, to get an heir to carry the line on.

by Syl Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:09 pm

magica wrote:They were set up for this, love had nothing to do with it.

Arranged by the royal family, namely Queen mum and Diana's Grandmother, to get an heir to carry the line on.

I think she loved him...thought she did anyway.
She had a crush on him for years, even when he was going out with her older sister, so when he turned his attention to her...she was young and easily impressed, I believe she did love him, and she has always said she did.

He admitted even on their engagement that he didn't know what love was...not towards her anyway.

by magica Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:12 pm

Yes she loved him, she was carried away with the magic of it all. Sadly once the kids were born, off he went

by Syl Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:22 pm

magica wrote:Yes she loved him, she was carried away with the magic of it all. Sadly once the kids were born, off he went

I think he would have been happy to stay married as long as he could have his mistress.
Diana didn't want that....and that sadly was that.

The outcome of it all is she is dead and he ended up with the woman he always wanted...so they at least have had a happy ending to the whole sorry saga.

by Raggamuffin Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:24 pm

Syl wrote:
magica wrote:They were set up for this, love had nothing to do with it.

Arranged by the royal family, namely Queen mum and Diana's Grandmother, to get an heir to carry the line on.

I think she loved him...thought she did anyway.
She had a crush on him for years, even when he was going out with her older sister, so when he turned his attention to her...she was young and easily impressed, I believe she did love him, and she has always said she did.

He admitted even on their engagement that he didn't know what love was...not towards her anyway.

He was talking about being "in love". She could have backed out then - she said later that it shocked her.

by Syl Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think she loved him...thought she did anyway.
She had a crush on him for years, even when he was going out with her older sister, so when he turned his attention to her...she was young and easily impressed, I believe she did love him, and she has always said she did.

He admitted even on their engagement that he didn't know what love was...not towards her anyway.

He was talking about being "in love". She could have backed out then - she said later that it shocked her.

She actually said in the tapes that when he said that it 'destroyed her'.
Yep...she should have run for the hills.

by Sponsored content