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

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/

Syl wrote: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/

I think she knew exactly what she was doing.   You'd have to be a complete moron to think anything you said as you  bared your soul, or slung some shit, wouldn't get leaked eventually.

I agree with Horatio. She knew it might be used - she's have to be blindingly stupid to not know that. She undoubtedly used the guy to spread her story.

Yes, they should be allowed to be aired, but I doubt staunch royalists or conformists will believe her though.

Both sides messed up. Neither Charles or Diana were saints.

I'm so sick and tired of this garbage rearing its ugly head every now and then. It's almost 20 years since she died, and over that since they got divorced. Let it go.

There's also nothing new here. It was in Andrew Morton's book and she talked about it in the Panorama interview.

This will only hurt her children. Why would people want to keep doing this to them?

The Princess did NOT live happily ever after.
The End.

Diana was in some ways incredibly naive.  I've never admitted this before, but I feel the same way about Diana as I feel about Mary Stuart...incredibly protective. Like...I would have liked to have been there, if only to say, no, no, not that door...this one.

Just because you (generically), or the guy next door, are supremely savvy and street smart, does not mean there aren't people out there who are not so gifted.  It was Diana's great flaw that often she did not know what she was doing...and like Alice in Wonderland, she would wake up and ask how did I get here?

The one thing that will happen is William and Harry will have the whole sorry mess brought back to them, Neither of them were Saints but Charlie only had one Women while Diana went through the whole of the Guards and half of the England Rugby Team ! I,m joking of course, but she did "put it around" a bit.

I agree with some here. Diana knew that one day these would see the light of day. She was clever at manipulating the press for her own ends.

Can't keep saying the boys, they're men now and as royalty have to wear it. No doubt much will be left out.

magica wrote:I agree with some here. Diana knew that one day these would see the light of day. She was clever at manipulating the press for her own ends.

Can't keep saying the boys, they're men now and as royalty have to wear it.  No doubt much will be left out.

Hi Magica (not sure if we've ever "met")

Yes they are men and they are royals, but they didn't choose that life. Why should anyone, no matter if it's a Prince or Joe Bloggs next door have to hear this again and again? Just so someone else can continue to make money off of their dead mother. They're human beings too.

From what I've read, it's all been told before in other places. Quite frankly this is because the 20th Anniversary of her death is coming up. Ghoulish beyond extreme.

Just to make money, don't care who they hurt.

nicko wrote:Just to make money,    don't care who they hurt.  

Bingo!

Cass wrote:

magica wrote:I agree with some here. Diana knew that one day these would see the light of day. She was clever at manipulating the press for her own ends.

Can't keep saying the boys, they're men now and as royalty have to wear it.  No doubt much will be left out.

Hi Magica (not sure if we've ever "met")

Yes they are men and they are royals, but they didn't choose that life. Why should anyone, no matter if it's a Prince or Joe Bloggs next door have to hear this again and again? Just so someone else can continue to make money off of their dead mother. They're human beings too.

From what I've read, it's all been told before in other places. Quite frankly this is because the 20th Anniversary of her death is coming up. Ghoulish beyond extreme.

Hi Cass, good to meet you too

Yeah I understand they've had enough of it, but tbh it goes with the territory.

nicko wrote:The one thing that will happen is William and Harry will have the whole sorry mess brought back to them,  Neither  of them were Saints but Charlie only had one Women while Diana went through the whole of the Guards and half of the England Rugby Team !   I,m joking of course, but she did "put it around" a bit.  

She was young and attractive and if Charles wasn't doing the biz, who can blame her? Having said that, I'm not a huge fan of the Royals, including Diana. I think she was far more manipulative than people believe, even though I do think she was very naive at the beginning and dewy eyed over the whole marrying Charles thing. I believe Diana had a core of steel, and was not the doe eyed shrinking violet she often portrayed.

I tend to agree with Horatio but I also think she didn't realise quite how awful she'd be made to feel during her stint as a royal. Was she treated fairly? I doubt it.
Do her sons need this shit brought up again? No I dare say they don't but it's going to give people a chance to hear her "truth" and I think that's important.

I sort of agree with all the remarks.
But....I did like Diana, I believe had her husband been faithful she would still be here and still married, even if they were no longer in love, I'm betting the marriage (and Diana) would have survived.

I feel for her boys, if anyone watched the documentary last week its obvious they truly loved her and miss her constantly.
Whatever she was or wasn't she loved her sons and they in turn loved her.

Yes but they are no different to many people who h ave lost their mother's when young, without the money, privileged life and fawning they get.

They werent a 'normal' family, but they ought to have had privacy.

Ask yourself "would you want to see on tv lurid stories about your parents sex lives, how often they did it, and how they both got they orgasms from other lovers?

Probably not.

magica wrote:Yes but they are no different to many people who h ave lost their mother's when young, without the money, privileged life and fawning they get.

Its true that the pain is the same when any child loses a beloved parent, but they are different in some ways Mags.

For a start reading about her constantly, her flaws and faults in particular, must be very hard...its none stop, and no child wants to hear about their parents sexual conquests and the like.
Also, their step mother is the cause of a lot of the heartbreak their mum suffered....and continuously hearing Diana's words, 20 years after her death, puts them in a bad position.

I imagine the backlash against Charles and Camilla after these tapes are shown will be noticeable.
It may have been a long time ago...but it still happened.

Angry Andy wrote:They werent a 'normal' family, but they ought to have had privacy.

Ask yourself "would you want to see on tv lurid stories about your parents sex lives, how often they did it, and how they both got they orgasms from other lovers?

Probably not.

No, but my mother wouldn't have told a stranger about her sex life abd orgasms. I take your point but one has to own what one says.

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:They werent a 'normal' family, but they ought to have had privacy.

Ask yourself "would you want to see on tv lurid stories about your parents sex lives, how often they did it, and how they both got they orgasms from other lovers?

Probably not.

No, but my mother wouldn't have told a stranger about her sex life abd orgasms. I take your point but one has to own what one says.

I don't think Diana talked publicly about orgasms...Charles did once say he would like to be Camilla's tampon...that was beyond toe curlingly sickening....something like that caught on tape can never be unheard.

I saw a picture of this guy in the paper today... and there was a pic of Prince Harry next to it... uncanny resemblance is all I'm saying...

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:They werent a 'normal' family, but they ought to have had privacy.

Ask yourself "would you want to see on tv lurid stories about your parents sex lives, how often they did it, and how they both got they orgasms from other lovers?

Probably not.

No, but my mother wouldn't have told a stranger about her sex life abd orgasms. I take your point but one has to own what one says.

My thoughts exactly Ed

Tommy Monk wrote:I saw a picture of this guy in the paper today... and there was a pic of Prince Harry next to it... uncanny resemblance is all I'm saying...

No there isn't Tommy....maybe you were looking at a pic of James Hewitt.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I saw a picture of this guy in the paper today... and there was a pic of Prince Harry next to it... uncanny resemblance is all I'm saying...

No there isn't Tommy....maybe you were looking at a pic of James Hewitt.

Or it was photoshopped.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

No there isn't Tommy....maybe you were looking at a pic of James Hewitt.

Or it was photoshopped.

Probably, knowing Tommys way of thinking.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

No there isn't Tommy....maybe you were looking at a pic of James Hewitt.

Or it was photoshopped.

Probably, knowing Tommys way of thinking.

That's pretty much the only reason I said it, Syl.

Im pretty sure the caption under pic said 'Diana's voice coach'...

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:They werent a 'normal' family, but they ought to have had privacy.

Ask yourself "would you want to see on tv lurid stories about your parents sex lives, how often they did it, and how they both got they orgasms from other lovers?

Probably not.

No, but my mother wouldn't have told a stranger about her sex life abd orgasms. I take your point but one has to own what one says.

But she's dead, so she can't own it and this guy is just out to make money. Like I said before, this has all been mentioned previously in that book and in the panorama interview. Nothing is to be gained by it. This jerk wants to make money.

William and Harry and the rest of the family have accepted Camilla and theirs are the only opinions to matter in any of this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969785/The-real-reason-Diana-tapes-shelved-Director-claims-BBC-axed-dynamite-footage-amid-fears-upsetting-monarchy-despite-spending-500-000-programme.html


Think there is a pic of him here that might make you rethink...


The ginger bloke...

Hi Tommy

Do give over. Harry is a Spencer. Her 2 sisters and her brother and her father in younger days were all red heads. Seriously.

Cass wrote:Hi Tommy

Do give over. Harry is a Spencer. Her 2 sisters and her brother and her father in younger days were all red heads. Seriously.

I've always said this. Diana's nephew,her brother's son, is ginger and looks like Harry. Also you can see Charles in Harry more so as he's grown older, more in fact than in Wills.

He is definitely Charles son, make no mistake if there were any doubts, DNA would've been done, it may have been done anyway, who knows.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

No, but my mother wouldn't have told a stranger about her sex life abd orgasms. I take your point but one has to own what one says.

I don't think Diana talked publicly about orgasms...Charles did once say he would like to be  Camilla's tampon...that was beyond toe curlingly sickening....something like that caught on tape can never be unheard.

Charles didn't say that knowing it would be exposed in public. Diana courted the press.

magica wrote:

Cass wrote:Hi Tommy

Do give over. Harry is a Spencer. Her 2 sisters and her brother and her father in younger days were all red heads. Seriously.

I've always said this. Diana's nephew,her brother's son, is ginger and looks like Harry. Also you can see Charles in Harry more so as he's grown older, more in fact than in Wills.

He is definitely Charles son, make no mistake if there were any doubts, DNA would've been done, it may have been done anyway, who knows.

Exactly. My oldest son looks like me but he's a red from my husband (who is brown now) and the youngest has my coloring but looks like the husband. But they both have bits of the other parent too.

Hello Cass... point taken...


And nice to 'see' you again...!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think Diana talked publicly about orgasms...Charles did once say he would like to be  Camilla's tampon...that was beyond toe curlingly sickening....something like that caught on tape can never be unheard.

Charles didn't say that knowing it would be exposed in public.    Diana courted the press.

True. To be fair though, he authorized his friends to speak to the press anonymously after they split, just like she did. After Andrew Morton's book and Panorama when she deservedly got backlash from the public and friends and family, she more than likely regretted making these tapes and didn't realize the consequences of having them out there. Then again if she made a fuss it would have been game over as well. Sadly she has done this to the sons she loved so much.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think Diana talked publicly about orgasms...Charles did once say he would like to be  Camilla's tampon...that was beyond toe curlingly sickening....something like that caught on tape can never be unheard.

Charles didn't say that knowing it would be exposed in public.    Diana courted the press.

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.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think Diana talked publicly about orgasms...Charles did once say he would like to be  Camilla's tampon...that was beyond toe curlingly sickening....something like that caught on tape can never be unheard.

Charles didn't say that knowing it would be exposed in public.    Diana courted the press.

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.

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?

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Charles didn't say that knowing it would be exposed in public.    Diana courted the press.

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.

Diana was shagging around. So she couldn't really get on her high horse and start pontificating about Charles' infidelity. Had she kept her legs together and been more chaste, she might have had a bit more clout when it came to who had the moral highground. Personally, I don't blame her for sleeping around, why shouldn't she if she wasn't getting any nooky. But then don't start bleating to the press about how hard done by you are. I think her mental state was in tatters at one point...brought on by the madness you go through caused by frustration and the injustice of being cheated on and lied to. But I also think she was a bit of a spoiled, wilful brat who, when she didn't get her own way, tried psychological blackmail. It backfired on her.

+1

Does not matter what people say of her.

She was inspirational to many and was at the forefront of change.

The problem of landmines being one of them. That brought about change.

http://www.biographyonline.net/people/diana/charity_work.html

So she was human and had sex with other men. Mainly of which was too find love, but this was only caused by the fact she was unloved by her husband. In certain places in the world, this can constitute a woman's death. Where she is forced into a loveless marriage and risks her own life just to have some normal love elsewhere. As they cannot escape from their marriages.

I am not sure how that makes her a spoilt brat when she was treated appalling by the Royal Family. She was nothing more than used as a baby making machine to produce an heir to the crown.  As usual people stand with their pontificating views, as if their are perfect themselves. Which is of course complete rubbish. She faced it a hundred times worse than many couples cheated on, because she was placed into the limelight because of her position. I cannot imagine what it must be like to even try to have some sort of normal life that way. I certainly do not blame her getting back at the Royal family after how they treated her.

HoratioTarr 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.

Diana was shagging around.    So she couldn't really get on her high horse and start pontificating about Charles' infidelity.   Had she kept her legs together and been more chaste, she might have had a bit more clout when it came to who had the moral highground.   Personally, I don't blame her for sleeping around, why shouldn't she if she wasn't getting any nooky.  But then don't start bleating to the press about how hard done by you are.    I think her mental state was in tatters at one point...brought on by the madness you go through caused by frustration and the injustice of being cheated on and lied to.   But I also think she was a bit of a spoiled, wilful brat who, when she didn't get her own way, tried psychological blackmail.   It backfired on her.

I think one of the most endearing things about Diana was she was human, and humans have faults. I don't believe she ever tried to paint herself as a saint. It was she who talked about falling in love with other men, starting with her bodyguard, who she says in these tapes she believed could have been 'bumped off soon after he was dismissed'...James Hewitt, who did the dirty on her,  she never denied she had relationships with other men....AFTER her husband no longer wanted her.

She was treated like a breeder by a man who never loved her...at first she was young and gullible, when the penny dropped she paved a life for herself, along the way helping millions of others, which was why she was known and always will be as 'The peoples princess'.

Thorin wrote:Does not matter what people say of her.

She was inspirational to many and was at the forefront of change.

The problem of landmines being one of them. That brought about change.

http://www.biographyonline.net/people/diana/charity_work.html

So she was human and had sex with other men. Mainly of which was too find love, but this was only caused by the fact she was unloved by her husband. In certain places in the world, this can constitute a woman's death. Where she is forced into a loveless marriage and risks her own life just to have some normal love elsewhere. As they cannot escape from their marriages.

I am not sure how that makes her a spoilt brat when she was treated appalling by the Royal Family. She was nothing more than used as a baby making machine to produce an heir to the crown.  As usual people stand with their pontificating views, as if their are perfect themselves. Which is of course complete rubbish. She faced it a hundred times worse than many couples cheated on, because she was placed into the limelight because of her position. I cannot imagine what it must be like to even try to have some sort of normal life that way. I certainly do not blame her getting back at the Royal family after how they treated her.

That's pretty much the way I see it Thor...and I don't even think she was 'getting back' at the Royals, she was surviving in an institution that is all powerful and using the weapons she had, which was her popularity and her natural kindness which was never an act, it was her.
Yes she used the press...so did her husband and his smarmy friends like Nicholas Soames..(he who publicly called her a loose cannon when she campaigned against land mines) Penny Junor, who wrote books about how badly Diana treated Charles, her mental state...and how fabulous Camilla was and is....and she is still making money off Diana, coming out of the woodwork everytime Diana is in the news and can no longer answer back)

The main and only reason I think its a bad idea to show these tapes is obviously because of her sons.
No doubt they have watched them....even at the time they were sometimes present when she was speaking to the creep of a voice coach...you can hear them in the background, at one point William tells his mum to stop laughing she is being recorded....which shows his maturity at such a young age.
But....they have gotten on with their lives and don't need reminding of how unhappy his mum was at certain times in her life.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Diana was shagging around.    So she couldn't really get on her high horse and start pontificating about Charles' infidelity.   Had she kept her legs together and been more chaste, she might have had a bit more clout when it came to who had the moral highground.   Personally, I don't blame her for sleeping around, why shouldn't she if she wasn't getting any nooky.  But then don't start bleating to the press about how hard done by you are.    I think her mental state was in tatters at one point...brought on by the madness you go through caused by frustration and the injustice of being cheated on and lied to.   But I also think she was a bit of a spoiled, wilful brat who, when she didn't get her own way, tried psychological blackmail.   It backfired on her.

I think one of the most endearing things about Diana was she was human, and humans have faults. I don't believe she ever tried to paint herself as a saint. It was she who talked about falling in love with other men, starting with her bodyguard, who she says in these tapes she believed could have been 'bumped off soon after he was dismissed'...James Hewitt, who did the dirty on her,  she never denied she had relationships with other men....AFTER her husband no longer wanted her.

She was treated like a breeder by a man who never loved her...at first she was young and gullible, when the penny dropped she paved a life for herself, along the way helping millions of others, which was why she was known and always will be as 'The peoples princess'.

Oh, please....    She was no different from any other privileged  person of her ilk.   Do you suppose the Queen wasn't a breeder?   Or all the other queens before her?    Do you suppose she didn't know she was supposed to produce an heir?  Fecundity is a priority for potential queens.   Where in history has any female of the Royal family chosen NOT to breed?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think one of the most endearing things about Diana was she was human, and humans have faults. I don't believe she ever tried to paint herself as a saint. It was she who talked about falling in love with other men, starting with her bodyguard, who she says in these tapes she believed could have been 'bumped off soon after he was dismissed'...James Hewitt, who did the dirty on her,  she never denied she had relationships with other men....AFTER her husband no longer wanted her.

She was treated like a breeder by a man who never loved her...at first she was young and gullible, when the penny dropped she paved a life for herself, along the way helping millions of others, which was why she was known and always will be as 'The peoples princess'.

Oh, please....    She was no different from any other privileged  person of her ilk.   Do you suppose the Queen wasn't a breeder?   Or all the other queens before her?    Do you suppose she didn't know she was supposed to produce an heir?  Fecundity is a priority for potential queens.   Where in history has any female of the Royal family chosen NOT to breed?

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.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think one of the most endearing things about Diana was she was human, and humans have faults. I don't believe she ever tried to paint herself as a saint. It was she who talked about falling in love with other men, starting with her bodyguard, who she says in these tapes she believed could have been 'bumped off soon after he was dismissed'...James Hewitt, who did the dirty on her,  she never denied she had relationships with other men....AFTER her husband no longer wanted her.

She was treated like a breeder by a man who never loved her...at first she was young and gullible, when the penny dropped she paved a life for herself, along the way helping millions of others, which was why she was known and always will be as 'The peoples princess'.

Oh, please....    She was no different from any other privileged  person of her ilk.   Do you suppose the Queen wasn't a breeder?   Or all the other queens before her?    Do you suppose she didn't know she was supposed to produce an heir?  Fecundity is a priority for potential queens.   Where in history has any female of the Royal family chosen NOT to breed?

She was very different to other modern women of her ilk in that she was chosen to be the future kings wife....singled out amongst all the other privileged contenders.
The difference between her and those who had gone before her was she was not prepared to put up with a husband who was more loyal to his mistress than he was to her.
Of course she wanted children.....one of her jobs as she saw it was to produce a future king or queen to follow their father....which she did. She just wasn't prepared to fade into the background like a dutiful wife after she had done so whilst her husband carried on with Camilla who by all accounts was more accepted in royal circles than Diana ever was.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Oh, please....    She was no different from any other privileged  person of her ilk.   Do you suppose the Queen wasn't a breeder?   Or all the other queens before her?    Do you suppose she didn't know she was supposed to produce an heir?  Fecundity is a priority for potential queens.   Where in history has any female of the Royal family chosen NOT to breed?

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.

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.

+1

Charles did not insist, it was the Courtiers that arranged it.

nicko wrote:Charles did not insist,  it was the Courtiers that arranged it.

It was aids of Price Charles who insisted Nicko....and who do they take their orders from?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/princess-dianas-brother-earl-spencer-william-and-harry-didnt-want-to-walk-behind-their-mothers-a3596346.html



It has also been said  by people who were close to the royal family at the time  that some of Charles  staff believed he would be safer if the lads walked beside him....seems he was afraid of a public backlash.

If that's true...seems he was very happy to use his sons for his own  protection.

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

Um...Charles Schwab?