Diana and Charles Questions

[AdoraLovesCake]

So this is not a AIBU but it's an ATBU for are THEY being unreasonable.

I have seen a lot of you tube shorts marking the 25 year death of Lady Diana Spencer/the princess. They say she was a devoted mum and participated in the boys' school events, gave them macdonald's ect. Was a lovely, normal mum. I don't dispute that. Even though she died just before I was born so i hardly know anything about her, i think she is amazing and did not deserve to die. That brings me on to how some people said she wrote in her diary that she thought Charles was planning to kill her (staging an accident) so he could marry Camilla and that she knew something was wrong with the brakes in her car. For any of you who don't know, she died in a car accident in Paris on August 31rd 1997.

She was the people's princess and adored by all, she was one of us as her children went to public schools, she dressed casual. ect.

I also have some questions:

• Where was Diana buried, I know she had a state funeral thing?
• Did Diana see her kids much after the divorce?
• If Diana was alive now, what would her position be?
• Charles did not mention Diana in his becoming king speech - he could have said 'And the boys' mother who taught them so much' or something - do you think he should have?

YABU: They are being unreasonable and Charles did not order Diana's murder
YANBU: They are not being unreasonable and Charles did order Diana's murder

I suspect what you mean is it's one of the only messages on this thread that confirms what you had decided before you started it, which as many have pointed out appears to be based on knowing next to nothing about Diana. You were born just before she died. Most of us posting here were adults or teenagers then and remember what she did and how the press reported it. You're ignoring our views because they don't fit with what you want to believe. Fair enough, but be open about that. It's not disgusting to say 'I wasn't that keen on her' or 'She was a flawed person who did some good things but also a lot of questionable things'.

Somewhat more on topic is that the haircut Lady Diana had around the time of her engagement (and never really changed much) with layers and flicks was pretty ubiquitous back then. Every other girl at my school had it.

It became popular after the engagement.

Now every girl has long straightened hair.

I was struck watching the funeral at the superficial similarity between Kate and Meghan. Identical makeup, identical hair.

I'm not an expert on hair ( understatement of the year) but was that style a version of the Purdey cut popularised by Joanna Lumley in The Avengers three or four years earlier? I had that for a bit.

I'd say they were quite different haircuts really. Diana's was very of the early 80s era, even for young men!

So OP despite being too young to have known anything about Diana and Charles and the whole situation, you are not remotely interested in facts just some inane hero worship?

How very infantile.

She had a ceremonial funeral. The same as The Queen Mother and Prince Phillip. She really wasn't that wonderful. I'm glad Charles had found proper happiness. And Camilla will be a better Queen consort that Diana, ever could have been.

No the Purdey was more of a page boy

Are you from the US? Sorry OP, but your questions are so moronic I can’t believe a British person would ask them.

Firstly, all the information you want is on the internet. Bloody Google it and stop being lazy.

Secondly, Diana had a ceremonial funeral, not a state one. The Queen’s was the first since Sir Winston Churchill’s in the 1960s.

Thirdly, Diana is buried on an island in a lake at Althorp, her childhood home.

Fourthly, Diana saw her children often, but they were at boarding school, so some weekends, sports events and split school holidays with Charles.

Fifth, she wouldn’t have had an official role now, and no, she shouldn’t have been mentioned in the speech. On her divorce she stopped being an HRH and was no longer a member of the Royal Family.

Sixth, no of course she wasn’t murdered- you utter moron - she died because her chauffeur was drunk, driving too fast and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. The sad truth is if she’d worn a seatbelt she’d still probably be alive. She was paranoid because she was mentally ill and a lying journalist called Martin Bashir falsely doctored documents that made it look like she was under surveillance. She wasn’t.

The British Royal Family do not go around murdering people. It would violate their Christian beliefs, it wouldn’t be possible, nor would they wish to do it. Stop watching so much TV and thinking it reflects real life. The real world is far more banal and boring, and these mad conspiracies aren’t true.

Give me strength.

Applauds Vesta! Great rant agree with every word!

Ditto!

"she was one of us"

Really?

Absolutely! I posted early on the thread but there has been so much wilful stupidity posted!

I am so sorry that you think of me this way

i remember my neighbour being so disappointed on hearing her speak just before the wedding, we were also sold that she was something special, a normal young lady, however she was so posh my neighbour hated her!

Hey OP, I was in my 20s when she died. I will never forget hearing the news at breakfast. She was beautiful, but a lot of that came from an inner radiance and warmth that endeared her to people all over the world. She was unusual in that she changed homophobic attitudes, and gave a lot of time to unfashionable causes such as homelessness, AIDS, leprosy and the damage done by landmines. Her troubles were well known, but she was young and vulnerable and stood alone and unprotected against a powerful institution and the press. MN seems to have an amount of posters engaged in a hate campaign against the woman, largely focused on her being mentally ill, attention seeking, not attractive really and a troublemaker. Possibly they think being unkind about a long dead person will make the current monarch and consort more popular, although they don't understand it is really quite off putting! Plenty of people who were alive at the time remember her fondly, including, I am sure, her sons. Her death has been thoroughly investigated and there is no evidence to suggest foul play, I believe. Perhaps it's time to let her rest in peace.

Also, OP it would have been awkward for Charles to mention her and probably a bit insensitive to Camilla, so not surprised he didn't.

yep

Diana was 8 and her brother Charles was 6 w

MN seems to have an amount of posters engaged in a hate campaign against the woman, largely focused on her being mentally ill, attention seeking, not attractive really and a troublemaker. Possibly they think being unkind about a long dead person will make the current monarch and consort more popular, although they don't understand it is really quite off putting! Plenty of people who were alive at the time remember her fondly, including, I am sure, her sons.

Hate campaign? Is it now hate if you don't fawn over a person and point out some inconvenient truths? I haven't commented on Diana's appearance and won't, as that's all subjective stuff. But mentioning her mental health difficulties and her well-documented troubling behaviour is not unkind and nothing whatever to do with popularising the Royal Family. We're not in the playground. We don't have to pick a side and defend the person we picked through thick or thin. We can recognise that most people are a mixture of good and bad, and Diana was no different from anyone else in that respect.

Diana met James Hewitt at a party in 1986, Harry was born in 1984. They look nothing alike except they both have ginger hair. Harry is the double of his grandad at the same age.

Oh well, just a few words I have picked out from various posts- dim, borderline psychiatric, manipulative, narcissistic, clothes horse, batshit, attention seeking and stupid. Doesn't sound like a balanced assessment of someone's good or bad qualities to me. I am not sure calling her stupid for not wearing a seatbelt is entirely fair, as her sister and friends said she was normally religious about it. I would think she must have been in quite a panicky state to forget it, which is not the same as stupid.

I would think she must have been in quite a panicky state to forget it, which is not the same as stupid.

wouldn’t the bodyguard have reminded her, or perhaps he didn’t like to.

@KimberleyClark I don't know. I think he had a head injury and doesn't remember things well, so we'll never know if he reminded her or not.

Diana was a vulnerable and flawed person. She was badly let down by many key people in her life, and it is to her credit that despite this she was loving and affectionate towards her sons.

She wasn't perfect but many of her imperfections arose from insecurity and the extreme damage that had been done to her as a child.

She tried her best but made lots of mistakes. She was human.

They treated each other very badly. Both had affairs, both used media for their own ends to some extent, both with underlying issues and childhood trauma, just a terrible, toxic match.

I like to think if she was alive now that they’d have found a way to a healthy coparenting relationship over the years. I don’t think either of them are bad people, just flawed, like all of us.

The murder stuff is BS though. She was in a car, seatbelt-less, which was speeding and being driven by a driver more than twice the drink drive limit. Only surviving occupant of the car was only seatbelt wearer. It’s not rocket science.