Lucia Flecha de Lima "they were in love"
Sacha
interview with Lucia Flecha de Lima, Diana's closest older female friend.
Diana often stayed with her and her husband at their home, where she even
had her own room.
Mrs de Lima says confidently that the letters from the DoE to Diana were
'warm, courteous and helpful' and she should know because it was with her
that the letters were kept for many years. He refers to himself as 'Pa' and
the Queen as 'Ma' and uses his own experiences in attempting to help Diana:
he describes how he had to give up the career he loved when 'Ma' succeeded
to the throne. He felt that Diana and Charles should have continued to
remain married, living separate lives in separate apartments but Diana felt
that Philip wanted her to be submissive towards the royals.
She says that Paul Burrell had told her he would never write a book about
his work for Diana "But there it is, he has to deal with that". She was one
of those who stood as a character witness for Burrell but has never had a
word of thanks from him. She imagines he felt let down by the Establishment
but had told her he might write a recipe book, so she thinks she should have
"seen this coming."
She says: "What I do find uncomfortable is the manner in which Paul paints
himself as Diana's friend. He was not. he was her servant. He opened the
door, he closed the door, he served drinks and cleared away dishes. In all
the time I knew Diana, I never saw him sitting beside her and having a
conversation. It is also interesting how he now refers to her by her first
name. Because he would never have dared call her 'Diana'."
She says that she cautioned the Princess against divorcing Prince Charles.
She said they could "lead separate lives but should remain married. It was
not like an ordinary marriage, she didn't have to ask him for money, or
press his shirts or cook for him or even move into a small apartment.
Nothing much needed to change.. I told her that the people should know they
were no longer living together: that would have been their responsibility
towards the nation. The truth is I don't think she wanted to separate but
they were too competitive."........"When a marriage fails, it is not one
person's fault. I liked Prince Charles very much; so did my husband. He was
most charming to us."
"When she was with Charles for the last time as man and wife, her parting
words to him were: 'I will love you forever.' I really think she never
stopped loving him. The problem was Camilla, which is why Diana was so hurt
by the Dimbleby interview................For Charles, it was s shock to find
out that his wife had a temper."
Kay goes on to say "It is this intimate knowledge that convinces Lucia that
rumours about the Prince and a servant are wrong. 'He was a regular man,
Diana always assured me of that', she says".
Diana told Lucia how 'simpatico' and polite Dodi was towards her and about
his kindness to her sons. She told Lucia about presents he gave her, a
necklace, bracelet and watch. "She did not mention a ring and I am sure she
would have - she told me everything" she says. 'I remember I told her to be
careful. I did not know Dodi but I know he was not The One. I do not
believe she would have married him. Why? Because when I asked her about
im, she said :'Lucia,, he is very kind to me''. You don't use those words
about the man you are in love with."
Later, she says "To me, that film footage of her leaving the Rita Hotel for
the last time says it all, she looks cross and fed up - certainly not
someone about to become engaged." LFdL had talked to Diana 3 days before
her death and says she was happy enough but tired and wantd to come home.
She also says that she has never seen Diana's grave at Althorp because she
has never been invited there. She think it was the wrong place to bury her
"out of reach of the public she loved so much. Why couldn't she be buried
where everyone laid flowers in front of Kensington Palace? I feel sure that
is what she would have wanted. Diana belongs to England, not the Spencers."
My opinion: this is one of the better balanced interviews I've read from
one of Diana's friends - either real as Mrs de Lima, or imagined as the
various soothsayers and manicurists.
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
Ron Clark
<sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard Kay has an article in today's Daily Mail which is based on an
>interview with Lucia Flecha de Lima, Diana's closest older female friend.
>Diana often stayed with her and her husband at their home, where she even
>had her own room.
What a load of hagiological crap it is too.
Diana's memory is still being sullied and milked for money
both by her enemies and so-called friends, It's time to leave her
alone.
--
®óñ© © ²°°³
Jean Sue Libkind
sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 11/29/03 6:58 AM:
> My opinion: this is one of the better balanced interviews I've read from
> one of Diana's friends - either real as Mrs de Lima, or imagined as the
> various soothsayers and manicurists.
And it is very interesting that she points to the tempers of both Charles
and Diana as the reason for the divorce. Once they both acted on their anger
outside the home and on TV for the world to see, there was no turning back.
Such a shame.
js
Sacha
pmje...@bookschlepper.comBBEE2C82.1D5F9%jea...@bookschlepper.com
Oh yes, the 'going public' was the worst thing either of them could do.
It's the worst thing any couple can do, in fact. People take sides, in
their case, the public got involved, all sorts of opinions are freely given,
whether asked for or not etc. etc.
Laurence11
>From: Sacha sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk
>Date: 11/29/2003 6:58 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <BBEE3A57.10589%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>
Thanks for posting the article. We've always felt that the public airings of
the Walses' was a mistake. But Diana, a lovely but immature 20 year old girl,
married a man who was in love with another woman. Charles has a lot to answer
for.
Sacha
pmlaur...@aol.com20031129140254.00847.00001347@mb-m28.aol.com
Not according to Mrs de Lima:
"She often told me how happy they were in the beginning, especially after
William was born, and how they bathed him together." This is preceded by
Kay's words "Lucia is convinced Diana never wanted a divorce. She also
insists the marriage was not loveless." Please note the last sentence.
This article might be available on Femail. I haven't been able to access it
today, for some reason.
Jean Sue Libkind
laure...@aol.com wrote on 11/29/03 2:02 PM:
> Thanks for posting the article. We've always felt that the public airings of
> the Walses' was a mistake. But Diana, a lovely but immature 20 year old girl,
> married a man who was in love with another woman. Charles has a lot to answer
> for.
OTOH, Diana was not young nor naive when she did Panorama.
js
Gill Webster
Ron Clark <r...@spamall.com> wrote in message
news:496hsv8fgdp5u1c54...@4ax.com...
I'm sure Paul would have behaved impeccably as a servant while Diana had guests.
He never claims otherwise. He only talks of these things happening when she was otherwise
alone and lonely.
Lucia, as wife of an Ambassador to the Court, would have been treated with the respect due
her position, and Paul would have behaved accordingly in her presence.
However, Lucia was not with Diana 24:7.
She was not there to say how anyone behaved at any time that she was NOT there.
--
Gill W
Life is not a rehearsal.
Take time out to smell the flowers & enjoy the sunset
(replies to Group only please)
Sacha
pmgill...@hotmail.combqcpli$220vu9$1...@ID-183050.news.uni-berlin.de
No, but she was with Diana enough, talked to Diana enough, observed Diana
with Burrell enough to know that he would not have e.g. dared to call her
'Diana' to her face.
It is fair to say that while for some things you have only the word of Mrs
de Lima, for others, you have only the word of Burrell. And I know who is
making a profit out of Diana and it isn't Mrs de Lima.
Holly W.
Both Diana and Charles have--or had--a lot to answer for. Diana did
not have to marry Charles, especially when she knew he was with
Camilla. And she didn't have to sleep with,among others, James Hewitt
and Will Carling while still married, either. Nor did she have to
cooperate with Andrew Morton or do the Panorama interview--nor did
Charles have to do the Dimbleby one, or cheat on his marriage vows
either. They both did things that were not good, and in the end they
both destroyed their marriage. That's all.
Gill Webster
Sacha <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BBEFAF3B.10734%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
He never claims he did. He just uses that as another way of referring to her. In fact he
states, that although she said to him that in private he could call her Diana (and it is
known she did this with a number of "ordinary" people) that he himself always addressed
her as Your Royal Highness.
> It is fair to say that while for some things you have only the word of Mrs
> de Lima, for others, you have only the word of Burrell. And I know who is
> making a profit out of Diana and it isn't Mrs de Lima.
> --
>
> Sacha
> (remove the 'x' to email me)
>
>
....yet......
Sacha
pmgill...@hotmail.combqdoe5$20n71u$1...@ID-183050.news.uni-berlin.de
Gill, if you honestly believe that her butler was invited by her to call the
Princess of Wales "Diana", well...I don't know what to say, really. It is
unimaginable. While I think she most certainly encouraged a degree of
familiarity no other RF member would consider, that is something that seems
to me to be quite simply, impossible, if only because she grew up in an
environment where a hierarchy was known and maintained. Her own, family
home! Whatever her father's staff called her - Diana, Lady Diana, My Lady,
she would most certainly have known the correct form in her married life and
no 'boss' with any degree of common sense would expect their staff to switch
from the familiar to the formal at a second's notice.
Noelle
==============
Holly -- yes, I agree with you. Both partners were to blame. Looking
back on it all, I am surprised (or puzzled) that Charles caved in and
proposed to Diana in the first place. Yes, I understand the reasons
given out -- the pressure to marry and produce heirs, etc. I wonder,
however, if he just didn't have the heart to break it off with Diana,
but knew he couldn't continue to "date" her without it ending in
marriage. He had no problem, it seems, breaking off with other women.
Why not Diana?
Noelle
Mjdia
>and Will Carling while still married, either.
Diana was too young to start a life of celibacy. Her husband didn't want her.
He was faithful to Camilla. Who can blame her for taking lovers? Divorce at
that point wasn't an option. MJo
su-t...@webtv.net
I am surprised (or puzzled) that Charles caved in and proposed to Diana
in the first place. Yes, I understand the reasons given out -- the
pressure to marry and produce heirs, etc.
I wonder, however, if he just didn't have the heart to break it off with
Diana, but knew he couldn't continue to "date" her without it ending in
marriage.
He had no problem, it seems, breaking off with other women. Why not
Diana?
Noelle
=============
Charles & Camilla, & Diana
By his not marrying & producing heirs, Charles was putting himself &
other people at risk: the monarchy, his mistress Camilla, etc.
Charles would probably have preferred not to marry, & to live a selfish
existence.
Camilla chose Diana for Charles. [And didn't Camilla start withholding
sex/etc., until Charles agreed to marry Diana?]
His father & family were also pressuring him to marry. And Diana
married Charles, because she thought he loved & wanted her, & she loved
him.
Diana seems to have unknowingly gone from one abusive situation into
another, which she then had to somehow cope with & learn to survive.
She made mistakes, but she managed to survive some very bad situations,
which many people would not have been able to.
At times, Charles seemed to delight in hurting her (in being openly
abusive & causing her pain), such as the time when they were leaving for
a public appearance, & he chose that moment to tell her that her former
body-guard (whom she'd liked) had been killed.
In private (in society), Camilla was still seen as being Charles'
partner, & was treated as such. "Friends" would make their homes
available for C & C to meet. Camilla entertained with/for him.
Diana was seen & treated as being the dupe, the one who got fooled &
used by them, a baby "factory" & nothing more.
Plus, Diana was being negatively-labelled by tabloids & the press
[thanks to Charles, Camilla, & Co., & esp. Penny Junor], as being
mentally unstable/ill & not believable/credible. [Much of what Diana
said, has now proved true.]
As for friends & men, Diana was probably desperate to be treated
good/nice by anyone. However, she may have been concerned, that anyone
she liked may be killed, like her bodyguard was.
This is highly stressful & probably affected her judgement some, in the
men she chose & dealt with. She couldn't afford to become too attached
to them, emotionally.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
Lucia Flecha de Lima, & Prince Charles
Richard Kay has an article in today's Daily Mail, which is based on an
interview with Lucia Flecha de Lima (Diana's closest older female
friend).
She says that she cautioned the Princess against divorcing Prince
Charles.
She said they could "lead separate lives but should remain married. It
was not like an ordinary marriage, she didn't have to ask him for money,
or press his shirts or cook for him or even move into a small apartment.
Nothing much needed to change ..
I told her that the people should know they were no longer living
together: that would have been their responsibility towards the nation.
The truth is I don't think she wanted to separate, but they were too
competitive." ........
"When a marriage fails, it is not one person's fault. I liked Prince
Charles very much; so did my husband. He was most charming to us."
"When she was with Charles for the last time as man and wife, her
parting words to him were: 'I will love you forever.' I really think she
never stopped loving him.
The problem was Camilla, which is why Diana was so hurt by the Dimbleby
interview ................
For Charles, it was a shock to find out, that his wife had a temper."
Kay goes on to say "It is this intimate knowledge that convinces Lucia,
that rumours about the Prince and a servant are wrong. 'He was a regular
man, Diana always assured me of that', she says".
=============
Isn't Lucia a diplomat's or politician's wife? Isn't it part of her
job, to suck-up-to & form alliances with the rich & powerful? So, now
that Diana is gone (& won't be the power behind the throne, of King
William), ... that leaves Charles.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Susan Cohen
"Noelle" <perry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:60b6b16.03120...@posting.google.com...
>
> Looking
> back on it all, I am surprised (or puzzled) that Charles caved in and
> proposed to Diana in the first place. Yes, I understand the reasons
> given out -- the pressure to marry and produce heirs, etc. I wonder,
> however, if he just didn't have the heart to break it off with Diana,
> but knew he couldn't continue to "date" her without it ending in
> marriage. He had no problem, it seems, breaking off with other women.
> Why not Diana?
Because of not just the pressure due to his age but her presumed
suitability.
Also - and perhaps most importantly - because he did love her.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
"Mjdia" <mj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031201071349...@mb-m17.aol.com...
It was as much an option then as it was later.
Just not the lesser of 2 evils.
SusanC
grumblebug
Most of the others were married, or had had some sort of life. This
one was a 19-year-old, apparently a virgin, at least with no
discernable past for anyone to hawk around the tabloids. No wonder
Philip intervened on her behalf. But not a good reason to marry
someone (because your dad thinks it's a good idea.)
The practice of that impossible ideal - virgin brides for princes,
rarer than unicorns - ended with Sarah Ferguson. So that bit of
progress didn't look so good after a while.
I can't remember anyone getting fussed about Mark Phillips' past -
double standards again!
Oliver
yaffaDina
No one got fussed about Anne's behavior either.
yD
Sacha
pmsu-...@webtv.net6600-3FCB4B76-241@storefull-3198.bay.webtv.net
Sorry, Su-T but that one won't run. Her husband is no longer an ambassador
to Britain and in fact, I think he's retired altogether - might be wrong.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you and others, want to believe that
Diana was unhappy right from the get-go and that Charles isn't a 'real man'?
What need would that satisfy in you - to think that another woman was
utterly miserable throughout her entire married life?
Or are you saying that this woman 'sucked up' to Diana and did not genuinely
befriend her, despite Diana having use of a room in the Embassy and jumping
into her bed some mornings - after Mr de Lima had left it, I hasten to say.
Sacha
pmyaff...@netscape.netSPAM3FCB7050.45214BE@netscape.netSPAM
While I entirely agree about the double standards business, the whole reason
for the 'virginal bride' thing was so as not to have a cuckoo in the nest.
IOW, the heir to the heir was not a child Diana might have been carrying
when she became engaged to Charles but not a child that was his.
I think it terribly unlikely that such a requirement will ever be made again
or that it could ever be met!
Noelle
================
Yes, Lucia's husband is a diplomat. But he is no longer at the court
of St.James. He was in Washington, DC. Dunno if he is still there.
Wasn't it Diana and Charles's job to also "suck up" to ambassadors and
their wives? At the time, I imagine Charles and Diana were still
together when Lucia speaks of having met Charles, so they represented
the Queen. It was in their (Charles and Diana's) interest to "behave"
themselves on behalf of British interests. What kind of overseas
reception would the Wales have gotten had they gone around not making
nice with different countries' ambassadors?
Noelle
Sacha
pmperr...@aol.com60b6b16.0312011403.5591a30@posting.google.com
It was impossible to quote the entire article that raised this thread but
Lucia did say that she wanted at one time to talk to Prince Philip but felt
that as an Ambassador's wife, she was constrained from doing so. She said
the same about Diana sending Philip's letters to her for safe-keeping; that
it was wrong to keep them, given his ambassadorial role, so they compromised
by her keeping photocopies but returning the originals.
My impression from this article and from other, earlier, mentions of her is
that Lucia is a woman of honour and integrity.
Indeed, she could have spoken out before but did not do so because, perhaps,
her husband's position might have brought the whole issue into precisely the
situation Su-T appears to suggest. I may say that there is nothing in the
article to support Su-T's 'sucking up' suggestion and there never has been
in anything I recall reading about Lucia Flecha de Lima.
If this article is not online, it's a shame because members of agr who are
*determined* to see Diana as unloved and used from day one would have to
re-think their personal creed and they would read a very balanced view of
the princess from someone who loved her very much.
su-t...@webtv.net
I was Not saying anything bad about Lucia, when I referred to diplomats,
politicians, & such, as "sucking-up" to powerful people.
This can be labelled many things, including playing "nice-nice", being
on one's best behavior, doing nothing to cause offense, etc. [Everyone
plays these games as some time, such as at work and/or at social
gatherings.]
What I was suggesting, is that some useful information can be gained
from Lucia's statements & opinions, ... but that these will be somewhat
slanted, based on her personal perspective/view of things (at
nice-nice-type & fun, social gatherings & visits), ... & based on her
limited time spent with (& knowledge of) Diana.
I think it's wonderful that Lucia was kind (& a friend) to Diana.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
.. members of agr who are *determined* to see Diana as unloved and used
from day one would have to re-think their personal creed, and they would
read a very balanced view of the princess from someone who loved her
very much.
========
I think that Charles lied to Diana, & that he enterred his marriage to
her dishonestly.
Because of his ongoing obsession with Camilla, I believe that Diana
never had a chance of having Charles' love, or having a family life with
him.
I believe that Charles & Camilla were abusive towards Diana (esp. with
the negative-labelling of Diana as being "mentally unstable", & the
mis-information/twists about Diana's personal life, which Camilla kept
feeding to the media/tabloids), ... that they considered Diana inferior
to them, ... & enjoyed playing bad games, & harming & humiliating her
together.
C & C can act quite greedy & spoiled, selfish & childish.
Did Charles love Diana? Maybe, in his own way. But who wants to be
"loved" like that?
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Sacha
amsu-...@webtv.net1419-3FCBD8BA-296@storefull-3195.bay.webtv.net
I tell you what - I'll go with Diana and the people who knew her. She and
they say that C&D were in love when they married. That will do me, rather
than other peoples' neediness.
terry
"whatever love is"
isn't that what charles said
terry
Susan Cohen
"terry" <te...@terry.com> wrote in message
news:3FCC143E...@terry.com...
>
> "whatever love is"
>
> isn't that what charles said
And didn't Diana laugh when she said "Of course!"?
Anything can be twisted to mean anything.
Susan
Holly W.
> And she didn't have to sleep with,among others, James Hewitt
> >and Will Carling while still married, either.
>
> Diana was too young to start a life of celibacy.
"Too young" is not a good enough excuse. If both Charles and Diana
were old enough to say "I do" to each other, they were both old enough
to keep said promises. It was up to each of them individually to keep
their word, and neither did. Period.
> Her husband didn't want her.
Charles told you this himself, did he?
> He was faithful to Camilla.
By marrying Diana. Right.
> Who can blame her for taking lovers?
Who can blame him for taking a lover too? That's a bad excuse no
matter if it's the goose or the gander.
> Divorce at
> that point wasn't an option. MJo
At which point? Right after they both said "I do," or right after
they both started cheating? The answer to both questions was yes,
divorce was an option--not a good one, but an option nevertheless.
Ron Clark
> He was faithful to Camilla.
>
>By marrying Diana. Right.
>
>> Who can blame her for taking lovers?
She didn't have a lover when she said "I do" (not even Chukky)
Chukky, though, did have a lover for years before he met Diana, kept
his lover on throughout his engagement, wedding and marriage and Di
was well and truly rejected long before she sought solace elsewhere.
She showed faithfullness and forbearance for far too long before
taking close friends and lovers elsewhere. She didn't have her
tongue firmly in her cheek and all her fingers crossed when she took
her vows in front of the nation, unlike the inbred. greedy and selfish
prat she married,
--
®óñ© © ²°°³
Holly W.
> On 2 Dec 2003 01:45:37 -0800, Holl...@yahoo.com (Holly W.) wrote:
>
> > He was faithful to Camilla.
> >
> >By marrying Diana. Right.
> >
> >> Who can blame her for taking lovers?
>
> She didn't have a lover when she said "I do" (not even Chukky)
I didn't say she did. So who's this "Chukky" person? If you mean
Charles, then say so.
> Chukky, though, did have a lover for years before he met Diana, kept
> his lover on throughout his engagement, wedding and marriage
According to reports and Charles himself, no, he did not after he was
married until said marriage had broken down. According to Diana,
Charles and Diana were truly in love early in their marriage. Charles
returned to Camilla some time between 1985 and 1987,and around the
same time Diana started seeing Hewitt.
and Di
> was well and truly rejected long before she sought solace elsewhere.
Her name was Diana. As for the rest of your statement, how do you
know Charles wasn't the one who was rejected as well? And what on
earth does any of this have to do with the fact that both Diana and
Charles made vows before God, and both broke them.
> She showed faithfullness and forbearance for far too long before
> taking close friends and lovers elsewhere.
Umm, yeah, right. This will explain why she took a lover around the
same time Charles went back to Camilla. Right--faithfulness and
forbearance...right.
She didn't have her
> tongue firmly in her cheek and all her fingers crossed when she took
> her vows in front of the nation, unlike the inbred. greedy and selfish
> prat she married,
I saw the wedding--no tongue in cheek, no fingers crossed behind the
back. As for being greedy, selfish, etc...let's see what Charles gave
Diana when he married her:fame, fortune, a wonderful house, two great
boys, jewels, fabulous clothes, his love at first, and a world
platform on which to live her life. She gave him two great boys, a
little polish, and at first her heart. I'd say, looking at the
balance sheet, that Charles was far more generous to Diana than any
"greedy and selfish prat" would have been.
Ron Clark
> She didn't have her
>> tongue firmly in her cheek and all her fingers crossed when she took
>> her vows in front of the nation, unlike the inbred. greedy and selfish
>> prat she married,
>I saw the wedding--no tongue in cheek, no fingers crossed behind the
>back.
We all saw the wedding. Great Chukky and Di photo opportunity for
the royals, wasn't it?
>As for being greedy, selfish, etc...let's see what Charles gave
>Diana when he married her:fame, fortune, a wonderful house, two great
>boys, jewels, fabulous clothes, his love at first, and a world
>platform on which to live her life. She gave him two great boys,
Two?, you subscribe to that theory, do you?
>a little polish, and at first her heart. I'd say, looking at the
>balance sheet, that Charles was far more generous to Diana than any
>"greedy and selfish prat" would have been.
You are a brainwashed little royalist aren't you?
What are you going to do when the Buck House soap gets taken off?
The "greedy and selfish" prat does not even want to be your king.
He's having too much fun and power and he is going to hate like hell
having to give up the income.
Are you marketing those rose-coloured spectacles, by the way
or is it just your eyes showing the strain?
--
®óñ© © ²°°³
The proctologist called, they found your head.
,
Sacha
pmHol...@yahoo.com95c48218.0312021010.2dd2b9a8@posting.google.com
It is always overlooked and disregarded that people who knew both of them
e.g. Lady Susan Hussey, say that Diana was obsessed by Camilla but that
Camilla was NOT, NOT in the PoW's life when he married Diana. His intention
was declared - this was going to be a *real* marriage. It's said that it
didn't turn out that way but it's even sadder that some strange people want
to see Diana as a perpetual misery!
su-t...@webtv.net
Camilla was NOT, NOT in the PoW's life when he married Diana. His
intention was declared - this was going to be a *real* marriage.
=============
Charles has repeatedly shown that he has a strange & overwhelming
obsession for Camilla, & that he can't & won't do without her.
After Charles became engaged to Diana, he was still meeting Camilla &
having sex with her, ... such as on that train, & also after his
engagement party. And he refused to publicly say that he loved Diana:
"Whatever love means ..." He also wanted to call off the wedding.
On the honeymoon, he was carrying pictures of Camilla. He was wearing C
& C cuff-links. He was locked in the bathroom at times & on the phone
with Camilla, ...
Whatever his stated intentions, Charles chose to keep his closeness &
relationship with Camilla (his lazy, slovenly & smelly, chain-smoking,
"curtsy first, then jump into bed", good-time girl).
After his heir & spare were born, Charles no longer kept up the pretence
about his marriage to Diana, nor did he (or Camilla) treat Diana with
respect. [From what Camilla fed the tabloids, she seemed intent on
destroying Diana.]
Camilla WAS in Charles' life. Not even HM, can get her out of it. All
HM's intervention proved, was that Charles is obsessed with Camilla, &
that he lies.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
G-B
su-t...@webtv.net wrote:
> I am surprised (or puzzled) that Charles caved in and proposed to Diana
> in the first place. Yes, I understand the reasons given out -- the
> pressure to marry and produce heirs, etc.
>
> I wonder, however, if he just didn't have the heart to break it off with
> Diana, but knew he couldn't continue to "date" her without it ending in
> marriage.
>
> He had no problem, it seems, breaking off with other women. Why not
> Diana?
>
> Noelle
>
> =============
>
> Charles & Camilla, & Diana
>
> By his not marrying & producing heirs, Charles was putting himself &
> other people at risk: the monarchy, his mistress Camilla, etc.
>
> Charles would probably have preferred not to marry, & to live a selfish
> existence.
Despite news reports to the contrary, I think Charles loves women but I
think he yearns for 'deep' relationships. He has been selfish but I do
believe he did love Diana. I don't know what Camilla is like, I don't know
her but people who do say she is very amicable and friendly, however that
aside, even if she love Charles desperately, which I think she did/does once
the royal marriage had taken place she should have stayed far far away. And
written a memoir at 80 :)
>
>
> Camilla chose Diana for Charles. [And didn't Camilla start withholding
> sex/etc., until Charles agreed to marry Diana?]
>
I'd have to disagree there to some extent. Camilla may have thought Diana
would be good for herself but Diana knew what she wanted too. Don't forget
her grandmother had friends in high places and I am not saying the old dears
match made anything but Charles love a bit of young skirt like most
unmarried me and Diana was in the right circle. I don't know about Camilla
holding back on the sex.
>
> His father & family were also pressuring him to marry. And Diana
> married Charles, because she thought he loved & wanted her, & she loved
> him.
>
He was under huge pressure to marry that's for sure. She loved him
desperately, he maybe not as much but I think he did. I was only in my 20's
at the time the came out here just after they were married but I saw them at
three events, all different types of occasions and they really did look in
love, and quite naturally so. To me it seemed totally unaffected but who
knows, it could have all been for show..
Gioff
>
> Diana seems to have unknowingly gone from one abusive situation into
> another, which she then had to somehow cope with & learn to survive.
> She made mistakes, but she managed to survive some very bad situations,
> which many people would not have been able to.
>
> At times, Charles seemed to delight in hurting her (in being openly
> abusive & causing her pain), such as the time when they were leaving for
> a public appearance, & he chose that moment to tell her that her former
> body-guard (whom she'd liked) had been killed.
I've seen that sort of behaviour before in relationship breakdowns. In
fact, I was once dumped (believe it or not :)) and delighted in being as
awful as I possible could because I felt so hurt, although I wish I had been
a tad more dignified now! :) But don't worry, I think Diana could be fairly
vicious too but I do think they could have had some chance at workng it out
if it wasn't for Camilla.
>
>
> In private (in society), Camilla was still seen as being Charles'
> partner, & was treated as such. "Friends" would make their homes
> available for C & C to meet. Camilla entertained with/for him.
But was that straight away or into the troubles era?
G-B
Sacha wrote:
> Richard Kay has an article in today's Daily Mail which is based on an
> interview with Lucia Flecha de Lima, Diana's closest older female friend.
> Diana often stayed with her and her husband at their home, where she even
> had her own room.
snipped
>
>
> My opinion: this is one of the better balanced interviews I've read from
> one of Diana's friends - either real as Mrs de Lima, or imagined as the
> various soothsayers and manicurists.
> --
>
> Sacha
> (remove the 'x' to email me)
Great article. Proabably the best I've ever read on the situation. It sounds
like Mrs de Lima would be a good friend.
Gioff
su-t...@webtv.net
Susan, Su_Texas
Sacha
>
>
> su-t...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> I am surprised (or puzzled) that Charles caved in and proposed to Diana
>> in the first place. Yes, I understand the reasons given out -- the
>> pressure to marry and produce heirs, etc.
>>
>> I wonder, however, if he just didn't have the heart to break it off with
>> Diana, but knew he couldn't continue to "date" her without it ending in
>> marriage.
>>
>> He had no problem, it seems, breaking off with other women. Why not
>> Diana?
>>
>> Noelle
>>
>> =============
>>
>> Charles & Camilla, & Diana
>>
>> By his not marrying & producing heirs, Charles was putting himself &
>> other people at risk: the monarchy, his mistress Camilla, etc.
>>
>> Charles would probably have preferred not to marry, & to live a selfish
>> existence.
>
> Despite news reports to the contrary, I think Charles loves women but I
> think he yearns for 'deep' relationships. He has been selfish but I do
> believe he did love Diana. I don't know what Camilla is like, I don't know
> her but people who do say she is very amicable and friendly, however that
> aside, even if she love Charles desperately, which I think she did/does once
> the royal marriage had taken place she should have stayed far far away. And
> written a memoir at 80 :)
He and Camilla didn't see each other for several years, according to many,
if not most, reports. Then, when his marriage was falling apart, one of his
friends (Penny Romsey, perhaps) suggested he ring Camilla because she had
always been able to cheer him up, lighten his spirits etc.
He is also supposed to have told a close friend of his mother's that he
wanted and intended to have a genuine, loving, lifetime marriage.
>
>>
>>
>> Camilla chose Diana for Charles. [And didn't Camilla start withholding
>> sex/etc., until Charles agreed to marry Diana?]
>>
>
> I'd have to disagree there to some extent. Camilla may have thought Diana
> would be good for herself but Diana knew what she wanted too. Don't forget
> her grandmother had friends in high places and I am not saying the old dears
> match made anything but Charles love a bit of young skirt like most
> unmarried me and Diana was in the right circle. I don't know about Camilla
> holding back on the sex.
Again - according to other sources, Diana made a dead set at Charles. She
made a point of going for long walks about Sandringham until she bumped into
the Queen, got herself invited to Balmoral, sympathised with him over Lord
Mountbatten's murder etc., played the part of the country loving girl, good
sport and so forth. I think there is some truth in this and I think it is
true that they genuinely thought themselves in love. They just fell in love
with someone who didn't really exist.
>
>>
>> His father & family were also pressuring him to marry. And Diana
>> married Charles, because she thought he loved & wanted her, & she loved
>> him.
>>
>
> He was under huge pressure to marry that's for sure. She loved him
> desperately, he maybe not as much but I think he did. I was only in my 20's
> at the time the came out here just after they were married but I saw them at
> three events, all different types of occasions and they really did look in
> love, and quite naturally so. To me it seemed totally unaffected but who
> knows, it could have all been for show..
I doubt it was for show - photographs taken informally on Britannia during
their honeymoon show genuine affection between them. And Diana wasn't up
for putting on 'a show', when all is said and done.
>
>
> Gioff
>
>>
>> Diana seems to have unknowingly gone from one abusive situation into
>> another, which she then had to somehow cope with & learn to survive.
>> She made mistakes, but she managed to survive some very bad situations,
>> which many people would not have been able to.
>>
>> At times, Charles seemed to delight in hurting her (in being openly
>> abusive & causing her pain), such as the time when they were leaving for
>> a public appearance, & he chose that moment to tell her that her former
>> body-guard (whom she'd liked) had been killed.
>
> I've seen that sort of behaviour before in relationship breakdowns. In
> fact, I was once dumped (believe it or not :)) and delighted in being as
> awful as I possible could because I felt so hurt, although I wish I had been
> a tad more dignified now! :) But don't worry, I think Diana could be fairly
> vicious too but I do think they could have had some chance at workng it out
> if it wasn't for Camilla.
I think they might have stayed married but would have lived separate lives.
I think they were totally incompatible and completely unsuited to each
other.
>
>>
>>
>> In private (in society), Camilla was still seen as being Charles'
>> partner, & was treated as such. "Friends" would make their homes
>> available for C & C to meet. Camilla entertained with/for him.
>
> But was that straight away or into the troubles era?
It was after the troubles started.
>
>>
>>
>> Diana was seen & treated as being the dupe, the one who got fooled &
>> used by them, a baby "factory" & nothing more.
>>
>> Plus, Diana was being negatively-labelled by tabloids & the press
>> [thanks to Charles, Camilla, & Co., & esp. Penny Junor], as being
>> mentally unstable/ill & not believable/credible. [Much of what Diana
>> said, has now proved true.]
I don't think slashing your arms and throwing yourself down stairs when
pregnant is a sign of stability, myself.
>>
>> As for friends & men, Diana was probably desperate to be treated
>> good/nice by anyone. However, she may have been concerned, that anyone
>> she liked may be killed, like her bodyguard was.
>>
>> This is highly stressful & probably affected her judgement some, in the
>> men she chose & dealt with. She couldn't afford to become too attached
>> to them, emotionally.
>>
>> Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
>
In their separate ways, both Charles and Diana were very needy, emotionally
speaking and couldn't be what the other wanted. Diana seemed to want
someone who could be with her 24/7 and IMO, would have been much happier
married to a man who was rich enough not to have to work but could spend
almost all his time with her, give her lots of babies and a fairly quiet
life, with a lovely house in the country and a smart flat in London.
Sacha
I agree. And she appears to be one of the few people Diana felt she really
could rely upon and trust. I think the fact she was older than Diana
probably helped a lot, too.
su-texas, susan
RDate: Tue, Dec 2, 2003, 6:02pm
From: su-t...@webtv.net
Sacha wrote:
=============
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
PS Re-posted using Google, since WebTV seems to be malfunctioning.
Sacha
amsu-...@webtv.net25275-3FCF1255-130@storefull-3196.bay.webtv.net
> Has this full article been posted anywhere on the net yet?
>
> Susan, Su_Texas
>
The only place it's like to be is on the Femail site and I can't find it
there.
su-texas, susan
>
Richard Kay has an article in today's Daily Mail which is based on an
interview with Lucia Flecha de Lima, Diana's closest older female
friend.
=============
su-t...@webtv.net
He and Camilla didn't see each other for several years, according to
many, if not most, reports.
Then, when his marriage was falling apart, one of his friends (Penny
Romsey, perhaps) suggested he ring Camilla because she had always been
able to cheer him up, lighten his spirits etc.
===========
Oh, I didn't know that Camilla moved away from Charles, ... refused to
take his phone calls or letters, ... stopped going to the same parties,
hunts, etc. that Charles attended, ... dropped out of Charles' social
circle, ... refused to see him during the early years of his marriage, &
knew nothing of his marriage or personal life during those years, ...
much less, passed on any information about it (or Diana) to the
tabloids.
Or that it took a mutual friend to re-introduce Charles & Camilla to
each other, & jump-start their old & long-term relationship, ... but
only After Charles & Co had blamed Diana for the failure of their
marriage, & portrayed her as being a liar & mentally unstable.
Where did Camilla live during those years?
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Sacha
pmsu-...@webtv.net24490-3FCF6872-209@storefull-3194.bay.webtv.net
All accounts differ, Su, so take that into account. Apparently, he and
Camilla didn't see each other for five years but I'm really not going round
this tired old subject again.
>
>
> Where did Camilla live during those years?
With her husband.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-texas, susan
==========
So, Camilla stayed right where she was, living in the same area as
Charles, moving in the same social circles, having the same friends &
acquaintances, & attending the same events & weekend parties.
Camilla was probably right there, ... hovering, circling, plotting &
conniving, watching/stalking Diana (who was her official replacement &
rival), & causing problems & difficulties for Diana, ... such as
Camilla's feeding inside information/mis-information to the tabloids &
to other people, to harm Diana.
Camilla was there & readily available to Charles, for all that time,
... & when you add in, that Charles is obsessed with her & will do
anything (including lie to his mother, family, & country) in order to
be with her, ...
Yet you say that Charles did not go near Camilla, did not think about,
speak to, or see her for all those years, ... that he forgot about
her, ... & that they had to be officially re-introduced by a friend,
in order to think about, reconsider/re-evaluate things (such as, how
Diana had failed Charles, & failed to make the marriage work), ...
re-meet each other, & resume their long-time affair?
This version doesn't "wash", Sacha. It isn't credible.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Holly W.
> Sacha wrote:
>
> He and Camilla didn't see each other for several years, according to
> many, if not most, reports.
>
> Then, when his marriage was falling apart, one of his friends (Penny
> Romsey, perhaps) suggested he ring Camilla because she had always been
> able to cheer him up, lighten his spirits etc.
>
> ===========
>
> Oh, I didn't know that Camilla moved away from Charles,
She was living with her husband. She didn't have to "move away from
Charles" because at that point she wasn't living with him in the first
place. And why on earth should she have made her husband sell their
house just because Charles had gotten married?
... refused to
> take his phone calls or letters,
She was a friend at that point. Again,why should she have refused any
of this?
... stopped going to the same parties,
> hunts, etc. that Charles attended,
They moved in the same circles, these people were her friends as well
as his. WOuld you ahve Camilla give up her close friends just because
Charles had gotten married? Can't you accept the fact
that--gasp--people can continue to have the same friends after
marriage?
<redundancy snipped>
>
>
... but
> only After Charles & Co had blamed Diana for the failure of their
> marriage,
Umm, right...
> & portrayed her as being a liar & mentally unstable.
She was a liar. Sorry, but there it is. Even Lord Palumbo, who
helped Diana with the divorce, said people couldn't trust what she
said would be the truth. He also said that that was Diana, and you
had to accept that about her. She lied to the Queen and the public
about her involvement with the Andrew Morton book, and she lied during
the Panorama interview as well.
>
>
> Where did Camilla live during those years?
She lived with her husband.
Sacha
pmsu-...@webtv.net46df9233.0312050614.238e7793@posting.google.com
Whatever makes you happy - and clearly the idea of Diana's unhappiness seems
to appeal to you. It's too boring to go through all over again - she's
dead, it's over. Sorry Su but enough is enough for me. You are one of
those who is *determined* to see the object of your admiration as saturated
in misery her entire married life. I will never understand the logic, sense
or desire for that, especially when, in her own words, she told people they
were happy once.
I'm just not interested in the subject any more.
su-t...@webtv.net
I'm just not interested in the subject any more.
========
I think you'll always be interested in trying to promote & sell Charles
& Camilla, as being this wonderful couple who were badly wronged, but
who did no wrong. ???
In order to do this, you try to negatively-label, discredit & downgrade
Diana, ... which tends to draw some ire & fire from other posters.
What do you not understand about this?
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Susan Cohen
"Holly W." <Holl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95c48218.03120...@posting.google.com...
> They moved in the same circles, these people were her friends as well
> as his. WOuld you ahve Camilla give up her close friends just because
> Charles had gotten married? Can't you accept the fact
> that--gasp--people can continue to have the same friends after
> marriage?
If he had dumped Camilla so unceremonsiously out of his life, there would be
those to blame him for that coldness, too.
SusanC
Noelle
> >
<snipped to point>
> In their separate ways, both Charles and Diana were very needy, emotionally
> speaking and couldn't be what the other wanted. Diana seemed to want
> someone who could be with her 24/7 and IMO, would have been much happier
> married to a man who was rich enough not to have to work but could spend
> almost all his time with her, give her lots of babies and a fairly quiet
> life, with a lovely house in the country and a smart flat in London.
====================
Actually, I think that if Diana had never met Charles, if she had
simply had a regular relationship with an ordinary man of her own
background, she would have been more confident in a marriage to such a
man, someone who could be an anchor. There would not have been the
clinginess 24/7. There would have been trust and confidence, and
little of the competitiveness between partners, and the suspicion that
infected the marriage she had with Charles. Er, I think.
Noelle
Tom
>
> She was a liar.
diana, like many people, would say something untrue to someone she
suspected of being loose lipped, and then wait to see if it came back,
thereby affording her the opportunity of knowing who she could or
could not trust. it works if youve never tried it. ; )
Sorry, but there it is. Even Lord Palumbo, who
> helped Diana with the divorce, said people couldn't trust what she
> said would be the truth. He also said that that was Diana, and you
> had to accept that about her. She lied to the Queen and the public
> about her involvement with the Andrew Morton book, and she lied during
> the Panorama interview as well.
if you read the transcripts of the interview youll realize that diana
didnt out and out lie rather than not tell the complete truth.
obviously there is little difference, but in her mind i suppose there
was.
BASHIR: The Queen described 1992 as her `annus horribilis', and it was
in that year that Andrew Morton's book about you was published. Did
you ever meet Andrew Morton or personally help him with the book?
DIANA: I never met him, no.
BASHIR: Did you ever personally assist him with the writing of his
book?
DIANA: A lot of people saw the distress that my life was in, and they
felt it was a supportive thing to help in the way that they did.
BASHIR: Did you allow your friends, your close friends, to speak to
Andrew Morton?
DIANA: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
BASHIR: Why?
DIANA: I was at the end of my tether. I was desperate.
I think I was so fed up with being seen as someone who was a
basket-case, because I am a very strong person and I know that causes
complications in the system that I live in.
BASHIR: How would a book change that?
DIANA: I don't know. Maybe people have a better understanding, maybe
there's a lot of women out there who suffer on the same level but in a
different environment, who are unable to stand up for themselves
because their self-esteem is cut into two. I don't know.
BASHIR: What effect do you think the book had on your husband and the
Royal Family?
DIANA: I think they were shocked and horrified and very disappointed.
too bad bashir didnt allow michael jackson such liberties has he did
diana. ; )
Andy.III
>simply had a regular relationship with an ordinary man of her own
>background, she would have been more confident in a marriage to such a
>man, someone who could be an anchor. There would not have been the
>clinginess 24/7. There would have been trust and confidence, and
>little of the competitiveness between partners, and the suspicion that
>infected the marriage she had with Charles. Er, I think.
>
>Noelle
Diana would have been clingy no matter who she married. She was looking for
someone to provide her with a feeling of worth, safety, and security.. and was
bound to fail since those can only be provided by one's self- not an outside
source.
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
su-t...@webtv.net
Diana seemed to want someone who could be with her 24/7.
========
Who has stated that Diana was needy & clinging 24/7?
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
for someone to provide her with a feeling of worth, safety, and
security.. and was bound to fail since those can only be provided by
one's self- not an outside source.
Andy.III
==========
I think Diana wanted to be loved & valued, treated with dignity &
respect, & to be part of a family.
Early on, Diana probably didn't realize that Charles was lying to &
using her, or that he was already firmly commited to Camilla. When she
did, her pain, anguish, & suffering concerning this, did show.
With so many factors against her, & with little or no support system,
I'm amazed that Diana survived, ... much less was able to learn, adapt,
re-focus her life, & accomplish so much that was good. She was a
humanitarian.
Diana & Charles had different mindsets & different value systems.
Charles seems basically selfish, with a strong need to be adored &
obeyed.
If you want to see what Charles does value in women, then look at
Camilla (in past years). Laziness & selfishness, arrogance & sloth, bad
games & cruelty, wasting lots of money, ...
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Janet Schmidt
su-t...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> If you want to see what Charles does value in women, then look at
> Camilla (in past years). Laziness & selfishness, arrogance & sloth, bad
> games & cruelty, wasting lots of money, ...
>
> Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
>
Just for my own curiousity, do you have any sources for these things?
Books, articles? I have read one book on Camilla and it had none of
those things.
Janet
Andy.III
Janet,
I think that in the long run you'll find that reading and replying to su-texas
is as big a waste of time as she is a waste of space and resources.She has the
"I'm a victim" role down pat; wether it be Bush hurting her arm or Ford
defrauding her, she has spread her "poor me" stream of psycobabble all over the
net.
su-t...@webtv.net
Books, articles? I have read one book on Camilla and it had none of
those things.
Janet
==========
I read Caroline Graham's book about Camilla, which revealed a lot about
the laziness & selfishness, arrogance & vanity, ... the lack of good
hygiene (except when Charles was scheduled to come over), ... the
obsession with Diana (copying her clothes), ... Camilla's obsession with
royalty & wanting to be King's mistress like her great-granny or
great-great granny was, etc.
I've read about Camilla's chats with tabloid employees, where she passed
on personal/inside details & misinformation about Diana, in order to
harm her.
Early on, I saw Penny Junor (who seemed to be the mouth-piece for C & C
& Co) on TV numerous times, ... aggressively verbally attacking,
downgrading, & negatively-labeling the then-very-young & vulnerable
Diana.
I've read other articles & read posts here on agr.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
su-texas is as big a waste of time as she is a waste of space and
resources.She has the "I'm a victim" role down pat; wether it be Bush
hurting her arm or Ford defrauding her, she has spread her "poor me"
stream of psycobabble all over the net.
Andy.III
==============
And when Andy can't think of anything to contribute, he stoops to
personal attacks.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Wull
Something is about to rock AGR, In recent days I
have agreed with Sacha, Andy and even SC. Is
everyone ready for Armageddon (sp)?
Wull
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Janet Schmidt
su-t...@webtv.net wrote:
Funny, that is the one book on Camilla I have read and I came away with
a different view altogether.
You say obsessed with royalty like it is a bad thing. Probably most
people on a group like agr would have to own up to the same.
Janet
>
Janet Schmidt
Andy.III wrote:
I appreciate the heads up.
Janet
Andy.III
>
>Janet
Believe me- when Wull and I agree on something you can take it to the bank!
Janet Schmidt
Andy.III wrote:
Okay.
Janet
su-t...@webtv.net
a different view altogether.
You say obsessed with royalty like it is a bad thing. Probably most
people on a group like agr would have to own up to the same.
Janet
==========
I believe there were two editions of that book, & I read the updated
one.
I also posted about it on this newsgroup, so some of that information
should be in the Google Archives.
"Obsessed": I was somewhat responding to the posts that were stating,
that Diana was obsessed with Charles & that it was a bad thing, ... such
as, the post that said Diana was invited to Sandringham, she went, & she
walked across a lawn, ... which could have been meant to tempt Charles
(or some other eligible male) into seeing & liking her. ???
I was pointing out, that if it is a bad thing & if Diana were
"obsessed", then Camilla was too.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
su-texas is as big a waste of time as she is a waste of space and
resources.She has the "I'm a victim" role down pat; wether it be Bush
hurting her arm or Ford defrauding her, she has spread her "poor me"
stream of psycobabble all over the net.
Andy.III
===========
I appreciate the heads up.
Janet Schmidt
===========
Amen brother.
Something is about to rock AGR, In recent days I have agreed with Sacha,
Andy and even SC. Is everyone ready for Armageddon (sp)?
Wull
==========
Believe me- when Wull and I agree on something you can take it to the
bank!
Andy.III
===========
Okay.
Janet
===========
Hi Janet,
If you enjoy playing bad, silly & childish games, acting mean & ugly in
public, & being openly boastful & braggartly about it, ... then you've
chosen your associates wisely. Enjoy.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
Again - according to other sources, Diana made a dead set at Charles.
She made a point of going for long walks about Sandringham until she
bumped into the Queen, got herself invited to Balmoral, sympathised with
him over Lord Mountbatten's murder etc., played the part of the country
loving girl, good sport and so forth.
=========
This is the post to which I was referring.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Holly W.
> Holl...@yahoo.com (Holly W.) wrote in message news:<95c48218.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > She was a liar.
>
> diana, like many people, would say something untrue to someone she
> suspected of being loose lipped, and then wait to see if it came back,
> thereby affording her the opportunity of knowing who she could or
> could not trust. it works if youve never tried it. ; )
Diana told the Queen and Prince Philip she did not participate in
Andrew Morton's book when it first came out when, in fact, she did.
She told Lord Palumbo she was not having an affair with James Hewitt
when,in fact, she was. She made another of other claims which later
on turned out to be false. This is all called lying. We don't know
what her motivation was behind it all (and the Queen and Prince Philip
could hardly be called "loose-lipped"!) and, to me, it doesn't matter.
>
>
> Sorry, but there it is. Even Lord Palumbo, who
> > helped Diana with the divorce, said people couldn't trust what she
> > said would be the truth. He also said that that was Diana, and you
> > had to accept that about her. She lied to the Queen and the public
> > about her involvement with the Andrew Morton book, and she lied during
> > the Panorama interview as well.
>
> if you read the transcripts of the interview youll realize that diana
> didnt out and out lie rather than not tell the complete truth.
> obviously there is little difference, but in her mind i suppose there
> was.
>
<snip>
Thanks, I've seen the interview and read the transcripts several
times. She lied, whether by omission or commission. And I'm not just
talking about the Morton book, but about other things as well.
Holly W.
> Amen brother.
>
> Something is about to rock AGR, In recent days I
> have agreed with Sacha, Andy and even SC. Is
> everyone ready for Armageddon (sp)?
>
> Wull
>
Noelle
================
For one, Patrick Jephson in his book, though he did not use the exact
words "needy and clinging 24/7". Repeatedly, Jephson stated that
Diana needed constant reassurances about what she was doing, what she
wore, what the papers said about her, what others thought about her,
that her moods could change in the space of a phone conversation, that
she called him on his off time, that when he was away on her business,
such as scouting tour locations she was scheduled to visit, she needed
regular phone calls from him (and others?) for such reassurances, etc.
Noelle
yaffaDina1
> su-t...@webtv.net wrote in message news:<22097-3F...@storefull-3193.bay.webtv.net>...
> > Sacha wrote:
> >
> > Diana seemed to want someone who could be with her 24/7.
> >
> > ========
> >
> > Who has stated that Diana was needy & clinging 24/7?
> >
> > Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
>
> ================
> For one, Patrick Jephson in his book, though he did not use the exact
> words "needy and clinging 24/7".
Is "needy & clingy" a euphamism for wanting her husband to be a
husband?
> Repeatedly, Jephson stated that
> Diana needed constant reassurances about what she was doing, what she
> wore, what the papers said about her, what others thought about her,
And as a representative of the crown with a husband who was jealous of
her popularity with *his* people, why does that seem normal to me?
> that her moods could change in the space of a phone conversation, that
> she called him on his off time, that when he was away on her business,
> such as scouting tour locations she was scheduled to visit, she needed
> regular phone calls from him (and others?) for such reassurances, etc.
Again, don't the rest of them (the rf) do that? Again, surely she had
good reason to have things confirmed by him, such as upcoming visits
and how things were being organized. By the end, Charles had Camilla
24/7 as his closest -- and trusted -- advisor. Or are we accepting
Charles's apparent clinging and neediness, to the point where many
Britons feel he is incapable of acting or doing anything for himself,
permissible?
yD
>
> Noelle
su-texas, susan
==========
Lying
When you're dealing with people who play bad games, then you sometimes
must lie in order to protect yourself and/or other people. The abuse
counselor told me that this isn't considered "lying". It's called
"survival".
From what I've read, HM & Prince Phillip were playing some bad games
with Diana, such as their repeatedly insisting that Charles & Camilla
were not close, were not together, were not having an affair, ... &
that Diana was imagining things. And they kept insisting that Diana
try again, that she keep trying to win Charles attention & love, ...
such as that cruise they insisted Diana go on, where Charles ignored
her.
[Denial & Blame games, Gaslighting, Schizo/Schizoid behaviors/mindset,
Bait & Switch games]
In order to protect herself, Diana would have had to lie sometimes, or
to lie by omission, in order to survive in such a hostile environment.
If Diana had been open & truthful all the time (when others were not
being/doing so), then she would have been easy to defeat & destroy.
I value the truth very highly, & prefer to deal in it no matter what,
... except when I'm forced to deal with a person who's playing bad
games. [However, the abuse counselors have told me that this (the
choice not to lie) is rare, & that most people choose to lie most of
the time.]
Compared to the people with whom Diana was dealing, & the harsh
situations she was in, ... I consider Diana to have been basically, an
open & truthful person.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Laurence11
>From: su-t...@webtv.net
>Date: 12/6/2003 3:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20485-3F...@storefull-3192.bay.webtv.net>
>
>Sacha wrote:
>
>Again - according to other sources, Diana made a dead set at Charles.
>
>She made a point of going for long walks about Sandringham until she
>bumped into the Queen, got herself invited to Balmoral, sympathised with
>him over Lord Mountbatten's murder etc., played the part of the country
>loving girl, good sport and so forth.
Nothing wrong with that: she was in love with him. What WAS wrong is that
Charles was in love with another woman, yet married an immature 19-year old
girl. I've said this before (as have many people): Charles has a lot to answer
for.
su-texas, susan
==========
Charles As Submissive?
In his close personal relationships (such as with Camilla, Michael
Fawcett, etc.), Charles appears to be submissive.
With Diana, Charles seems to have wanted what was in those romantic
novels that they'd both read, ... she the innocent young virgin, & he,
the knight in shining armor, hero, all-controlling & wonderful, etc.
[Maybe Charles was mostly in love with himself & with this
dream/fantasy?]
Since this (acting powerful in a relationship) was out of character
for Charles, & probably proved a huge energy-waster & strain, ... the
C & D relationship had no chance of working.
Maybe Charles was in love with the idea of his being masterful, & the
complete controller in/of a relationship, ... but not the reality of
it?
So he returned to Camilla & Fawcett, & to his feeling "safe" with
them, by being submissive.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Holly W.
No, it's called lying. There are other ways to survive, including
getting out of the bad situation or--even better--not getting into it
to begin with. Diana lied. Full stop.
>
> From what I've read, HM & Prince Phillip were playing some bad games
> with Diana, such as their repeatedly insisting that Charles & Camilla
> were not close, were not together, were not having an affair, ... &
> that Diana was imagining things. And they kept insisting that Diana
> try again, that she keep trying to win Charles attention & love, ...
> such as that cruise they insisted Diana go on, where Charles ignored
> her.
What cruise? Where did you read this? Everything I've read
suggests--more than suggests, in fact--that they were very supportive
of Diana up until she turned on the RF by collaborating on the Morton
book. They even took her side when Charles began seeing Camilla
again, as evidenced by the recent excerpts of Philip's letters that
were published by Paul Burrell in his book.
>
> [Denial & Blame games, Gaslighting, Schizo/Schizoid behaviors/mindset,
> Bait & Switch games]
>
> In order to protect herself, Diana would have had to lie sometimes, or
> to lie by omission, in order to survive in such a hostile environment.
If it was a hostile environment, which I doubt, a lot of it was her
own making. Not all of it, but a large chunk of it. What, you expect
the in-laws to be supportive when the daughter-in-law attacks the
family and then lies and says she didn't?
>
> If Diana had been open & truthful all the time (when others were not
> being/doing so), then she would have been easy to defeat & destroy.
What others? Philip and Elizabeth? Charles and Camilla? And why oh
why do you have to buy into the idea that folks were out to "destroy"
Diana?? Honestly, that's paranoia talking, and it was paranoia
talking when Diana said it as well.
<irrelevent story snipped>
> Compared to the people with whom Diana was dealing, & the harsh
> situations she was in,
Her husband cheated on her. Camilla leaked stuff to the papers.
Diana cheated on her husband. Diana leaked stuff to the papers.
Diana lied to her in-laws about collaborating on a book and she lied
to the country as well at first. Seems like the "harsh" situation she
was in was at least half her own making, given the facts above.
... I consider Diana to have been basically, an
> open & truthful person.
You may believe whatever you wish, but neither the facts nor the
people who actually knew her support those beliefs.
Jean Sue Libkind
at janets...@ameritech.net wrote on 12/6/03 2:09 PM:
> Funny, that is the one book on Camilla I have read and I came away with
> a different view altogether.
So did I.
js
Susan Cohen
"Laurence11" <laure...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031207150410...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Lucia Flecha de Lima "they were in love"
> >From: su-t...@webtv.net
> >Date: 12/6/2003 3:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20485-3F...@storefull-3192.bay.webtv.net>
> >
> >Sacha wrote:
> >
> >Again - according to other sources, Diana made a dead set at Charles.
> >
> >She made a point of going for long walks about Sandringham until she
> >bumped into the Queen, got herself invited to Balmoral, sympathised with
> >him over Lord Mountbatten's murder etc., played the part of the country
> >loving girl, good sport and so forth.
>
> Nothing wrong with that: she was in love with him.
Nothing wrong with deceiving him as to the type of person she was?
Pretending to be a countrywoman, in love with rural pursuits and
surroundings, all because sh eknew that was the type of women he preferred?
What kind of love is that?
What WAS wrong is that
> Charles was in love with another woman, yet married an immature 19-year
old
> girl. I've said this before (as have many people): Charles has a lot to
answer
> for.
Yeah, lots of people say all sorts of things.
SusanC
Holly W.
> >Subject: Re: Lucia Flecha de Lima "they were in love"
> >From: su-t...@webtv.net
> >Date: 12/6/2003 3:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20485-3F...@storefull-3192.bay.webtv.net>
> >
> >Sacha wrote:
> >
> >Again - according to other sources, Diana made a dead set at Charles.
> >
> >She made a point of going for long walks about Sandringham until she
> >bumped into the Queen, got herself invited to Balmoral, sympathised with
> >him over Lord Mountbatten's murder etc., played the part of the country
> >loving girl, good sport and so forth.
>
> Nothing wrong with that: she was in love with him.
Actually,this all happened before Charles and Diana got engaged--and
Diana was obsessed with Charles even as a schoolgirl. She told people
she was going to marry Prince Charles even as young as age 14.
What WAS wrong is that
> Charles was in love with another woman, yet married an immature 19-year old
> girl.
Actually, Diana was 20, and hardly as naive as the media would ahve us
believe, especially where the RF was concerned. And both Charles and
Diana have said that they did love each other in the early years of
their marriage. Added to this is the fact that Diana did know the
RF--she was born on the Sandringham estate, her father had been
Equerry to the Queen, her maternal grandmother was the Queen Mother's
Lady in Waiting, she and her sisters and brother spent parts of
Christmas at the RF's house at Sandringham, and her elder sister Sarah
dated Prince Charles as well. Diana knew exactly what she was getting
into, and she could have broken off the engagement at any time as well
as Charles. She did know about CHarles' relationship with Camilla and
she could have said no. Instead she chose to go through with the
wedding. Seems to me, given all these facts, that she was as much to
blame as Charles for the marriage and what happened later.
>I've said this before (as have many people): Charles has a lot to
answer
> for.
So does Diana. She chose to get married; she chose to break her
wedding vows; she chose to lie; she chose to attack the RF; she chose
to court the media; she chose Dodi. All of this was her personal
responsibility, not CHarles's. Each partner had a responsibility to
uphold their own end of the wedding contract; each failed. Each
partner had a responsibility to behave with dignity; each failed.
Each partner had a responsibility to support the other, and each
failed again. Diana had as much to answer for as Charles, period.
Kelly
> (su-texas, susan) wrote ...
> > From what I've read, HM & Prince Phillip were playing some bad games
> > with Diana, such as their repeatedly insisting that Charles & Camilla
> > were not close, were not together, were not having an affair, ... &
> > that Diana was imagining things. And they kept insisting that Diana
> > try again, that she keep trying to win Charles attention & love, ...
> > such as that cruise they insisted Diana go on, where Charles ignored
> > her.
>
> What cruise? Where did you read this? Everything I've read
> suggests--more than suggests, in fact--that they were very supportive
> of Diana up until she turned on the RF by collaborating on the Morton
> book. They even took her side when Charles began seeing Camilla
> again, as evidenced by the recent excerpts of Philip's letters that
> were published by Paul Burrell in his book.
I think she means that "second honeymoon" cruise they took in the early 90s
on, IIRC, Latsis' yacht. Whoever owned the yacht, it was a disaster.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Janet Schmidt
Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
Thanks, glad to know I wasn't the only one.
Janet
Noelle
===============
I have this book, but haven't yet read it. <sigh> So many books, so little time...
Noelle
Noelle
Jephson never talked much about Charles in his book. But he described
Diana in what I thought was more insightful than either Wharfe's or
Burrell's books. They all worked for her, and Jephson perhaps had a
more "working" relationship with his boss. He never gave the idea
that he was some personal "friend" of Diana's, so perhaps she did not
open up to him in that way, nor their kids play together, etc.
Jephson never once referred to himself as some kind of confidante.
Whichever poster brought up the phrase "needy and clingy" it was in
reference to Diana's need for constant reassurance from not only
Charles, but any man who might be Mr. Right. But she was needy,
clingy in all aspects of her life, and I mentioned Jephson, who
brought this up constantly in his book -- their relationship was not
necessarily of personal closeness, such as Burrell claimed in his
book, but there was a great deal of contact, and Jephson was ever
aware of walking on eggs with Diana and extremely sensitive to her
body language, word emphasis, and moods.
Noelle
Janet Schmidt
Noelle wrote:
No kidding. I found more on my shelves I haven't read, some over 6
years old. Someday.
Janet
su-t...@webtv.net
Her husband cheated on her. Camilla leaked stuff to the papers. Diana
cheated on her husband. Diana leaked stuff to the papers.
=========
It's partly the sequence of events that is important here.
In response to the bad things that had & were happening, Diana sought
friends, comfort, & support elsewhere, since she didn't have this at
home.
After Diana's being brutally & repeatedly attacked & downgraded in the
media (based partly on Camilla's feeding those folks personal, harmful,
& wrong information), ... & after being publicly-labelled as mentally
unstable & a liar (for saying Charles was seeing Camilla, etc), ...
Diana finally chose to use the media to help her fight back & survive,
rather than be a victim. This seems logical.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
Actually, Diana was 20, and hardly as naive as the media would ahve us
believe, especially where the RF was concerned.
Added to this is the fact that Diana did know the RF--she was born on
the Sandringham estate,
her father had been Equerry to the Queen, her maternal grandmother was
the Queen Mother's Lady in Waiting,
she and her sisters and brother spent parts of Christmas at the RF's
house at Sandringham, and her elder sister Sarah dated Prince Charles as
well.
Diana knew exactly what she was getting into, and she could have broken
off the engagement at any time as well as Charles.
She did know about CHarles' relationship with Camilla and she could have
said no. Instead she chose to go through with the wedding.
Seems to me, given all these facts, that she was as much to blame as
Charles for the marriage and what happened later.
============
You can live close to someone (such as a royal family), & still not know
much if anything about them.
Diana's father probably didn't discuss his job with Diana, nor would he
discuss the inner-workings of the royal family with her. This was
confidential information.
However, her father might have glamourized his job, it's importance, &
the royal family to Diana. [In Great Britain at that time, it was
probably seen as beneficial to have a daughter marry into royalty, & he
might have encouraged this.]
Christmas holidays & dinners: In the US, this (living close to royalty,
or to rich & powerful people) could be seen as being similar, to a
favored maid or butler's working at the governor's mansion, & their
family's being invited for some special/employee-type dinners.
Usually, you can't learn much from these occasions, & you only see the
employers when they're on their best behavior, & are acting generous,
kind, & caring.
As for Diana's family, there doesn't seem to have been much closeness or
positive behaviors there, including her relationship with her
grandmother & with her sister Sarah.
Diana wanted & needed a good family to belong to, where she would be
valued, treated as an equal, & treated well.
Diana probably realized she needed some social status/standing &
protection from her future mate, ... partly in order to raise her status
within her birth-family, from being a victim, down-graded & ill-treated,
used & abused, ... so she tried to marry wisely & well.
I also believe Diana was besotted (blindly in love) with Charles, ...
although I can't see or understand why.
As for Camilla, Charles lies. He probably lied to Diana about it, & he
lied to HM & the country about it. [Charles appears to have a "cheat &
win" attitude, & an inability to take responsibility for mistakes &
wrong-doing.]
Since Diana didn't have good or accurate information to work with, she
made some bad choices, including her decision to believe in, trust &
marry Prince Charles.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Jean Sue Libkind
at janets...@ameritech.net wrote on 12/8/03 11:59 PM:
>> I have this book, but haven't yet read it. <sigh> So many books, so little
>> time...
>>
>> Noelle
>
> No kidding. I found more on my shelves I haven't read, some over 6
> years old. Someday.
>
> Janet
I hate to throw cold water on your plans but I'm retired and still can't
keep up with new books PLUS all the ones I've been saving to read "in
retirement." Not enough hours in the day.
js
su-t...@webtv.net
Nothing wrong with deceiving him as to the type of person she was?
Pretending to be a countrywoman, in love with rural pursuits and
surroundings, all because sh eknew that was the type of women he
preferred?
==========
Diana = Country Woman
What is a countrywoman? One who rides & hunts?
Diana was a country-woman. She grew up on an estate in the country.
[What kind of "country woman" was she supposed to be?]
Charles knew up-front that Diana was scared of horses & couldn't ride,
nor was she interested in hunting, ... which left Charles free to do
those things with Camilla & Co. as before.
Early on in the marriage, something seems to have gone wrong. As a
result of this, Diana didn't want to stay on remote estates in bad
weather, while Charles was gone for most of the time, enjoying his
solitary pursuits, ... or while she was pregnant. Her trust in him,
seemed to lessen.
Because she was being photographed & critiqued constantly, ... because
her husband's interest lay elsewhere (with Camilla), ... & because she
needed something to focus on & do, while trying to win Charles' approval
& regain his attention, ... Diana invested time in learning to look &
dress better, & she tried to promote the fashion industry in Great
Britain.
Later on, Diana chose to pursue other interests, such as humanitarian
causes.
This doesn't mean, that Diana was not a "country woman".
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Janet Schmidt
Oh darn. That was actually my plan. I suppose at no time is there ever
enough hours in the day.
What I have started doing is just forcing the time for reading. I am
currently reading "The Housekeeper's Diary". I bought it when published,
skimmed it and have referred to it for various things, but, have never
read it straight through. I got it out a while back to check something
and discovered I didn't read it all. It is actually pretty interesting
and not the mean spirited gossip fest I had supposed.
Of course, books like this (copyright 1995) are far more interesting to
me, reading them now, and knowing how some things have thus far turned out.
Thus far, the very coolest thing is a snap of the library at Highgrove.
Looks remarkably like my own (okay, so our library is also the family
room, but, still and all.) The library corner has a table very similiar
with chairs similiarly positioned. Next time, my husband comments on
my piles of books (by various project) I plan on showing him that
picture! ;)
Janet
Janet Schmidt
su-t...@webtv.net wrote:
I am really impressed with the knowledge you have of Diana. Do you
channel her?
Janet
>
su-t...@webtv.net
channel her?
Janet
===========
No. Do you?
I'm coming up with theories for what might have happened, based on what
I've read & learned so far.
This can be interesting & fun, as well as a positive learning
experience, ... & it's one way of developing better life skills & savvy.
"It's better to learn from wisdom than woe", that is, to learn from the
life experiences of others, ... rather than to act determinedly-dumb &
insist on learning most things, from your personal experiences alone.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Holly W.
> Holly W. wrote:
>
> Actually, Diana was 20, and hardly as naive as the media would ahve us
> believe, especially where the RF was concerned.
>
>
> Added to this is the fact that Diana did know the RF--she was born on
> the Sandringham estate,
>
> her father had been Equerry to the Queen, her maternal grandmother was
> the Queen Mother's Lady in Waiting,
>
> she and her sisters and brother spent parts of Christmas at the RF's
> house at Sandringham, and her elder sister Sarah dated Prince Charles as
> well.
>
> Diana knew exactly what she was getting into, and she could have broken
> off the engagement at any time as well as Charles.
>
> She did know about CHarles' relationship with Camilla and she could have
> said no. Instead she chose to go through with the wedding.
>
> Seems to me, given all these facts, that she was as much to blame as
> Charles for the marriage and what happened later.
>
> ============
>
> You can live close to someone (such as a royal family), & still not know
> much if anything about them.
Diana spent many Christmas afternoons with them. Her older sister
dated Charles. Her father was Equerry to the Queen. Her grandmother
was lady-in-waiting. Diana moved in the same circles as the RF, and
her family has known and been close to the RF for generations. I'd
say she knew them fairly well.
>
> Diana's father probably didn't discuss his job with Diana, nor would he
> discuss the inner-workings of the royal family with her.
How do you know he wouldn't have? We know that Diana did know the RF
fairly well before she started dating Charles, we know her family has
known the RF for a long time (don't forget Diana was descended from a
mistress of Charles II's). We don't know what they talked about, and
to claim that Diana's father did not talk about what he saw and did as
equerry is false. We don't know, and that's all there is to it.
This was
> confidential information.
Not really.
>
> However, her father might have glamourized his job, it's importance, &
> the royal family to Diana.
From her account, no, he did not. She would have known exactly what
being an equerry entailed because she came from the same circles.
[In Great Britain at that time, it was
> probably seen as beneficial to have a daughter marry into royalty, & he
> might have encouraged this.]
The late Earl Spencer certainly did encourage the marriage, but we
don't know for sure what his reasons were.
>
> Christmas holidays & dinners: In the US, this (living close to royalty,
> or to rich & powerful people) could be seen as being similar, to a
> favored maid or butler's working at the governor's mansion, & their
> family's being invited for some special/employee-type dinners.
No,actually, it couldn't. Maids and butlers usually don't move in the
same social circles as their employers, and they don't serve the same
functions as equerries.
>
> Usually, you can't learn much from these occasions, & you only see the
> employers when they're on their best behavior, & are acting generous,
> kind, & caring.
Again, equerries don't occupy the same positions as maids and butlers.
Earl Spencer grew up knowing the Queen and her family--he moved in
the same set.
>
> As for Diana's family, there doesn't seem to have been much closeness or
> positive behaviors there, including her relationship with her
> grandmother & with her sister Sarah.
And this has to do with...?
>
> Diana wanted & needed a good family to belong to, where she would be
> valued, treated as an equal, & treated well.
We don't know for sure what she wanted, except that she wanted to
marry Prince Charles and live happily ever after. That's it.
>
> Diana probably realized she needed some social status/standing &
> protection from her future mate, ... partly in order to raise her status
> within her birth-family, from being a victim, down-graded & ill-treated,
> used & abused,
Huh?????? WHo "used" her? Who "abused" her? Who treated her badly,
aside from her mother who ran away with another man? What on earth
are you talking about? There has never, ever been any suggestion
whatsoever of mental or physical abuse within Diana's family! And who
within her family "downgraded" her? Where on earth are you getting
this bizarre "victimization" from?
... so she tried to marry wisely & well.
She married well because she wanted to, not because she wanted to
escape from anything.
>
> I also believe Diana was besotted (blindly in love) with Charles, ...
> although I can't see or understand why.
Well, no, you wouldn't.
>
> As for Camilla, Charles lies. He probably lied to Diana about it, & he
> lied to HM & the country about it.
Really? When did he lie to the country about it? Or to HM for that
matter?
[Charles appears to have a "cheat &
> win" attitude, & an inability to take responsibility for mistakes &
> wrong-doing.]
Hmm, nowhere have I heard him ever say the failure of the marriage was
due only to his spouse, which is what Diana claimed. He admitted his
adultery on national tv and took full responsibility for his part in
his failed marriage. Again, your conclusion has no basis in fact.
>
> Since Diana didn't have good or accurate information to work with, she
> made some bad choices, including her decision to believe in, trust &
> marry Prince Charles.
Excuse me, how did you arrive at this conclusion? The facts don't
bear this out, Diana's family doesn't bear this out, nothing in
Diana's history bears this out. She had all the information right
there in front of her.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Sacha
amHol...@yahoo.com95c48218.0312092246.35b79cd6@posting.google.com
If it's any help here, I have a friend who is an equerry to a minor royal.
The reason he was asked to become an equerry was because they been in the
services together and *are* friends. So I would support your statement that
while an equerry would very possibly, or even probably, mix socially with
'their' royal, a maid or butler would not. There are parties annually for
the staff at the palaces, which royalty also attend but they *are* staff
parties.
From childhood, Diana had been 'the girl next door' to the younger royals
and used to play with Andrew.
<snip>
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
su-t...@webtv.net
Huh?????? WHo "used" her? Who "abused" her? Who treated her badly, aside
from her mother who ran away with another man? What on earth are you
talking about?
There has never, ever been any suggestion whatsoever of mental or
physical abuse within Diana's family!
And who within her family "downgraded" her?
Where on earth are you getting this bizarre "victimization" from?
=========
Su_Texas writes:
Yes, this has been discussed here before, in October. And there seems
to have been emotional abuse.
This was apparent in Earl Spencer's letter to Diana, which Burrell
recently made public.
[http://groups.google.com/groups?q=su-texas+earl+spencer's+cruel+note+to+diana]
Click on show all, & then sort by date, & then go down page to last post
listed.
And also, in the statements made by Diana's mother (FSK), both now & in
the past.
Frances Shand-Kydd seems selfish & dramatic, & tries to focus everything
on herself, her needs & greeds, her past, her pain & suffering, her
alone. It also became apparent that she lies, in order to harm others
(Diana, HM, royal family).
[http://groups.google.com/groups?q=su-texas+fsk+interview+whitaker]
FSK gave interviews to Hello for money, about which she didn't warn or
consult Diana, ... & where she said harmful & untrue things about her,
.. around the time that Diana was divorcing & was most vulnerable.
I've read that these ongoing bad behaviors & meanness by FSK, caused
Diana embarrassment, emotional pain & suffering.
No matter how many times Diana forgave her, & tried to work for a better
relationship, FSK would act badly, selfish & mean, again.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
su-t...@webtv.net
Christmas holidays & dinners: In the US, this (living close to royalty,
or to rich & powerful people) could be seen as being similar, to a
favored maid or butler's working at the governor's mansion, & their
family's being invited for some special/employee-type dinners.
-------------
Holly W. wrote:
No,actually, it couldn't. Maids and butlers usually don't move in the
same social circles as their employers, and they don't serve the same
functions as equerries.
-------------
Su_Texas wrote:
Usually, you can't learn much from these occasions, & you only see the
employers when they're on their best behavior, & are acting generous,
kind, & caring.
------------
Holly W. wrote:
Again, equerries don't occupy the same positions as maids and butlers.
Earl Spencer grew up knowing the Queen and her family--he moved in the
same set.
----------
Sacha wrote:
If it's any help here, I have a friend who is an equerry to a minor
royal. The reason he was asked to become an equerry was because they
been in the services together and *are* friends.
So I would support your statement that while an equerry would very
possibly, or even probably, mix socially with 'their' royal, a maid or
butler would not.
There are parties annually for the staff at the palaces, which royalty
also attend but they *are* staff parties.
Sacha
==========
Su_Texas writes:
Equerries: Their Closeness To Employers?
At the beginning I said: "in the US" & "as being similar".
Yes, there are different strata/levels of employees & employers. And
maids & butlers in England, are probably not regarded as being on the
same social level, as equerries to the crown, ... (unless that maid or
butler proves extremely useful & loyal, & earns a favored & protected
status).
However, equerries to the crown are still employees, & are probably
regarded & treated as such by their employers. They're not royals, not
equals, ... & are probably not trained or savvy as counselors or
advisors. They know about horses.
Equerries go to work, do their job, collect their wages and special
perks, & then go home to their families.
-------------
Royals: Sharing Personal & Family, Secrets & Information?
Usually, employees relate & behave towards their employers, in a
structured & ritualized-type manner. Usually, it's not a
getting-to-know-you type-of-thing.
It's about showing up for work, taking & obeying orders, acting
agreeable, & being loyal. [And when working for the royal family, it's
also about respecting those confidentiality agreements, & not passing on
any information.]
In usual circumstances, I doubt that the queen or her family members,
would drop their guard in front of an equerry, ... would show what
they're really like, or say what they really think, ... would confide in
the equerry, ... or would ask for the equerry's opinions concerning
personal matters or feelings, or matters of state.
This would be too risky for the royals, & it might put that employee in
some jeopardy, esp. from the tabloids.
So, they'd probably just discuss horses, or what a mutual acquaintance
or friend was doing, or an article in a magazine or paper, ... that is,
the light-weight, "fluff" & time-filler, surface-type stuff.
If an equerry were to be too curious or act too familiar, then they'd
probably be fired.
------------
Getting To Know You
Usually, discussions (in non-employment-type situations) are how you
relate to, & get to really know, someone.
Therefore, while an equerry might have an long-time acquaintance with a
royal, & be loyal to them, ... they probably don't know them intimately
or well, on a personal level.
-----------
Fake-Fronts
Most people use fake-fronts in order to blend-in with, & to protect
themselves from, others.
In general, it's rare for most people to drop their fake-fronts, & to
show what they're really like.
It's probably even more rare, for the royals (esp. the queen) to do
this.
------------
Information
While equerries may be privy to some information, ... like who came &
went that day, & rode the horses, or who won the polo match, ... they're
probably not privy to most other kinds of information.
Therefore, I doubt that Diana's father knew all about the royal family,
.. even though he was employed by them as an equerry, & his family had
a long history of working for royals.
And I doubt that he was able or willing, to pass on much practical or
useful information about the royals, to Diana, ... partly because of the
confidential nature of his job.
There were also a lot of other things happening in his life, such as a
bad marriage, a long & bitter divorce (& scandal), his being responsible
for four children & a large estate, his duties necessary to maintain his
social position & standing, & his re-marriage. [And weren't there also
some financial problems, where things from the estate started being
sold-off?]
Also, after his marrying Raine Spencer, didn't he (& she) become at odds
with his children?
------------
From Andrew Morton's book, the photos in it, & from other sources, ...
Diana seems to have watched a lot of TV & read many romantic novels.
She was reluctant to date, because it could hurt her marriage prospects.
Diana went to work in a kindergarten, minded other people's children in
their homes, cleaned houses & ironed clothes.
At 19 & 20, Diana seems to have been naive, to have not had a good
support system in/from her family, & to not have had good sources of
information or advice.
The thing she seems to have wanted most, was to become part of a good,
stable & secure family.
And for whatever reason (maybe Charles' promises, & his declarations of
love & fidelity?), Diana seems to have felt that the royal family &
Charles, were offering her that.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Kelly
> su-texas wrote ...
> [Charles appears to have a "cheat &
> > win" attitude, & an inability to take responsibility for mistakes &
> > wrong-doing.]
>
> Hmm, nowhere have I heard him ever say the failure of the marriage was
> due only to his spouse, which is what Diana claimed. He admitted his
> adultery on national tv and took full responsibility for his part in
> his failed marriage. Again, your conclusion has no basis in fact.
>
Diana did take responsibility for her part in the failure of their marriage
during Panorama.
"q: Looking back now, do you feel at all responsible for the difficulties
in your marriage?
a: Mmm. I take full responsibility, I take some responsibility that our
marriage went the way it did. I'll take half of it, but I won't take any
more than that, because it takes two to get in this situation.
q: But you do bear some of the responsibility?
a: Absolutely, we both made mistakes."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/interviews/bbc2.html
Jean Sue Libkind
Santa is going to bring you an extra stocking full of goodies for the
patience you have shown.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
at janets...@ameritech.net wrote on 12/9/03 3:55 PM:
> Thus far, the very coolest thing is a snap of the library at Highgrove.
> Looks remarkably like my own (okay, so our library is also the family
> room, but, still and all.) The library corner has a table very similiar
> with chairs similiarly positioned. Next time, my husband comments on
> my piles of books (by various project) I plan on showing him that
> picture! ;)
Good luck.
When we walked around Windsor and Buckingham last year, I kept noting paint
colors and various motifs saying "we could do that, dear." We came home to
remodel. Yes, I did get some of the paint colors but we had to skip the
gilt, the heaving molding and the painted ceilings <LOL>
js
Andy.III
>gilt, the heaving molding and the painted ceilings <LOL>
>
>js
Skip the gilt and mouldings?? Horrors!
I put in four columns in the closet just so I could gilt the Acanthus leaves at
the top!
;)
I ran them down the center which gives a double gallery look.
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
Janet Schmidt
Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
Hehehehee. When we were first married and I decided the time had come to
engage in some redecoration, my husband noticed a couple royal books in
the redecorating ideas pile of books with some sketchs that were, shall
we say, inspired by them, and just went nuts.
However, now I am older and wiser and have learned. Next time, which is
coming up in the next year or so, he will not be as involved in the
planning and execution and will simply have to live with the results.
(I am getting the moldings and perhaps a bit more).
Janet
Nynthlyfe9
So, Camilla stayed right where she was, living in the same area as
Charles, moving in the same social circles, having the same friends &
acquaintances, & attending the same events & weekend parties.
Camilla was probably right there, ... hovering, circling, plotting &
conniving, watching/stalking Diana (who was her official replacement &
rival), & causing problems & difficulties for Diana, ... such as
Camilla's feeding inside information/mis-information to the tabloids &
to other people, to harm Diana.
Camilla was there & readily available to Charles, for all that time,
... & when you add in, that Charles is obsessed with her & will do
anything (including lie to his mother, family, & country) in order to
be with her, ...
Yet you say that Charles did not go near Camilla, did not think about,
speak to, or see her for all those years, ... that he forgot about
her, ... & that they had to be officially re-introduced by a friend,
in order to think about, reconsider/re-evaluate things (such as, how
Diana had failed Charles, & failed to make the marriage work), ...
re-meet each other, & resume their long-time affair?
This version doesn't "wash", Sacha. It isn't credible.
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Stephen Berry {valet to the PoW}, Charles was writing to, and
calling the Parker-Bowles Creature from the Honeymoon cruise on the Britania,
and from Balmoral, during that leg of the honeymoon.
As for not "seeing" each other for five years, the day the palace announced
Diana was pregnant with her first child, The Parker-Bowles and the PoW were
hunting with the same pack....
t
everyone knows it
from the Queen of England
to the Hounds of Hell