Heidi Fleiss writes about Diana
Jen Gutmaker
REFORMED Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss is hinting she once procured a
gigolo for
Princess Diana. In a new book she’s self-publishing, Fleiss
reprints a
bizarre thank-you note she says the late royal gave to her. Scrawled
on a Vogue
magazine cover, it reads: "Thanks Heidi - What a babe. He rocked my
world!
Diana." The book, "Pandering," hits stores Tuesday. Asked whether she
ever
provided male companionship for Diana, Fleiss told PAGE SIX’s
Joseph Steuer
she and Diana spent an evening together in the ’90s. "We were
introduced as
friends," said Fleiss, "but that’s all I am going to say. I have
never ratted
on anyone." Perhaps the Heidi Fleiss biopic will reveal more.
Paramount just
optioned her life story as a Nicole Kidman vehicle. "I have not met
her
[Kidman] yet," said Fleiss, "but after spending a few days with me,
she’ll be
the best madam on earth - next to me, that is." Fleiss hopes to
publish a
sex-tips handbook and a novel, "Beverly Hills Tutor." "I suppose one
day,
I’ll also release my prison journal," she said. "Some people say
that it’s
an old story, but a good story is never old. Do people ever tire of
reading
about Thomas Jefferson or World War II?"
yaffaDina
>
> NY POST/PAGE SIX...
> REFORMED Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss is hinting she once procured a
> gigolo for
> Princess Diana. In a new book she’s self-publishing, Fleiss
> reprints a
> bizarre thank-you note she says the late royal gave to her. Scrawled
> on a Vogue
> magazine cover, it reads: "Thanks Heidi - What a babe. He rocked my
> world!
Diana."
Aaarrrggghhh!
> The book, "Pandering," hits stores Tuesday.
Now if she ain't namin' names I ain't gonna read it.
yD -- scandal is worthless if we don't know who we're talking about
DRM
You got to trust every word said by this coke head.It seems to me
Princess Diana had enough gigolos after her as it was.I really don't
think she had to order one.Anything to sell a book.
DRM
Wull
Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
goes along with all their spite and venom.
It is along the lines of believing anything about
WS, as long as it is negative and smutty.
And I am truly surprised that the Protector of
Israel has not jumped whoever posted about WS
being Jewish as being a bigot, an anti-Semite or
what have you for the latest crusade.
Wull
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
andyh
Wull <wjma...@datarecall.net> wrote in message
news:3E39B543...@datarecall.net...
> I agree with you DRM. However it seems the anti
> Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
> goes along with all their spite and venom.
This is up there with the tidbit about Charles and
his valet.
Mrs.H
Tara O.
news:2591146.03013...@posting.google.com...
> NY POST/PAGE SIX...
> REFORMED Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss is hinting she once procured a
> gigolo for
> Princess Diana. In a new book she’s self-publishing, Fleiss
> reprints a
> bizarre thank-you note she says the late royal gave to her. Scrawled
> on a Vogue
> magazine cover, it reads: "Thanks Heidi - What a babe. He rocked my
> world!
> Diana."
And Diana would have been stupid enough to leave a note incriminating
herself? I think not. Diana may have been many things but stupid wasn't
one of them.
--
Tara
Susan Cohen
"andyh" <ahamste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lLi_9.5490$wd2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Wull <wjma...@datarecall.net> wrote in message
> news:3E39B543...@datarecall.net...
> > I agree with you DRM. However it seems the anti
> > Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
> > goes along with all their spite and venom.
> ===========
> This is up there with the tidbit about Charles and
> his valet.
Yes, people who have a need for weird fantasies will believe anything, no
matter what side they're on.
>
> >
> > It is along the lines of believing anything about
> > WS, as long as it is negative and smutty.
> >
> > And I am truly surprised that the Protector of
> > Israel has not jumped whoever posted about WS
> > being Jewish as being a bigot, an anti-Semite or
> > what have you for the latest crusade.
And this from the crybaby who whined about *others* "bearing a grudge." What
a spiteful & venomous little hypocrite.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
"Tara O." <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1cjib$12droh$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de...
I don't believe for one minute Diana ever went to Fleiss *of all people* for
"help" in that department!!
SusanC
quondam
>
> "Tara O." <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b1cjib$12droh$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de..
> > news:2591146.03013...@posting.google.com..
> > > REFORMED Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss is hinting she once procured a
> > > gigolo for
> > > Princess Diana. In a new book she’s self-publishing, Fleiss
> > > reprints a
> > > bizarre thank-you note she says the late royal gave to her. Scrawled
> > > on a Vogue
> > > magazine cover, it reads: "Thanks Heidi - What a babe. He rocked my
> > > world!
> > > Diana."
> >
> > And Diana would have been stupid enough to leave a note incriminating
> > herself? I think not. Diana may have been many things but stupid wasn't
> > one of them.
>
> I don't believe for one minute Diana ever went to Fleiss *of all people* for
> "help" in that department!!
>
> SusanC
Maybe she met Fleiss during her Dodi/Hollywood days. If such a note actually exists
(scrawled over a Vogue cover, of all things), it's certainly a joke. Diana thought that sort of
thing was very funny -- remember, she carried a vibrator in her purse that was a gift from
her sister. -- Q
JAGUTMAKER
>herself? I think not. Diana may have been many things but stupid wasn't
>one of them.
I would think she would be more careful (the Vogue thank you note sounds a bit
odd), but then again, she left tons of incriminating evidence in the form of
letters to Hewitt. She expected him to destroy them, but they obviously still
exist.
JAGutmaker
Tara O.
news:20030130214710...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Sure but a private letter to your boyfriend is expected to be kept secret.
A note on a magazine cover to a Hollywood madame is a different thing
entirely IMO.
--
Tara
ALMACKS
reprints a bizarre thank-you note she says the late royal gave to her. Scrawled
on a Vogue magazine cover, it reads: "Thanks Heidi - What a babe. He rocked my
world! Diana." The book, "Pandering," hits stores Tuesday. Asked whether she
Joseph Steuer she and Diana spent an evening together in the 90s. "We were
introduced as friends," said Fleiss, "but that s all I am going to say. I have
never ratted on anyone.">>
Jeeeesh! Just when you think nothing weirder can happen!
Of course, I'm not going to believe it just because Heidi Fleiss says so.
She's not exactly the most honorable person on earth either. But then again,
you never know. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it's true (I also wouldn't
be all that surprised if it's a tissue of lies either).
Dana
ALMACKS
yD -- scandal is worthless if we don't know who we're talking about>>
I agree. I know how to say stuff too. It makes no difference without
something backing it up.
Dana
ALMACKS
Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
goes along with all their spite and venom.>>
No. I'm part of the "anti Diana forces" and I don't believe it. Or to be more
specific, I'm reserving judgement one way or the other until I see more
evidence.
Dana
ALMACKS
herself? I think not. Diana may have been many things but stupid wasn't
one of them.>>
Actually, stupid was the primary thing she was. If she had been intelligent,
she never would have gotten herself into the jams she did.
After all, she wrote a stack of signed love letters to James Hewitt, her
adulterous lover. Real intelligent--NOT!
Dana
ALMACKS
bit
odd), but then again, she left tons of incriminating evidence in the form of
letters to Hewitt. She expected him to destroy them, but they obviously still
exist.>>
Exactly. Look how many of Diana's "friends" have betrayed her one way or the
other.
She had absolutely no talent for discerning human nature. She was constantly
confiding in people who weren't worth the honor.
Dana
Tara O.
news:20030130220956...@mb-mn.aol.com...
I disagree. I don't think Diana was ever stupid in general. She may have
done dumb things on occasion but all of us have. I think she was quite
brilliant when it came to managing her life. Her maneuvering the press and
other such things, while some found them distateful, proved to be to her
great advantage. Her popularity didn't happen by accident and it wouldn't
have happened on the scale or in the light it did if she'd been a stupid
woman.
--
Tara
Susan Cohen
"quondam" <quo...@quondam.com> wrote in message
news:3E39E0...@quondam.com...
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > > > world!
> > > > Diana."
> >
> > I don't believe for one minute Diana ever went to Fleiss *of all people*
> > for "help" in that department!!
>
actually exists
> (scrawled over a Vogue cover, of all things),
Oh, I missed that - thanks.
it's certainly a joke. Diana thought that sort of
> thing was very funny -- remember, she carried a vibrator in her purse that
was a gift from
> her sister. -- Q
Okay, *that* I can believe. In fact, that sounds *exactly* like what it is.
The language alone points to it. I mean, she didn't really talk like that!
SusanC
Susan Cohen
> I wouldn't be all that surprised if it's true (I also wouldn't
> be all that surprised if it's a tissue of lies either).
Gesundheidt.
SusanC
quondam
No, she didn't really. As far as I know, nobody uses Vogue covers as letter paper, and nobody
writes thank you notes to their procurers. So I think it was a joke, kind of funny, too but
subject to being taken the wrong way. Definitely unwise -- sort of like the famous Ascot
umbrella-poking episode. -- Q
ALMACKS
done dumb things on occasion but all of us have. I think she was quite
brilliant when it came to managing her life. Her maneuvering the press and
other such things, while some found them distateful, proved to be to her great
advantage. Her popularity didn't happen by accident and it wouldn't have
happened on the scale or in the light it did if she'd been a stupid
woman.>>
I think that ultimately the press took far greater advantage of her than she
ever took of them. She ended up with millions of adoring fans, but they were
all strangers to her. What she never got was true, close friends or a husband
who loved her and was devoted to her.
To this day, scandal after scandal after scandal comes out about her. Her name
is bandied about constantly in books, tabloids, gossip pages. If she'd really
been all that intelligent, she would be alive today, beloved by her husband,
popular with the public and looking forward to a long happy life as Queen of
Great Britain. Instead, she's dead at the age of 36 and what we hear about her
is lurid stories about smuggling her lover in her car trunk, being naked under
her fur coat while she went to visit her lover, buying porn for her son, and
hiring gigolos from a "Hollywood Madam".
Compare her to the Queen Mother. When she died, she'd had a long, full happy
life with as much public adulation as Diana had, plus a husband who truly
adored her, children who loved her without ever being embarrassed by her, and a
place in history unsullied by scandal or lurid gossip.
Dana
Tara O.
> <<I disagree. I don't think Diana was ever stupid in general. She may
have
> done dumb things on occasion but all of us have. I think she was quite
> brilliant when it came to managing her life. Her maneuvering the press
and
> other such things, while some found them distateful, proved to be to her
great
> advantage. Her popularity didn't happen by accident and it wouldn't have
> happened on the scale or in the light it did if she'd been a stupid
> woman.>>
>
>
> I think that ultimately the press took far greater advantage of her than
she
> ever took of them. She ended up with millions of adoring fans, but they
were
> all strangers to her. What she never got was true, close friends or a
husband
> who loved her and was devoted to her.
But that didn't make her stupid. She was as much inaccessible to the public
as they were to her because of her role as a royal.
> To this day, scandal after scandal after scandal comes out about her. Her
name
> is bandied about constantly in books, tabloids, gossip pages.
Sure, because she's dead and because in this day and age, its not taboo to
squeal or gossip in public. The thing about these scandals is that she
isn't here to refute them or offer a second side to the version we hear.
I'm not saying they're all fabrications but I'd bet her side of the story on
many of these scandals would shed better light on things.
> If she'd really
> been all that intelligent, she would be alive today, beloved by her
husband,
> popular with the public and looking forward to a long happy life as Queen
of
> Great Britain.
So because she's dead she's not intelligent? I don't buy that for an
instant. She may or may not have known the driver was drunk. Being a
passenger, there was nothing she could have done to slow that car down. I
don't see how she's to blame for death by an accident where she wasn't the
driver. As for the beloved by husband part, that wouldn't have come about
if she'd lived to be 100. She didn't want to be Queen badly enough either,
not something I fault her for. For all those that say she only married to
be Queen, I say if she wanted it that badly, nothing and no one would have
made her seek a divorce.
> Instead, she's dead at the age of 36 and what we hear about her
> is lurid stories about smuggling her lover in her car trunk, being naked
under
> her fur coat while she went to visit her lover, buying porn for her son,
and
> hiring gigolos from a "Hollywood Madam".
As I said, what we're hearing is only 1 person's side of things, a person
normally with money to make for "spilling the beans." It doesn't make me
believe them anymore when they're out to make a profit. Scandal sells and
some of these people have made a killing from their "truth about Diana"
stories. She's not hear to refute them so its free reign on her reputation.
> Compare her to the Queen Mother. When she died, she'd had a long, full
happy
> life with as much public adulation as Diana had, plus a husband who truly
> adored her, children who loved her without ever being embarrassed by her,
and a
> place in history unsullied by scandal or lurid gossip.
>
> Dana
I would never compare the two women. They are vastly different and led
vastly different lives, not all by choice. The QM was born into a loving
family, was beloved as a child, and had a great support group in her family.
She was raised in an era where women's feelings and thoughts weren't nearly
given the credence they are today. In her day it was pretty much "suck it
up and go on" no matter what happened. The QM also never would have
considered divorce. It just *wasn't* done then whether she and her husband
were miserable or not. She'd had a long time to come to terms with her lot
in life, learn how to deal with it, and learn where to find happiness. She
was not however the saint people like to think she was, she just hid her
troubles and less-savories better. Was she not an alcoholic for most of her
life? That doesn't bespeak of someone who's got it all together to me. I'm
not trying to besmirch her, but I do not think she did everything
wonderfully and dealt with life's turmoils quite as well as some believe she
did. Not only was she more discreet, the press also didn't pry then like
they do now (or so I believe). Gossip-mongers to public media also would
have become social outcasts more quickly than they do today.
Diana had the total opposite of an upbringing, the total opposite of a
marriage, the total opposite of self-confidence that the QM had. She didn't
know what life as a princess would truly be like until she moved into the
palace just before the wedding. She didn't know she'd quickly become the
lens-candy of every photographer in England (slight exaggeration). She
didn't know her husband was in love with another woman when she agreed to
marry him. She wasn't perfect by any means but given her insecurities and
unhappiness, I think she did a damned sight better with her job and role as
a parent than most people could have.
--
Tara
ALMACKS
instant. She may or may not have known the driver was drunk. Being a
passenger, there was nothing she could have done to slow that car down. I
don't see how she's to blame for death by an accident where she wasn't the
driver.>>
Sure there was something she could have done to slow that car down. She could
have yelled "Hey, Henri, slow down!!".
<< The QM was born into a loving
family, was beloved as a child, and had a great support group in her family.
She was raised in an era where women's feelings and thoughts weren't nearly
given the credence they are today. In her day it was pretty much "suck it up
and go on" no matter what happened. The QM also never would have considered
divorce. It just *wasn't* done then whether she and her husband were miserable
or not. She'd had a long time to come to terms with her lot
in life, learn how to deal with it, and learn where to find happiness. >>
This is the "times change" excuse for Diana's behavior. It's an oldie but a
goodie. Whenever any comparison is made between Diana and an older royal, the
quickie answer is to blame the times in which they lived. The fact is that
times haven't changed for royal women nearly as much as you'd like to believe.
For ordinary women, yes. But not for royal ones. A royal today is still
expected to behave herself. You are not explaining Diana's behavior. You are
making excuses for her.
<<She was not however the saint people like to think she was, she just hid her
troubles and less-savories better. Was she not an alcoholic for most of her
life? That doesn't bespeak of someone who's got it all together to me.>>
No, she was not. She had a glass or two of gin at bedtime each night. Many
people enjoy a drink in the evenings. She never once, in 101 years of life,
ever appeared intoxicated in public, never had to cancel or postpone an
appearance because of alcohol, and never needed medical attention because of
the effects of drink. No, she was not an alcoholic.
<<I'm not trying to besmirch her, but I do not think she did everything
wonderfully and dealt with life's turmoils quite as well as some believe she
did. Not only was she more discreet, the press also didn't pry then like they
do now (or so I believe). Gossip-mongers to public media also would have
become social outcasts more quickly than they do today.>>
The Queen Mother never indulged in the kind of hysterical, self absorbed
behavior Diana made her trademark. She earned the one thing that Diana never
had, genuine respect. Even today, after her death, not one single scandal has
come out about the Queen Mother (and you know if there were anything to tell,
someone would be telling it).
<<Diana had the total opposite of an upbringing, the total opposite of a
marriage, the total opposite of self-confidence that the QM had. She didn't
know what life as a princess would truly be like until she moved into the
palace just before the wedding. She didn't know she'd quickly become the
lens-candy of every photographer in England (slight exaggeration). She didn't
know her husband was in love with another woman when she agreed to marry him.
She wasn't perfect by any means but given her insecurities and unhappiness, I
think she did a damned sight better with her job and role as a parent than most
people could have.>>
Oh, I agree that she got handed a bad deal. But I also think she handled the
situation abysmally. She wasn't the first royal bride whose husband cheated on
her, but she was the only one who handled it as badly.
Dana
sacha
alm...@aol.com wrote on 31/1/03 3:08 am:
And neither do I. Quite apart from anything else the idea that Diana needed
a gigolo is absurd and the phraseology doesn't sound even remotely like
anything else said or written by her.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
Tara O.
> > Tara O. wrote......
> > So because she's dead she's not intelligent? I don't buy that for an
> > instant. She may or may not have known the driver was drunk. Being a
> > passenger, there was nothing she could have done to slow that car down.
I
> > don't see how she's to blame for death by an accident where she wasn't
the
> > driver.
>
>
> Sure there was something she could have done to slow that car down. She
could
> have yelled "Hey, Henri, slow down!!".
Do you know that she didn't?
> > The QM was born into a loving
> > family, was beloved as a child, and had a great support group in her
family.
> > She was raised in an era where women's feelings and thoughts weren't
nearly
> > given the credence they are today. In her day it was pretty much "suck
it up
> > and go on" no matter what happened. The QM also never would have
considered
> > divorce. It just *wasn't* done then whether she and her husband were
miserable
> > or not. She'd had a long time to come to terms with her lot
> > in life, learn how to deal with it, and learn where to find happiness.
>>
>
> This is the "times change" excuse for Diana's behavior. It's an oldie but
a
> goodie.
You can't hold the behavior of a baby boomer up to the behavior of someone
from 100 years ago. Times do change, its a fact, not an excuse.
> Whenever any comparison is made between Diana and an older royal, the
> quickie answer is to blame the times in which they lived. The fact is
that
> times haven't changed for royal women nearly as much as you'd like to
believe.
Sure they have. Do you think Anne would have gotten a divorce and then
remarried if times hadn't changed?
Do you think Charles would have gotten a divorce and be publicly covorting
with his mistress if times hadn't changed?
> For ordinary women, yes. But not for royal ones. A royal today is still
> expected to behave herself. You are not explaining Diana's behavior. You
are
> making excuses for her.
Everyone is expected to behave themself, royal or not. The royals don't
always do it, how can you expect anyone else to be above reproach?
> <<She was not however the saint people like to think she was, she just hid
her
> > troubles and less-savories better. Was she not an alcoholic for most of
her
> > life? That doesn't bespeak of someone who's got it all together to
me.>>
>
> No, she was not. She had a glass or two of gin at bedtime each night.
Many
> people enjoy a drink in the evenings. She never once, in 101 years of
life,
> ever appeared intoxicated in public, never had to cancel or postpone an
> appearance because of alcohol, and never needed medical attention because
of
> the effects of drink. No, she was not an alcoholic.
You may be correct but that's not the way I've read/heard things.
> <<I'm not trying to besmirch her, but I do not think she did everything
> > wonderfully and dealt with life's turmoils quite as well as some believe
she
> > did. Not only was she more discreet, the press also didn't pry then like
they
> > do now (or so I believe). Gossip-mongers to public media also would
have
> > become social outcasts more quickly than they do today.>>
>
>
> The Queen Mother never indulged in the kind of hysterical, self absorbed
> behavior Diana made her trademark.
LOL. How do you know? Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC. Part
of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died and
was unable to defend herself. We know that Charles had a great temper and
isn't above throwing tempertantrums. Anne got nasty with a woman trying to
give her flowers. No one, not even the royals themselves, are paragons of
politeness and all that's good.
> She earned the one thing that Diana never
> had, genuine respect. Even today, after her death, not one single scandal
has
> come out about the Queen Mother (and you know if there were anything to
tell,
> someone would be telling it).
Possibly and possibly not.
> > Diana had the total opposite of an upbringing, the total opposite of a
> > marriage, the total opposite of self-confidence that the QM had. She
didn't
> > know what life as a princess would truly be like until she moved into
the
> > palace just before the wedding. She didn't know she'd quickly become
the
> > lens-candy of every photographer in England (slight exaggeration). She
didn't
> > know her husband was in love with another woman when she agreed to marry
him.
> > She wasn't perfect by any means but given her insecurities and
unhappiness, I
> > think she did a damned sight better with her job and role as a parent
than most
> > people could have.
>
>
> Oh, I agree that she got handed a bad deal. But I also think she handled
the
> situation abysmally. She wasn't the first royal bride whose husband
cheated on
> her, but she was the only one who handled it as badly.
>
> Dana
Depends on your POV. I don't think staying with a husband who refuses to
give up his mistress, be he a prince or not, is what any self-respecting
woman would do in this day. When you don't marry for a business arrangement
alone then you aren't likely to turn a blind eye to affairs. Personally I
applaud her decision to separate.
--
Tara
DRM
> "ALMACKS" <alm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030131002017...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> > <<I disagree. I don't think Diana was ever stupid in general. She may
> have
> > done dumb things on occasion but all of us have. I think she was quite
>
> I would never compare the two women.
There's no reason to
They are vastly different and led
> vastly different lives, not all by choice. The QM was born into a loving
> family, was beloved as a child, and had a great support group in her family.
> She was raised in an era where women's feelings and thoughts weren't nearly
> given the credence they are today. In her day it was pretty much "suck it
> up and go on" no matter what happened. The QM also never would have
> considered divorce. It just *wasn't* done then whether she and her husband
> were miserable or not. She'd had a long time to come to terms with her lot
> in life, learn how to deal with it, and learn where to find happiness. She
> was not however the saint people like to think she was, she just hid her
> troubles and less-savories better. Was she not an alcoholic for most of her
> life?
She was always in her cups.One of the royalty magazines said she lived
on gin the vicar in this newspaper says she was pickled in it.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/05/1017206268183.html
A party girl to end all party girls
April 6 2002
The Queen Mother ... a great entertainer.
When all the tears have been shed and all the tributes paid, history
will ask what kind of woman was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
When all the tears have been shed and all the tributes paid, history
will ask what kind of woman was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
For one thing, she was the party girl to end all party girls and one
of the finest hostesses the world has ever seen. Even in her 90s, her
year was one long round of house parties. In the spring, there were
weekend parties for her racing friends at her Windsor home, Royal
Lodge; in May, fishing house parties at Birkhall, her home in
Balmoral; in June, a Geriatrics Weekend, again at Royal Lodge; in
July, a house party at Sandringham for her flower-loving friends.
But it was when she went to Scotland for the autumn that she really
started. In August, there were two house parties at her home on the
north coast of Scotland, the Castle of May, and then the whole of
September and much of October was taken up with one party after
another. "She used to have house parties every single week for the
whole of September", said Margaret Rhodes, one of her nieces who was
also a lady-in-waiting. "There were up to eight guests at each of
them. They always went from Monday until Saturday, and then a
completely new crowd showed up the following Monday.
"When I'd done three weeks there as a lady-in-waiting, I dreamt of not
having to change for dinner, of just being able to sit in front of the
telly and have a boiled egg. But if you'd been doing it for 76 years,
as she had, it just came naturally."
And the Queen Mother was not one to poop her own parties. "I remember
going to Birkhall a few years ago," said Nicholas Soames, a close
friend of Prince Charles, "and at midnight there was a group of
so-called young men sitting round the dinner table. We'd been stalking
and shooting on the hill all day and she herself has been outside for
much of it. But whereas most of us had our eyes half-closed, she was
still the life and soul of the party."
Age made no difference. On the Queen Mother's 98th birthday, after a
succession of walkabouts, parties and a trip to see Oklahoma, she
finally sat down to dinner with a party of eight at 11.45pm and did
not turn in until 1.30am.
Where, everybody wondered, did she get her stamina? Perfectly true,
she did none of the donkey work which made these parties possible.
Nevertheless she had staying power - and it may have been helped by
her lifelong love affair with gin. She liked to drink gin before
meals, champagne after them, and her capacity was considerable. "She
was very much a gin drinker," said one Church of England bishop who
knew her well, adding a shade ungallantly: "I think it had pickled
her."
One of her longstanding friends remembers being in charge of the
drinks at a lunch party in Oxford given for the Queen Mother. "I knew
that she liked a big gin and Dubonnet before the meal, so I gave her a
whopper which I suppose amounted to a triple, and then went round the
other people. When I came back to her, four or five minutes later, her
glass was already empty, so I offered her the same again. 'So
delicious!' she said. 'Perhaps just a little more.'
"She had three of those triples before lunch and her fair share of
wine during it. Yet, afterwards, she walked briskly for several
hundred yards in a dead straight line, talking lucidly the whole time.
She must have been the greatest living advertisement for gin."
Each year on her birthday, Ivor Spencer, of the Guild of International
Professional Toastmasters, presented the Queen Mother with a
nebuchadnezzar of champagne - the equivalent of 20 bottles. "It'll be
very nice when your family come," Spencer said at a recent
celebration. "Even if they don't," the Queen Mother replied, "I'll
polish it off myself!"
None of this, of course, came cheap. Her husband died in 1952 but she
maintained the style required of an anointed monarch such as herself.
Like the Queen, significantly, she always signed herself "Elizabeth
R".
She lived in almost Edwardian splendour. "She had a very grand life,"
a palace insider who knew Clarence House, her London home, told me.
"There was a staff of 50 or more, five or six cars with a series of
special number plates, three chauffeurs and five chefs.
"Clarence House was another world, a time warp. Whenever I went there,
three liveried footmen brought in a really full tea. It was exactly
what it should be like, always provided that it wasn't public money
which was being spent."
Some of it, however, was public money. The Queen Mother received
£643,000 ($1.7 million) every year in a civil list payment from the
state but it was a drop in the ocean. Every year she had to be
subsidised by her daughter, the Queen, often to the tune of between £1
million and £2 million. "If there were two of them who spent money as
she did," the Queen's late racing manager, Lord Carnarvon, once
remarked, "they'd have been broke long ago. She buys new outfits like
you buy brown eggs."
When it was reported a few years ago that the Queen Mother was running
a £4 million overdraft at Coutts Bank, all those who knew her regarded
it as laughably small, given the scale of her spending. The Prince of
Wales, who has taken her as his model, simply smiled and said that if
it was 10 times that amount, it wouldn't surprise him.
The Queen Mother loved life, lived it to the full - and helped
everyone who knew her to do the same.
Graham Turner is a British writer and commentator.
DRM
That doesn't bespeak of someone who's got it all together to me. I'm
> not trying to besmirch her, but I do not think she did everything
> wonderfully and dealt with life's turmoils quite as well as some believe she
> did.
Snip,snip
Noelle
Seems to me Diana's thank you notes were always on her personal
stationery, not Vogue covers or matchbooks or cocktail napkins.
Wasn't she fanatical about them? Doesn't make sense she'd do that. I
could accept it was a joke, as maybe she and Fleiss joked about
getting a gigolo, I could see where the idea of it would have amused
her (and Fleiss).
Noelle
Jen Gutmaker
<tongue-in-cheek> But Fleiss was famous for her discretion!
Jean Sue Libkind
DR...@boxfrog.com wrote on 1/31/03 8:00:
> "There were up to eight guests at each of
> them. They always went from Monday until Saturday, and then a
> completely new crowd showed up the following Monday.
Even the Queen Mum, it seems, rests on the Seventh Day ;)
sacha
nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/1/03 11:54 am:
But to be fair Tara, that isn't what was being said. The remark was that
she handled badly, not that she should have stayed with it. I think she
made some disastrous errors in her divorce proceedings and I also think that
it was and should have remained a private matter. It really wasn't exactly
essential to let the world know, except for revenge and that's never the
most attractive of reactiions. It was just very undignified and now the
consequence is that her sex life is public property, too. There were just
too many doors opened into a private world.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
Jean Sue Libkind
nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 1/31/03 6:54:
> Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
> hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC. Part
> of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died and
> was unable to defend herself.
Actually, most of what we know about Diana we got from the Morton books and
the Panorama interview.... IOW, from Diana herself. No one else in the Royal
Family has ever revealed so much; ever Sarah is more circumspect.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
on 1/30/03 21:35:
> Maybe she met Fleiss during her Dodi/Hollywood days. If such a note actually
> exists
> (scrawled over a Vogue cover, of all things), it's certainly a joke. Diana
> thought that sort of
> thing was very funny -- remember, she carried a vibrator in her purse that was
> a gift from
> her sister. -- Q
I quite agree. I can see two young women sitting, having a few drinks and
getting silly.
My guess they were simply admiring nice buns on someone walking by. Perhaps
he even jostled the table, hence "rocking my world."
I can see her scribbling the note on something handy... like a Vogue
magazine... and saying with a giggle, "This will be worth a lot of money
some day, Heidi. You can retire on it when your looks give out."
js
ALMACKS
could have yelled "Hey, Henri, slow down!!".>>
<<Do you know that she didn't?>>
Yes. Because Henri didn't slow down.
Dana
Dana
ALMACKS
from 100 years ago. Times do change, its a fact, not an excuse.>>
Why can't I hold the behavior of a baby boomer up to the behavior of someone
from 100 years ago? What exactly changed? Is it now considered all right to
attempt suicide when you're pregnant? Is it now perfectly normal to drop your
panties for any good looking guy who comes along? Is it now just fine for a
royal princess to behave like a strumpet? I don't think so.
"Times change" is a cheap excuse for lowered standards. Ever notice that when
"times change" they never change for the better??
ALMACKS
remarried if times hadn't changed?
Do you think Charles would have gotten a divorce and be publicly covorting
with his mistress if times hadn't changed?>>
No I don't. But that isn't a good thing. The royals are using the same cheapie
excuse that you are.
Just because they did it, doesn't mean it was acceptable to do it.
Dana
ALMACKS
always do it, how can you expect anyone else to be above reproach?>>
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you are saying "times change,
no one acts like they did 100 years ago". But on the other hand, you are saying
that everyone is expected to behave themselves, royal or not.
I expect everyone to be above reproach, royal or not. It just matters more with
people in the public eye.
Dana
ALMACKS
> behavior Diana made her trademark.
<<LOL. How do you know? Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC. Part
of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died and
was unable to defend herself. We know that Charles had a great temper and
isn't above throwing tempertantrums. Anne got nasty with a woman trying to
give her flowers. No one, not even the royals themselves, are paragons of
politeness and all that's good.>>
Excuses Excuses Excuses. Diana's behavior wasn't that bad because Charles did
this and Anne did that and the Queen Mother did the other thing.
The fact is that you are grasping at straws trying desperately to take the heat
off Diana because you want her to the lovely angel you admire. The fact is
that she wasn't that lovely angel. She was a silly, stupid, self centered
girl, and none of your excuses for her will change that.
Dana
ALMACKS
give up his mistress, be he a prince or not, is what any self-respecting
woman would do in this day. >>
Why "this day"? Did a self respecting woman put up with adultery 20 years ago?
50? 100?
Just another "times change" excuse.
Dana
andyh
........you mean you believe that Dodi just sat there, never opening his
mouth to tell *his* driver to slow down?
Mrs.H
Tara O.
> <<> The Queen Mother never indulged in the kind of hysterical, self
absorbed
> > behavior Diana made her trademark.
>
> <<LOL. How do you know? Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
> hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC. Part
> of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died and
> was unable to defend herself. We know that Charles had a great temper and
> isn't above throwing tempertantrums. Anne got nasty with a woman trying
to
> give her flowers. No one, not even the royals themselves, are paragons of
> politeness and all that's good.>>
>
>
> Excuses Excuses Excuses. Diana's behavior wasn't that bad because Charles
did
> this and Anne did that and the Queen Mother did the other thing.
Well when you start holding everyone up to these standards of yours then I
expect you to not single out just one person. You first brought up the
comparison of Diana to another royal. If you didn't want to hear my
opinions on other royals in conjunction with my opinion on Diana then you
shouldn't have brought the QM into this thread.
> The fact is that you are grasping at straws trying desperately to take the
heat
> off Diana because you want her to the lovely angel you admire.
No, I'm trying to level out the playing field. I never said Diana was
perfect, was a saint, was an angel nor did I ever say I admired her in
general. This is a typical cop-out by Diana & Charles haters. Just because
I don't agree with you on all your points doesn't mean that I idolize Diana.
I don't get the "if you don't hate her then you must love her" attitude.
Has it never occurred to you that its entirely possible to see both the good
and bad in someone without needing to feel one extreme or the other about
them? Diana was neither saint nor satan. Same goes for Charles. I don't
adore either one and I don't hate either one.
> The fact is
> that she wasn't that lovely angel. She was a silly, stupid, self centered
> girl, and none of your excuses for her will change that.
You're entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine. If you don't
want to hear an opposing viewpoint then you shouldn't post your POV.
--
Tara
Tara O.
Yes. Divorces just *weren't* done 50 or 100 years ago unless it was
instigated by the man, against the woman or there was significant proof of
physical abuse.
--
Tara
Tara O.
> <<Everyone is expected to behave themself, royal or not. The royals don't
> always do it, how can you expect anyone else to be above reproach?>>
>
>
> You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you are saying "times
change,
> no one acts like they did 100 years ago". But on the other hand, you are
saying
> that everyone is expected to behave themselves, royal or not.
They have nothing to do with each other. You cannot compare a woman brought
into this world and raised a century ago, who also became Queen, to a woman
who was born 40 years ago and who didn't become Queen. EB-L's job as Queen
bears no comparison to Diana's life because Diana wasn't Queen with the same
responsibilities or the same influence.
Everyone is expected to behave but what's considered acceptable behavior
changes with the times. I don't hold people today to behavior standards of
a century ago nor would I hold people from a century ago to today's
acceptable standards of behavior. If I did then every woman who was in a
bad marriage, who had no say in the direction her life took, who had baby
after baby when she didn't want to, and who looked to her husband for
approval on just about every matter outside of knitting would be labeled a
weak and pathetic person in my POV. A woman of today who took hold of her
life, who was responsible for herself and who didn't need a man to guide her
would have been considered a bluestocking and by some, a social outcast a
century ago. Those weren't complimentary labels.
> I expect everyone to be above reproach, royal or not. It just matters more
with
> people in the public eye.
>
>
> Dana
Your expectations are a good deal on the high side IMO. Are you above
reproach?
--
Tara
Tara O.
No but don't single out Diana as the immoral one when several other royals
(raised in a more stringent environment and taught from day one to be above
reproach) have done things similar.
--
Tara
Tara O.
> <<You can't hold the behavior of a baby boomer up to the behavior of
someone
> from 100 years ago. Times do change, its a fact, not an excuse.>>
>
>
> Why can't I hold the behavior of a baby boomer up to the behavior of
someone
> from 100 years ago?
I gave my opinions on this in another post.
> What exactly changed?
Alot
> Is it now considered all right to
> attempt suicide when you're pregnant? Is it now perfectly normal to drop
your
> panties for any good looking guy who comes along? Is it now just fine for
a
> royal princess to behave like a strumpet? I don't think so.
There are a hundred+ other examples to use than those and the answers would
be yes, now its acceptable.
> "Times change" is a cheap excuse for lowered standards. Ever notice that
when
> "times change" they never change for the better??
No I haven't. I think quite the opposite on the majority of issues. I for
one am damned thankful for women's rights, the ability to choose a
profession, the ability to be an equal partner in my marriage, etc etc etc
--
Tara
Tara O.
Dana that's weak. You don't know what took place inside that car since you
weren't there.
--
Tara
DArtagnan31
>been all that intelligent, she would be alive today, beloved by her husband,
>popular with the public and looking forward to a long happy life as Queen of
>Great Britain.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Intelligent people die/ injured in car accidents everyday. It didn't matter how
intelligent she was, Charles would have never loved her. She was/is very
popular with the public. Living a life in a guilded cage for the rest of her
life probably didn't sit well with Diana. I doubt she was "looking foward" to
becoming Queen.
Lynn
DArtagnan31
If the Queen Mother needed to have a few drinks every night then she was an
alcoholic. I don't care what spin you put one it.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>She wasn't the first royal bride whose husband cheated on her, but she was the
only one who handled it as badly.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Diana was probably the first royal bride not to sit back and be shat upon by
her husband.
If that's handling it badly then I say kudos for her!!
Lynn
Tara O.
news:BA6041B6.5D99%sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
> in article b1do9t$11eojv$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de, Tara O. at
> nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/1/03 11:54 am:
>
> > "ALMACKS" <alm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030131034851...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> >>
> >>
handled
> > the
> >> situation abysmally. She wasn't the first royal bride whose husband
> > cheated on
> >> her, but she was the only one who handled it as badly.
> >>
> >> Dana
> >
> > Depends on your POV. I don't think staying with a husband who refuses
to
> > give up his mistress, be he a prince or not, is what any self-respecting
> > woman would do in this day. When you don't marry for a business
arrangement
> > alone then you aren't likely to turn a blind eye to affairs. Personally
I
> > applaud her decision to separate.
> >
> > --
> > Tara
> >
> >
> But to be fair Tara, that isn't what was being said. The remark was that
> she handled badly, not that she should have stayed with it.
Possibly. Since Dana made the earlier comment that if she weren't so stupid
she'd be alive and beloved by her husband today, I assumed her above
comments to mean that she handled the marriage/affair badly, not the divorce
itself.
--
Tara
DArtagnan31
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Give me a break. He could have just ignored her.
You weren't in the car that night Dana, you have no way of knowing what was
said.
Lynn
Tara O.
news:BA5FFB14.B502%jea...@bookschlepper.com...
True but we've "learned" alot from her brother, from her friends, from her
employees, from her lover, etc. Those are things she's not hear to offer a
different side of or confirm.
--
Tara
DArtagnan31
>ago?
> 50? 100?
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Yes they did. They put up with their husband running around on the. They were
told to accept it and to shut up about it.
Yeah, that's what I call living.......NOT!!!
Lynn
sacha
alm...@aol.com wrote on 31/1/03 3:54 pm:
But Henri was drunk, possibly on drugs and wasn't employed by DIana but by
Dodi, whose father is a rather fearsome employer. He's not likely to have
listened to Diana, I'd say.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
His Jadedness Andy
>consequence is that her sex life is public property, too. There were just
>too many doors opened into a private world.
>--
>Sacha
More like whole walls blown away rather than doors opened ! <G>?
"May your Morn be bright and sunny, your Noon be warm and clear, your Dusk be
calm and tranquil and your Night without a fear"
His Jadedness, Andy
Known Descendants of Queen Victoria Message Board
http://members3.boardhost.com/KDQV/
andyh
andyh <ahamste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hjx_9.363$ek4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Mrs.H
>
> .........or that the minder/bodyguard Trevor Reese-Jones didn't order him
to slow down also.
Mrs.H
>
yaffaDina
> ...snipped... She earned the one thing that Diana never
> had, genuine respect. Even today, after her death, not one single scandal has
> come out about the Queen Mother (and you know if there were anything to tell,
> someone would be telling it).
> Dana
Well, I don't think that's altogether true -- but it may depend on your
definition of "scandal." I, for instance, think it's scandalous that
the QM got the reputation for being v.anti-divorce (and one assumes
anti-adultery) yet lent her house to Charles and Camilla when Camilla,
at least, was married to someone else. I find it absolutely outrageous
that the QM kept APB as a 'pet' while she was aiding & abetting his
wife's affair with the PoW. The QM's taste for gin is well known, and
how do we know that she never appeared in public intoxicated, it could
easily have been put down to "the effects of prescription medication,"
as to any public appearance having to be cancelled because of
drunkenness, well, she was old and ill. "Ill" has often been used when
a person was drunk & incapable. I cannot say for sure, but I also can
be sure that I don't know and neither, I suspect, can Dana. Dana may
not know either that many alcoholics do, in fact, function quite well in
public and can disguise or hide their alcoholism for many years.
Finally, to my mind, there is something suspicious in the QM's decision
that her papers from the 30s NOT be made public until long after the
usual length of time. Why not? Maybe because there is such a gap
between her moral unacceptance of Wallis Simpson, over & beyond the
issue of the abdication -- which unless my memory fails, was *strictly*
the decision of Edward VIII -- i.e. that the QM's opinion of adultery
changed with the adulteress concerned, not to mention the male partners,
i.e. husband and lover.
I may be old-fashioned in my disdain of this kind of upper-class
morality that changes with the seasons, that I think would be better
described as hypocrisy -- though merely being a hypocrite is not a
scandal.
yD
KirkVin
this and Anne did that and the Queen Mother did the other thing.
The fact is that you are grasping at straws trying desperately to take the heat
off Diana because you want her to the lovely angel you admire. The fact is
that she wasn't that lovely angel. She was a silly, stupid, self centered
girl, and none of your excuses for her will change that.
Dana
--------
Oh, dear! Now, you've done it! JS will have to accuse you of generating hate
against Diana because you continue to call the late princess names just as js
accused me of generating hate against Charles because I pointed out that he
never rescheduled his meeting with Burrell . . . .
Well, we need to be consistent, don't we?
Ellie
KirkVin
ever took of them. She ended up with millions of adoring fans, but they were
all strangers to her. What she never got was true, close friends or a husband
who loved her and was devoted to her.
To this day, scandal after scandal after scandal comes out about her. Her name
is bandied about constantly in books, tabloids, gossip pages. If she'd really
been all that intelligent, she would be alive today, beloved by her husband,
popular with the public and looking forward to a long happy life as Queen of
Great Britain. Instead, she's dead at the age of 36 and what we hear about her
is lurid stories about smuggling her lover in her car trunk, being naked under
her fur coat while she went to visit her lover, buying porn for her son, and
hiring gigolos from a "Hollywood Madam". <snip>
Dana
-------------
Oy! What hatred, eh, js?
Ellie
yaffaDina
... or that any passenger killed in a car is to blame because he or she
didn't tell the driver to slow down?
yD
jflexer
> in article 20030130220811...@mb-mn.aol.com, ALMACKS at
> alm...@aol.com wrote on 31/1/03 3:08 am:
>
> > <<I agree with you DRM. However it seems the anti
> > Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
> > goes along with all their spite and venom.>>
> >
> >
> > No. I'm part of the "anti Diana forces" and I don't believe it. Or to
be
> > more
> > specific, I'm reserving judgement one way or the other until I see more
> > evidence.
> >
> > Dana
>
> And neither do I. Quite apart from anything else the idea that Diana
needed
> a gigolo is absurd and the phraseology doesn't sound even remotely like
> anything else said or written by her.
> --
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
'Rocked my world' - doesn't ring true, does it? I could possibly imagine
her saying such a thing in private conversation but never in writing...
It doesn't seem to make sense to alledge she would need the services of a
prostitute. IF she was inclined to have a one-night stand (I highly doubt
it - her needs seemed to be more of the emotional attachment type - not the
sexual...) while visiting NY, she'd only need engage the nearest cutie-boy
at the social event and arrange a private meeting later. She certainly
wouldn't PAY for it... and I doubt that she'd trust a prostitute to be
confidential.
Further, I have never heard such an allegation from a PPO or Burrell-type -
they'd certainly be aware of such activity and given what they've already
dished about her, wouldn't have decided to hold back that tidbit... prob
worth another 500,000 UKP to the tabloids!
Jen Gutmaker
> drinks at a lunch party in Oxford given for the Queen Mother. "I knew
> that she liked a big gin and Dubonnet before the meal, so I gave her a
> whopper which I suppose amounted to a triple, and then went round the
> other people. When I came back to her, four or five minutes later, her
> glass was already empty, so I offered her the same again. 'So
> delicious!' she said. 'Perhaps just a little more.'
>
> "She had three of those triples before lunch and her fair share of
> wine during it. Yet, afterwards, she walked briskly for several
> hundred yards in a dead straight line, talking lucidly the whole time.
> She must have been the greatest living advertisement for gin."
>
> Each year on her birthday, Ivor Spencer, of the Guild of International
> Professional Toastmasters, presented the Queen Mother with a
> nebuchadnezzar of champagne - the equivalent of 20 bottles. "It'll be
> very nice when your family come," Spencer said at a recent
> celebration. "Even if they don't," the Queen Mother replied, "I'll
> polish it off myself!"
>
>
>
> DRM
>
Well, she had 101 years to build up that kind of tolerance!
Susan Cohen
> <<So because she's dead she's not intelligent? I don't buy that for an
> instant. She may or may not have known the driver was drunk. Being a
> passenger, there was nothing she could have done to slow that car down. I
> don't see how she's to blame for death by an accident where she wasn't the
> driver.>>
>
>
> Sure there was something she could have done to slow that car down. She
could
> have yelled "Hey, Henri, slow down!!".
She could have worn a damned seat belt!
Yes, she is dead because she was stupid.
It's a horrifying fact, & unpalatable, but she is dead because she was
stupid - even if only for a minute.
SusanC
--
The bunk stops here
Susan Cohen
"sacha" <sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BA5FFFE3.5D52%sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
> in article 20030130220811...@mb-mn.aol.com, ALMACKS at
> alm...@aol.com wrote on 31/1/03 3:08 am:
>
> > <<I agree with you DRM. However it seems the anti
> > Diana forces want to believe this tidbit for it
> > goes along with all their spite and venom.>>
> >
> >
> > No. I'm part of the "anti Diana forces" and I don't believe it. Or to
be
> > more
> > specific, I'm reserving judgement one way or the other until I see more
> > evidence.
>
needed
> a gigolo is absurd and the phraseology doesn't sound even remotely like
> anything else said or written by her.
Just who *is* giving it credence?
The only spite & venom is the false assignation of credulity.
Susan Cohen
--
The bunk stops here
"Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote in message
news:BA5FFB14.B502%jea...@bookschlepper.com...
> in article b1do9t$11eojv$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de, Tara O. at
> nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 1/31/03 6:54:
>
> > Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
> > hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC.
Yes, what few incidents were glossed over, or never *reported* at all.
The complaints over the child who refused to smile spring vividly to mind.
Part
> > of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died
and
> > was unable to defend herself.
>
>
> Actually, most of what we know about Diana we got from the Morton books
and
> the Panorama interview.... IOW, from Diana herself. No one else in the
Royal
> Family has ever revealed so much; ever Sarah is more circumspect.
& everything we know about Sarah comes from sheer carelessness.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
--
The bunk stops here
"andyh" <ahamste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hjx_9.363$ek4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
You think *he* was the reason they were speeding?
It was *her* privacy they were trying to ensure.
But my real criticism is the seat belt.
It just struck me (gad, no pun intended!!) that in a finely built
automobile, you are less aware of just how fast youare going. With tinted
windows, you can't even see how fast everything's going by.
The occupants may not have known how fast they were going.
SusanC
> Mrs.H
>
>
Susan Cohen
> Is it now just fine for a
> royal princess to behave like a strumpet? I don't think so.
You haven't been to Monaco fo awhile, I take it....
SusanC (BAD GIRL, NO BISCUIT!)
--
The bunk stops here.
Jean Sue Libkind
kir...@aol.com wrote on 1/31/03 12:37:
Or a realistic view, depending on your viewpoint. Not balanced but fairly
accurate.
js
fran
>
>>>>>>>
> You got to trust every word said by this coke head.It seems to me
> Princess Diana had enough gigolos after her as it was.I really don't
> think she had to order one.Anything to sell a book.
>
> DRM
Isn't it just a bit inconsistent for Fleiss to say "I am going to say. I have
> never ratted on anyone." and then to say that she procurred a gigolo for Diana? Heidi Fleiss is a convicted felon, and she has a history of lying, now that she has a book and a biopic to publicize I would expect her to lie again.
Jean Sue Libkind
kir...@aol.com wrote on 1/31/03 12:30:
> Oh, dear! Now, you've done it! JS will have to accuse you of generating hate
> against Diana because you continue to call the late princess names just as js
> accused me of generating hate against Charles because I pointed out that he
> never rescheduled his meeting with Burrell . . . .
>
> Well, we need to be consistent, don't we?
Ellie,
I did not accuse you "of generating hate against Charles....Burrell." It was
the overall tone of your posts for several days concerning Charles and
Camilla which left me with the distinct impression that you had no use for
either of them, wished both of them ill, and thought everyone should agree
with you. You said strongly that nothing they did could ever make up for
past behavior.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 1/31/03 12:20:
> The QM's taste for gin is well known, and
> how do we know that she never appeared in public intoxicated, it could
> easily have been put down to "the effects of prescription medication,"
> as to any public appearance having to be cancelled because of
> drunkenness, well, she was old and ill. "Ill" has often been used when
> a person was drunk & incapable.
Oh, Annie. If one can't get snockered at 98 years old, what's the point?
Bob and I plan to travel during our retirement and, when we get too feeble
for that, to sit in the living room and drink ourselves silly.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
>> Why can't I hold the behavior of a baby boomer up to the behavior of
> someone
>> from 100 years ago?
Sorry, I lost the attribution.
Isn't Diana too young to be a baby boomer?????? I think she is part of
Generation X or Y or one of those.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
alm...@aol.com wrote on 1/31/03 10:56:
> "Times change" is a cheap excuse for lowered standards. Ever notice that when
> "times change" they never change for the better??
I would disagree with that but then, Dana, aren't you the one opposed to
women's rights?
Frankly, remembering life for women in the 1950s makes me grateful for
women's lifestyles today.
js
andyh
Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3e3ad...@vienna7.his.com...
>
>
> --
> The bunk stops here
> "andyh" <ahamste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Hjx_9.363$ek4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > ALMACKS <alm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030131105432...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> > > <<> Sure there was something she could have done to slow that car
down.
> > She
> > > could have yelled "Hey, Henri, slow down!!".>>
> > >
> > > <<Do you know that she didn't?>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Because Henri didn't slow down.
> > > Dana
> > =============
> > ........you mean you believe that Dodi just sat there, never opening his
> > mouth to tell *his* driver to slow down?
================>
> You think *he* was the reason they were speeding?
> It was *her* privacy they were trying to ensure.
While I could believe Dodi may have told Henri Paul to 'step on it' upon
entering the car to try and outrun/lose the press, I can't believe that
after awhile of traveling at that great speed, he wouldn't have realised the
potential for an accident. I think he would have had Dianas/his own safety
in mind and ordered HP to slow down, especially if she had expressed any
concerns about the speed. But, as has already been said we will never know,
unless Trevor Reese-Jones regains his memory.
>
> But my real criticism is the seat belt.
Yep, a warning to one and all........to Buckle Up!
===========
> It just struck me (gad, no pun intended!!) that in a finely built
> automobile, you are less aware of just how fast youare going. With tinted
> windows, you can't even see how fast everything's going by.
>
> The occupants may not have known how fast they were going.
>SusanC
You could have a valid point there.
Mrs.H
KirkVin
--------------
As was my post remarking on Charles's not rescheduling his meeting with
Burrell. . . a fact reported by the media. Yet, you considered that to be
*hatred*.
Thank you for Showing Your Hand So Completely [to paraphrase Sacha] ;-)
Ellie
JAGUTMAKER
>her husband.
>If that's handling it badly then I say kudos for her!!
>Lynn
You need to read more history, Lynn.
JAGutmaker
JAGUTMAKER
>ago?
> 50? 100?
>
100 years ago they did -- divorce was often not an option
JAGutmaker
JAGUTMAKER
>morality that changes with the seasons, that I think would be better
>described as hypocrisy -- though merely being a hypocrite is not a
>scandal.
>yD
They were definitely hypocritical.
JAGutmaker
sacha
wrote on 31/1/03 6:55 pm:
None of it rings true. I can imagine her writing such a thing as a joke to
someone she knew but not on the strength of an evening's acquaintance. Her
humour could be pretty robust in common with many she knew but somehow this
doesn't quite gel.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
KirkVin
hate
> against Diana because you continue to call the late princess names just as js
> accused me of generating hate against Charles because I pointed out that he
> never rescheduled his meeting with Burrell . . . .
>
> Well, we need to be consistent, don't we?
Ellie,
I did not accuse you "of generating hate against Charles....Burrell."
js
---------------
Yes, you did. Here's your post:
ME: > I get that from the fact that Charles was supposed to meet with Burrell
but
> was injured that day and cancelled the meeting.
YOU: > Yes, that Charles.... he'll do anything to avoid meeting with Burrell,
even to the point of falling off a horse and getting hurt. And then he didn't
reschedule... perhaps because there are legal considerations after a certain
point in the prosecution.
I'm retired and yet, even I don't have time to generate the hate you have
for the PoW.
js
--------
It was the overall tone of your posts for several days concerning Charles and
Camilla which left me with the distinct impression that you had no use for
either of them, wished both of them ill, and thought everyone should agree with
you.
js
------------
Dana is getting personal about Diana [stupid, slutty], but you just gave her a
pass. Be aware that the open minded among us see your inconsistency.
Ellie
----------------
You said strongly that nothing they did could ever make up for past behavior.
js
---------------
Dana said that. I agreed with her. It's difficult to keep your credibility
when you jump only on my case and not on others who say the same thing.
Ellie
JAGUTMAKER
>Ellie
Open minded? Jean Sue has always come across as open minded and willing to hear
out others, even when she disagrees with them.
Next point:
>I'm retired and yet, even I don't have time to generate the hate you have
>for the PoW.
>js
Jean Sue is *not* saying that you are going out trying to generate hate *in
others* -- only that you have generated it within yourself and that she cannot
generate it within herself. There is a huge difference between saying you are
generating hate *against* him (in other words a campaign of hate) and saying
that JS can't generate the same level of hate that you have.
I think you owe JS an apology.
JAGutmaker
Wull
I have a Mercedes E420 sport car, it will easily
go 150 mph, faster than our Lexus.
One can ride at 100 mph and it does not look fast
at all.
Wull
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Wull
Wull
sacha
jagut...@aol.com wrote on 31/1/03 11:28 pm:
But that is not the exclusive domain of the upper classes. It is simply that
the upper classes, aristocracy and royalty are those discussed in this
group. Adultery occurs right across the board of all class structures. What
doesn't *always* occur as a result is divorce and sometimes - quite often,
I'd suggest - that is because of economic reasons. To divorce and set up
two different homes for whom someone has to pay, is a very expensive
business.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
quondam
>
> in article 3E39E0...@quondam.com, quondam at quo...@quondam.com wrote
> on 1/30/03 21:35:
>
> > Maybe she met Fleiss during her Dodi/Hollywood days. If such a note actually
> > exists
> > (scrawled over a Vogue cover, of all things), it's certainly a joke. Diana
> > thought that sort of
> > thing was very funny -- remember, she carried a vibrator in her purse that was
> > a gift from
> > her sister. -- Q
>
> I quite agree. I can see two young women sitting, having a few drinks and
> getting silly.
>
> My guess they were simply admiring nice buns on someone walking by. Perhaps
> he even jostled the table, hence "rocking my world."
>
> I can see her scribbling the note on something handy... like a Vogue
> magazine... and saying with a giggle, "This will be worth a lot of money
> some day, Heidi. You can retire on it when your looks give out."
>
> js
Yep. I wonder if the note is written in lipstick or eyebrow pencil. -- Q
quondam
>
> --
> The bunk stops here
> "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote in message
> news:BA5FFB14.B502%jea...@bookschlepper.com..
> > nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 1/31/03 6:54:
> >
> > > Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
> > > hysterical or self-absorbed while performing her public duties IIRC.
>
> Yes, what few incidents were glossed over, or never *reported* at all.
> The complaints over the child who refused to smile spring vividly to mind.
How do we know about these incidents if they were never reported at all? -- Q
(rest snipped)
quondam
>
> in article b1do9t$11eojv$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de, Tara O. at
> nos...@yahoo.com wrote on 1/31/03 6:54:
>
> > Diana rarely, if ever, made headlines for being
> > of what we know about her is no more than gossip after the woman died and
> > was unable to defend herself.
>
> Actually, most of what we know about Diana we got from the Morton books and
> the Panorama interview.... IOW, from Diana herself. No one else in the Royal
> Family has ever revealed so much; ever Sarah is more circumspect.
>
I think it would be instructive if somebody prepared a chronology of who revealed what, and
when it was revealed -- assuming somebody hasn't already done this. That would include the
various taped telephone conversations, TV interviews, and books. Maybe I'll do it when I've
got a few minutes.
Certainly, the press was aware of the Waleses respective affairs before anything appeared in
print or aired on television.
I'm not so sure that the material that was shared by Diana through Morton and in the
Panorama interview wasn't already more-or-less widely known. -- Q
NewNom
wrote:
(snipped previous posts for space)
>I think it would be instructive if somebody prepared a chronology of who
>revealed what, and
>when it was revealed -- assuming somebody hasn't already done this. That
>would include the
>various taped telephone conversations, TV interviews, and books. Maybe I'll
>do it when I've
>got a few minutes.
>
>Certainly, the press was aware of the Waleses respective affairs before
>anything appeared in
>print or aired on television.
>
>I'm not so sure that the material that was shared by Diana through Morton and
>in the
>Panorama interview wasn't already more-or-less widely known. -- Q
(Deprecating cough) I did a Charles/Diana timeline for Susan T.'s website.
http://royalnews.home.att.net/charles_diana.html
It's not as comprehensive as what you're suggesting, but here are some dates to
be going on with:
June 7, 1992: First Morton book excerpt in London Sunday Times
August 1992: Squidgygate tape transcript (of a Dec. 1989 conversation) appears
in US National Enquirer, UK Sun and Daily Express.
November 1992: The Sun and Mirror print parts of Camillagate transcript (of
Dec. 1989 phone call); the complete version hits the press in Jan. 1993.
June 29, 1994: Charles's televised interview with J. Dimbleby. The book follows
in October.
Oct 3, 1994: Princess in Love, written by Anna Pasternak with James Hewitt, is
published.
Nov 1994: Morton's second book is published.
Nov 20, 1995: Diana's Panorama interview is televised.
So, even though some of the major revelatory episodes took place earlier, they
weren't revealed until after Morton's book came out. It seems as though that
book opened a new era in royal reporting. It seems as if the gloves were off.
And, whatever might be true for members of the media, I'd say the general
public did *not* know most of what was revealed. Look at the public's reaction.
The book was treated as a bombshell, on both sides of the Atlantic. Sure,
there'd been stories about troubles in the marriage, but not much outside of
the royal magazines, and nothing on that scale - or carrying that much weight.
Wasn't that Diana's whole point? That she had to let people know the truth
behind the facade?
Peggy
quondam
>
> quondam quo...@quondam.com
> wrote:
>
> (snipped previous posts for space)
>
> >I think it would be instructive if somebody prepared a chronology of who
> >revealed what, and
> >when it was revealed -- assuming somebody hasn't already done this. That
> >would include the
> >various taped telephone conversations, TV interviews, and books. Maybe I'll
> >do it when I've
> >got a few minutes.
> >
> >Certainly, the press was aware of the Waleses respective affairs before
> >anything appeared in
> >print or aired on television.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that the material that was shared by Diana through Morton and
> >in the
> >Panorama interview wasn't already more-or-less widely known. -- Q
>
> (Deprecating cough) I did a Charles/Diana timeline for Susan T.'s website.
>
> http://royalnews.home.att.net/charles_diana.html
It's a wonderful page -- I had no idea it was there. IMO, everybody should bookmark it.
>
> It's not as comprehensive as what you're suggesting, but here are some dates to
> be going on with:
>
> June 7, 1992: First Morton book excerpt in London Sunday Times
Morton had published a bio of Diana before 1991, because I worked with him on a project in
the spring of that year, and I had already seen the book. I'm wondering if there was a later
book that also didn't use Diana's tapes, or else whether the 1992 book was simply an updating
of the earlier one. I remember thinking that some of the material he gave to us was a ripoff
of his earlier book.
I notice that in the piece he did for us, a capsule biolgraphy which I have here, he says
nothing at all about Diana's indiscretions -- the material he gave to us to publish talks about
the marriage failing but mentions neither Camilla nor any of Diana's beaux. Possibly he was
already in negotiations at that point to do the book using tapes she was going to make for
him.
>
> August 1992: Squidgygate tape transcript (of a Dec. 1989 conversation) appears
> in US National Enquirer, UK Sun and Daily Express.
>
> November 1992: The Sun and Mirror print parts of Camillagate transcript (of
> Dec. 1989 phone call); the complete version hits the press in Jan. 1993.
>
> June 29, 1994: Charles's televised interview with J. Dimbleby. The book follows
> in October.
In Sept. 1994, "Camilla, the King's Mistress" by Caroline Graham was published. Graham was
(and maybe still is) a reporter with the Sun, and the only sourcing in the book -- which is
extremely anti-Diana and contains a great deal of detail -- seems to be Stuart Higgins.
>
> Oct 3, 1994: Princess in Love, written by Anna Pasternak with James Hewitt, is
> published.
>
> Nov 1994: Morton's second book is published.
In later interviews, Morton claimed that he didn't know for certain what Diana's
relationships were with Gilbey, Hewitt or any of the others. As early as 1988, Diana was
supposedly photographed with Hewitt by a groom who discovered them in the stable. I'd
source this, but I don't have access to the clipping file that was used for this piece.
>
> Nov 20, 1995: Diana's Panorama interview is televised.
>
> So, even though some of the major revelatory episodes took place earlier, they
> weren't revealed until after Morton's book came out. It seems as though that
> book opened a new era in royal reporting. It seems as if the gloves were off.
I'd be interested to know at exactly what point news stories and books began to appear that
hinted that Diana was unstable, where incidents were described. I'm wondering whether
that didn't step up the pressure on her to make her case to the press.
>
> And, whatever might be true for members of the media, I'd say the general
> public did *not* know most of what was revealed. Look at the public's reaction.
> The book was treated as a bombshell, on both sides of the Atlantic. Sure,
> there'd been stories about troubles in the marriage, but not much outside of
> the royal magazines, and nothing on that scale - or carrying that much weight.
There'd been a brief article in McCalls or Ladies Home Journal by Ingrid Seward (I think) in
around 1990. IIRC, it was put in the form of a letter to Diana, and it said, essentially, that
Charles wouldn't be looking for happiness in the arms of C. -- and that initial was used
specifically -- if Diana had been less intent on getting attention for herself. Taking that as
a clue (which indeed it was), we ran a big picture of CPB alongside Charles in 1991.
> Wasn't that Diana's whole point? That she had to let people know the truth
> behind the facade?
I think so, but I also think she did it because things had gotten out of control on all fronts,
the gossip had begun, and she was fearful of the consequences. According to Morton, she
wasn't very good at anticipating the consequences of things -- she seemed to operate
entirely on impulse.
Thanks very very much for that page. It's wonderful. -- Q
>
> Peggy
ALMACKS
mouth to tell *his* driver to slow down?>>
He should have opened up his mouth too. The fact is that the car crash that
killed Dodi and Diana was a horrible tragedy, but it was not one persons fault.
It was Henri's fault for driving drunk. It was Dodi and Diana's fault for not
refusing to get into a car with him after he'd been drinking. It was Trevor
Reese-Jones fault for not insisting that they use a different driver. It was
the papperazzi's fault for hunting them down like wild animals. No one in the
scenario comes off blame free.
Dana
ALMACKS
weren't there>>
I do know that Henri didn't slow down.
Dana
ALMACKS
didn't tell the driver to slow down?>>
If I were in a car being driven at a speed like that, I'd be clinging to the
walls and screaming at the top of my lungs!
Dana
ALMACKS
into this world and raised a century ago, who also became Queen, to a woman
who was born 40 years ago and who didn't become Queen. EB-L's job as Queen
bears no comparison to Diana's life because Diana wasn't Queen with the same
responsibilities or the same influence.>>
The essential basics are the same. A queen today is expected to be of high
moral character, a positive reflection on her country and her family, a credit
to her nation and a person the populace can be proud, not ashamed of.
The exact same was true 100 years ago. Less has changed than you think.
Dana
ALMACKS
women's rights?
Frankly, remembering life for women in the 1950s makes me grateful for
women's lifestyles today.
>>
Actually no, I'm not against "women's rights". I'm all for women's rights.
What I'm against is feminism, a movement that did more to compromise women's
rights than anything else in history.
Dana
ALMACKS
Generation X or Y or one of those.>>
She was born in 1961. She was either a late boomer or an early Xer.
Dana
ALMACKS
> royal princess to behave like a strumpet? I don't think so.
You haven't been to Monaco fo awhile, I take it....>>
LOL! Well, that's not just fine. It's going on but it's not just fine.
I honestly worry about Princess Stephanie. Eventually her family is going to
get sick and tired of bailing her out of messes. Someday that girl is going to
end up miserable and alone and with no one to blame but herself.
Dana
ALMACKS
(raised in a more stringent environment and taught from day one to be above
reproach) have done things similar.>>
I condemn their behavior too. The difference is that Anne isn't constantly
blubbered over by idolizing worshippers who think they can excuse her every
negative act. Diana is.
Dana
ALMACKS
changes with the times. I don't hold people today to behavior standards of
a century ago nor would I hold people from a century ago to today's acceptable
standards of behavior. If I did then every woman who was in a bad marriage,
who had no say in the direction her life took, who had baby after baby when she
didn't want to, and who looked to her husband for
approval on just about every matter outside of knitting would be labeled a weak
and pathetic person in my POV. A woman of today who took hold of her life, who
was responsible for herself and who didn't need a man to guide her would have
been considered a bluestocking and by some, a social outcast a century ago.
Those weren't complimentary labels.>>
And which of these changes excuses Diana's adultery, her suicide attempts, her
hysterics, her crank phone calls?
When did it become acceptable for a woman to behave like a demented tramp?
Dana
andyh
Hey, we all know that..........but, we, including you Dana, don't know what
went on inside that speeding car before the crash. For all we know TRJ or
Dodi could have grabbed the wheel after the yelling and screaming for HP to
slow down didn't work, causing the car to swerve into that 13th pillar.
Mrs.H
ALMACKS
reproach?>>
Depends on how you define the term. Am I perfect? No, I don't think I am. I
have many faults.
I hate any kind of physical effort. I have a lazy streak a mile wide (I could
live very happily in a chaise by a pool sipping an apricot sour and having my
toenails painted). I have a tendency to not follow things through, being all
enthusiastic about a new project for one week and then forgetting it the next.
So no, in that way I'm not "above reproach".
But have I ever seriously harmed another human being in any way? Have I ever
cheated on a person to whom I gave a promise of fidelity? Have I ever betrayed
a trust, lied to a friend, treated a person who cared about me in an unkind
manner? No, I never have.
I'm not perfect. But am I better than Diana? Yes, I am.
Dana
ALMACKS
hate
against Diana because you continue to call the late princess names just as js
accused me of generating hate against Charles because I pointed out that he
never rescheduled his meeting with Burrell . . . .
Well, we need to be consistent, don't we?>>
I never said you were generating hate against Charles. I don't much like
Charles either.
I certainly never said a word about his rescheduling his meeting with Burrell.
I didn't even know he had.
Dana
ALMACKS
instigated by the man, against the woman or there was significant proof of
physical abuse.>>
Depends. My aunt was divorced in the 1940s, and no, she wasn't the only person
on earth who was. She raised two kids alone and was a teacher in the New York
City school system.
The oft-mentioned Wallis Simpson was divorced twice by 1936. Clearly someone
was getting divorced. By the 30s, going on a trip to Reno meant only one thing
and everyone knew what it was.
Certainly, divorce was not as acceptable as it later became (frankly I think
it's become just a tad too acceptable), but there were people who got divorced
and they didn't fall down dead over it.
Dana