Interesting article - Harry the trauma exhibitionist.

Germanshepherdsmum

You can only ‘respond’ to a comment addressed to you. Otherwise you’re just butting in. As my mother always said, if you can’t say something nice …

This is not a private conversation, it is a public forum abnd butting is acceptable. I'm not really interested in what your mum had to say but this whole thread was to berate Harry and Meghan and say vile things about them.

Diana wouldn’t have been included in public ceremonies, she would have attended William’s coronation,

Daddima

Smileless2012

No, that's not permitted when the only reason for doing so was to make money and that *Glorianny was the only reason he did it.

He has lied. She has lied. Unsubstantiated slurs have been placed on his family by both of them, and all for money and fame. Good grief, even the Archbishop of Canterbury had to speak out about the 'wedding' 3 days before the actual wedding that of course *never took place.

I very much doubt that the untimely death of his wife, the mother of his children, was ever regarded by Charles as convenient. What an awful thing to suggest.

Lady Colin Campbell’s book about Diana, where very many of her sources are named, and situations she quotes seem to me to be verifiable, says that relations between Charles and Diana had vastly improved before she died. She even writes that Diana would not have objected to him marrying Camilla, so surely that would mean her death could not be called ‘convenient’?
Another thing she wrote which I found interesting was that Diana was hoping to offload Paul Burrell to a Hollywood celebrity,as he was becoming too intrusive.

It's actually nothing to do with who is married to who but of accepted protocol at the ceremonies the royals love. Where do you put a king's ex-wife, the mother of a future king? That's why it's convenient-no one had to worry about her.

You can only ‘respond’ to a comment addressed to you. Otherwise you’re just butting in. As my mother always said, if you can’t say something nice …

Germanshepherdsmum

I wasn’t addressing you,

Doesn't mean I can't respond.

Charles and Camilla had started making public appearances together shortly before Diana died, these stopped for quite some time after the accident

That's right Daddima, by all accounts they were getting on much better than they had been for years but even if that hadn't been the case, to suggest that a father would find the untimely death of his ex wife, the mother of his children "convenient" in my opinion is horrible.

I don’t think she was naive, either. Quite manipulative- not necessarily in a bad way but there you go.

I wasn’t addressing you,

You're not in a court of law. You're gossiping on a forum telling us Diana was not naive.

Mollygo

Whatever the law can twist it to mean,
it’s clear enough.
Hearsay- I hear someone say it
It means you weren’t there and heard it from a third party.
If you were there and saw it, it’s not hearsay.

If X tells me Y said something to him, that is not, in law, hearsay. If I then tell someone else that X told me Y had said such and such, that is hearsay. X’s evidence evidence in court of what Y said would be allowed. My evidence as to what X told me Y had said would not. There’s no twisting.

Germanshepherdsmum

There was nothing my friend shouldn’t have said to me WellsRose, but do you seriously think I’m going to repeat it on a public forum?

You're happy to tell us that Diana wasn't naive though!

There was nothing my friend shouldn’t have said to me WellsRose, but do you seriously think I’m going to repeat it on a public forum?

Smileless2012

No, that's not permitted when the only reason for doing so was to make money and that *Glorianny was the only reason he did it.

He has lied. She has lied. Unsubstantiated slurs have been placed on his family by both of them, and all for money and fame. Good grief, even the Archbishop of Canterbury had to speak out about the 'wedding' 3 days before the actual wedding that of course *never took place.

I very much doubt that the untimely death of his wife, the mother of his children, was ever regarded by Charles as convenient. What an awful thing to suggest.

Lady Colin Campbell’s book about Diana, where very many of her sources are named, and situations she quotes seem to me to be verifiable, says that relations between Charles and Diana had vastly improved before she died. She even writes that Diana would not have objected to him marrying Camilla, so surely that would mean her death could not be called ‘convenient’?
Another thing she wrote which I found interesting was that Diana was hoping to offload Paul Burrell to a Hollywood celebrity,as he was becoming too intrusive.

Glorianny

I think almost any young womans under the age of 20 can be described as a bit naive. Of course many of them put on a show when in public of pretending to be worldly wise,
I wonder how much the shooting parties actually saw of her. She was at school until 1978,then living in London. And described by her brother as "a bit shy" But what would he know?

Definitely! Predatory men are attracted to younger women not because of their bodies but because they're easy to manipulate.

Germanshepherdsmum

I am not trying to blacken anyone’s name, nor am I gutless as you so charmingly put it.

You've implied that Diana wasn't naive but won't explain why you think that. I take it your friend wasn't supposed to discuss this with you.

M0nica

Yes, but he has a living to earn and its his only saleable asset!

Yes he does but he has/had a large inheritance from his mother and was also left money by The late Queen Mother, now possibly an inheritance from the late Queen. He was given a large sum of money by his father to help him establish his new life. He also has a position with the mental health company BetterUp, his annual salary is said to be six figures. If he had purchased a more modest home and taken advice on how to invest the money he could have done the humanitarian and charitable work he claimed he wanted to do in his new life.

I think almost any young womans under the age of 20 can be described as a bit naive. Of course many of them put on a show when in public of pretending to be worldly wise,
I wonder how much the shooting parties actually saw of her. She was at school until 1978,then living in London. And described by her brother as "a bit shy" But what would he know?

Whatever the law can twist it to mean,
it’s clear enough.
Hearsay- I hear someone say it
It means you weren’t there and heard it from a third party.
If you were there and saw it, it’s not hearsay.

I am not trying to blacken anyone’s name, nor am I gutless as you so charmingly put it.

Of course you're not obliged and I'm entitled to think that trying to blackened someone's name without saying why is gutless.

WellsRose

Germanshepherdsmum

I can’t divulge that.

Oh why bring them up then?

Why not bring it up? I can say somebody told me something without being obliged to reveal the details.

Mollygo

Having heard someone else’s opinion is hearsay.
Knowing something that you’re not at liberty to release, is like not knowing it at all.

That’s not quite right in law but never mind. People often don’t understand what hearsay is,

Yes I realised that. 😊

Germanshepherdsmum

My friend’s comments to me are not hearsay. If I were to repeat them, which I never would, what I said would be hearsay.

Fair enough.

It wasn't directed at you, it's a comment about all the absolute assertions about the Royal Family on the thread when most people know no more than they have read in the media.
The same media which they profess to despise and disbelieve when media stories about certain other members of the Royal Family are printed.