Interesting article - Harry the trauma exhibitionist.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

I wasn’t addressing you,

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

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.

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

Germanshepherdsmum

I wasn’t addressing you,

Doesn't mean I can't respond.

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 …

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.

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

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.

You obviously don’t understand the concept of quoting a particular poster and responding to them.

If you don’t like the thread why are you here?

Anniebach

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

But not Charles's? Oh I think she would have wanted to be there, dressed up to the nines. getting all the press attention. I suppose Camilla might have blocked her. But that would have got the press going.

Germanshepherdsmum

You obviously don’t understand the concept of quoting a particular poster and responding to them.

If you don’t like the thread why are you here?

I do actually.

Who said I didn't like, its you that said 'if you can't say anythin nice....' if that's one of your principles, why are you on a thread that was set up to say nasty things about a couple?'

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.
How many of the many posters on here who have experienced divorce, would expect to be invited to their ex-husband’s next marriage, or even, to invite the ex-husband to their own new marriage? Attending William’s or Harry’s marriage, Diana would have been with family of the groom.

Mollygo

^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.^
How many of the many posters on here who have experienced divorce, would expect to be invited to their ex-husband’s next marriage, or even, to invite the ex-husband to their own new marriage? Attending William’s or Harry’s marriage, Diana would have been with family of the groom.

So?
Camilla's ex was at the coronation, so Diana would have been.

I hope if she had lived she would have overcome her need for the cameras,she would be 62 years old now

Anniebach

I hope if she had lived she would have overcome her need for the cameras,she would be 62 years old now

So 62 year olds can't look good or want their picture in tthe papers?