Jaavisst: You over estimate her influence. She might have changed taste in fashion but that is it, if she had lived longer. Just another product of media with no control of others and barerly her self.
rohaan: Everyone’s experience “counts”. I’ve been around long enough to know that wealth and status aren’t immune from Life’s problems, and we’re seeing a renewal of Diana’s frustration with Meaghan Windsor. Be that as it may, I want to point out that both these women were/ are formally educated and well-heeled. In short, they both knew the world they were joining; Diana was acutely aware of Charles’ infatuation with now Duchess Of Cornwall. (Neither lady can read the baby act..) I spent a huge chunk of my career advocating for people who called wet cardboard and tin pail lids home… I’m not trying to be mean, but given that, I find it difficult to weep for a spoiled actress/princess worth hundreds of millions of dollars who is “ stressed by it all”. Then don’t marry a prince, FFS…
Yeah, I don't think that's quite fair, Rohaan.
Diana was a baby when she got engaged. She was only 19 years old, y'know that age where we do stupid things not because we're stupid, but because we haven't had enough time to a accumulate much knowledge. Even the brain isn't fully developed at that age, it isn't fully 'hard wired' and teenagers often don't fully see the consequences of their actions.
Diana was a member of the nobility before entering the inner circle of the royal family, which is a whole different ball game. In-laws can be tricky for a lot of people at the best of times, never mind when there's a unique culture like the British royal famly. How can anyone know, or fully understand what they're joining without growing up in it?
To fit into that inner circle, someone either has to have the right skill set to adapt and/or have lots of support/training for the role. Whatever opinions we may hold regarding having a monarchy, marrying into it is as much, if not more, about accepting unique employment with a complex job description as it is about family.
There are a number of ways that a child can be a 'spoilt princess'. Having lots of dosh doesn't necessarily feed the soul, but the poorest of families can be royalty in their own way.
jac_the_gripper: Yeah, I don't think that's quite fair, Rohaan.
Diana was a baby when she got engaged. She was only 19 years old, y'know that age where we do stupid things not because we're stupid, but because we haven't had enough time to a accumulate much knowledge. Even the brain isn't fully developed at that age, it isn't fully 'hard wired' and teenagers often don't fully see the consequences of their actions.
Diana was a member of the nobility before entering the inner circle of the royal family, which is a whole different ball game. In-laws can be tricky for a lot of people at the best of times, never mind when there's a unique culture like the British royal famly. How can anyone know, or fully understand what they're joining without growing up in it?
To fit into that inner circle, someone either has to have the right skill set to adapt and/or have lots of support/training for the role. Whatever opinions we may hold regarding having a monarchy, marrying into it is as much, if not more, about accepting unique employment with a complex job description as it is about family.
There are a number of ways that a child can be a 'spoilt princess'. Having lots of dosh doesn't necessarily feed the soul, but the poorest of families can be royalty in their own way.
Society needs to be much more prosperous in general to wanna hear about how being materially privileged has left you emotionally neglected. Harry's crying is not going to go down well unless a lot more people become middle class a lot more easily.
I seem to remember that you have confused me before with somebody else. I starting to think you have a touch of paranoia! I don't have any other profiles and if you do have problem with "Lee" take it up with him instead of puking over my comments. It may come as an surprise but more then one person might think differently then you. Not that I am defending "Lee" because I don't know him and I can honestly don't remember anything he wrote, if it's "Lee charming" you mean? I really don't read a lot of the stuff people post. It becomes a yada, yada, way to often. I tend to post my view of things and leave it at that. So go bicker with "Lee" If it makes him and you happy! Leave me alone with your bad language comments! And I have no idea what a puff-ball frock is, but it's sounds like a bad thing. Is it even Queens English?
I always admired her love for children...and how she would bend to look them in the eyes when she talked to them.
She also went to hospitals and physically AIDS patients when the world was ostracizing them. She raised money for AIDS research and helped take the stigma from the disease.
The impact she had on me...thankful I am not famous..and do not have the paparazzi hounding me to death.
gonelikethewimd: I’m thinking it doesn’t really matter now, does it?
Prince Charles raised him...DNA does not make a father.
Under normal circumstances it wouldn't matter at all. It would start to matter if he became in a position to be in line for 'the throne' in royal protocol terms...
Selenite: Under normal circumstances it wouldn't matter at all. It would start to matter if he became in a position to be in line for 'the throne' in royal protocol terms...
Psst! Sel. C'm 'ere.
The whole Windsor line is illigitimate and the true monarch, if he's still alive, is an Aussie bloke. Don't tell anyone.
Selenite: Under normal circumstances it wouldn't matter at all. It would start to matter if he became in a position to be in line for 'the throne' in royal protocol terms...
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).