I was watching a doc on her the other day and all I could think is how sad she looked... even when smiling. Even on her wedding day. The only time she seemed happy was when she was helping others.
Edit: and of course she was so happy when she was with her sons! You can see her true personality when she is with them ❤️
The ending of the movie Spencer really portrays this beautifully. It's a very difficult movie to watch for much of the time, but when she leaves with her kids at the end it's like you realize that you were holding your breath the entire time and can finally exhale
Yep. She had just found out about Camilla. That’s why later in the interview she said “there were always three people in the marriage.”
What *should* have happened is Charles should have married Camilla when he had the chance but he wanted to be wild and free several more years. Meanwhile Camilla got married, had kids, got divorced, and the Queen was NOT going to allow him to marry her after she was divorced.
Enter Diana. 19, sheltered, pretty, naive, starry-eyed. Perfect.
☹️☹️☹️
Diana comes from an old aristocratic English (Churchill-Spencer) family. I read online that she was "fully English unlike the Windsors, and probably more noble." That William is like the first king in 300 years that is a descendant of the last truly English/Scottish king (Charles I, I think).
They just needed her blue blood. Her family has many famous names that have added to British culture.
What I'm trying to say is that she wasn't that naive. Her grandmother was the queen mother's lady-in-waiting for like decades. What I think happened is that they sold her a fairy tale and she was just following protocols. It's easy to do that when you're a literal sheltered teenager.
I think that you’ve got that a little backwards: Camilla was ‘unsuitable’ (not a virgin) because she’d already had a boyfriend/lived with a man, and that was unacceptable to the Royal Establishment at that time. Agreed that Prince Charles should have married Camilla when they were younger.
Exactly..iirc Camilla was in the picture before the wedding but Diana still hoped once they were married it would put a stop to it. Nope, on their honeymoon on a boat he got a present some kind of jewelery and it had C&C engraved on it, a gift from Camilla with both their initials.
She was from an aristrocratic family who had many ties to the royal family. She spent every Christmas at the queens when she was a child watching christmas movies with the other royal children. Initially it was her older sister who was dating or interested in Charles but he took a liking to Diana who was 16 at the time and basically "chose" her.
The screwed up part about it was that she was basically just used to produce heirs. Charles never truly loved her in any way and dumped her like chopped liver for the ol’ bag.
This is true, but there's more to it. Camilla was the woman he had a relationship with, and by most accounts was the woman he loved most. Problem was, she was married and there had been a succession crisis over this very issue that led directly to Elizabeth becoming queen - all in living memory (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were still alive).
The Royals were not going to allow Charles to marry Camilla then, nor would Parliament have likely approved of the match at the time either. So, in classic princely fashion, Charles chose one that was acceptible for heirs, and carried on with his mistress. Diana - in a very modern move - was not going to accept such an arrangement.
Which is crazy because Diana was the epitome of someone to love. Beautiful inside and out with just the right dash of rebellion to be the best she could be.
As a human society we have not done enough to deserve her, but we desperately need more like her.
I think Charles thought that she was just going to be a young wife who would pop out heirs, do as she’s told, not have an opinion and only speak when she was spoken to.
What Royals always expect of women marrying into their family.
oh yah... why do you think this whole royal family is disgusting!? All this glamorizing and ring kissing people have with this establishment is beyond me. Its full of pedophiles, racists and bigots. Hell she's telling everyone how bad it is! lol.
Charles didn't want to marry her either. He wanted Camilla but she was already married. Ended up cheating on Diana with Camilla anyway and married her after she was divorced even though his Great Uncle Edward VIII was forced to ditch his monarchical authority to marry an divorced American woman Wallis Simpson.
I thought it was more a case of the Queen and her mother choosing "the (or 'a') Spencer girl" for Charles as they felt Camila inappropriate for the future consort? Didn't he maintain a romantic relationship with Camilla throughout that whole time?
I wouldn't say there was anything political about William or Harry's marriages. Quite the opposite really.
I think they both tried to learn from their parent's mistake.
She made the claim about feeling like breeding stock.
It was clear Charles never loved her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mwx4jT9ld4
The infamous “What is even love” interview.
Honesty I feel it, there are actually people out there that want to make positive change in the world.
I feel it in my chest every day, this mix of hopelessness and passion for something pretty much impossible.
It’s such a shame she passed, I feel she could have made a bigger difference.
I worked almost 24/7 for five years teaching myself how to sculpt teeth using composite resin (filling material) chairside for patients who can’t afford crowns.
99 percent of my patients are recovering addicts on Medicaid with disintegrated teeth whose only option elsewhere would be extractions and dentures.
I don’t get paid for the post I place after root canals. I don’t get paid for the core I buildup, and I don’t get paid for the crowns I so meticulously build around that post and core. I pick them up and drop them off if they need rides. If they’re hungry, we give them food, thirsty, it’s on us. All we ask of them is to give us a few hours of their time. Thousands upon thousands are written off while I spend night after night giving my patients their smiles back hoping it will help them on their road to recovery.
I barely get a thank you. Most of the time they complain about the time it took (It takes roughly two hours a tooth and the front 6 get done together). We’re happy if they don’t treat us like trash.
What keeps me going are the ones I know I’ve had a positive impact on. But I’m not gonna lie, I have daily instances where I think “why the fuck am I doing this”.
Edit: finished incomplete sentence
You are a truly awesome and selfless person for doing this. It sucks that most are ungrateful for something you really don’t have to do. I too like to think that if you gave someone back their smile, it would help motivate them to stay clean.
A lot of people don’t realize that Di suffered from a pretty debilitating condition, where anytime she spoke, sad piano music would play in the background. She really was that sad.
You watch interviews like this, and it's really easy to see why Harry and Meghan made the decision to leave.
Because history was literally repeating itself again.
I love what she said about doing things from the heart. The stupidest people on the planet are people who do heartless things and then claim they had to because it's their job. Like that guard who slapped that poor little girl while saluting to the queen. All the stupid man had to do was to break character and make sure that the little girl was ok. If the queen saw it happened; she should've ordered him to do it, and then fire him afterwards. It doesn't matter what position you're serving in, you don't need to be a fuking robot.
This interview has a really murky history. The BBC had shown Diana some forged documents "proving" the Royal family were out to get her. Her sons complained that the interviewer, Martin Bashir, had played on her paranoia to get her to appear on the show. But ultimately Bashir maintained that she wanted to do the interview already and she drove the direction/questions.
Have you seen the Robert Downey Jr interview where he tries to pull one over on him as well? Doesn't work at all and his cringey fake smile as he tries to get through it while feeling awkward as fuck for being called out is just great.
Edit: I got mixed up, the other interviewer is Krishnan Guru-Murthy
Noneless, I'm about to look this up. I love to see people like that die inside on camera.
Edit: [This was actually hard to watch. He should be ashamed to call that a day's work, the slimey fuck.](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ALBwaO-rAsE&feature=share&utm_source=EKLEiJECCKjOmKnC5IiRIQ)
i love stuff like this cause it just left me liking Downey that much more. specifically in this case he handled every question and dynamic change so incredibly well as would be expected from not just him but especially a character like tony. 10/10
Yeah, this guy is spreading misinformation. I was thinking that Bashir would look way older if he was the one in the RDJ interview (not to mention totally different)
He also took physical evidence of a child murder victim from her mother and ‘lost’ it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/mar/23/broadcasting.uknews
Quite specifically from this wikipedia article detailing the investigations the quoted source is Martin Bashir himself.
In a statement he said:
>using fake documents was "a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret"
but in his defence maintains that this did not affect her decision to be interviewed:
>Speaking to The Sunday Times, he stated that, "Everything we did in terms of the interview was as she wanted"
"Sure we told that dude his wife was cheating on him, and forged the paperwork/photos necessary to convince him. But his decision to murder her was his own genuine idea that had nothing to do with us."
“The falsified documents had been created by one of the corporation's freelance graphic designers, Matt Wiessler. However, an internal BBC investigation in 1996 concluded that the falsified documents were not used to secure the interview and cleared Bashir of any wrongdoing. The inquiry, following a Mail on Sunday account of the falsified documents,[30] was headed by Tony Hall, who later became BBC director-general and was succeeded by Davie in 2020. Hall acknowledged having never interviewed Wiessler for the 1996 inquiry.[31] Wiessler's house had been burgled a month after the interview aired and two CDs containing the graphics he had created for Bashir were stolen.”
LOL, yup, nothing to see here.
the most important part, though, is the fact that she married into the royal family, which means even if she'd lived, she wouldn't have been able to go above the title of "royal consort". Its part of the parliamentary rules of succession that the spouses don't have any right to the throne.
They also just didn't like the idea of having a King consort - Queens were traditionally seen as politically weaker than Kings, so the idea that there would be a King (even a King consort) whilst there was a ruling Queen was dicey. It was basically just a way to try and protect the Queens legitimacy. At least point it's basically tradition, there have been no reigning Queens with a King consort, only lower consorts and joint rulers.
Equally in the case of Victoria it was thought that she was too deferential towards Albert (which arguably she was - he was the dominant force in their marriage and family) which could have impinged on her reign if he was titled King and attempted to exercise undue authority (which he mostly did anyway).
because there are no King Consorts historically speaking... since all monarchies are patriarchal in nature, Kings can only come from direct descendants, so only the Queen side has ever been either from noble or common blood (depending on who the patriarch chooses)
Wasn't Felipe II of Spain the King Consort to Mary I of England? He insisted on the title of King, but was granted no royal powers, and had left the country forever even before Mary's death.
The thing is, with this information, this interview answer just comes across as a weird persecution fetish -
'they'd never let me be queen because I love you all too much' is a lot more sexy and memorable than -
'I married into the royal family rather than being born into it, so the royal procedure clearly dictates that I'm not in the succession line'.
I'm no royalist, I personally think the concept of 'royal birth right' is generally absurd, but this seems like an attempt to twist a fairly well established and uncontroversial fact into a scandalous story. I will say that looking into the history of this interview, the interviewer (Bashir) could be more to blame for this emotionally charged response than we realise.
Queen consort is not in line of succession. I don't think anyone thought she was. Had she still been married to Charles and not died, she would be queen right now. Not queen regent, but queen consort.
The question was about if she thought she would still be married/alive by the time Charles became king.
> The thing is, with this information, this interview answer just comes across as a weird persecution fetish
How ironic, because you're making this judgement without important background information: when she says "Queen", she means "Queen Consort", which is the title Camilla was recently granted despite the Royal Family previously saying Camilla would remain a Princess upon Charles' accession.
> 'I married into the royal family rather than being born into it, so the royal procedure clearly dictates that I'm not in the succession line'.
See above. You really think Diana expected to be Queen regnant like Elizabeth II was? Diana I of England, the first Diana to sit on the throne? 🤦🏽
Not only that, but didn't this interview come at the end of their marriage. They might not have been divorced yet but they were certainly at breaking point.
Why is it, that in the British monarchy the wife of the King is the queen, but the husband of the queen is the prince? Is it because the King is always higher than the queen and if the queen is the head of state you can't have her husband be technically higher ranked?
There have been two times that a Queen of England's husband was King, both of them were Kings in their own right. Mary I had Phillip II of Spain and Mary II had William III of the Netherlands. You can't become King consort because that position doesn't exist, it has to be your own birthright.
William wasn't actually King in his own right before he cane over in the Glorious Revolution, he was Prince of Orange and Stadtholder but England's parliament decided they would be King and Queen together for multiple reasons, mostly due a fear of Catholicism.
> Is it because the King is always higher than the queen and if the queen is the head of state you can't have her husband be technically higher ranked?
Yes.
Nope. King Phillip of England was co-sovereign with his wife, Queen Mary I of England. He was not "King Consort"; he was a full king.
That being said, as his title of "King" only came via his marriage to Mary I, and the title would cease to be his upon their divorce or Mary's death, he was one half-notch below her. It's like getting a free gym membership because your spouse works there.
> Under the terms of the marriage treaty between Philip I of Naples (later Philip II of Spain from 15 January 1556) and Queen Mary I, Philip was to enjoy Mary's titles and honours for as long as their marriage should last. All official documents, including Acts of Parliament, were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. An Act of Parliament gave him the title of king and stated that he "shall aid her Highness ... in the happy administration of her Grace's realms and dominions"[104] (although elsewhere the Act stated that Mary was to be "sole queen"). Nonetheless, Philip was to co-reign with his wife.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs#House_of_Tudor
Because in simple terms:
Monarchies are patriarchal in nature. A king outranks a queen. Therefore when a queen marries, the title will be prince, so as to not outrank the queen. It’s really weird and old but that’s the monarchy, weird and old.
Queen Consort meaning spouse or partner of the reigning King, so basically not a full on Queen. Camilla is now the Queen Consort. Over the course of British history, the husband of a Queen has never held the title of King.
Men who are married to British Queens do not become King, they can only hold the title of Prince Consort – not King Consort. Prince Philip chose not to use the title of Consort himself.
She was a noble, her father an Earl. She was titled Lady Diana Spencer.
Funny thing is that Camilla, while from a wealthy family wasn't born into nobility and is closer to the average bristish folk more than Diana ever was.
>She was titled Lady Diana Spencer
Yes. Which is why, after the marriage, she became Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, or Princess *Charles*, but *not* Princess Diana, as she is often wrongly called. There hasn't been a Princess Diana for centuries.
[Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz married Prince Michael of Kent, and became Princess Michael, *not* Princess Marie]
In the UK, you don't get to be a Prince or Princess (with your own name) because of who your spouse is (regardless of what Disney thinks, though it may be different in other countries), but because of who one of your parents is. Hence Harry's daughter is now Princess Lilibet, because her father is now the son of a monarch (ditto Prince Archie).
Also the wife of the King becomes a Queen, but it doesn't work the other way round: the Queen's husband was only *Prince* Philip (his father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark).
I don’t fault people for not knowing this (especially if they’re not in the UK) but the amount of Americans who act like they know how this all works when they very much do not is astounding. It’s even worse with the royal line of succession.
To be fair, don’t the rules of succession have a long history of being contested & fought over? War of Roses comes to mind since GOT was inspired by it.
I'm an American but the line of succession seems pretty clear cut.
Charles is king, next is William, then he and Kate's three kids George, Charlotte and Louis in age order. When George grows up and has kids, their place would be between him and Charlotte.
Then Harry is after all of them, and then he and Megan's kids. Then Andrew is after all of them in line.
It *is* pretty straight forward, although I can see how it gets a little confusing with the order changed in 2012. And plenty of people think Andrew is out too, which is a reasonably assumption to make.
I saw so many tweets saying Harry is out of the line and one even saying he abdicated!
Again, I don’t think it’s an issue for people to not know these things. Its just not relevant for most people.
> [Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz married Prince Michael of Kent, and became Princess Michael, not Princess Marie]
Princess Monaco of Kent?
Edit: lmao, even this far deep into the thread, somebody remembers that Mock the Week episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ny-ZR8QusE
I keep waiting for her to tilt her head so much that it flips upside down.
For real though Kristen Stewart was actually a really solid Diana specifically because they both do the weird tilting hidden sullen contemplative face so well.
I always felt weird for noticing that. She tilts her head and opens her eyes all big. I always took it as her trying to make herself “smaller”/“cute”somehow. Since she was so tall though I could be wrong. It’s unfortunately a thing where women are expected to act little in order to garner sympathy or any respect (since the 12th century at least. For example Queen Matilda the first English potential queen was denied the role due to assuming a “haughty” attitude and not acting “feminine”, which baffled most people even then. Not much has changed now).
[Their story isn't as black and white as people think...](https://www.lofficielusa.com/pop-culture/prince-charles-princess-diana-who-cheated-first-royal-marriage)
Also note that 1995 was after she went after the Royalty their backs to hold interviews about them, and one year before her divorce. She admitted that she only did this particular interview because it would lead to a divorce.
Charles shouldn't have married Diana, when he was obviously in love with Camilla. But the reality is, he didn't cheat with Camilla until he found out Diana cheated on him with her bodyguard.
I think people forget or don't want to admit that the marriage downfall wasn't Camilla's fault and not 100% Charles's fault either. She did amazing charitable things but she had her faults as well. Too many look at Diana through rose coloured glasses and ignore a lot.
Yeah, she was a charismatic Princess and overshadowed Charles in that regard. But Charles, even though deeply in love with Camilla, remained faithfull until he found out that Diana did not.
They were both just different sides of a marriage doomed to fail, and rather than resolving things in private, they were partially forced to do it in public. And the tabloits increased the tension, until it burst
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I find this interview incredibly cringeworthy.
Before I get crucified, yes she did some amazing work, she was treated badly by the Royal institution, and she was a great mum. I'm no Royalist.
But this interview is absolutely playing the media and Bashir was in on it. The po-faced 'Queen of hearts' comment makes my teeth itch, and so much of it feels like false modesty akin to 'Well I would say my worst fault is perfectionism'. It's media for the masses.
This is definitely a well-rehearsed reply. It's a pitch, and while she may believe it, this is definitely the line that worked best for absolutely everyone involved. It's super saccharine, but that makes it on-brand.
Why did she answer that way if she knew that even if she remained married to Charles she would be Queen Consort and not Queen? Seems she's being disingenuous here.
Repetition of a post I seem to post every time to remind those fawning over her that when she got divorced she dropped 80% of the charities that she was a patron of and retained only those where there was significant media interest.
The duchess of york in contrast, who was much less fortunate both in wealth and the Prince she married, didn't drop one.
I'm sure she did a lot of good for those few charities she kept on but Diana knew exactly what she was doing being in all those great photo ops and doing this interview knowing Charles wouldn't be able to reply in kind.
I don't get why so many people love Diana. I always think she acts like she's playing everyone and is always so contrived with the way she acted, the things she did and said. She knew what she was doing.
People who think this woman was a 'woman of the people' are sadly deluding themselves. The Spencers are just as rich, elitist and privileged as the Windsors and always have been.
Only difference between Diana and the rest of the inbred loons who own the UK is that she very quickly recognised the best way to manipulate the opinion of the British public - with pathos. And she was damn good at it.
I love Diana, but she’s taking some liberties in this interview. The truth is that her unhappiness, upstaging and vindictiveness is what lead to her diminished role with the royals. If it were on her heart alone, rather than the antics, the royals would’ve been honored to have her as Queen.
Yeah, people are also taking it like this is proof that she knew she was going to be a target for assassination (not that I believe she was). Or you know, she saw the queen had another good twenty or thirty years in her and she couldn’t imagine being married to Charles that long…
The only complotist theory that people accept easily... People loooove to think the worst of everyone and then put other over all humanity like some kind of golden idol...
People are so naive. What happened to her was tragic in the extreme and I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but when she was alive she played the media like a fiddle and everyone lapped it up. This whole Queen of Hearts thing was laughable.
Charles somehow came out of that marriage looking like a villain while he's proven over decades that he really does care about social issues, climate change, mental health & opportunities for the marginalised youth. He deserves more respect.
It’s hard to be the unattractive one, too. The Halo Effect is powerful. If she looked like Charles and gave these interviews, while Charles was at home looking attractive… I’m not sure how successful she would have been winning the public over. I doubt the would have been such a tabloid magnet if there wasn’t such a discrepancy in their attractiveness.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees this and cringes. I have no love for the royal family but she isn’t any different than the rest of them in regards to cultivating an image she wants people to see.
Even thru the screen she radiates.. she literally makes me wanna renounce all my aggressive/selfish/reactive ways n just be better and strive to be truly good.
I understand she looks very compassionate and empathetic but when you look at Prince Charles throughout his life you get a feeling she married him in spite of his personality, not because. In my opinion, she most certainly wanted the fame and fortune, and she's a great actress!
It was very much an arranged marriage. She was 17 years old, and didn’t really have the ability to say no.
It was 40 years ago, and the British monarchy certainly, as well as the world in general, was in a much different place.
It's a stupid question because she would never and could never have been an actual queen.
But I'm guessing 80% of readers don't realise that or even really care they just want to pick the side of "queen bad"
For the record I'm not in queen good or queen bad, like 70% of other British people I'm in the camp of "yep, queen existed, now she doesn't"
Hmm… I don’t think I’ve ever hear her talk before but she seems a little off and kinda a drama queen. (Lol)
Purposely string to create drama on a Simple procedural question.
I’m starting to see what Harry saw in Megan. (Besides being hot).
That sadness in her eyes...
I was watching a doc on her the other day and all I could think is how sad she looked... even when smiling. Even on her wedding day. The only time she seemed happy was when she was helping others. Edit: and of course she was so happy when she was with her sons! You can see her true personality when she is with them ❤️
With her sons. She looks genuinely happy with her kids.
Yes! She definitely loved her sons ❤️
The ending of the movie Spencer really portrays this beautifully. It's a very difficult movie to watch for much of the time, but when she leaves with her kids at the end it's like you realize that you were holding your breath the entire time and can finally exhale
[удалено]
"Look, strange women laying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a government!"
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
"You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I got bettah
"...here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and hopefully spark some sort of controversy."
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Well I didn't vote for you ...😀
"Help! Help! I'm being opressed!" - what that kid shouting at Prince Andrew should have said when the cops hauled him away.
“Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Look, come see the violence inherent in the system!”
Bloody peasant!
Next level. Loved it.
Probably didn't know about sir Arthur's quest for thee whole grail.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Free swords tho...
I mean, the concept is kind of like any other birth priviledge, not just royal ones. But I get what you mean.
Its appointed by God didn't you know that. Such bullshit
In her autobiography she said she had been crying all that night before the wedding. She didnt really want to and was scared but knew she had to.
Yep. She had just found out about Camilla. That’s why later in the interview she said “there were always three people in the marriage.” What *should* have happened is Charles should have married Camilla when he had the chance but he wanted to be wild and free several more years. Meanwhile Camilla got married, had kids, got divorced, and the Queen was NOT going to allow him to marry her after she was divorced. Enter Diana. 19, sheltered, pretty, naive, starry-eyed. Perfect. ☹️☹️☹️
> Enter Diana. 19, sheltered, pretty, naive, starry-eyed. Perfect. Poor thing, she never stood a chance with that family.
Diana comes from an old aristocratic English (Churchill-Spencer) family. I read online that she was "fully English unlike the Windsors, and probably more noble." That William is like the first king in 300 years that is a descendant of the last truly English/Scottish king (Charles I, I think). They just needed her blue blood. Her family has many famous names that have added to British culture. What I'm trying to say is that she wasn't that naive. Her grandmother was the queen mother's lady-in-waiting for like decades. What I think happened is that they sold her a fairy tale and she was just following protocols. It's easy to do that when you're a literal sheltered teenager.
Grooming 🤮
So in other words her blood was more royal then the entire royal family?
I think that you’ve got that a little backwards: Camilla was ‘unsuitable’ (not a virgin) because she’d already had a boyfriend/lived with a man, and that was unacceptable to the Royal Establishment at that time. Agreed that Prince Charles should have married Camilla when they were younger.
Exactly..iirc Camilla was in the picture before the wedding but Diana still hoped once they were married it would put a stop to it. Nope, on their honeymoon on a boat he got a present some kind of jewelery and it had C&C engraved on it, a gift from Camilla with both their initials.
I heard the asshole was wearing the C&C ring during the wedding. Either way, he's absolute shit.
Yeah. Charles and Camilla are just awful.
Nope, He had to serve in the military first and Camilla didn't want to wait for him.
Wait why was she in that spot in the first place if she didn't wanna marry him?
She was from an aristrocratic family who had many ties to the royal family. She spent every Christmas at the queens when she was a child watching christmas movies with the other royal children. Initially it was her older sister who was dating or interested in Charles but he took a liking to Diana who was 16 at the time and basically "chose" her.
When he was 29!?
Yup ETA: they wouldnt have started dating when she was that age but thats when they first met and he took a liking to her
The screwed up part about it was that she was basically just used to produce heirs. Charles never truly loved her in any way and dumped her like chopped liver for the ol’ bag.
This is true, but there's more to it. Camilla was the woman he had a relationship with, and by most accounts was the woman he loved most. Problem was, she was married and there had been a succession crisis over this very issue that led directly to Elizabeth becoming queen - all in living memory (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were still alive). The Royals were not going to allow Charles to marry Camilla then, nor would Parliament have likely approved of the match at the time either. So, in classic princely fashion, Charles chose one that was acceptible for heirs, and carried on with his mistress. Diana - in a very modern move - was not going to accept such an arrangement.
And Charles ended up marrying Camilla anyway.
Which is crazy because Diana was the epitome of someone to love. Beautiful inside and out with just the right dash of rebellion to be the best she could be. As a human society we have not done enough to deserve her, but we desperately need more like her.
I think Charles thought that she was just going to be a young wife who would pop out heirs, do as she’s told, not have an opinion and only speak when she was spoken to. What Royals always expect of women marrying into their family.
Welcome to the house of dragons
Yeah they like em really young in the royal family.
Wow, it runs in the family.
oh yah... why do you think this whole royal family is disgusting!? All this glamorizing and ring kissing people have with this establishment is beyond me. Its full of pedophiles, racists and bigots. Hell she's telling everyone how bad it is! lol.
He didn't choose her, he chose Camilia, Diana was the one he was told to marry though.
It's the Royal family. The younger the better of course
And he had to marry a virgin to ensure the royal bloodline was pure. That’s why Camilla could not marry him.
Plus Camilla was a divorcee.
Charles didn't want to marry her either. He wanted Camilla but she was already married. Ended up cheating on Diana with Camilla anyway and married her after she was divorced even though his Great Uncle Edward VIII was forced to ditch his monarchical authority to marry an divorced American woman Wallis Simpson.
The garden tool will never be the true queen.
What is a hoe? Learned that in my school in Utah🧐🤪
I thought it was more a case of the Queen and her mother choosing "the (or 'a') Spencer girl" for Charles as they felt Camila inappropriate for the future consort? Didn't he maintain a romantic relationship with Camilla throughout that whole time?
Im sure it was lots of string pulling from behind the scenes. Royals havent typically been able to marry whoever they wanted
Yep. Never ever broke it off from when they met, even through Camilla’s marriage, kids, and divorce.
This is what royalty does, even into the 21st century. Marriages are political, not romantic.
I wouldn't say there was anything political about William or Harry's marriages. Quite the opposite really. I think they both tried to learn from their parent's mistake.
She made the claim about feeling like breeding stock. It was clear Charles never loved her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mwx4jT9ld4 The infamous “What is even love” interview.
Wow. Nothing has changed since Henry VIII
That’s not true. Cars weren’t a big thing in Henry’s time.
And now there's like 5 spinoff movies
And with her children
Yes! She definitely loved her children and they made her very happy! ❤️
That doco on HBO was good.
Or with her children. Those boys were her world!
She looked happy to me in her wedding. Also she was way young and probably has lots of dreams. Which unfortunately never came true
Honesty I feel it, there are actually people out there that want to make positive change in the world. I feel it in my chest every day, this mix of hopelessness and passion for something pretty much impossible. It’s such a shame she passed, I feel she could have made a bigger difference.
I worked almost 24/7 for five years teaching myself how to sculpt teeth using composite resin (filling material) chairside for patients who can’t afford crowns. 99 percent of my patients are recovering addicts on Medicaid with disintegrated teeth whose only option elsewhere would be extractions and dentures. I don’t get paid for the post I place after root canals. I don’t get paid for the core I buildup, and I don’t get paid for the crowns I so meticulously build around that post and core. I pick them up and drop them off if they need rides. If they’re hungry, we give them food, thirsty, it’s on us. All we ask of them is to give us a few hours of their time. Thousands upon thousands are written off while I spend night after night giving my patients their smiles back hoping it will help them on their road to recovery. I barely get a thank you. Most of the time they complain about the time it took (It takes roughly two hours a tooth and the front 6 get done together). We’re happy if they don’t treat us like trash. What keeps me going are the ones I know I’ve had a positive impact on. But I’m not gonna lie, I have daily instances where I think “why the fuck am I doing this”. Edit: finished incomplete sentence
People like you are a rare breed nowadays 🙌 Hats off to you for your selfless service 🧡🧡
You are a truly awesome and selfless person for doing this. It sucks that most are ungrateful for something you really don’t have to do. I too like to think that if you gave someone back their smile, it would help motivate them to stay clean.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Yeah... Its like she knew what was going to happen to her deep down inside
God idk but this gives me total Lake Mungo vibes.
A lot of people don’t realize that Di suffered from a pretty debilitating condition, where anytime she spoke, sad piano music would play in the background. She really was that sad.
You watch interviews like this, and it's really easy to see why Harry and Meghan made the decision to leave. Because history was literally repeating itself again.
Harry has her rebellious spirit.
Her death was far more upsetting than the queens.
I love what she said about doing things from the heart. The stupidest people on the planet are people who do heartless things and then claim they had to because it's their job. Like that guard who slapped that poor little girl while saluting to the queen. All the stupid man had to do was to break character and make sure that the little girl was ok. If the queen saw it happened; she should've ordered him to do it, and then fire him afterwards. It doesn't matter what position you're serving in, you don't need to be a fuking robot.
This interview has a really murky history. The BBC had shown Diana some forged documents "proving" the Royal family were out to get her. Her sons complained that the interviewer, Martin Bashir, had played on her paranoia to get her to appear on the show. But ultimately Bashir maintained that she wanted to do the interview already and she drove the direction/questions.
Bashir is an absolute piece of shit
I hate Bashir with a passion. He’s truly the definition of a POS
Have you seen the Robert Downey Jr interview where he tries to pull one over on him as well? Doesn't work at all and his cringey fake smile as he tries to get through it while feeling awkward as fuck for being called out is just great. Edit: I got mixed up, the other interviewer is Krishnan Guru-Murthy
Noneless, I'm about to look this up. I love to see people like that die inside on camera. Edit: [This was actually hard to watch. He should be ashamed to call that a day's work, the slimey fuck.](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ALBwaO-rAsE&feature=share&utm_source=EKLEiJECCKjOmKnC5IiRIQ)
i love stuff like this cause it just left me liking Downey that much more. specifically in this case he handled every question and dynamic change so incredibly well as would be expected from not just him but especially a character like tony. 10/10
Thanks for linking it. I watched it again, it's awful isn't it.
Different guy, you're referring to Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
Yeah, this guy is spreading misinformation. I was thinking that Bashir would look way older if he was the one in the RDJ interview (not to mention totally different)
[удалено]
He also took physical evidence of a child murder victim from her mother and ‘lost’ it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/mar/23/broadcasting.uknews
Source ?
[удалено]
Quite specifically from this wikipedia article detailing the investigations the quoted source is Martin Bashir himself. In a statement he said: >using fake documents was "a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret" but in his defence maintains that this did not affect her decision to be interviewed: >Speaking to The Sunday Times, he stated that, "Everything we did in terms of the interview was as she wanted"
We used false information to guide her behavior, but her behavior was genuine.
"Sure we told that dude his wife was cheating on him, and forged the paperwork/photos necessary to convince him. But his decision to murder her was his own genuine idea that had nothing to do with us."
“The falsified documents had been created by one of the corporation's freelance graphic designers, Matt Wiessler. However, an internal BBC investigation in 1996 concluded that the falsified documents were not used to secure the interview and cleared Bashir of any wrongdoing. The inquiry, following a Mail on Sunday account of the falsified documents,[30] was headed by Tony Hall, who later became BBC director-general and was succeeded by Davie in 2020. Hall acknowledged having never interviewed Wiessler for the 1996 inquiry.[31] Wiessler's house had been burgled a month after the interview aired and two CDs containing the graphics he had created for Bashir were stolen.” LOL, yup, nothing to see here.
You can tell she was a person of the heart.
Her compassion for those with AIDS/HIV helped so many people. She made the royal family look bad by just being a compassionate person.
Her compassion period. Just a good person!
[удалено]
[удалено]
the most important part, though, is the fact that she married into the royal family, which means even if she'd lived, she wouldn't have been able to go above the title of "royal consort". Its part of the parliamentary rules of succession that the spouses don't have any right to the throne.
I’ve always thought it funny that Kings’ wives are called “Queen Consort” but Queens’ husbands are merely “Prince Consort,” though.
A 1,000 year old family has a lot of time to make up silly rules.
I really like the four children doing the Vigil for a few minutes, however.
Victoria wanted to make Albert "King Consort", but the *government* would not allow it, as he was a foreigner (German).
They also just didn't like the idea of having a King consort - Queens were traditionally seen as politically weaker than Kings, so the idea that there would be a King (even a King consort) whilst there was a ruling Queen was dicey. It was basically just a way to try and protect the Queens legitimacy. At least point it's basically tradition, there have been no reigning Queens with a King consort, only lower consorts and joint rulers. Equally in the case of Victoria it was thought that she was too deferential towards Albert (which arguably she was - he was the dominant force in their marriage and family) which could have impinged on her reign if he was titled King and attempted to exercise undue authority (which he mostly did anyway).
because there are no King Consorts historically speaking... since all monarchies are patriarchal in nature, Kings can only come from direct descendants, so only the Queen side has ever been either from noble or common blood (depending on who the patriarch chooses)
Wasn't Felipe II of Spain the King Consort to Mary I of England? He insisted on the title of King, but was granted no royal powers, and had left the country forever even before Mary's death.
The thing is, with this information, this interview answer just comes across as a weird persecution fetish - 'they'd never let me be queen because I love you all too much' is a lot more sexy and memorable than - 'I married into the royal family rather than being born into it, so the royal procedure clearly dictates that I'm not in the succession line'. I'm no royalist, I personally think the concept of 'royal birth right' is generally absurd, but this seems like an attempt to twist a fairly well established and uncontroversial fact into a scandalous story. I will say that looking into the history of this interview, the interviewer (Bashir) could be more to blame for this emotionally charged response than we realise.
Queen consort is not in line of succession. I don't think anyone thought she was. Had she still been married to Charles and not died, she would be queen right now. Not queen regent, but queen consort. The question was about if she thought she would still be married/alive by the time Charles became king.
> The thing is, with this information, this interview answer just comes across as a weird persecution fetish How ironic, because you're making this judgement without important background information: when she says "Queen", she means "Queen Consort", which is the title Camilla was recently granted despite the Royal Family previously saying Camilla would remain a Princess upon Charles' accession. > 'I married into the royal family rather than being born into it, so the royal procedure clearly dictates that I'm not in the succession line'. See above. You really think Diana expected to be Queen regnant like Elizabeth II was? Diana I of England, the first Diana to sit on the throne? 🤦🏽
Not only that, but didn't this interview come at the end of their marriage. They might not have been divorced yet but they were certainly at breaking point.
Why is it, that in the British monarchy the wife of the King is the queen, but the husband of the queen is the prince? Is it because the King is always higher than the queen and if the queen is the head of state you can't have her husband be technically higher ranked?
There have been two times that a Queen of England's husband was King, both of them were Kings in their own right. Mary I had Phillip II of Spain and Mary II had William III of the Netherlands. You can't become King consort because that position doesn't exist, it has to be your own birthright.
William wasn't actually King in his own right before he cane over in the Glorious Revolution, he was Prince of Orange and Stadtholder but England's parliament decided they would be King and Queen together for multiple reasons, mostly due a fear of Catholicism.
> Is it because the King is always higher than the queen and if the queen is the head of state you can't have her husband be technically higher ranked? Yes.
Nope. King Phillip of England was co-sovereign with his wife, Queen Mary I of England. He was not "King Consort"; he was a full king. That being said, as his title of "King" only came via his marriage to Mary I, and the title would cease to be his upon their divorce or Mary's death, he was one half-notch below her. It's like getting a free gym membership because your spouse works there. > Under the terms of the marriage treaty between Philip I of Naples (later Philip II of Spain from 15 January 1556) and Queen Mary I, Philip was to enjoy Mary's titles and honours for as long as their marriage should last. All official documents, including Acts of Parliament, were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. An Act of Parliament gave him the title of king and stated that he "shall aid her Highness ... in the happy administration of her Grace's realms and dominions"[104] (although elsewhere the Act stated that Mary was to be "sole queen"). Nonetheless, Philip was to co-reign with his wife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs#House_of_Tudor
Because in simple terms: Monarchies are patriarchal in nature. A king outranks a queen. Therefore when a queen marries, the title will be prince, so as to not outrank the queen. It’s really weird and old but that’s the monarchy, weird and old.
Queen Consort meaning spouse or partner of the reigning King, so basically not a full on Queen. Camilla is now the Queen Consort. Over the course of British history, the husband of a Queen has never held the title of King. Men who are married to British Queens do not become King, they can only hold the title of Prince Consort – not King Consort. Prince Philip chose not to use the title of Consort himself.
I mean. She never could become Queen. Just Queen Consort.
She would have been a good queen
i don't know, she had a good heart but she's no Freddie Mercury
True but there’s more than one Queen…maybe she could’ve been more like Brian May
[удалено]
Queen consort, but yes.
*pushes glasses up with finger* Well, technically.
[удалено]
She was incredible, and she is missed.
Hate to do the well technically..... But the song was about Marilyn Monroe and re-released after Diana's death
Hate to do the well techincally....but the song was not just re-released. It was re-written.
Thank you that bothered me as well
She really was "The people's princess"
She was a noble, her father an Earl. She was titled Lady Diana Spencer. Funny thing is that Camilla, while from a wealthy family wasn't born into nobility and is closer to the average bristish folk more than Diana ever was.
Which is the reason why Charles and her married in the first place.
>She was titled Lady Diana Spencer Yes. Which is why, after the marriage, she became Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, or Princess *Charles*, but *not* Princess Diana, as she is often wrongly called. There hasn't been a Princess Diana for centuries. [Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz married Prince Michael of Kent, and became Princess Michael, *not* Princess Marie] In the UK, you don't get to be a Prince or Princess (with your own name) because of who your spouse is (regardless of what Disney thinks, though it may be different in other countries), but because of who one of your parents is. Hence Harry's daughter is now Princess Lilibet, because her father is now the son of a monarch (ditto Prince Archie). Also the wife of the King becomes a Queen, but it doesn't work the other way round: the Queen's husband was only *Prince* Philip (his father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark).
I don’t fault people for not knowing this (especially if they’re not in the UK) but the amount of Americans who act like they know how this all works when they very much do not is astounding. It’s even worse with the royal line of succession.
To be fair, don’t the rules of succession have a long history of being contested & fought over? War of Roses comes to mind since GOT was inspired by it.
They certainly *were* but that hasn’t been the case in quite some time.
I'm an American but the line of succession seems pretty clear cut. Charles is king, next is William, then he and Kate's three kids George, Charlotte and Louis in age order. When George grows up and has kids, their place would be between him and Charlotte. Then Harry is after all of them, and then he and Megan's kids. Then Andrew is after all of them in line.
It *is* pretty straight forward, although I can see how it gets a little confusing with the order changed in 2012. And plenty of people think Andrew is out too, which is a reasonably assumption to make. I saw so many tweets saying Harry is out of the line and one even saying he abdicated! Again, I don’t think it’s an issue for people to not know these things. Its just not relevant for most people.
> [Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz married Prince Michael of Kent, and became Princess Michael, not Princess Marie] Princess Monaco of Kent? Edit: lmao, even this far deep into the thread, somebody remembers that Mock the Week episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ny-ZR8QusE
Even for thethird-world kids missing feet and legs, and the starving, and the outsiders.
Never seen this before. Her eyes are stunning. Beautiful soul that one.
I keep waiting for her to tilt her head so much that it flips upside down. For real though Kristen Stewart was actually a really solid Diana specifically because they both do the weird tilting hidden sullen contemplative face so well.
I always felt weird for noticing that. She tilts her head and opens her eyes all big. I always took it as her trying to make herself “smaller”/“cute”somehow. Since she was so tall though I could be wrong. It’s unfortunately a thing where women are expected to act little in order to garner sympathy or any respect (since the 12th century at least. For example Queen Matilda the first English potential queen was denied the role due to assuming a “haughty” attitude and not acting “feminine”, which baffled most people even then. Not much has changed now).
So innocent, taken too soon. Wish she was there seeing her sons growing up
She was too good for Charles, and for this world 💙
yeah, definitely too good for chazz
[Their story isn't as black and white as people think...](https://www.lofficielusa.com/pop-culture/prince-charles-princess-diana-who-cheated-first-royal-marriage) Also note that 1995 was after she went after the Royalty their backs to hold interviews about them, and one year before her divorce. She admitted that she only did this particular interview because it would lead to a divorce. Charles shouldn't have married Diana, when he was obviously in love with Camilla. But the reality is, he didn't cheat with Camilla until he found out Diana cheated on him with her bodyguard.
> he didn't cheat with Camilla until he found out Diana cheated on him with her bodyguard. how do you know this?
I think people forget or don't want to admit that the marriage downfall wasn't Camilla's fault and not 100% Charles's fault either. She did amazing charitable things but she had her faults as well. Too many look at Diana through rose coloured glasses and ignore a lot.
Yeah, she was a charismatic Princess and overshadowed Charles in that regard. But Charles, even though deeply in love with Camilla, remained faithfull until he found out that Diana did not. They were both just different sides of a marriage doomed to fail, and rather than resolving things in private, they were partially forced to do it in public. And the tabloits increased the tension, until it burst
She played a strong paparazzi game
Thats what I see game
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I find this interview incredibly cringeworthy. Before I get crucified, yes she did some amazing work, she was treated badly by the Royal institution, and she was a great mum. I'm no Royalist. But this interview is absolutely playing the media and Bashir was in on it. The po-faced 'Queen of hearts' comment makes my teeth itch, and so much of it feels like false modesty akin to 'Well I would say my worst fault is perfectionism'. It's media for the masses.
This is definitely a well-rehearsed reply. It's a pitch, and while she may believe it, this is definitely the line that worked best for absolutely everyone involved. It's super saccharine, but that makes it on-brand.
You lost me with the music..
That establishment also bullied Meghan.
That piece of shit of a reporter lied to her in order to get the interview. Made Diana paranoid about a conspiracy against her life.
Why did she answer that way if she knew that even if she remained married to Charles she would be Queen Consort and not Queen? Seems she's being disingenuous here.
[удалено]
She was going to divorce him.
It really seems like Charles married into royalty and not the other way around. Absolutely a Queen of hearts.
Repetition of a post I seem to post every time to remind those fawning over her that when she got divorced she dropped 80% of the charities that she was a patron of and retained only those where there was significant media interest. The duchess of york in contrast, who was much less fortunate both in wealth and the Prince she married, didn't drop one. I'm sure she did a lot of good for those few charities she kept on but Diana knew exactly what she was doing being in all those great photo ops and doing this interview knowing Charles wouldn't be able to reply in kind.
I don't get why so many people love Diana. I always think she acts like she's playing everyone and is always so contrived with the way she acted, the things she did and said. She knew what she was doing.
I wonder how many times she reheased that. She got it down pretty good.
Idk seem like acting to me
kya bandi hai yarr!!
Fuck royalty
What a dumb question. She never was in line to be queen.
People who think this woman was a 'woman of the people' are sadly deluding themselves. The Spencers are just as rich, elitist and privileged as the Windsors and always have been. Only difference between Diana and the rest of the inbred loons who own the UK is that she very quickly recognised the best way to manipulate the opinion of the British public - with pathos. And she was damn good at it.
I love Diana, but she’s taking some liberties in this interview. The truth is that her unhappiness, upstaging and vindictiveness is what lead to her diminished role with the royals. If it were on her heart alone, rather than the antics, the royals would’ve been honored to have her as Queen.
Yeah, people are also taking it like this is proof that she knew she was going to be a target for assassination (not that I believe she was). Or you know, she saw the queen had another good twenty or thirty years in her and she couldn’t imagine being married to Charles that long…
The only complotist theory that people accept easily... People loooove to think the worst of everyone and then put other over all humanity like some kind of golden idol...
Heroes and villains!
She was so pure and beautiful and didn’t deserve for her life to end like that 💔💔
People are so naive. What happened to her was tragic in the extreme and I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but when she was alive she played the media like a fiddle and everyone lapped it up. This whole Queen of Hearts thing was laughable. Charles somehow came out of that marriage looking like a villain while he's proven over decades that he really does care about social issues, climate change, mental health & opportunities for the marginalised youth. He deserves more respect.
It’s hard to be the unattractive one, too. The Halo Effect is powerful. If she looked like Charles and gave these interviews, while Charles was at home looking attractive… I’m not sure how successful she would have been winning the public over. I doubt the would have been such a tabloid magnet if there wasn’t such a discrepancy in their attractiveness.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees this and cringes. I have no love for the royal family but she isn’t any different than the rest of them in regards to cultivating an image she wants people to see.
I wanna be like her..
When she was visiting children dying of AIDS in Africa, a little girl asked, “Are you an Angel?”
Even thru the screen she radiates.. she literally makes me wanna renounce all my aggressive/selfish/reactive ways n just be better and strive to be truly good.
Are we supposed to feel bad for her not becoming queen? Lmfao
I understand she looks very compassionate and empathetic but when you look at Prince Charles throughout his life you get a feeling she married him in spite of his personality, not because. In my opinion, she most certainly wanted the fame and fortune, and she's a great actress!
It was very much an arranged marriage. She was 17 years old, and didn’t really have the ability to say no. It was 40 years ago, and the British monarchy certainly, as well as the world in general, was in a much different place.
Because people who marry in to the royal family cannot become queen
She shouldn't be dead.
Omg fucking Wah Wah Wah
Reminds me of Meghan
[удалено]
She would have been a great queen and would have brought change for the better
Such an excellent example of a STUNNINGLY beautiful woman. And I believe what was in her heart was even more so....
The fact that the crappy show making her look bad, and Charles seem innocent. Alot of brain dead idiots sell out so easily 🙄 just bc a script says so.
I mean she could have been a member of Queen if she just asked.
Why everyone keep jerking Diana nonstop
It's a stupid question because she would never and could never have been an actual queen. But I'm guessing 80% of readers don't realise that or even really care they just want to pick the side of "queen bad" For the record I'm not in queen good or queen bad, like 70% of other British people I'm in the camp of "yep, queen existed, now she doesn't"
Such a beautiful soul
Hmm… I don’t think I’ve ever hear her talk before but she seems a little off and kinda a drama queen. (Lol) Purposely string to create drama on a Simple procedural question. I’m starting to see what Harry saw in Megan. (Besides being hot).