Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« What Limits to Parental Influence? | Main | Interesting Takes on "KenKanRyu" (嫌韓流) »

November 21, 2005

Comments

ACB

As I recal, Prince Charle's charming and vivasious wife wasted absolutely no time in having sex with at least three other men, all in the same time that he managed to talk dirty on a cell pone.

He might have seen another woman first, but she was the one who took it all the way.

Abiola Lapite

Seeing as her husband stopped sleeping with her as soon as she'd produced the Spare to the Heir, what exactly would you have had her do in the face of such blatant infidelity on his part?

dsquared

sadly this is just another example of the stopped clock theorem; one of the random points at which the utterly predictable prejudices of a late-middle-aged English bore happen to touch reality.

Jim

"Seeing as her husband stopped sleeping with her as soon as she'd produced the Spare to the Heir, what exactly would you have had her do in the face of such blatant infidelity on his part?"

Face up to reality maybe. They had an old-fashioned marriage - he married her to produce hiers, nothing more, nothing less - and she must have known that going in. What did she expect, a modern love match? Or did she imagine she could turn him around?

Abiola Lapite

"What did she expect, a modern love match?"

What, you expect a 19 year old virgin without a single "O" level to her name and no more work experience than being a nursery school assistant to have the jaded and amoral worldview of a horsey-faced nag whose opening approach to her prey was to tell him that one of her ancestors was a sexual plaything of one of his?

All the evidence is that Diana did indeed go into the marriage in love with her husband, but considering how sheltered she'd been up until that point - the very reason Charles and Camilla chose her, by the way - it's hardly surprising that she should have done so, and I don't think Diana would have married Charles were she aware of the cynical attitude he was bringing to the union.

ACB

Their marriage was pretty much arranged by their families, I doubt that they would have married had Charle's not been pressured into it.

He had to marry somebody with the rigt status and the right background. I'm pretty sure that he would have married Camila instead of Diana if he had been allowed to.

As for the sex, how many of you out there are women. Having two children KILLS your sex life.

The facts reamin, while he had a single relationship, based on a past relationship, and in private, she had multiple affairs in public and she reveled in the attention that she was getting.

At least Chales made an effor to keept his relationship secret.

Abiola Lapite

First you say:

"Having two children KILLS your sex life."

Then you also say:

"The facts reamin, while he had a single relationship, based on a past relationship, and in private, she had multiple affairs in public and she reveled in the attention that she was getting."

Don't you even see the contradiction there?

"At least Chales made an effor to keept his relationship secret."

Yes, that's why the newspapers caught him meeting with Camilla just days after announcing his engagement to Diana.

Your original post was fascinating, but it's clear you really don't know very much at all about Chucky the Philanderer's past. His subjects have plenty of reason to despise him for it.

Jim

"What, you expect a 19 year old virgin without a single "O" level to her name and no more work experience than being a nursery school assistant to have the jaded and amoral worldview"

What is so sacred about an "O" level? Even illiterate girls from hill tribes in Laos can recognize an arranged marriage when they see one. They, unlike Diana, have the intelligence to appreciate the opportunity, and like Diana, have about the same qualifications to make a way for themselves in the world.

And I still think that moron treated a decent woman like dirt.

Abiola Lapite

"What is so sacred about an "O" level?"

There's nothing sacred about it, which is precisely the point: the damn things are bl**dy easy to get, and yet she didn't manage to get a single one. Diana knew nothing about pretty much anything, and that is exactly the reason why Camilla suggested her to Charles as the appropriate dupe to bear his children.

"Even illiterate girls from hill tribes in Laos can recognize an arranged marriage when they see one."

Yes, because they're *used* to seeing them. How was a naive, sheltered English girl supposed to recognize that the man pretending to be in love with her was faking it? How many English girls do you suppose are still virgins at 19 anyway? She'd probably never even had a boyfriend before meeting Chucky.

Jim

"How was a naive, sheltered English girl supposed to recognize that the man pretending to be in love with her was faking it? "

That's true. He treated her like shit, from beginning to end.

And I was not trying to justify arranged marriages. Diana was born into a backward, traditional situation where she was worked into a bad marriage. She might as well have been forced to wear veils in public.

CCBoyd

A failed marriage belongs to two people. One of them may have done a far superior job at spinning her woe and casting blame, but it takes two to keep a marriage afloat.

After all this time we still hear Charles blamed for loving an older, less attractive woman, as if that's nearly impossible. But we all know better. What interests did they share? Her interests in disco dancing and pop culture were up against his tendency toward history and nature. Can anyone admit they were a mismatch from both angles? And that at least Charles, while admitting his own affair, NEVER discussed her many affairs, her narcissism, bulimia, self-aggrandizing flaunting of herself?

Abiola Lapite

"A failed marriage belongs to two people."

Oh please! Every time some cad runs off to cheat with an old flame his wife's to blame too? Marvellous logic you've got there.

"What interests did they share? Her interests in disco dancing and pop culture were up against his tendency toward history and nature."

Perhaps the 31 year old heir to the throne should have thought of that before proposing to a 19 year old ingenué; instead your poor old Chuckie the Jughead chose Diana *because* he hoped to exploit her ignorance to his own ends, never banking on the possibility that she'd develop star-power far outshining his own pompous self.

"And that at least Charles, while admitting his own affair, NEVER discussed her many affairs, her narcissism, bulimia, self-aggrandizing flaunting of herself?"

Imagine the cheek of the woman daring to have psychological problems after being treated like a glorified incubator by a heartless and snobbish family and a selfish, arrogant husband? How dare the slut seek romance outside of the marital bed just because her husband had stopped sleeping with her years before? And who the hell was this woman to "flaunt herself" by participating in charities for AIDS orphans and landmine victims anyway, when she ought to have been shut up in Kensington palace like an old spinster? The sheer nerve of the woman!

You Charlie-boy defenders really are breathtaking pieces of work. I wrote this article to give him a rare bit of praise, but your hamhanded defenses of this middle-aged brat only serve to remind me of why I held him in such contempt to begin with - the cause of Charles Windsor rehabilitation would have been better served if those who champion it weren't so given to uttering total crap when silence was an alternative.

Anderson

Good grief, Abiola. Get a grip. Diana's public caterwauling was a carefully planned tactic -- don't let it send you over the edge.

Diana may have had "psychological problems", but they certainly pre-existed her marriage. She and Charles had similar childhoods, lonely and neglected. Was it any surprise they couldn't solve each other's emotional problems?

Diana wasn't a fool or an unwitting dupe. She stayed virginal, as planned by her family, and was in on the big marital scheme. Girls usually take some role in the plans, don't they? The overly romantic view of marriage is one many of us had. And many of us got divorced.

But most of us got on with our lives, and left the ex behind. We didn't waste our time bitterly bemoaning our fate, and claiming victimhood. (And no one I know walked away with 17 million pounds!) Her stories confided to Andrew Morton dwell on her unhappiness, but never told of any positive plans to shape her own life. Does it ever pay to play the victim? Couldn't we all complain up a storm if we wanted to? But where does it get you? Many of us showed poor judgement in our youth. It's no crime, but it wasn't our ex-husband's fault either.

We average divorcees didn't keep living in the husband's mansion, we took charge of our lives and moved to houses of our own. A step down in luxury is nothing compared to the joy of ownership and privacy! We took our maiden names with pride, and got jobs. Diana might be alive and happy if she'd done the same, rather than staking her identity to the royals, then complaining she had no independence or privacy.

Charles was the target of her unhappy complaints, but she couldn't manage to keep friends or family relationships either. While Charles has loyal friends of a lifetime, Diana feuded with absolutely everyone except her father. Mother, sisters, brother, hired help, friends famous and not -- all were frozen out as she turned on them for "letting her down". Are all these failed relationships Charles' fault?

Diana's love of the victim role led to fans like Abiola, above, responding with sympathy and adoration. But basing one's identity on one's wronged status, and claiming endless public sympathy is a loser's game. Diana would have been better off trading in the role of tragic wounded victim, and taking on the powerful role of a woman who's fate was hers to mold.

Abiola Lapite

"Diana's public caterwauling was a carefully planned tactic -- don't let it send you over the edge."

Perhaps you ought to take your own advice? Your completely empirically unfounded - and frankly conspiracy-minded - insinuation that she was a scheming little gold-digger hardly speaks to your sterling command of your rational faculties or your respect for evidence-based argumentation.

"Diana wasn't a fool or an unwitting dupe. She stayed virginal, as planned by her family, and was in on the big marital scheme. Girls usually take some role in the plans, don't they?"

Are you an intimate of the Spencer family? Are you privy to sources the rest of us don't know about? If not, where do you get off presuming to speak for her staying virginal as part of some big "plan?" And for the record, one has to be pretty thick to leave school without a single "O" level, so prima facie, your claim that she wasn't a "fool or an unwitting dupe" is pure nonsense.

"But most of us got on with our lives, and left the ex behind. We didn't waste our time bitterly bemoaning our fate, and claiming victimhood."

Good for you, but you didn't marry and then have your marriage breakdown in full view of the entire planet either, so you're hardly in any position to be doling out such cheap advice.

"A step down in luxury is nothing compared to the joy of ownership and privacy!"

Yeah, like you and everyone else who watches TV or reads the gossip weeklies would simply have allowed her to disappear into anonymity even if that was what she'd wanted ... Maybe you ought to refresh your memory on what she was fleeing when she died before repeating such an inanity.

"Diana's love of the victim role led to fans like Abiola, above, responding with sympathy and adoration."

By god that's stupid! Perhaps when you've stopped rehearsing your "I'm every woman" speech for a second you can actually point out instances of my "adoration" of Diana.

"But basing one's identity on one's wronged status, and claiming endless public sympathy is a loser's game."

And yet that is what Diana's "victim" is not only doing but what YOU are trying to do for him on here. Oh the irony!

Spare me the tiresome regurgitation of Oprah-style, self-affirming babble, why don't you. I don't think I've seen so much vacuous Horatio Algeresque "Willpower! Boostraps!" flapdoodle in years.

Anderson

"Like you and everyone else who watches TV or reads the gossip weeklies would simply have allowed her to disappear into anonymity "

Yes, being high profile takes some handling. Yet famous women remake their lives (while being publicly observed) all the time. From Jennifer Aniston to Jackie O, they use their strength to go on and start anew. They don't make a career of complaining about the unfairness of their plight.

"Are you an intimate of the Spencer family? Are you privy to sources the rest of us don't know about? If not, where do you get off presuming to speak for her staying virginal as part of some big 'plan?' "

Not an intimate, just a person with a good memory. You force me to find the quote, which I remember from an interview, thanks to Diana's unusual use of the word "tidy". Here it is, from NBC video:

"All my friends had boyfriends but not me because I knew somehow I had to keep myself very tidy for whatever was coming my way."

You can look it up.

Prima facie, your angry opinions are uninformed and overemotional. But I do think if Diana had half your anger and bile she wouldn't have descended into self-pity and woebegone PR. I'd do my best to stop any loved one from playing the victim like Diana did. You may defend it, but look where she ended up.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers