@divegeester saidHe should not have been wearing his hat in front of the Queen. He should have kept his marmalade sandwich in his duffel coat or in his [REDACTED].
No it’s the real Paddington Bear.
@shallow-blue saidActually I think I am being completely fair, and I don’t see what Wallace Simpson has to do with it, nor for that matter whether or not you have graced any of my posts with a thumb up, anonymous or otherwise, albeit we agreed on that particular posted element.
Well, yes. So she had no need to go to, potentially still dangerous, recent war zones and take, if not a great risk, still a greater risk than had she stayed in Blenheim Palace with her footman.
Come on, be fair. If you're willing to point out her faults, also give her her due. If I'm willing to be fair to both you and suzianne (and I have, in fact, given both of you ...[text shortened]... never was anything but a socialite. Diana could've done the same, but chose not to, however minorly.
Diana’s landmine photoshoot was just that, a photoshoot and I simply don’t believe that she was in any danger whatsoever of stepping on one.
I flatly refuse to infect my own sense of decency and common sense with any of this unbelievably still ongoing ludicrous fanaticism over this long dead woman.
@divegeester saidYet here your are babbling about it! 🙂
Actually I think I am being completely fair, and I don’t see what Wallace Simpson has to do with it, nor for that matter whether or not you have graced any of my posts with a thumb up, anonymous or otherwise, albeit we agreed on that particular posted element.
Diana’s landmine photoshoot was just that, a photoshoot and I simply don’t believe that she was in any danger ...[text shortened]... on sense with any of this unbelievably still ongoing ludicrous fanaticism over this long dead woman.
-VR
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@divegeester saidWell, no. Her involvement went rather beyond the single image you remember.
Diana’s landmine photoshoot was just that, a photoshoot
07 Jun 22
@shallow-blue saidObviously you were there so know exactly what happened!
Well, no. Her involvement went rather beyond the single image you remember.
Like the rest of us you heard many things then come to your own conclusion.
-VR
@shallow-blue saidOf course, but I was talking about the photoshoot just being a photoshoot and not a walk through an actual minefield.
Well, no. Her involvement went rather beyond the single image you remember.
08 Jun 22
@divegeester saidNo, what you're talking about is a bunch of people chasing her late at night and appears everyone was drinking trying to get pictures. How fast you think they were going?
Of course, but I was talking about the photoshoot just being a photoshoot and not a walk through an actual minefield.
-VR
08 Jun 22
@torunn saidHad he married Camilla instead, do you think there would have been heirs?
I partly agree with you. She was privileged and moved in privileged circles. The thing I feel very uncertain of is - did she really know what she was doing marrying prince Charles, before it was too late? He was already in love with another woman who was also in love with him - a bad start for a marriage of that dignity. Sure it has happened before in the royal history but the individual pain and embarrassment is still the same.
The Royal Family was in desperate need of new genes.
@shallow-blue saidThe rank misogyny on display here rankles, especially when it is accompanied by giving Charles a pass.
I'm sorry, suzi, but that is an astoundingly naive way of looking at someone who was, after all, the alpha bitch of the Sloane Rangers. (Look that term up, you might learn something surprising.) She knew very well what she was going for, and it was status, not love. Being a brood mare was all part of her own plan at least as much as theirs.
As for discarding... ...[text shortened]... n a dare. No, he was not perfect, but she was rather further away from being a saint than he.