What is so great about Princess Diana?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was a promiscuous husband stealer, a fantasist and a narcissist. Completely mad as a box of frogs.

But she looked nice and she was kind to those less fortunate than her...

She wasn't promiscuous. And she did a lot more than "be nice." Get your fat ass of the couch and go clock in some volunteer hours, PP.

She was very promiscuous AFTER she married. She had at least four affairs during her marriage and one of them likely produced Prince Harry. After her divorce, she took off where she left off with Oliver Hoare and moved quickly to Hasnat Khan who she pursued so intensely that the sisters on his surgical wing were instructed not to let her in the area. Fayed was just for the luxe life she liked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was a promiscuous husband stealer, a fantasist and a narcissist. Completely mad as a box of frogs.

But she looked nice and she was kind to those less fortunate than her...

She wasn't promiscuous. And she did a lot more than "be nice." Get your fat ass of the couch and go clock in some volunteer hours, PP.

She was very promiscuous AFTER she married. She had at least four affairs during her marriage and one of them likely produced Prince Harry. After her divorce, she took off where she left off with Oliver Hoare and moved quickly to Hasnat Khan who she pursued so intensely that the sisters on his surgical wing were instructed not to let her in the area. Fayed was just for the luxe life she liked.

You need to buy a dictionary. Being unfaithful or adulterous doesn't mean you are promiscuous. She shouldn't have suffered during her sexual prime just b/c Charles couldn't stand up to his mommy and marry the woman he was having sex with who wasn't his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She used that attention for causes she cared about - AIDS patients, world poverty, land mines.

This is what was so great about Princess Diana.

She was unique bc she actually did something "useful" as a royal...like helping others, charities' fundraisers, etc. She did more than any other royal did in generations. One if the reasons she was so highly favored by the public.
Plus, Charles always had an eye for Camila so the public felt bad for Diana in that regard too.
See how the points are adding up in her favor? I could go on about her apoeal, down to earth (she came across as so relatable esp when William and Harry were born), she had a pretty face, etc.

You are ridiculous. Prince Philip just retired from his royal duties at age 96 and remains the patron of over 700 charities. If you want to applaud the work of anyone start with him. Or even the Queen who has worked everyday for the last 70 years to help England to her fullest extent.

He called himself a professional plaque in-veiler. He's grossly racist and a national joke. Isn't it past you biddies' bedtime?

[Anonymous]

Charles couldnt marry Camilla at that time becaise she was already married.

Really you Americans need to give up on this one. You know jothing.

[Anonymous]

Fayed wasn't just for the luxe life but someone who could provide a buffer from the paparazzi:
https://www.google.com/search?q=paparazzi+princess+diana&prmd=inv&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=aFVvNPgI50MZKM%253A%252CV-zA0h5Ee3XzDM%252C_%253BXiOIy0VhRLTWPM%253A%252CzJTAoBfDmSaD0M%252C_%253BieAa1R4bgUsNZM%253A%252CWG5lcZDboGcMoM%252C_%253BN7mrNuUMnc3lTM%253A%252CzvyQNi4Nyoa7QM%252C_%253BKLjKCuIOG6waEM%253A%252C69y5Ndiw3GRXPM%252C_%253BCqHgueSIgjKNoM%253A%252C2tVlXBgphUcj5M%252C_%253BSD173OYxUS6F_M%253A%252CbXajO2ZYFJC9hM%252C_%253B6elP9zP3grMWWM%253A%252C5niscQawNHB5yM%252C_%253BSLYisGijMiExhM%253A%252C4h1tA7racspGDM%252C_%253BYfLgIytzgGkryM%253A%252CMgsofDR_Wi11JM%252C_&usg=__Nkl4eFNz1BXlIyC5uVOVhi01apA%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXj_f15NrVAhXLTSYKHboLCHMQ7AkIWQ&biw=667&bih=375&dpr=2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles couldnt marry Camilla at that time becaise she was already married.

Really you Americans need to give up on this one. You know jothing.

We josomething. A British king invented divorce for royals. She could have divorced her husband and married Charles. Rather than him to carry on his affair and marry someone else. He didn't do the right thing, but he did do the hypocritical British thing.

Ps to pp Diana was 9 days on the yacht not a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was a promiscuous husband stealer, a fantasist and a narcissist. Completely mad as a box of frogs.

But she looked nice and she was kind to those less fortunate than her...

She wasn't promiscuous. And she did a lot more than "be nice." Get your fat ass of the couch and go clock in some volunteer hours, PP.

She was very promiscuous AFTER she married. She had at least four affairs during her marriage and one of them likely produced Prince Harry. After her divorce, she took off where she left off with Oliver Hoare and moved quickly to Hasnat Khan who she pursued so intensely that the sisters on his surgical wing were instructed not to let her in the area. Fayed was just for the luxe life she liked.

You need to buy a dictionary. Being unfaithful or adulterous doesn't mean you are promiscuous. She shouldn't have suffered during her sexual prime just b/c Charles couldn't stand up to his mommy and marry the woman he was having sex with who wasn't his wife.

I have the Oxford Unabridged. How many sexual partners are needed to distinguish between unfaithful and adulterous which you condone and promiscuous which you defend? Surely someone of your sort understands promiscuity well enough to make the distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She used that attention for causes she cared about - AIDS patients, world poverty, land mines.

This is what was so great about Princess Diana.

She was unique bc she actually did something "useful" as a royal...like helping others, charities' fundraisers, etc. She did more than any other royal did in generations. One if the reasons she was so highly favored by the public.
Plus, Charles always had an eye for Camila so the public felt bad for Diana in that regard too.
See how the points are adding up in her favor? I could go on about her apoeal, down to earth (she came across as so relatable esp when William and Harry were born), she had a pretty face, etc.

You are ridiculous. Prince Philip just retired from his royal duties at age 96 and remains the patron of over 700 charities. If you want to applaud the work of anyone start with him. Or even the Queen who has worked everyday for the last 70 years to help England to her fullest extent.

He called himself a professional plaque in-veiler. He's grossly racist and a national joke. Isn't it past you biddies' bedtime?

No, I am 18 and better informed about the royal family than a simple American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles couldnt marry Camilla at that time becaise she was already married.

Really you Americans need to give up on this one. You know jothing.

We josomething. A British king invented divorce for royals. She could have divorced her husband and married Charles. Rather than him to carry on his affair and marry someone else. He didn't do the right thing, but he did do the hypocritical British thing.

Ps to pp Diana was 9 days on the yacht not a month.

That's right and prior to that she was in London for 3 weeks without her sons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles couldnt marry Camilla at that time becaise she was already married.

Really you Americans need to give up on this one. You know jothing.

We josomething. A British king invented divorce for royals. She could have divorced her husband and married Charles. Rather than him to carry on his affair and marry someone else. He didn't do the right thing, but he did do the hypocritical British thing.

Ps to pp Diana was 9 days on the yacht not a month.

[Anonymous]

It was fun at the time to follow her, but the media keeps rehashing her, and its just old and tired now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles couldnt marry Camilla at that time becaise she was already married.

Really you Americans need to give up on this one. You know jothing.

We josomething. A British king invented divorce for royals. She could have divorced her husband and married Charles. Rather than him to carry on his affair and marry someone else. He didn't do the right thing, but he did do the hypocritical British thing.

Ps to pp Diana was 9 days on the yacht not a month.

Your ignorance is astounding. It was until Charles married Camilla recently against the law for a monarch or future monarch to marry someone who was divorced. Henry VIII may have invented divorce to get rid of his wives, but this rule lasted long after his death.

Now shut up and eat your in-and-out burger and go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was a promiscuous husband stealer, a fantasist and a narcissist. Completely mad as a box of frogs.

But she looked nice and she was kind to those less fortunate than her...

She wasn't promiscuous. And she did a lot more than "be nice." Get your fat ass of the couch and go clock in some volunteer hours, PP.

She was very promiscuous AFTER she married. She had at least four affairs during her marriage and one of them likely produced Prince Harry. After her divorce, she took off where she left off with Oliver Hoare and moved quickly to Hasnat Khan who she pursued so intensely that the sisters on his surgical wing were instructed not to let her in the area. Fayed was just for the luxe life she liked.

You need to buy a dictionary. Being unfaithful or adulterous doesn't mean you are promiscuous. She shouldn't have suffered during her sexual prime just b/c Charles couldn't stand up to his mommy and marry the woman he was having sex with who wasn't his wife.

I have the Oxford Unabridged. How many sexual partners are needed to distinguish between unfaithful and adulterous which you condone and promiscuous which you defend? Surely someone of your sort understands promiscuity well enough to make the distinction.

Having indiscriminate sex in a careless manner is the crux of the definition:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promiscuous

Your crumpet's stuck, PP.

[Anonymous]

British royals (and all royals for that fact) are the worst kind of human beings who have raped, cheated, and stolen from anyone they were able to. So sad to see people, particularly us Americans who continue to "revel in and worship" the likes of English royalty. We should aspire to better examples of humans who have actually done something for the human race, rather than shamelessly take from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:British royals (and all royals for that fact) are the worst kind of human beings who have raped, cheated, and stolen from anyone they were able to. So sad to see people, particularly us Americans who continue to "revel in and worship" the likes of English royalty. We should aspire to better examples of humans who have actually done something for the human race, rather than shamelessly take from it.

Oh if only you wrote in English!