ŷ������

That seems odd - a waterslide in jacket weather? :)

Amy wrote: "That seems odd - a waterslide in jacket weather? :)"

Could be that the jackets kept them from walking around the park soaking wet. Alternatively, an autumn day may have been the only opportunity they had to go to an amusement park? 🤷‍♂��

In any case, still less out of place than the bodyguard, he went down the waterslide with William in a full suit and tie :)

I have to say that I wouldn't read this book but I am really enjoying your updates and readings your thoughts and introspection!

Dang sounds like this is an extreme Diana bashing book

Laura wrote: "I have to say that I wouldn't read this book but I am really enjoying your updates and readings your thoughts and introspection!"

Thanks, Laura! I appreciate it. I'm happy you're enjoying the updates.

Brittany wrote: "Dang sounds like this is an extreme Diana bashing book"

I don't know if I'd necessarily say that this is Diana-bashing. I would say that the book does favor Charles' side slightly, though overall I'd say it's fairly even-handed. Personally, I don't believe that Diana was the spotless saint we all remember her as.

Through the latter half of her marriage and into the early years following their separation, she was known to be a good deal vindictive toward Charles and the Royal family in general, and understandably so considering how she was treated. She had openly discussed her many suicide attempts and poor mental health, which has been corroborated by staff and friends, so it's no secret that she had a volatile temperament.

I think in her own words she admitted to deliberately undermining Charles, though I'd have to check the footnotes about whether she's on record as saying this herself or whether it's something a friend heard her say.

Even though I don't care enough about the royal family to read this myself, I agree with Laura. I do enjoy reading your updates.

Chad wrote: "Even though I don't care enough about the royal family to read this myself, I agree with Laura. I do enjoy reading your updates."

I'm happy to hear that, Chad! I do keep that in mind, when I write updates, that people who might not be interested in the book or subject matter could still find it interesting or amusing :)

Jayson wrote: "She had openly discussed her many suicide attempts and poor mental health, which has been corroborated by staff and friends, so it's no secret that she had a volatile temperament."

Careful Jayson, it sounds like you're calling her an hysterical female. Poor mental health and suicide attempts due to the treatment she endured should have been handled better. She should have had more support. I've not read this or any Diana biographies, so I am by no means an authority, but as heir to the British throne, he is always going to come out looking shinier, she was always going to be vilified by default. She might not have been a saint, but I don't believe he ever did right by her.

Harry LEFT THE ROYAL FAMILY to get Meghan away from that environment, and she was forced to tell everyone about her own suicidal struggles in order for the public to take her seriously. There may not actually be any parallel, but I'm just pointing out the coincidences to highlight how women are so often referred to as hysterical or attention-seeking in order to undermine them, and it's sickening. Does this take attention away from Diana's less-than-saint-like behavior? I just think they're separate, her affairs shouldn't invalidate her poor mental health.

Sorry, I think some of my frustration is also over your note about Diana being the fun parent: perhaps having fun with her sons was her only escape from royal life, the only time she got to show them a normal childhood. What choice did she have but to do it in public? As people watched her every minute of her royal life. And who else was going to help those boys have fun and any semblance of a childhood? If not Charles, then by definition, he wasn't involved, forget appearing to be uninvolved, he was uninvolved. Was someone preventing him from taking his sons to amusement parks? This may have just been public perception, they might have been perfectly happy with their arrangement.

Again, what do I know? I haven't read anything about this. I'm American, what does my opinion even matter?

Ashley wrote: "Jayson wrote: "She had openly discussed her many suicide attempts and poor mental health, which has been corroborated by staff and friends, so it's no secret that she had a volatile temperament."

..."

Ashley: I will have to read the book myself. But based on the selected quotes, and everything else I have read over the years, Diana was always going to be painted in a darker light than Charles. Was she perfect? Absolutely not, but it is easy to look back now and see how much pain she was in. In what my son refers to as the 19s: anytime in the 1900s) mental health was never as openly accepted to deal with as it has become in recent years. To play devil's advocate to my own opinion, I am sure that a monarchy was less receptive to mental health than the open public. Having lived IN America my entire life, I honestly do not know a lot about the healthcare system and the way that mental health care has evolved, but I can imagine it was similarly taboo at the time and for many other "royals" that were supposed to represent strength and leadership.

Ashley wrote: "Careful Jayson, it sounds like you're calling her an hysterical female. Poor mental health and suicide attempts due to the treatment she endured should have been handled better. She should have had more support."

By her own words, she tried to kill herself at least five times. I don't know whether that counts the time she threw herself down a staircase while pregnant. Whether people might find it problematic for me stating that fact, or saying that it's indicative of a volatile temperament, or the combination of the two, I have no control over what people think things I say sound like. People can say anything I write sounds like anything they want, if I start letting that factor into things I write, I may as well not write anything at all.

Ashley wrote: "I've not read this or any Diana biographies, so I am by no means an authority, but as heir to the British throne, he is always going to come out looking shinier, she was always going to be vilified by default."

I would argue that the exact opposite has happened.

Ashley wrote: "There may not actually be any parallel, but I'm just pointing out the coincidences to highlight how women are so often referred to as hysterical or attention-seeking in order to undermine them, and it's sickening. Does this take attention away from Diana's less-than-saint-like behavior? I just think they're separate, her affairs shouldn't invalidate her poor mental health."

Oh, I'm not factoring in her affairs at all. Personally, I'm of the belief that past 1987, they had something of an open marriage, and so I wouldn't count affairs against her character at all. All I'm taking into account here is her temperament and personality. To say that she's no saint is based on first-hand accounts of houseguests and various palace staff. That's no knock on her, we're all flawed people.

Ashley wrote: "What choice did she have but to do it in public? As people watched her every minute of her royal life. And who else was going to help those boys have fun and any semblance of a childhood? If not Charles, then by definition, he wasn't involved, forget appearing to be uninvolved, he was uninvolved. Was someone preventing him from taking his sons to amusement parks?"

Oh, there's always a choice. Charles had as much time with the boys as Diana did, but his time with them was always in the countryside, out of the public gaze. I'm sure they had fun with him too, just a different sort. Also, yes, something was preventing him from taking his sons to amusement parks, Charles is simply not an amusement park sort of guy.

Ashley wrote: "Again, what do I know? I haven't read anything about this. I'm American, what does my opinion even matter?"

Oh, everyone's opinions matter. Even the less informed :)

Brittany wrote: "I will have to read the book myself. But based on the selected quotes, and everything else I have read over the years, Diana was always going to be painted in a darker light than Charles."

I would respectfully disagree. Not even considering how history has painted both figures since her death, she was always much more popular than Charles and more highly esteemed by the public. In fact, it's the jealously over how people preferred her to him that contributed in part to the breakdown of their marriage.

Brittany wrote: "To play devil's advocate to my own opinion, I am sure that a monarchy was less receptive to mental health than the open public."

Perhaps so, but Charles certainly wasn't. He and Diana were both seeing mental health professionals during their marriage and for a time afterward. He even helped set her up with a therapist after the separation.