I know I'll get hung for this or in Marged's case guillotined ! but although I think it was a tragedy that Diana died so young. I personally thought that when it suited her she loved the attention of the media, and most of the time she was a bit of a whinger. You can't afford to be weak when you are the mother of the future King. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marged <marged@btinternet.com> To: Angela <titina23@spidernet.com.cy>; <GEN-FRIENDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [GEN-FRIENDS] England and St George. > France? Never looked back! Troubles yes, but not because the people are > starving whilst only the King is allowed to hunt! > > I don't think it was a good idea for Diana OR Charles to go public the way > they did, and the Queen doesn't need to do it. > > Diana was only 21 or 22 when she married Charles, with no experience. She > didn't know her husband had a long-term mistress that he was not going to > give up. > > The media had more respect for privacy in those days - all America knew > about the Prince of Wales and Wallis, but it was blacked out by our press - > I know this from my own father who was at sea in those days, and was amazed > they didn't know at home. > > Marj the Unrepentant > > > > I think the freedom of the media in our lifetime has made all these events > > appear more than they are. The sad thing is the Queen cannot defend > herself. > > I mean she can't give an interview like Diana did, spilling all. She also > > knew what she was marrying into. Before the advent of on the spot media > coverage etc, IT was going on, > >it was just not covered as much if at all, and we plodded along happily > living in ignorance. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.319 / Virus Database: 178 - Release Date: 28/01/02 > >