Diana's Love: just days after being engaged

[Rorschach]

Well that's your claim AiA... it's not proof that even that is a fact.

If true it only means she was an obsession of the paparazzi

[frenchyjen70]

Is this harvey again, with yet another misleading thread title? The photo was taken before she even met Charles, not "just days after being engaged".

Boxy, I've noticed that you seem to have a problem with people as by your repeated accusations to anyone and everyone in a poor attempt to undermine and/or discredit them.
Perhaps this is to make you feel bigger yourself. I would suggest that you book yourself in for some professional assistance.

"On the back, the photo is dated February 26, 1981 - two days after Buckingham Palace announced the engagement of Prince Charles and the commoner then known as Diana Spencer."
Thereby the engagement was announced February 24 1981.
I understand that "two days after being engaged" (to Prince Charles) means that Diana would have been engaged first and would have met Prince Charles prior to the photo being taken, don't you.

For your reference Boxy, the definition of "after" in this context is:
2. later in time than; in succession to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/after?s=t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Best of luck with your treatment Boxy.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Well that's your claim AiA... it's not proof that even that is a fact.

If true it only means she was an obsession of the paparazzi

You are right Roach, no one ever was interested in Diana. No one. Ever. Not even for one second. It was all just the "obsession of the paparazzi."

[boxy]

"On the back, the photo is dated February 26, 1981 - two days after Buckingham Palace announced the engagement of Prince Charles and the commoner then known as Diana Spencer."
Thereby the engagement was announced February 24 1981.
I understand that "two days after being engaged" (to Prince Charles) means that Diana would have been engaged first and would have met Prince Charles prior to the photo being taken, don't you.

For your reference Boxy, the definition of "after" in this context is:
2. later in time than; in succession to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/after?s=t

Best of luck with your treatment Boxy.

The date on the back was the date that someone sold it to the newspaper... a couple of days after Diana became the biggest news item in the English speaking world.

The identity of the photographer is not known but the picture was sold to the Daily Mirror on February 26, 1981 – two days after Diana’s engagement to the Prince of Wales was announced.

And what a scandalous picture it was too, a young woman enjoying the company of her brother on a ski holiday a year or two previous! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Super Nova]

Is this harvey again, with yet another misleading thread title? The photo was taken before she even met Charles, not "just days after being engaged".

Exactly.

How long can they drag this poor women out when there is a slow news day.

[frenchyjen70]

"On the back, the photo is dated February 26, 1981 - two days after Buckingham Palace announced the engagement of Prince Charles and the commoner then known as Diana Spencer."
Thereby the engagement was announced February 24 1981.
I understand that "two days after being engaged" (to Prince Charles) means that Diana would have been engaged first and would have met Prince Charles prior to the photo being taken, don't you.

For your reference Boxy, the definition of "after" in this context is:
2. later in time than; in succession to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/after?s=t

Best of luck with your treatment Boxy.

The date on the back was the date that someone sold it to the newspaper"

Got a link? Or are you speculating once again.

The identity of the photographer is not known but the picture was sold to the Daily Mirror on February 26, 1981 – two days after Diana’s engagement to the Prince of Wales was announced.

And what a scandalous picture it was too, a young woman enjoying the company of her brother on a ski holiday a year or two previous! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Got a link, or are you speculating once again.

[frenchyjen70]

Is this harvey again, with yet another misleading thread title? The photo was taken before she even met Charles, not "just days after being engaged".

Exactly.

How long can they drag this poor women out when there is a slow news day.

Take the good with the bad...and "poor woman"' oh please

[Super Nova]

Take the good with the bad...and "poor woman"' oh please

You know, I think this girl was badly done by all round.

She is dead. Let her rest in pieces.

[boxy]

Got a link? Or are you speculating once again.

You quoted me posting the link.

[Black Orchid]

THE mystery man in the controversial photo of Princess Diana now being auctioned in the US, has finally been revealed as a former student at Oxford University.

The man has been identified as Adam Russell, the great-grandson of former Tory prime minister Stanley Baldwin.

Mr Russell is seen in the photograph with a very young, 18-year-old Lady Diana Spencer, relaxing with the future Princess of Wales on a group ski holiday in Val Claret in the French Alps in 1979.

The Daily Mirror bought the photo two days after Diana's engagement to Prince Charles was announced in February 1981. At the time, they wrote NOT TO BE PUBLISHED in crayon on it.

http://www.news.com.au/world/lady-diana ... 6548022234" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

How scandalous. An innocent pic taken some 2 years before a woman becomes engaged. Perhaps all women should be locked up and starved of friends before they are set to marry?