The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 6: June-September 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that it is strongly suspected information was being provided to the photogrphers from "high up" in the Ritz Hotel, maybe in the early stages the paps didn't want to get Al Fayed offside. Ten years after the event, they might feel less constrained. Whatever the case, from both the paparazzi and from Al Fayed, there are agendas in play to minimise the personal responsiblilty (and culpability) of what happened.
 
Skydragon are you trying to say that I am partly responsible for Princess Diana's death because I purchased a People magazine with her photograph on the cover? Do you honestly think if no-one purchsed anymore magazines or materials with royals or movie stars that they would be safe? I totally agree that the price that the editors pay for some of the photographs are totally outrageous. One might say that is because it sells more magazines. Thus we have the blood on our hands? I don't agree. I can't imagine anyone wanting those packs of animals (good one by the way) taking photographs of Diana in a serious car crash. :ohmy: They went to far on their on behalf, not the publics.

I personally think Dodi was in touch with his father and that is why things kept changing that night. I also think at the last minute Dodi changed his mind and took a different route, what a mistake!

Lily
 
In a democratic society, persons must be proteged by ugly images.
In a democratic society, the media is free to print what it wants to. The protection you describe is better suited to communist states where the people are 'protected' from certain things. The images may have been ugly and tasteless but the media still have the right to print them under the freedom of press which surely we'd all see as a vital part of any modern society?

The simplist solution "If you don't like, you don't watch" is a little candid to say the least.
Not at all. There was enough warning before the programme was shown. For weeks before it was shown, we hard that it would contain the images it did. And then, right before the programme began, there was a warning again. People knew what the programme contained and it was then their choice to watch it or not to watch it.
 
I thought that the involvement of paparazzi in the crash had been reviewed in the inquest. A version of the crash was that Henri Paul was drunk and that some paparzzi were waiting outside although there were none behind the car at the moment of the accident. An eye-witness told french tv that he only saw one motocycle behind them. I still have a question : why would paparazzi follow a car to take pictures that they couldn't even sell ? Those photos wouldn't be clear and the windows of the car were tinted so it's totally worthless.
 
TheTruth said:
I thought that the involvement of paparazzi in the crash had been reviewed in the inquest. A version of the crash was that Henri Paul was drunk and that some paparzzi were waiting outside although there were none behind the car at the moment of the accident. An eye-witness told french tv that he only saw one motocycle behind them. I still have a question : why would paparazzi follow a car to take pictures that they couldn't even sell ? Those photos wouldn't be clear and the windows of the car were tinted so it's totally worthless.

They weren't, actually, taking pictures of the couple inside the car, once the car pulled away from the Ritz-which explains why they fell back. What they were doing, mainly, was following the car to Dodi's apartment-where they knew they could get good images of the couple emerging from the car and entering the building.
 
Okay, I understand now. Thanks for explaining :flowers: . It was getting a little confused inside my head :rolleyes:
 
Lily97 said:
Skydragon are you trying to say that I am partly responsible for Princess Diana's death because I purchased a People magazine with her photograph on the cover? Do you honestly think if no-one purchsed anymore magazines or materials with royals or movie stars that they would be safe? I totally agree that the price that the editors pay for some of the photographs are totally outrageous. One might say that is because it sells more magazines. Thus we have the blood on our hands? I don't agree. I can't imagine anyone wanting those packs of animals (good one by the way) taking photographs of Diana in a serious car crash. :ohmy: They went to far on their on behalf, not the publics.

Lily

I think Skydragon was referring more to the people with an insatiable appetite for every last detail of Diana's life, not just the ones who bought the occasional magazine with her photo on the cover. It's the people who would buy anything as long it had a photo of her on or in it, and the people demanding photos of her kissing her latest boyfriend and being caught off-guard, that I think Skydragon is referring to. If it wasn't for that large customer base, who were wanting more and more personal photos and information, the photos wouldn't command so much money and there wouldn't be such motivation on the part of the photographers.

I think that's part of the genius of the way the press managed to deflect blame from themselves to the royal family after Diana's death. As long as the press were to blame for paying the photograhers so much for photos that it was worth these insane risks, awkward questions were going to be asked about why the photos commanded this huge price, and the answer was going to point directly back to the people who would queue up to buy them. Once the press had managed to shift the blame to the royal family, people could happily blame the royals and hold themselves blameless, whereas, as long as the blame had been with the photographers and the press, the people (ie the consumers of this product) were also at least somewhat responsible.
 
Thanks Elspeth, you have explained perfectly! :flowers:
 
Lily97 said:
Do you honestly think if no-one purchsed anymore magazines or materials with royals or movie stars that they would be safe? I totally agree that the price that the editors pay for some of the photographs are totally outrageous. One might say that is because it sells more magazines.
Lily

i do. IF...by some incredible chance, the public stopped buying magazines that had celeb photos/stories them of course they'd be safe from the paps. why would editors waste their time producing magazines with celeb stories/photos in them if no one was buying them, thus the photographers wouldn't waste their time chasing them.
 
It's impossible that people stop buying tabloids. It's human curiosity. When there's an accident in the street you have a crowd around it or when you see an ambulance on the side of the road, people in their car slow down to see what happened. No one can change this curiosity so I believe we must live with it.
 
It is circular logic: if the public would stop buying the tabloids, the publishers wouldn't produce them. But, if the publishers didn't produce them, the public couldn't buy them.

Decades ago, the world existed without tabloids. But, you can't stuff the beast back into the cage now.
 
Yeah, we can't do anything against it so like I said we must go on with it.
 
sassie said:
But, if the publishers didn't produce them, the public couldn't buy them.

Then the public could just get the salacious photos and tawdry videos from the internet which doesn't have the same restrictions as the mainstream media.

Some of the worst pictures and videos were first shown on the Internet; then when it appeared there was enough market for them, the mainstream publishers started to talk about them.
 
ysbel said:
Then the public could just get the salacious photos and tawdry videos from the internet which doesn't have the same restrictions as the mainstream media.

Some of the worst pictures and videos were first shown on the Internet; then when it appeared there was enough market for them, the mainstream publishers started to talk about them.

Yes, I agree ysbel. People are going to be more and more morbid as the years pass. I'm afraid about what will be on internet and Tv in the future ...
 
ysbel said:
Then the public could just get the salacious photos and tawdry videos from the internet which doesn't have the same restrictions as the mainstream media.

Some of the worst pictures and videos were first shown on the Internet; then when it appeared there was enough market for them, the mainstream publishers started to talk about them.
Well, I was referring to the tabloid print press, but you make a good point. The circular logic applies to the Internet, as well.
 
Thank you for explaining. Over here there is a huge difference between tabloids and authentic magazines, however, that said even Time Magazine would have Diana's picture on their cover. As for the internet, in my opinon, it is totally out of control. I feel sorry for our children growing up with all this technology. I can't remember the last time I received a hand written letter!

I did see the 20/20 program last night selling Tina Brown's new book. She did indeed state that Diana was on the train and drove her mother's car to get to the train. She did not state that Diana was not a virgin until she met Charles, just that they had a tryst on the train before the marriage. I may buy the book, haven't decided yet.

Lily

Lily
 
A news story published in today's Sydney Morning Herald (broadsheet :D) about some of the details in the Tina Brown Book was disturbing. I'm putting this in the News thread as it will get more comment than in the Royal Library, and it is certainly 'newsworthy'...

On the early days of Diana's relationship with Hasnat Khan.
"Diana first met the doctor while visiting a friend's husband in hospital. She then proceeded to visit the friend's surprised husband for 17 days straight in order to meet Dr Khan.
Once caught by a News of the World photographer at the hospital at midnight, she rang the paper's royal correspondent and planted a story that she went there three nights a week to comfort terminally ill patients." [my bolding]

If the last comment is true, it is very disappointing to discover that some of the reports of Diana's "good works" were not only fabrications, but fabrications created by herself. I can understand that a certain level of subterfuge was required to cover her tracks in the quest to meet Hasnat Khan, but to make up the story that she was regularly visiting terminally ill patients was not only self-serving and dishonest, but in my opinion extremely tacky. :sad:
 
Well, surely we all knew that from other stories that have surfaced? Remember the report from that nun who she asked to "Bring sicker children to the front" in Africa? Makes this tale all the more believable.
 
No its not all that believable its sounds like a load of crock to me. Where is Tina Brown's source for this statement?
 
Of course it does. How wrong we were. How could we ever doubt the angelic and pure nature of Saint Diana, Mother of God and the only perfect specimen of human nature ever to walk across Dame Nature's green and pleasant planet?
 
BeatrixFan said:
Of course it does. How wrong we were. How could we ever doubt the angelic and pure nature of Saint Diana, Mother of God and the only perfect specimen of human nature ever to walk across Dame Nature's green and pleasant planet?
lol I wonder if Tina Brown's statements about poor misjudged/misunderstood
Princess Camilla only carried out her affair with Charles because he was prince and would one day become king. Since its so believable that Diana was so vindictive and manipulative.
 
Last edited:
Warren said:
On the early days of Diana's relationship with Hasnat Khan.
"Diana first met the doctor while visiting a friend's husband in hospital. She then proceeded to visit the friend's surprised husband for 17 days straight in order to meet Dr Khan.
Once caught by a News of the World photographer at the hospital at midnight, she rang the paper's royal correspondent and planted a story that she went there three nights a week to comfort terminally ill patients." [my bolding]
This version has been about for years and was reported by various papers nearer the time. I don't remember the papers concerned. It was after she announced to the NotW's royal corespondent, that it became public knowledge about her so called mercy visits. It was also published that she attended a heart operation, just to be with Hasnet.
 
We're not discussing Camilla. It does amuse me that whenever a story that shows Di in a different light comes about, her fans automatically become bumbling pantomime dames and begin shrieking about Camilla in an attempt to somehow give justification to what's been alledged whilst at the same time telling us there's no way it could be true. Very funny.
 
Diana = Human. Human = unperfect, so please let's stop going around the subject of 'Saint Diana' or not.
 
sirhon11234 said:
lol I wonder if Tina Brown's statements about poor misjudged/misunderstood Princess Camilla only carried out her affair with Charles because he was prince and would one day become king. Since its so believable that Diana was so vindictive and manipulative.
I don't think Tina Brown has said that, she did report that Camilla's ex husbands unknown brother had said that she did not want to marry Charles, a 'fact' that was disproved two years ago!
 
I suggest you read this article
The most savage attack on Diana EVER | the Daily Mail
We're not discussing Camilla. It does amuse me that whenever a story that shows Di in a different light comes about, her fans automatically become bumbling pantomime dames and begin shrieking about Camilla in an attempt to somehow give justification to what's been alledged whilst at the same time telling us there's no way it could be true. Very funny
Just as I don't find it amusing that whenever there is a negative story about Diana, the Camilla fans are the first ones to say its true.
 
I think that story about Diana visiting the hospital in order to meet Dr Khan is an example of how you can interpret stories when you don't really know people's motivations. If I remember right, the husband of one of her friends (Oonagh Toffolo, I think) was seriously ill in that hospital, and I do rather doubt that Diana's only motivation for visiting him so often was to have an excuse to be with Dr Khan. While there was probably something in that story, given her reported track record of intensity early in relationships, I'm very sceptical that her friend's sick husband was only an excuse and that she had no time or compassion to spare for him. This looks like a case of taking a shade of grey and painting it black.
 
What's really amusing is that during her lifetime no one dared to attack Diana and now, after 10 years, everybody has something to say and make money of it. What a band of miserly people !
 
I didn't make my post to start a Diana-sledging campaign. I made it because the story was published in a reputable and serious newspaper. IF the story is true her behaviour was very disappointing. Perhaps naively, I was somewhat shocked.

As to Tina Brown's sources, we will have to check the footnotes and appendices in the book.
 
Just as I don't find it amusing that whenever there is a negative story about Diana, the Camilla fans are the first ones to say its true.

Putting the two ladies aside, anyone who hasn't had their brain clouded by years of saccharine reporting can accept that this woman wasn't perfect and when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Di engaged in some tacky media stunts, it is not a criminal offence to suggest that she may have actually abused her position which we know she did. Leave aside the "Well so did [Name]" and that's what it comes down to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom