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.
i think diana will always be synonomous with AIDS because she really brought it to the forefront and disspelled the huge myth that it can contracted through simple physical contact. i think the movie also played a huge part in AIDS awareness too because we got to see the physical transformation. it's one of my favorite movies.
 
Skydragon, where do you get your facts from that the area had been cleared of landmines? As I recall they clearly stated that that wasn't the case at the time. She was indeed in danger and was very brave to step out and have that photograph taken. :rose:

I understand that Diana is not one of your favorite people to say the least but it does seem like you seem to enjoy taking her down a peg or two at every chance you get. I don't go to the Camilla sites and tear her apart. I just don't understand why this is done. :doh:

Lily

:happyfourth:
 
Skydragon, where do you get your facts from that the area had been cleared of landmines? As I recall they clearly stated that that wasn't the case at the time. She was indeed in danger and was very brave to step out and have that photograph taken.... I understand that Diana is not one of your favorite people to say the least but it does seem like you seem to enjoy taking her down a peg or two at every chance you get. I don't go to the Camilla sites and tear her apart
There were very many articles about at the time stating that the area had already been cleared so that Diana would not be in danger.

Do you really think anyone would have risked her getting her legs blown off?

I don't recall any articles where it was stated that the area hadn't been cleared, but as you say I am not and never have been a fan, although in fairness when I read your post I did do a search for articles either way. You should also remember that the visit was arranged in advance, to an area that was being cleared and would have been charted as to where the mines were. Once an area has been worked on, they make sure charts are available.

On your last point, I have in the past, on rare occasions defended Diana, especially where the boys were concerned and while you don't go on the Camilla threads and tear her apart, other Diana fans do. Nobody will stop you from making comments against Charles or Camilla, but they will probably reply. There should be nothing wrong with putting your opinion of events or the way you remember things happening.
Many posters have a different way of looking at the same event, many see something or someone different in every photo.
 
Last edited:
i think diana will always be synonomous with AIDS because she really brought it to the forefront and disspelled the huge myth that it can contracted through simple physical contact. i think the movie also played a huge part in AIDS awareness too because we got to see the physical transformation. it's one of my favorite movies.

I am not a moviegoer and I was not even aware of the movie Philadelphia but I knew about Diana interacting with AIDS sufferers because the picture appeared here in our local newspaper. And that time AIDS sufferers would be avoided like the plague. Health workers would be constantly drumming to the public that it is not a contagious disease. But a picture of the Princess of Wales shaking hands with a sufferer who was clearly gaunt and weakly and sitting next to and talking to him conveyed a convincing message 'in a thousand words'.

I don't know about you Skydragon but I wouldn't be caught walking across a known minefield even if the experts have assured me it is totally in the clear. I mean, what if they missed just one and I found it with one or both limbs.
 
This conversation has come up before, hasn't it?

The scenes that most impress upon a person depend on their age and their personality. People in their forties and fifties that were following this type of tragedy may have seen early AIDS sufferers and their champions that came long before Diana whereas a teenager may have little point of reference for how bad the scene was for AIDS sufferers in the early 80s so either group might not be as impressed as someone who came of age and coming aware right when Diana was making her trips to Africa.

Both reactions make sense but their different because they depend on the background of the person seeing the picture.

BTW, don't you guys think the old Diana vs. Camilla argument is getting old now?
 
BTW, don't you guys think the old Diana vs. Camilla argument is getting old now?
I do ysbel and was trying to avoid the D v's C argument in my reply, by saying that I will listen to anyone, but reserve the right to reply. This present line started with a statement from Morton saying Blair was going to offer Diana a post as a roving ambassador, when in fact her landmine visits were not sanctioned by the government or HM
CNN - Princess Diana to polish image with trip to Angola - Jan. 12, 1997

I agree with your 'age related' view of events.
LOSSEAN said:
I don't know about you Skydragon but I wouldn't be caught walking across a known minefield even if the experts have assured me it is totally in the clear. I mean, what if they missed just one and I found it with one or both limbs.
I am warped Lossean, if I had been told by trained personel that the area had been cleared, I would have only a little hesitation, with a firm belief that 'when your number is up, it is up'. But then I have parachuted out of a plane, jumped from a helicopter into water. Even more dangerous, according to my insurers, I have kept and ridden horses all my life! :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
I do ysbel and was trying to avoid the D v's C argument in my reply, by saying that I will listen to anyone, but reserve the right to reply. This present line started with a statement from Morton saying Blair was going to offer Diana a post as a roving ambassador, when in fact her landmine visits were not sanctioned by the government or HM
CNN - Princess Diana to polish image with trip to Angola - Jan. 12, 1997

I agree with your 'age related' view of events.
I am warped Lossean, if I had been told by trained personel that the area had been cleared, I would have only a little hesitation, with a firm belief that 'when your number is up, it is up'. But then I have parachuted out of a plane, jumped from a helicopter into water. Even more dangerous, according to my insurers, I have kept and ridden horses all my life! :ROFLMAO:

WOW! Skydragon, you are so adventurous. Are you a military person? I remember now that you have offered military knowledge several times on this forum. That's really admirable that you are willing to walk across such a place.

I still would not and that's why it's admirable that Diana actually did it to drive home a message. As unfortunate as it may be, it's part of a soldier's job description. Desperate civilians in search of food or a route to freedom have no choice. It may be the lesser of two evils.

I haven't talked at all about the D&C thing in any of my posts because it is irrelevant to the issues I bring up but I do share Lily97's concern. We are not to say anything positive about Diana?

The HIV AIDS issue came out about the same time Diana came into public life and it was a new illness. The people who are in their 40s now were teenagers then. The current teenagers have grown up in an environment that is better informed about HIV AIDS.
 
Of course, Lossean. Diana did do a lot of good things. And my comment about Camilla wasn't directed at any one person; but just a little frustration at Camilla coming up in a discussion that has nothing to do with her which has in the past caused discussions to go south.

About the landmine issue, it is something I admire Diana for because I share many of the same beliefs about the matter that she did but I'm not hopeful that her landmine campaign had any lasting impact. Mainly because Diana's stance went against that of the British and American military who maintained that they needed landmines as a defense. It usually takes more than a single celebrity to overturn deeply held beliefs by powerful organizations like that.

To compare the landmine situation with another, the situation with apartheid in South Africa went on for years while individual celebrities were bringing attention to it but it took more than one celebrity and it took some major organizations and governments to get involved before the situation in South Africa changed. I didn't see a similar movement against landmines except for Diana's work and so I think the impact of her work in this area was not as great as it could have been. It may be perhaps because she died so shortly thereafter though before the campaign could really get momentum.

I would however have been surprised if Blair had given her a position promoting her work on landmines because I think it would be too political and controversial even for an ex-royal and I can't imagine him putting someone in one position that counteracts what his military recommends.

However, knowing how Blair operates, I wouldn't put it past him to promise Diana an important position to get on her good side and keep her occupied without having any intention of giving it to her. Which means that Diana may have quite honestly believed that she would have been given a position while there was in fact no chance that she would get it. That I think would have been shoddy of him.
 
Thank you ysbel. I understand totally. I am for the position taken by the British and American governments because defence of the free world is very important to me.
When I think about landmines, I think of rogue administrations who place them in places just to intimidate their civilians. Those are the ones I deplore.
 
WOW! Skydragon, you are so adventurous. Are you a military person? I remember now that you have offered military knowledge several times on this forum. That's really admirable that you are willing to walk across such a place.
No I have never been in the military, but both Mr Skydragons were, all the little Skydragons were/are. I just enjoy the challenge of nutty things, especailly for charity.
Yes Diana was brave to walk onto the landmine area for the reasons you give and I'm sorry if I came across as demeaning that, but to me it does make a difference knowing it had been cleared. I don't think it has ever occured to me that anyone would be scared knowing the area had been cleared. :ermm:

Of course you should say and think positively about Diana, but also be aware that not everyone feels the same way and will point out their opinions. If you told me that Camilla walked on water on such and such a date, I would point out that she was probably using stepping stones. :D

The HIV AIDS issue came out about the same time Diana came into public life and it was a new illness. The people who are in their 40s now were teenagers then. The current teenagers have grown up in an environment that is better informed about HIV AIDS.
Knowing of people who were affected by the HIV/AIDS virus back in 1981-82, it was before Diana's involvement and part of me is annoyed that the work of people back then is ignored. Yes, Diana showed some of the general public that it was 'safe' to be near someone with the virus, but to give her all the credit is to demean the work others did before and have done since. Sadly in many countries it still carries a stigma or is ignored. :flowers:
 
Thank you for your reply Skydragon. I only brought up the Diana and Camilla issue because I don't think it is necessary for anyone to tear either of them to bits on either thread, just my opinion of course. :flowers:

As for the AIDS issue. I believe Diana would have gotten involved much earlier had she felt the strength to go against the Royal Family because as well all know none of them were for most of her out of the norm charitable work. I do think if she were alive today she would be educating the countries with the stigmas still attached regarding AIDS.

I also would not put it past Tony Blair to have offered her that post and not really mean it. Sadly she had been disappointed by so many men in her lifetime.

Lily
 
I remember that Diana was severely critized for her work on landmines by the british governement. A journalist ask her how she felt about this attack and she said she wasn't aware of such a thing and that she was just trying to help. When she got in the car after hearing that she was totally upset by those crictics and wondered who could have said that.

Diana did great things and I'm sure Camilla is also doing a very good job in many charities. I find stupid to take down Diana or Camilla if we like one of the two. Afterall we can only judge them by how the media do. We don't know the women. Like everybody, they have good and bad sides and it's not because they didn't stand each other that we have to do so ...
 
Lol okay Skydragon, no need to go again on that subject. We agree that being tolerant and openminded is quite helpful to avoid useless confrontations and to build a constructive discussion, accepting points of view of others. :flowers:
 
Knowing of people who were affected by the HIV/AIDS virus back in 1981-82, it was before Diana's involvement and part of me is annoyed that the work of people back then is ignored. Yes, Diana showed some of the general public that it was 'safe' to be near someone with the virus, but to give her all the credit is to demean the work others did before and have done since. Sadly in many countries it still carries a stigma or is ignored. :flowers:

OK Skydragon, I see where you are coming from. It seems you knew people personally who worked hard for the cause b4 Diana's involvement and you feel they haven't been properly recognised. It is a sad fact that the people behind the scenes are always the unsung heroes. Sometimes they would get awards in recognition of their hard work but yes! quite often they would be overlooked. I am not giving Diana all the credit but I am proud of her for showing the public that HIV AIDS is not contagious.
 
I think Diana's contribution, if anything, was greater in the USA than in Britain; during much of the 1980s AIDS was being downplayed as something that really only affected marginalised groups and there were some fairly strong undercurrents that these groups (particularly gays) deserved it anyway, and that regular folks need not waste their time worrying about it. Diana's involvement brought it home to many people in the USA that AIDS victims deserved more than just being ignored or despised.
 
I think you are correct Elspeth. I know in this country most bad press and lies of Diana was kept to papparazzi magazines that you chose to purchase not our regular newspapers which I hear is the case in the UK. Perhaps that is why in my opinion she was and is still so respected in this country. She always did love the USA. I don't think she ever would have lived here though.

Lily
 
She always did love the USA. I don't think she ever would have lived here though.

Lily

Yes she really liked this country. There were rumours saying she was planning to move there, one of the reasons was concerning the laws with the press. In the UK, paparazzi have much more freedom than in the US. But I doubt she would have moved overthere. The British people would have probably been saddened by this choice.
 
Last edited:
I think that most Americans never cared one way or another about the British Royal Family itself or its traditions (and quite rightly so because we are not British and the monarchy is not our tradition) so when the battle between Diana and the rest of the Royal Family brewed, it was very easy for Americans to take sides with a young beautiful girl who hugged kids rather than an institution that seems strange and foreign.

The concept of royalty is foreign to most Americans and its much harder for us to see the Queen or Prince Philip, Prince Charles, or Princess Anne as human, even though they most undoubtedly are human and feel joy, love and pain like the rest of us. The U.S. culture is more demonstrative and outgoing like Diana was so it makes sense that Diana's personality would go over better in the US.

I am reserved and I could always see the emotions in the faces of the Queen and the Royal Family but members of my family could not. It is a pet peeve of mine when people say that Diana brought the human touch to the Royal Family. The great human emotions all were there before she came and they were visible IMHO if people took time to look. There was Margaret who was seen crying after she was forced to end her relationship with the man she loved, the tragic faces of the three Queens at the funeral of King George: Mary, who had lost a son, Elizabeth, who had lost a husband, and Elizabeth II, who had lost a father. The pain was written on their faces for anyone who cared to look.
 
I am reserved and I could always see the emotions in the faces of the Queen and the Royal Family but members of my family could not. It is a pet peeve of mine when people say that Diana brought the human touch to the Royal Family.

Bless you, ysbel, for expressing my very thoughts, including the part abut being reserved and being peeved. You are one hundred percent correct in my book. :flowers:
 
I'm signing after that, wonderful post ysbel! :flowers:

ysbel said:
I am reserved and I could always see the emotions in the faces of the Queen and the Royal Family but members of my family could not. It is a pet peeve of mine when people say that Diana brought the human touch to the Royal Family. The great human emotions all were there before she came and they were visible IMHO if people took time to look. There was Margaret who was seen crying after she was forced to end her relationship with the man she loved, the tragic faces of the three Queens at the funeral of King George: Mary, who had lost a son, Elizabeth, who had lost a husband, and Elizabeth II, who had lost a father. The pain was written on their faces for anyone who cared to look.

That's exactly what I always wanted, and always failed, to express. :)
 
I am reserved and I could always see the emotions in the faces of the Queen and the Royal Family but members of my family could not. It is a pet peeve of mine when people say that Diana brought the human touch to the Royal Family. The great human emotions all were there before she came and they were visible IMHO if people took time to look.
Brilliant post ysbel. :rose: :britflag:
 
While not wishing to be too controversial, grief and pain at loss in one's private life is often obvious and understandable.

What I imagine that commentators who compliment Diana's 'human face' of royalty mean is that she was able to show compassion and pain and pleasure towards others, and with such seeming ease.

To my mind, it's churlish to deny that Diana had excellent and quite natural communication skills; it's equally unfair to blame The Queen for her more formal and reserved nature. It's what she was born with and trained to be, after all.
 
According to the Mirror, Alistair Campbell has said in his book that Diana regularly had intimate meetings with Tony Blair before he became PM, but it was Campbell she had a crush on. :rolleyes: How could she have been discussing a role as a roving ambassador with a man who was not the PM and had no powers to appoint her as anything? Sounds like another person jumping on the bandwagon! :bang:

DI'S SECRET DINNERS WITH BLAIR - Top Stories - News - Mirror.co.uk
 
Last edited:
it was Campbell she had a crush on. :rolleyes:

Oh please, it looks like a Berverly Hills episode, 'High School gossips' sort of thing. Makes me laugh :rolleyes:.
 
An interesting article, Skydragon. It shows, doesn't it, just how powerful Diana's image had become throughout the world that a man who was about to become PM (odd-on favourite, at the time) was interested in using her to promote his/Britain's agenda.

If the newspaper's claims are true, that Campbell's book has been vetted by vested interests, including the Palace, then I'll definitely be interested in reading it. It is not necessary to like or admire someone to believe that they might have something to say which is well worth saying.
 
It's pretty clear they were discussing some kind of new role for her. He thought she could do a brilliant job as a kind of ambassador abroad for his vision of a modernised Britain....... "But the princess seemed to enjoy the intrigue. It was always a cloak-and-dagger arrangement for them to get together. The princess seemed to like that"
Sadly it shows nothing of the sort, if it is true It does show that Diana was willing to use every trick in the book, to keep in the spotlight and try to put a shine on her damaged reputaion, after all, she was being criticised for dropping most of the charities and taking so many holidays.

"It's pretty clear" is not "We knew", which of course they didn't. Someone else, could have read Diana was pestering Blair and he fell for it or she kept meeting Blair trying to persuade him to give her a job.

It also doesn't show her in a very good light, that she was more than happy to deceive people.
 
I think that you're a little harsh here, Skydragon.

Tony Blair wasn't yet the PM, and equally, he could have been accused of presumption and arrogance had it been known that he was making any such plans for the future and his role as PM.

Until I've read the book it's hard to be certain about any of this. I will only comment that, irrespective of my opinion of Tony and Cherie Blair, they are not unintelligent and apolitical. It's likely, to me at least, that they played her, not t'other way around. Let's wait and see what the claims actually are.
 
I think that you're a little harsh here, Skydragon.
Tony Blair wasn't yet the PM, and equally, he could have been accused of presumption and arrogance had it been known that he was making any such plans for the future and his role as PM.
Why is it harsh, I have quoted from the same article you have based your opinion on, Campbells words not mine. I have also said "if it is true". However, much as I dislike Blair and his spin doctor politics, I find it hard to believe that even he, at such an early stage, would chance the negative publicity of a public row with HM.

In very many articles, including one I posted earlier, HM was said to have made clear to the then government, that such a job was not to be offered, therefore both of them were going behind HM's back.

If it happened, then both parties concerned were deceitful and surely even Diana had the sense not to meddle in politics, that's why I doubt Campbells piece in his book. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom