The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.

Whatever Diana might or might not have been, and I'm quite aware of her many faults and shortcomings, it is too ungenerous, in my view, to be disdainful towards the very real good which she did accomplish in life.

Stephen Lee, director of Britain's Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers,said '(Diana's) overall effect on charity is probably more significant than any other person's in the 20th century.' (Hubbard et al, 1998).

At the time of her death, Diana was the official patron of Royal Marsden NHS Trust (a cancer fund); Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London; the National AIDS Trust (an umbrella group for a wide array of AIDS causes in the UK); The Leprosy Mission, the English National Ballet, and Centerpoint Soho (which provides services to homeless youth). She was also closely associated with the British Red Cross, indeed, the International Red Cross' Anti-Personnel Land Mines Campaign.

I have a photo of Diana in Bosnia with the Landmines Survivor Network in August, 2007, not long before her demise. She was working, in the August holiday-month, almost to the end.

In 1998, Robin Smith, the Foreign Secretary, introduced the second reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the House of Commons, thus:

"All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGO's that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines."

Which, arguably, it did!

In 2001, Bill Clinton said:

"In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserve no isolation, but compassion and kindness. It helped change world's opinion, and gave hope to people with AIDS."

Diana's dignity has been torn to shreds, publicly, in recent times, when it was not possible for her to utter even the tiniest squeak in retort or defend herself or reputation. I believe that we might now justifiably permit her memory to embrace her very real accomplishments, if not for her then for the sake of her sons, and let that be an end to it.
 
From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.
All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought we were talking about what she might have done if she hadn't died, not the over the top reaction, egged on by the same tabloids (to cover their guilt), that were about to bring her to heel. All IMO
 
All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

Diana already had had a time in her life when the tabloids turned against her and most biographers of her claim that this had a serious impact on her - she became dependent on her journalist friends. Kay told that she had called him on the evening of her death to find out what was in the Sunday papers and she was not happy about it. Okay, getting herself killed was a bit overdramatic an action for Diana to get more positive headlines :D, but she had shown very often that she manipulated the media when she thought it was necessary. But exactly this is what the tabloids find amusing. So I guess they would have continued to press her for more and more information while OTOH feed her to the masses who love to see people falling off their pedestals. And Diana was no longer protected by her Royal rank, so destroying her reputation was not longer going to seriously threaten the monarchy (which is, I believe, a point where most papers stop).

Skydragon, are some of these early edition links still working? And where could I find them? Thank you in advance.:flowers:
 
Skydragon, are some of these early edition links still working? And where could I find them? Thank you in advance.:flowers:
Unsurprisingly many of the links in the folders no longer work - however I did find this synopsis of the early editions and the ones that were hastily rewritten. :flowers:
 
All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

I do accept your opinion that Diana was a 'fading star'. However, I was resident in England at the time of her death and didn't particularly notice it.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought we were talking about what she might have done if she hadn't died, not the over the top reaction, egged on by the same tabloids (to cover their guilt), that were about to bring her to heel. All IMO

Well, no, we weren't. That 's how the thread developed, however.

My post was a direct negation, based on documented fact, that the late Princess had become an uncaring and disdaining party girl. She hadn't.

Personally, I have every respect and affection for Charles and his Duchess, though I cannot see how this could ever mean that I should dismiss and disparage the late Princess and her attributed good works, attested to by some of the world's eminent and most prestigious citizens, including Nelson Mandela.
 
My post was a direct negation, based on documented fact, that the late Princess had become an uncaring and disdaining party girl. She hadn't.
In your opinion of course. The fact remains, IMO and to many, that she used the trip to Angola to try to bolster her flagging reviews. She went against the governments advice and embarrassed the ambassador with her refusal to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings. Good manners cost nothing. Five patronages is not really a great many is it, I haven't counted the Ballet as it is not a charity.
Personally, I have every respect and affection for Charles and his Duchess, though I cannot see how this could ever mean that I should dismiss and disparage the late Princess and her attributed good works.
I don't see the relevance of your feelings with regard to Charles or Camilla, to what we are discussing. :ermm:
 
Last edited:
I believe that we might now justifiably permit her memory to embrace her very real accomplishments, if not for her then for the sake of her sons, and let that be an end to it.

I personally doubt there can be an end to it as so many things with Diana tend to have more than one side to it. And that's the fun on discussing a topic.

I must say that I really appreciate the effect Diana's involvement had for certain causes. She was - and I think we will all agree to that, even if we judge that character trait in a different way - she was not afraid to do what she thought was right. Alas, she was not always wise in her judgment. One thing she did right, IMHO, was the engagement for AIDS victims - here I think she really helped people to get rid of their fears on contacts with sufferers. I'm convinced she really wanted that ban on landmines and her taking position in the discussion helped.

But some of the things she did later turned out to have been mere publicity stunts. Eg. the idea of her "secret" visits to Brompton Hospital was created to cover up her liaison with Dr. Khan when she was found out by a journalist. There are believable reports of people who were there about how she was different at a charity events before and after the cameras were switched off - one can be read here on the forums by a member from South Africa.

Plus what I read about how she "froze" people out permanently because they had done something she didn't like - this does not really fit in with the character one thinks a "great humanitarian" should have beyond the glamour of the public stage.

So when I personally have to chose which approach to charity is more serious, I'd go for princess Anne or Charles, who have worked for ages for so many causes and who manage to follow up on them without being interested in glamour shootings. I have yet to see a comparison of the time princess Anne spends per week for her charity work and for shopping/amusement and the time Diana spend working and having fun, but my gut feeling is that Diana was much more out on the fashion/entertainment circuit than princess Anne has ever been. And noone has yet declared The Princess Royal the greatest humanitarian. And I wonder if this could be because Anne does not cater to the media and is not as beautiful as Diana was?
 
Unsurprisingly many of the links in the folders no longer work - however I did find this synopsis of the early editions and the ones that were hastily rewritten. :flowers:

Thank you! Very interesting reading. :flowers: I wonder if the info about Squidygate 2 was accurate and if so, how much longer it will take till we can read the transcript in yet another biography of Diana?
 
From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.

Whatever Diana might or might not have been, and I'm quite aware of her many faults and shortcomings, it is too ungenerous, in my view, to be disdainful towards the very real good which she did accomplish in life.

Stephen Lee, director of Britain's Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers,said '(Diana's) overall effect on charity is probably more significant than any other person's in the 20th century.' (Hubbard et al, 1998).

At the time of her death, Diana was the official patron of Royal Marsden NHS Trust (a cancer fund); Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London; the National AIDS Trust (an umbrella group for a wide array of AIDS causes in the UK); The Leprosy Mission, the English National Ballet, and Centerpoint Soho (which provides services to homeless youth). She was also closely associated with the British Red Cross, indeed, the International Red Cross' Anti-Personnel Land Mines Campaign.

I have a photo of Diana in Bosnia with the Landmines Survivor Network in August, 2007, not long before her demise. She was working, in the August holiday-month, almost to the end.

In 1998, Robin Smith, the Foreign Secretary, introduced the second reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the House of Commons, thus:

"All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGO's that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines."

Which, arguably, it did!

In 2001, Bill Clinton said:

"In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserve no isolation, but compassion and kindness. It helped change world's opinion, and gave hope to people with AIDS."

The Head of the National AIDS Trust that Diana was still patron of, last year in a documentary about Diana retold how difficult she was to deal with. Eventually they didn't invite her carry out engagements for them, the breaking point was when she was due to open an HIV/AIDs information centre and she asked to bring along Aileen Getty who at that time was the 'celebrity AIDS sufferer' on a tour of the UK. The AIDS Trust people agreed as long as she stayed in the background, Diana kept signalling her to come forward ( film footage was shown of this). The next days papers only had a photo of Diana holding Aileen Getty's hand ( quite a famous photo) and nothing on the clinic or the National AIDS Trust, they got no publicity at all. Diana had manipulated the situation for her own ends with the 'caring Diana holding hands with the AIDS sufferer' she got all the publicity the AIDS Trust and their work none. At the time of her death Diana hadn't done any work with the AIDS Trust for a number of years.

Also the Head of the National AIDS Trust recounted how Diana originally got involved with them. They had contacted Buckingham Palace asking for the Prince of Wales to perform an engagement on a specific date, the answer came back that the POW already had an engagement that day would the Princess of Wales do? Diana didn't have a major interest in the issue of AIDS contacting organisations asking to work with them, she originally was just a 'fillin'.

The Bosnian trip that Diana carried out was after 2 cruises with the al Fayeds ( this timeline was provided at the inquest) so she was hardly working until the last moment, she'd already been on 2 cruises and was about to go on another one with Rosa Monkton and then the final cruise with Dodi) It was a 2 day trip and all the press wanted to know about was her romance with Dodi, the landmines issue got no press at all, it wasn't a success. There was a huge contingent following her but the stories that appeared in the paper were all about her romance.

The 1997 Nobel Peace Prize was given to Jody Williams and the Anti-mines lobby group she founded. Diana may get a lot of publicity for the very little work she had done ( one trip to Angola and one to Bosnia) but the woman who really made a difference to the land mines issue was acknowledged not by politicians courting the populist vote, once Diana was dead, but rather by a committee with very stringent criteria. Diana wasn't even nominated, and never has been to my knowledge at least.

The press coverage of Diana the last few months of her life was extremely negative, the British press had a field day, she wouldn't have recovered from the bad publicity. More than likely Diana would have ended up living in the US where she remained popular due to the fact that 'glamour' and celebrity is valued in the US, in the UK it's not as far as royals are concerned. Skydragon is right Diana's light was on the wane in the UK, eventually Diana would have ended up like Sarah, Duchess of York---liked in the US, despised in the UK.

The outpouring of grief wasn't a good indication that she was still popular, researchers have shown how easy it is for people to become caught up in 'mass mourning'. ( And if someone dies young then myth and legend grows around them and they are deified) Judging by comments in last years' British papers many Brits deliberately went on holiday away from the UK when Diana's funeral was on to avoid it all. I know friends of mine went ahead with their child's birthday party that day, complete with adults, no-one went near the TV and the adult conversation revolved around how appalled they were with the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding Diana's death.
 
Last edited:
The Head of the National AIDS Trust that Diana was still patron of, last year in a documentary about Diana retold how difficult she was to deal with. Eventually they didn't invite her carry out engagements for them, the breaking point was when she was due to open an HIV/AIDs information centre and she asked to bring along Aileen Getty who at that time was the 'celebrity AIDS sufferer' on a tour of the UK. The AIDS Trust people agreed as long as she stayed in the background, Diana kept signalling her to come forward ( film footage was shown of this). The next days papers only had a photo of Diana holding Aileen Getty's hand ( quite a famous photo) and nothing on the clinic or the National AIDS Trust, they got no publicity at all. Diana had manipulated the situation for her own ends with the 'caring Diana holding hands with the AIDS sufferer' she got all the publicity the AIDS Trust and their work none. At the time of her death Diana hadn't done any work with the AIDS Trust for a number of years <snip>

I agree that Diana's image was fadding and that her death created a drama which wasn't really representative of many. However, I consider her work for AIDS or Landmines as a total success. Yes, she used these causes for her own publicity but is it the most important ? At least people were shocked and reacted to her work (Ottawa Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). She was critized for her spontaneous behavior and considered as a "loose canon". A lot of people would have given up but she didn't. By conviction or by simple stubborness to bother the RF, that I don't know.

In your opinion of course. The fact remains, IMO and to many, that she used the trip to Angola to try to bolster her flagging reviews. She went against the governments advice and embarrassed the ambassador with her refusal to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings. Good manners cost nothing. Five patronages is not really a great many is it, I haven't counted the Ballet as it is not a charity.

Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron. And may I remind you that she supported over a hundred of charities before 1993 and that in 1997, she had lost her royal status. I don't know many famous people who support more than one or two organizations.
I find it a little disapointing to see that personal preferences and opinions outshine undeniable achievements of someone who gave some of her time to help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, I consider her work for AIDS or Landmines as a total success. Yes, she used these causes for her own publicity but is it the most important ? At least people were shocked and reacted to her work (Ottawa Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). She was critized for her spontaneous behavior and considered as a "loose canon".
Totally agree!:flowers:

A lot of people would have given up but she didn't. By conviction or by simple stubborness to bother the RF, that I don't know.
I believe in her work it was a conviction to be worth something to the world. The relationship with Dodi might have been to bother the BRF. :flowers:

Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron. And may I remind you that she supported over a hundred of charities before 1993 and that in 1997, she had lost her royal status. I don't know many famous people who support more than one or two organizations.
I find it a little disapointing to see that personal preferences and opinions outshine undeniable achievements of someone who gave some of her time to help.

I really think theTruth your above statement that I bolded hits in it on the head for remembering Diana, Princess of Wales. Thank you theTruth. I could have not stated it any better.:flowers:
I think Princess Diana would have sorted herself out if she lived and made a life for herself in a public role that would help her self worth and the world causes.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron.

Hi Kelly:flowers:, Diana was a foreigner who came to a country to protest against the means the people there used to fight each other. I don't want to say it was wrong of Diana, but in a way she was involving herself into the inner affairs of Angola. If she then was asked by the British ambassador to meet with an Angolan lady of high rank, she should have done so. It would at least been polite to listen to the views of said lady. IMHO, of course.
 
I have to admit that my opinion of Diana went down the last year or two before her death. I had started to see her as someone who just wanted to live a glamorous lifestyle, party and get attention for herself. I had no patience for the "saint Diana" image in the years after her death.

That being said, I've been kind of surprised just how much public opinion about her has changed. To my eyes it's gone from mostly admiration and even enchantment to largely criticism and mockery. I understand why, to some extent: after Diana's death she wasn't around to maintain her image and all the dirt could be dredged up. And the way she died, leading to the inquest, led to a lot more information coming out that might have otherwise.

Still I'm starting to find it really sad, because in the end everything is about Diana "the image". Either there are people upholding the image of the compassionate Diana who was devoted to charity, or the vindictive self-seeking woman who did everything for personal gain. And in the end Diana the person, who was pretty much an average upper-class girl, taught kindergarten, had a few friends, wanted to get married and have children like every other girl--that Diana is totally lost. And yes, people can say "she did it to herself" but the truth is the media and the public were right alongside her every step of the way, feeding into whatever information they could get about her. When she fed them positive information the image was saint-like, when others started coming out with a different story the image changed into a selfish unhinged woman.

It reminds me of Britney Spears in the US. The media was happy to portray her as a pop idol and equally happy, when her life started becoming unstable, to portray every detail of her downfall.

As far as I'm concerned the only people who have a real right to issue a verdict on Diana, good or bad, are her sons. They saw the best of her and the worst of her. Their opinion might be biased but sometimes biased opinions are best, if they're biased by genuine love.
 
Hi Kelly:flowers:, Diana was a foreigner who came to a country to protest against the means the people there used to fight each other. I don't want to say it was wrong of Diana, but in a way she was involving herself into the inner affairs of Angola. If she then was asked by the British ambassador to meet with an Angolan lady of high rank, she should have done so. It would at least been polite to listen to the views of said lady. IMHO, of course.

In this view, I agree that it would have been better to meet this woman. But it was just a formal meeting and I believe Diana liked that sort of "rebel" behavior which she already had in the RF). Disobeying the ambassador's orders was a way to say "No one tells me what I have to do". I'm not saying it was right, though.:flowers:
 
Still I'm starting to find it really sad, because in the end everything is about Diana "the image".

I think this is probably due to the fact that to Diana, "the image" was so important, and so much of what she did was about creating and maintaining "the image".

Either there are people upholding the image of the compassionate Diana who was devoted to charity, or the vindictive self-seeking woman who did everything for personal gain. And in the end Diana the person, who was pretty much an average upper-class girl, taught kindergarten, had a few friends, wanted to get married and have children like every other girl--that Diana is totally lost. And yes, people can say "she did it to herself" but the truth is the media and the public were right alongside her every step of the way, feeding into whatever information they could get about her. When she fed them positive information the image was saint-like, when others started coming out with a different story the image changed into a selfish unhinged woman.

I'm one who says she did it to herself, because from the very beginning of her relationship with Charles she was all about sending out an image she wanted to project, and she later involved the media in her plan. At the beginning she created an image she knew would attract Charles. When she had his interest she created an image that attracted the media; from the moment that day on the riverbank with Charles when she walked up and hid behind a tree and attracted the photographers' attention by looking at them with a mirror, Diana involved the media in her life. She actively enlisted their support before the engagement by chatting to them and agreeing to pose and provide photo opportunities, and later she'd cultivate relationships with her favourites and provide leaks. This was all so the image she wanted to convey was in fact conveyed to the public, because it was the public image she cultivated that gave her power.

It was not the real Diana that the public adored, but the image. The public didn't get to see or know the real Diana, only the image. The public didn't see the Diana who was selfish and manipulative and vengeful, the woman who tried to push her stepmother down the stairs, or threw tantrums when things didn't go her way or had long telephone conversations with her lovers in which she disparaged the Royal family and complained they didn't appreciate what she'd done for them. They only saw the smiling, well dressed, beautiful young princess with the beautiful figure who openly showed affection to her children in contrast to those cold Windsors, and who genuinely cared about the less fortunate and wanted to help them. Even the people who were close to her (her "friends", not Charles or the staff) didn't get to know the real Diana, only those parts of her that she wanted them to see and allowed them to see.

I think perhaps the real Diana got lost somewhere in the process of creating and maintaining "the image". I have no doubt that she genuinely cared and wanted to help, and that she did what her particular and limited abilities allowed her to do to help, but it all got so messy, especially when the media started to turn on her.

I can't agree that only her sons have a real right to issue a verdict on her. Once you collaborate on a book with the intention of stating your case, and initiate a television interview in which you openly compete with the Queen for the public's affection and question your husband's fitness to be King, you are fair game and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
 
Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron.
Originally the Red Cross were against her being involved with their campaign. I posted the link some time ago and if I have time later, will trawl through the threads to see if I can find it. They realised she was using them and one would have thought that a simple request to meet some dignitaries would have brought more local publicity for the cause. Diana it would appear to me, was only interested in publicity back home. I would imagine it would have meant a great deal to the woman she was supposed to meet and would perhaps have gained another high profile (in Angola) supporter for the cause, rather than the possibility that this white girl was only interested in the good press she could get out of it.

There was a big enough fuss here when the French visit was cut short.
I find it a little disapointing to see that personal preferences and opinions outshine undeniable achievements of someone who gave some of her time to help.
Why, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to why Diana got involved with charities. Personal preferences and opinions colour everyone's view, even yours, :flowers: there are very few altruistic people in the world and IMO Diana was not one of them.
 
Personal preferences and opinions colour everyone's view, even yours, :flowers: there are very few altruistic people in the world and IMO Diana was not one of them.

As I haven't read the Diana Chronicles yet (I planned to wait for the end of the inquest to see the "revised" edition then :D) I wasn't aware that the author, as someone stated here lately, had put forward the motive for Diana, that it made her personally feel better to be together with people who are much worse of. It was a motive I never thought of myself - till I read at the beginning of this year a thriller by a British authoress calles Val MacDermid (sp.?) about a British TV presenter who did his charity work for exactly the same reason while being a nasty piece of work himself. That book really made me think about this motive and I wouldn't put it past Diana to have had the same motivation behind some of her deeds. Plus there is helper's syndrome. But then - who knows?

She without any doubt had a positive impact on a lot of people by her example and she's dead, so.... But it's true - I prefer people who do good deeds and are trying to be good in their private life as well. But all in all for the world at large the outcome is the most important thing and here Diana scored quite well, whatever her personal reasons.
 
As I haven't read the Diana Chronicles yet (I planned to wait for the end of the inquest to see the "revised" edition then :D) I wasn't aware that the author, as someone stated here lately, had put forward the motive for Diana, that it made her personally feel better to be together with people who are much worse of. It was a motive I never thought of myself - till I read at the beginning of this year a thriller by a British authoress called Val MacDermid (sp.?) about a British TV presenter who did his charity work for exactly the same reason while being a nasty piece of work himself. That book really made me think about this motive and I wouldn't put it past Diana to have had the same motivation behind some of her deeds. Plus there is helper's syndrome. But then - who knows?
I have met one or two absolutely nasty people that you would not want to be on your card list but have been leaders in the world of charity. One particularly nasty piece of work (IMO) disowned one of his children when they became Disabled, but he was high up in a charity that works tirelessly for disabled and disadvantaged children. :ohmy: Weird, IMO.

It's Val MacDiarmid IB.
 
It was not the real Diana that the public adored, but the image. The public didn't get to see or know the real Diana, only the image. The public didn't see the Diana who was selfish and manipulative and vengeful, the woman who tried to push her stepmother down the stairs, or threw tantrums when things didn't go her way or had long telephone conversations with her lovers in which she disparaged the Royal family and complained they didn't appreciate what she'd done for them.

This is exactly the problem: the public didn't get to see this side of Diana. We only hear about this side of Diana, for the most part, through other people's accounts (except for the telephone conversations and I would say that even though she disparaged the royal family in them, we don't have full knowledge of exactly how much justification she had for her complaints: and in those conversations she did say how much she enjoyed helping people).

What I'm saying is for the most part, people who want to expose the nasty side of Diana are often doing so for an agenda themselves. Either to get attention, or tell Charles' side of the story because they are more sympathetic to him. Sure, these perspectives are probably often true. But the way Diana behaved in public was "real", too--as long as she was out in public she really did behave in a sweet and compassionate way. We still only have a few more perspectives helping to construct a picture of someone none of us ever knew. No one here saw everything she did, saw what went through her head, we only have these two vastly different pictures of her. But it's still never going to be the full truth.

And my problem is I can't really see how dredging up the darker side of Diana nearly 11 years after her death is helpful. Most of the nastier information came out after her death. She never had a chance to defend herself, to be confronted publicly with the disparity between her "image" and reality and never had the chance to try to change after such a confrontation. While she was alive photographers were constantly swarming around her and the media was commenting on how beautiful and charitable she was: of course she just perpetuated her act. She never experienced the shock of the media turning against her, because they fed straight into her image.

I suppose the argument could be that people still believe in the "sainted Diana" myth and so the truth needs to be repeatedly told. Well really, if people still believe Diana was a saint after the inquest, nothing anyone can say to them will ever change their minds. You don't have to think she was a saint to have some compassion for the woman.
 
But the way Diana behaved in public was "real", too--as long as she was out in public she really did behave in a sweet and compassionate way.

You obviously never saw the Panorama-interview.
 
You obviously never saw the Panorama-interview.

:) I have. Several times. And to me Diana appears incredibly manipulative and self-centred in it. It was probably the single greatest contributor to the drop in my opinion of her.

I still maintain she was genuinely compassionate at times, though. And I still don't have any interest in rehashing the worst aspects of her behaviour 10 years after her death.
 
I think that a person would have to have genuine compassion to put ones-self through the trauma of seeing that young girl in the hospital in Angola. She passed away shortly after seeing the Princess IIRC. I remember Diana actually pushing the camera away at that point.

I still maintain she was genuinely compassionate at times, though. And I still don't have any interest in rehashing the worst aspects of her behaviour 10 years after her death.
 

Ignorance pure ignorance. I hope William and Harry haven't seen these shirts.

I think that a person would have to have genuine compassion to put ones-self through the trauma of seeing that young girl in the hospital in Angola. She passed away shortly after seeing the Princess IIRC. I remember Diana actually pushing the camera away at that point.

I remember she put a blanket on the girl and told the photographer to stop taking pictures.
On another occasion when she was sitting next to a woman who had lost a limb the cameramen shoved the microphone in front of her face and Diana pushed it out of the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a little too much but the designers of this shirt still express what most people think about the media attention on her death. Although they seemed to be all okay with this "propaganda" 10 years ago, it's starting to bother some and I understand that.
As for the bad taste of this T-shirt, I've found worse : sb photo lady diana + mercedes mauvais gout
 
It's a little too much but the designers of this shirt still express what most people think about the media attention on her death. Although they seemed to be all okay with this "propaganda" 10 years ago, it's starting to bother some and I understand that.
As for the bad taste of this T-shirt, I've found worse : sb photo lady diana + mercedes mauvais gout

Wow, I just don't know what to say after seeing that photo.
 
Wow, I just don't know what to say after seeing that photo.

Neither do I.

I don't get the point of it. It's not at all funny. It doesn't help Mercedes Benz because one of their super-safe vehicles couldn't save Diana. What is it saying? "We got her"?!?? That can't be it. It's just in poor taste.
 
For the first time, I have to disagree with BeatrixFan. These T-shirts are utter disrespect for the dead person. Has the society from the stable democratic democracies and monarchies got any respect for the dead? Was it really necessary to use images of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Duke of Edinburgh in such inappropriate fashion? It may safely be assumed that Princess Diana will gradually disappear from the front pages of new papers with the Inquest ending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom