The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
There have been many sources that stated that Diana would avidly pour over anything that was about her in the media and how she was perceived by the public was almost an obsession with her. This is where the young royals of today are quite different. They seem to be working against how they are personally perceived by the public and to keep their public spotlight on the causes and issues they are working to promote.

The last thing they want or need today is the celebrity iconic status that Diana courted. They're happy enough in their own skins and try to maintain their own private lives outside of the media circus.
Sadly I have read that Diana did pour over the articles published about her and I believe it did have affect her in a negative way. In the 21st century, I would think that all of the people who have married into a royal family since the advent of the Internet and social media have been strongly advised by the members of the families/courtiers to try and ignore the uglier side of it. However using social media/technology to bring attention to their causes is supported.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,190
I don't know whether that's so as far as Harry's concerned. He certainly doesn't play games with the media but he has stated a couple of times that he can't do what his father has urged on his sons, that is ignore the tabloids etc, because he said he 'wants to know what they're saying' (about him presumably, good or bad.)

I doubt that Charles reads anything on Twitter, but I'm not so sure about Harry. He's of a generation that loves discussions on it (once had a Facebook page) and apparently still communicates with various friends under another name. So I wouldn't be surprised if Harry takes a look at what people are saying, at all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Sadly I have read that Diana did pour over the articles published about her and I believe it did have affect her in a negative way. In the 21st century, I would think that all of the people who have married into a royal fambring attention to their causes is supported.
I dont quite see what is sad about it. If I were being written about in the papers, Im sure i'd read them to see what was bieng said. OK mabye di went too far, and gradually began to believe her own popularity with teh papers was a "bigger" thing than it was, and that she was more clever at managing the press than she really was.. but I can't see that anyone would completely ignore media attention to oneself..Of course in today's wrold where there are nasty idiots who write blogs etc, and get off on being vicious about people they know nothing about, it woudl of course be sensibe to totally ignore this but that was not the situation when Di was alive.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:12 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Senior Royals have to have a certain amount of magnetism, of 'pulling power' to bring people to their engagements. It's not much good if, apart from weddings, and Trooping the Colour, all they have as a viewing audience to a particular event are three age pensioners and some local school children who are bussed in and given flags.

In other words there has to be something to bring the public to see them. It's the same with charities and causes. There has to be a lot of public interest to bring those donations in.

Most of the above postings concentrate on Diana's machinations during the War of the Wales years when there was constant controversy because a very high profile marriage was breaking down. And sorry, that troubled marriage wasn't all Diana's fault.

People forget, because journalists and others wanted to preserve the fairy tale, it was years and years before any news of the troubled Royal marriage got into the newspapers.

In those early years Diana brought huge crowds to her engagements and enormous publicity to her causes. You see, I remember the early years when there wasn't controversy, when people flocked in their hundreds of thousands to see Diana, and she wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

I remember her first tour of Australia in 1983 when millions of people turned out to see Charles and Diana, and I believe it was mostly Diana they came to see.

In the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's first tour of Australia in 1954 there had been crowds like that, but over the years people's interest died down and the crowds became smaller. She brought those crowds back and then some when William was a baby, and there was always interest. She wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

She didn't have to have engagements in Oz tacked on to something like the Sydney Show or Australia Day when there are crowds of people out enjoying themselves anyway as happened recently.

As for the charities and causes Diana was patron of, many of them thanked their lucky stars for her. People who don't like Diana can sneer all they want but it was her charisma and star power that brought huge publicity and large increased donations to hundreds of worthy causes.

I agree excellent post


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:14 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Senior Royals have to have a certain amount of magnetism, of 'pulling power' to bring people to their engagements. It's not much good if, apart from weddings, and Trooping the Colour, all they have as a viewing audience to a particular event are three age pensioners and some local school children who are bussed in and given flags.


P

I
In the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's first tour of Australia in 1954 there had been crowds like that, but over the years people's interest died down and the crowds became smaller. She brought those crowds back and then some when William was a baby, and there was always interest. She wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

As for the charities and causes Diana was patron of, many of them thanked their lucky stars for her. People who don't like Diana can sneer all they want but it was her charisma and star power that brought huge publicity and large increased donations to hundreds of worthy causes.
I agree. Royals do need publicity and to do that, they need a certain amount of charm and an attractive personality. A royal position -just havng the title Princess or whatever -per se will attract SOME people (otherwise P Anne woudl get noone ever turning up) but it wont attract enough people.

Diana did use the press against Charles at times but as you say that was later in her marriage when she was unhappy and trying ot find a way out of the marriage.. so of course, she used what weapons she had, to strengthen her position with the public.. so that if she wanted a divorce or a separation, she would have public support and would nto be pushed out of public life... (as more or less happened with Sarah F). And Charles or his "friends" used the press against her, at the time, just they weren't so successful because he wasn't so well liked or so charming.
And mostly her use of the Press was just being who she was, being attractive and making the best of herself, not looking badly dressed or sullen (as Anne does)... and showing the best side of herself when she did a public engagement. It was no more sinister than that. As you say it DID attract publicity or the RF which they were delighted with, at the time and it attracted donations for her charities... I always think that while Di did less charity work in her last year or two, her charities should remember what she did for them, how much attention and money she raised...
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I agree. I don't think there was anything 'magical' about her.

Diana was a creation of the tabloid press. A perfect princess for the MTV generation.

ays.

It certainly doesn't want or need a 'new Diana'
So why isn't there another Diana? There isn't. Fergie was a bit of a flash princess of the 80s, she's faded into near obscurity. Other young women marrying into royal families have been lauded as "new Dianas" and in a few years they are divorced Like Alexandra in Denmark.. or just accepted as "normal parts of their RF" and not a special figure.
Kate certainly isn't a new Diana, though there are attempts to make her something special by the press...She just doesn't have IT, or glamour or a work ethic...
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
Only a relatively small handful of royals make national news. If publicity and star power were the number one criteria royals like Anne and the Kents would have no charities wanting to do business with them.

I can never figure out if the people obsessed with Diana are monarchists or just celebrity watchers.

A lot of the hard core Dianaphiles I come across on social media and here on TRF seem to hate William and Catherine, can't stand Charles and only like Harry, which doesn't fit the description of a monarchist.

Even if Diana was the most magical, charismatic, hardest working royal in history, she's been dead for almost 20 years.

The Firm survived and is as popular as ever.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 08-21-2016, 04:04 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
[QUOTE=Rudolph;1918149]Only a relatively small handful of royals make national news. If publicity and star power were the number one criteria royals like Anne and the Kents would have no charities wanting to do business with them.

I
Even if Diana was the most magical, charismatic, hardest working royal in history, she's been dead for almost 20 years.

The Firm survived and is as popular as ever.[/QUOTE

I woudlnt say it is as popular as ever. It is more back ot the pre Diana level of interest, which was OK but not stellar.
I dont think anyone in the family has any great magic.
And noone said that it was ONLY charm or charisma that is a requirement. There are of course others such as willingness to work hard...

As for the Kents and Anne, they are engaged for their "royal pullng power." Not on their charm. THe Kents are pleasant but nothing speical. Anne has no charm whatsoever... But there will be people who will go and watch ANYONE no matter how dull or awful because they have HRH in front of their name...
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 08-21-2016, 05:46 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,925
Please note that several posts and subsequent responses have been deleted. Let's not get side-tracked with talk of Charles and Diana's marriage or William, Catherine and Harry and stay on topic.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 08-21-2016, 06:30 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". With that I do not mean the person of Diana Frances Spencer herself. I mean the media frenzy, the dianamania, the merciless hunting by the press behaving as a pack of wolves smelling a wounded prey, the public fought separation and divorce. I am sure this has left such a deep scar that the royal family, at all costs, will prevent such a scenario happening again. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 08-21-2016, 06:40 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". Wagain. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.
Cuties? they are 2 small children. Nothing special. And I dont see any frenzy about them at all. we see an occasional photo, and that's enough IMO for their sake and the sake of everyone else...
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08-21-2016, 06:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Cuties? they are 2 small children. Nothing special. And I dont see any frenzy about them at all. we see an occasional photo, and that's enough IMO for their sake and the sake of everyone else...
No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08-21-2016, 08:40 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.
I would have to agree with you on that. Buying a garment or whatever because Royal X was seen with it. Inspiration is one thing, but what is happening today with these things is another.


So no, IMO there won't ever be "A New Diana". She was unique, like every individual is, and today's interests are much more cluttered. It seemed more grouped back in the day. Possibly also because of much less media outlets.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08-21-2016, 11:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I dont quite see what is sad about it. If I were being written about in the papers, Im sure i'd read them to see what was bieng said. OK mabye di went too far, and gradually began to believe her own popularity with teh papers was a "bigger" thing than it was, and that she was more clever at managing the press than she really was.. but I can't see that anyone would completely ignore media attention to oneself..Of course in today's wrold where there are nasty idiots who write blogs etc, and get off on being vicious about people they know nothing about, it woudl of course be sensibe to totally ignore this but that was not the situation when Di was alive.
Denville-Based upon what I have read about Diana's personality, I don't believe that it was wise for her read everything that was written about her. She seemed to have a tendency to take it very personally. I agree with you that she likely believed their version of her popularity and when she received negative press, that she had a hard time understanding why it was written. IMHO I don't think that she would have coped well with the criticism found in today's social media.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 08-21-2016, 11:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". With that I do not mean the person of Diana Frances Spencer herself. I mean the media frenzy, the dianamania, the merciless hunting by the press behaving as a pack of wolves smelling a wounded prey, the public fought separation and divorce. I am sure this has left such a deep scar that the royal family, at all costs, will prevent such a scenario happening again. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.
I agree Duc and I doubt that any of the royal houses would want to see a situation like this one again. There were shades of this in Spain with Infanta Elena's divorce when the paps were stationed outside of the children's school hounding Froilan and Victoria.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Dd their version of her popularity and when she received negative press, that she had a hard time understanding why it was written. IMHO I don't think that she would have coped well with the criticism found in today's social media.
No I agree, in a way. But I think it woudl be inevitable. We all wonder a bit what people are saying about us and a royal new wife like Diana coudl find out by readng the papers.. so i think she was bound to. Perhaps over time she got a bit obsessed, and would get upset if there was negative coverage. But that's more to do with her lack of a happy home life..I think the more miserable she became with Charles, the mores she wanted to at least know that the public cared for her, thougt she was a nice person and doing a good job..
But I agree that in today's kind of social media, where the internet gives anonymous ways for any crackpot or just plain old nasty person to write stuff that they know nothing about really -and to indulge their hatreds, it would be incredibly foolish for a public figure to read the stuff. It really does bring out the nasty in human nature, the internet..
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
I would have to agree with you on that. Buying a garment or whatever because Royal X was seen with it. Inspiration is one thing, but what is happening today with these things is another.


So
? People have always bought clothes and done things becuase someone famous was seen wearing them. People bought Di's style of Laura Ashley clothes when she was a young Princess. Now I beleive that Kate's style of clothes sell out...
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
? People have always bought clothes and done things becuase someone famous was seen wearing them. People bought Di's style of Laura Ashley clothes when she was a young Princess. Now I beleive that Kate's style of clothes sell out...
I know that very well. My post perhaps made it sound like it's only happening today and did not happen in the past. That's not true, of course. But what I said still stands for me, it's kind of like celebrities endorsing a product. Leads me to think "so because X or Y promotes it it's supposed to be good?" I may be a little cynic there, though.

Is it bought because it's really liked (looks cool/nice pattern/etc.) or is it only bought because he or she wore it? That's a very fine line. The first is okay, the second I doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Honeslty I think that that's very trivial in itself, I mean if people buy clothes because they saw Princess Diana or little George or Vic Beckham wearing them. What does it matter? Now if people voted a particular way or say developed some viewpoint because of a celebrity, or prominent person, it might be a lot more seirous.
I knew a lady who was the nicest person, and very sensible who said that in the early 80s she asked for a "lady Diana" haircut.. - like no doubt loads of other perfectly sensible women...
And in many ways an "endorsement" from a royal or celebrity can be a very good thing. One doctor said (in Tina Browns book on Diana) that when Diana spoke about her bulimia, a mother of a child who had an eating disorder, was able to understand her child's problem and realise it was nothing to be ashamed of...
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-21-2016, 03:59 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.
how are they close to maniacs?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Diana" (2013) - British-produced film about Diana and Hasnat Khan Mermaid1962 The Electronic Domain 121 11-01-2013 10:54 PM
New books marking the tenth anniversary of Diana's death Hendrik-Jan77 Royal Library 82 10-03-2007 12:12 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish calendar duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style ingrid alexandra kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises