20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017

[Iluvbertie]

Her life will be rehashed, debated, dissected etc etc for the rest of time due to the damage she did to the BRF as well as the good she did in other ways. She is now a figure in history and, like Anne Boleyn, will be discussed, taught and researched for the rest of time so these sorts of stories will still be appearing 100, 200, 500, 1000 years from now.

 

[Denville]

Thank you for telling me that as I did not know that and it shows me that there is so little to really talk about and how sad that this is still going on with very little thought of what to say anymore, it is a repeat of repeat again and again and that is such a waste as there is more to life then one person regardless of whom she was married to or what she did........some just can't get over her passing it seems and are stuck in time way back when...moving on here...........

well she's a historical figure, to some controversial, to others' beloved. I think that any historical figure is going to be discussed and debated. there is plety of talk on the web and in life about people, and other people, can't see the point of it. I cant' see the point of discussing sports, but I don't go on a sports forum. if you don't want to talk abot Diana, there are other royals. But why not complain that THEY are dead or not interesting?

 

[Denville]

^ Saying in her NOTORIOUS interview 'he shouldn't be King' seems a crystal clear 'write off' to me...

She did not say he shouldn't be king. She said that she thought that the position would be limiting for him.
And it is not denigrating his work to say that. She never said such a thing.

 

[Dee Anna]

Just a silly question here.........what day is today? Sept 1, 2017, isn't it time to move on from this Diana tirade that has been going on now for how many months, years and generations............honestly I really don't think there is anything left of her to talk about anymore, and YES I know we all have our own opinions here and can voice them......yet she has been pulled apart, upside down, inside out, turned every which way, buried and the reopened again, taken apart and put back together and then taken apart again.......what is left of this poor soul to talk about, drag down, build up, turn around and again and again and then doctored all over again.........and still someone finds something else to cut up and chew up and spit out again and again..........poor lady must be laughing her head off at all the silliness that goes on about her life from above. Her boys must so be wanting to breath a breath of fresh air now that the time of her passing has past and all can move on peacefully or some not........... for they live their life through her only each day......

My deepest apologizes to everyone here and to the mods for my tirade on this subject....hiding in my deep part of the earth so you can't find me...

I actually quite enjoyed it!

But the whole point of a forum is to discuss whatever the subject is surely? There are open threads here which are donkeys years old which is wonderful! As already posted, Diana is a royal historical figure so not to include her would be to say, at the least rude and at best a bit weird!

This has been a special Anniversary so yes, more to say, but Diana isn't going away. Diana will long outlive this forum!! ?

 

[Osipi]

I actually quite enjoyed it!

But the whole point of a forum is to discuss whatever the subject is surely? There are open threads here which are donkeys years old which is wonderful! As already posted, Diana is a royal historical figure so not to include her would be to say, at the least rude and at best a bit weird!

This has been a special Anniversary so yes, more to say, but Diana isn't going away. Diana will long outlive this forum!! ?

I agree with the concept that Diana always will be a focus on discussion for years to come. In her 36 years, she did make a huge impact on the world around her and her work and her legacy live on through her sons. Even the not so good aspects of Diana have had their impact and wrought changes in various ways.

One thing I wish could happen though is that when discussing Diana, the focus remains on her and not the other casts of characters that surrounded her life. Of course they influenced and brought to the surface many facets of Diana that we wouldn't have known about had they not happened but if we keep a focus on Diana in Diana threads, Charles in Charles threads and so forth. It keeps things neater for intelligent discussion when there's no blame game being played or throwing stones or pinning labels based on personal opinion on the casts of characters in Diana's life.

We need to remain objective if we really want to delve into the persona of Diana, Princess of Wales. Seeing things from all angles gives us more pieces of the puzzle to see a complete picture.

 

[M. Payton]

Now you have peaked my interest so what *pieces of the puzzle of Diana are missing* for from reading all the books, seeing all the movies, reading various forums, newspapers, magazines and TV shows and all the zillion threads what is left to find? Anything missing please let me know......just curious as to the hidden missing puzzle pieces.......maybe I need new reading glasses .....

 

[Osipi]

No missing pieces that I know of. If one is going to really get to *know* a historical figure, it pays to research all angles. One thing about Diana is that there is plenty out there. Some trash her, some praise her, some look at her from a psychological point of view and some look at her in the historical date and time manner. Some think she's a saint and some think she's a sinner and some even think she was loony tunes. Some people, like me before I came here, saw Diana through the front pages of tabloids at the supermarket

If we look at her from all different angles objectively and without bias, its then that the whole picture can start to be put together.

 

[Dman]

No missing pieces that I know of. If one is going to really get to *know* a historical figure, it pays to research all angles. One thing about Diana is that there is plenty out there. Some trash her, some praise her, some look at her from a psychological point of view and some look at her in the historical date and time manner. Some think she's a saint and some think she's a sinner and some even think she was loony tunes. Some people, like me before I came here, saw Diana through the front pages of tabloids at the supermarket

If we look at her from all different angles objectively and without bias, its then that the whole picture can start to be put together.

I simply saw the late Princess of Wales as human. I think it frustrated her that people didn't see her as a human being.

People don't really think of royalty as human beings. They see them as these programmed machines; who's only job is to serve others, with no life, wants or desires of their own. That kind of royalty only exist in children's fantasy books.

Diana was a human being just like the rest of us. She did what was required of her as the Princess of Wales and future Queen. She fully understood the job, but she also wanted to be happy in her personal life. That's where the struggle came in.

 

[Denville]

I agree with the concept that Diana always will be a focus on discussion for years to come. In her 36 years, she did make a huge impact on the world around her and her work and her legacy live on through her sons. Even the not so good aspects of Diana have had their impact and wrought changes in various ways.

We need to remain objective if we really want to delve into the persona of Diana, Princess of Wales. Seeing things from all angles gives us more pieces of the puzzle to see a complete picture.

its hard not to discuss Diana and thik of her marriage, her realtionsship with the rest of the RF, her sons, and also her relationships with men and other friends. People don't exist in isolation..
But it does sadden me that in latter years people go on about her love relationships and marriage problems almost to the exclusion of all elese.
And I admit that I tink that there has been "overkill" if its not a horrible expression, in the amount of stuff that has come up in the press and TV etc about her. I admired her, even loved her, but there was little that was new in the coverage and much that was speculative.. and there was simply too much of it. I find it hard to understand too, how people can apparenlty be "really really upset" 20 years after the death of someone they didn't really know.. I can understand feeling a little sad, yes, but it seems that there are some people who are acting as if it was "major grief" stil...
and what also seems hard to understand are the people who continue to bash her unfairly, 20 years on...

 

[M. Payton]

Thank you most of all Denville for your last comment here about Diana, and yes there has been a huge *overkill* on her this time around.....good grief it got to be almost like everyone was in a trance about her, an obsession maybe.

The BRF does consists of more then one person anywhere, for a while no one could not talk about anyone in that family without bringing her into the picture, that was frustrating as there is lots of other people out there that do interesting work and face challenges each day.

I grew up with Diana and believe me I cared about her like almost everyone here and I have the books and saw all the shows and the magazine are still in boxes yet I never learned anything new about her here.

What is sad is that both the boys have to live with this bashing day in and day out of their mother......that to me is very cruel and hateful which I do not do. Just for me, I am going to leave her in peace and for me I am her go, for life is short as it is.....remembering as she was.....no need to carry this on for there is so much left to learn about all the royals and their history..not just one person makes a royal history.

Think I will go see what is going on with Cleopatra and how she is building that gorgeous temple in the desert.................?

 

[ladongas]

Perfect summing up...

Diana and Society:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/diana-warning-women-tragedy-princess

Like many women, she entered wedlock in good faith, wore the dress, got the ring, and entered the marital home – only to discover that there was nothing there except betrayal, contempt and duty. The fabled love-bower was a piece of cheap cardboard advertising.


This is why so many still resent the Charles and Camilla situation.

 

[tommy100]

Am I alone in thinking the publics' reaction to Diana's death was quite selfish? To demand the RF leave William and Harry to publicly weep and morn an (at the time) ex member of the RF? Looking back at it all I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way the public demanded open weeping and mourning of a person they did not really know and the way this impacted upon two (at the time) young children.

 

[Dman]

Am I alone in thinking the publics' reaction to Diana's death was quite selfish? To demand the RF leave William and Harry to publicly weep and morn an (at the time) ex member of the RF? Looking back at it all I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way the public demanded open weeping and mourning of a person they did not really know and the way this impacted upon two (at the time) young children.

This only happened because it wasn't translated to the media and public that the family was taking the proper time to mourn and The Queen and Charles was consoling the boys at Balmoral. With no info, it came off like the royals didn't care about what had happened. That wasn't true though.

Diana touch many people's lives. Whether she met them personally or not, her sudden and tragic passing was very deeply felt. It's just that some wasn't used to seeing people mourn worldwide like that before. Even William and Harry have come to understand why people mourned their mother in such a way.

I was all the way here in America when I heard the news. Tears couldn't stop falling from my face for a while. I never met Diana, but I knew of her and the work she was doing as a senior royal.

We all go through loss, but there's something about losing a mother that's really hard to even think about. Especially if they're young and have their whole lives ahead of them. Mother's are the backbone of the family and once they're gone, it's like the sun goes out in ones life.

I thank The Prince of Wales and Princes William and Harry for sharing Diana with us all. No matter what went down privately, Charles chose a special person to be his first bride and mother of his two kids. Diana was a bright light in a dark world and the world hasn't been the same without her. We have moved on, but we'll never forget Diana.

 

[cepe]

Am I alone in thinking the publics' reaction to Diana's death was quite selfish? To demand the RF leave William and Harry to publicly weep and morn an (at the time) ex member of the RF? Looking back at it all I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way the public demanded open weeping and mourning of a person they did not really know and the way this impacted upon two (at the time) young children.

No you're not. Some people still demand it. they wanted to own Diana as much in death as when she was alive.

And now they want to own her sons.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What happened that week was manipulated by the media.

When the news first broke the media went to KP and the public turned on those members of the media who were there and called them 'murderers'.

The media had to react and had three options:

1. take the blame as they would have bought the photos and published them - not going to happen as it would affect their bottom line.

2. place the blame on her fans who would have bought the publications with the photos in them - again not going to happen as it would affect their bottom line then and forever more as they wouldn't be able to sell anything on Diana

3. place the blame somewhere else and the royals wouldn't fight back - so they turned the mob (and it was a mob being manipulated into their demands by the media) - against the royals.

Win-win for the media - they are still able to manipulate Diana's supporters, still able to sell anything with Diana, and turn the people whichever way they want. They are making fortunes off Diana to this day and so they won. The BRF took 20 years trying to recover from the Diana years and in two short months they are back to where they were in the depths in 1997 with Charles even lower than he was then in terms of popularity.

I have spoken to many people who were in London that week and they have all said that they felt that had to go into the streets and cry and scream - not necessarily what they wanted to do but 'everyone was doing it and if you weren't you were taken to task by others who were'. That is a 'mob mentality' - to have everyone else behaving like you are to justify you own behaviour.

That is why they had to have the princes walk - otherwise the mob may very well have turned on the royal family on the day of the funeral. There were rumours that there was going to be an assassination attempt on Charles that day.

Of course the Queen did the right thing. Why anyone needed to be told that the Queen and the rest of the family were helping the princes cope is beyond comprehension and shows just how the media manipulated the public. Any one with half a brain would have figured that out without needing to be told it by either the media or the BRF.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Am I alone in thinking the publics' reaction to Diana's death was quite selfish? To demand the RF leave William and Harry to publicly weep and morn an (at the time) ex member of the RF? Looking back at it all I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way the public demanded open weeping and mourning of a person they did not really know and the way this impacted upon two (at the time) young children.

I believe the public would have been shocked and sad, but not riled up IF the press had not stirred things up to direct attention away from their culpability in her death.

 

[Denville]

Thank you most of all Denville for your last comment here about Diana, and yes there has been a huge *overkill* on her this time around.....good grief it got to be almost like everyone was in a trance about her, an obsession maybe.

:

well that's not quite what I meant. I am glad to discuss Diana but I find it very frustrating because one is caught between people who hated her and wont ever hear anything good of her.. and people who idolised her and criticise everything that's said about her unless it is 110% adoring of her.

So one gets to have to make the same points overand again and can never have a decent interesting discussion.
And IMO the boys started the whole "Remember Diana" movement in the past few months. I am glad that they wanted to pay tribute to her but I think that they did it in such a way, that it did not come off very well. It seems to me to have generated more heat and controversy than enligthenment about her.
THe Press would have of course gone on with their talking about her, as long as she "sells" but to make the whole story sell again, they had to embroider repeat with a slight twist and exaggerate.

Am I alone in thinking the publics' reaction to Diana's death was quite selfish? To demand the RF leave William and Harry to publicly weep and morn an (at the time) ex member of the RF? Looking back at it all I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way the public demanded open weeping and mourning of a person they did not really know and the way this impacted upon two (at the time) young children.

Huh? Who said that they were asked "to leave Will and Harry"? All that was asked was that one flet that the RF had SOME decent modicum of sorrow for one of thteir relatives even if she was not married to C any more or if she was at times at odds with them.

No you're not. Some people still demand it. they wanted to own Diana as much in death as when she was alive.

And now they want to own her sons.

Not a bit of it. I don't particurlary like the boys, "just because they are Diana's sons" or for their own sake. Diana is a public figure now part of history.. and it is understandable that the public who liked or loved her, will wnt to read about her..

 

[Tsaritsa]

Thank you most of all Denville for your last comment here about Diana, and yes there has been a huge *overkill* on her this time around.....good grief it got to be almost like everyone was in a trance about her, an obsession maybe.

The BRF does consists of more then one person anywhere, for a while no one could not talk about anyone in that family without bringing her into the picture, that was frustrating as there is lots of other people out there that do interesting work and face challenges each day.

I grew up with Diana and believe me I cared about her like almost everyone here and I have the books and saw all the shows and the magazine are still in boxes yet I never learned anything new about her here.

What is sad is that both the boys have to live with this bashing day in and day out of their mother......that to me is very cruel and hateful which I do not do. Just for me, I am going to leave her in peace and for me I am her go, for life is short as it is.....remembering as she was.....no need to carry this on for there is so much left to learn about all the royals and their history..not just one person makes a royal history.

Think I will go see what is going on with Cleopatra and how she is building that gorgeous temple in the desert.................?

I think part of the outpouring of collective grief we witnessed 20 years ago was as much about the senseless WASTE as anything else. The last few weeks have reminded us that the waste is no LESS senseless, now.

 

[Denville]

Any early death is tragic and there is a sense of waste, that the person's potential hasn't been fully used, that they haven't had enough life to achieve more happiness.
and I'm still sad about Diana, but I am not upset the way I was 20 years ago when she had just died. Even her sons probably don't feel that same awful grief now that they did when they were first experiencing her loss..
but some people on various forums do seem to be acting like they are still in the same grieved state that they were at the time of her death. and that IMO is not a good thing. NOr IMO is it a good thing that some people continue to really bash her, now 20 years on. Yes she had her faults, She did stupid and wrong things and Its fair enough to criticise her.. but to go on bashing her?

 

[Tsaritsa]

Any early death is tragic and there is a sense of waste, that the person's potential hasn't been fully used, that they haven't had enough life to achieve more happiness.
and I'm still sad about Diana, but I am not upset the way I was 20 years ago when she had just died. Even her sons probably don't feel that same awful grief now that they did when they were first experiencing her loss..
but some people on various forums do seem to be acting like they are still in the same grieved state that they were at the time of her death. and that IMO is not a good thing. NOr IMO is it a good thing that some people continue to really bash her, now 20 years on. Yes she had her faults, She did stupid and wrong things and Its fair enough to criticise her.. but to go on bashing her?

It isn't for any of us to gauge how others feel and grieve. I, like you, admit to still feeling sadness -I was surprised by the jolt I felt at seeing all the film of her which is being shown currently- but we have moved on. I'm certain -indeed I fervently hope -that her sons aren't still experiencing the depths of pain and grief they initially felt. We can't know what's happened in the lives of others which has prevented them from moving on, but you're correct that it's not a good thing. I certainly concur that the time for Diana bashing is over.

 

[Muhler]

I sincerely hope no one will be offended by what I'm about to write, because that is in no way my intention.

Looking at Diana, her life, death and legacy from a more detached point of view, it fascinates and indeed puzzles me.
Considering the veneration there is for Diana among a lot of people, she clearly left of void that even now a generation later, has not been filled by any other member of the BRF.
Not even her children, who you should think would be obvious heirs of her legacy. AFAICT As far as I can tell not even team W&K - with children - has taken over from Diana. And they are at the age where Diana was pretty much at her zenith.

I wonder: Do you think anyone could ever fill that void Diana left, in the minds of those who followed her while she was alive? Or has she become, so to speak, Saint Diana? I.e. almost deified, so that no one and nothing could ever fill her shoes or even be equal to her, let alone supersede her?

 

[Spheno]

Nobody want to 'fill that void'. They don't need one more royal causing unhealthy reactions.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest Muhler, I don't think we'll ever see the likes of Diana again and most certainly there is no one that would want to aspire to be iconic and deemed "the most popular in the world". When looking at the life and times of Diana, one thing that cannot be said about her is that she was 100% a team player for the good of the monarchy. In a way, I think we could almost say she had a bit of Henrik in her and wanted to make herself heard.

We do see Diana's legacy kept alive with her sons as they both are dedicated to continuing work that she started and keep it alive. What we won't see is any of the British royals rising to iconic personal stardom because, as we've seen so far, the younger royals focus more on being a team and put the monarchy ahead of their own personalities. What we're also seeing now is a steadfast drawing of the lines in the sand as far as their private lives are concerned. They will do all they can to assure that their private lives are never turned into a public soap opera.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I sincerely hope no one will be offended by what I'm about to write, because that is in no way my intention.

Looking at Diana, her life, death and legacy from a more detached point of view, it fascinates and indeed puzzles me.
Considering the veneration there is for Diana among a lot of people, she clearly left of void that even now a generation later, has not been filled by any other member of the BRF.
Not even her children, who you should think would be obvious heirs of her legacy. AFAICT As far as I can tell not even team W&K - with children - has taken over from Diana. And they are at the age where Diana was pretty much at her zenith.

I wonder: Do you think anyone could ever fill that void Diana left, in the minds of those who followed her while she was alive? Or has she become, so to speak, Saint Diana? I.e. almost deified, so that no one and nothing could ever fill her shoes or even be equal to her, let alone supersede her?

I think there has been a deliberate attempt, by the Royal Family in general and William, Kate and Harry especially, to steer clear of another round of Di-mania. None of them want that attention.
The intense interest in Diana, which I think she fanned and enjoyed when she thought she was controlling it, exploded when she died too young and still very attractive. She became larger than life in death like Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.

 

[Dman]

I sincerely hope no one will be offended by what I'm about to write, because that is in no way my intention.

Looking at Diana, her life, death and legacy from a more detached point of view, it fascinates and indeed puzzles me.
Considering the veneration there is for Diana among a lot of people, she clearly left of void that even now a generation later, has not been filled by any other member of the BRF.
Not even her children, who you should think would be obvious heirs of her legacy. AFAICT As far as I can tell not even team W&K - with children - has taken over from Diana. And they are at the age where Diana was pretty much at her zenith.

I wonder: Do you think anyone could ever fill that void Diana left, in the minds of those who followed her while she was alive? Or has she become, so to speak, Saint Diana? I.e. almost deified, so that no one and nothing could ever fill her shoes or even be equal to her, let alone supersede her?

No one can fill the void that Diana left behind. No one should be expecting the Cambridge's and Harry to do so.

William and Harry have drawn on some inspiration from their mother and will continue to carry on her legacy and memory. That's all they can do.

 

[wyevale]

Why would we want another ??? SO divisive in her effect.
Dianophiles find it hard to recognise the fact but she was, and remains a deeply divisive figure, as this recent anniversary has shown ALL too clearly

 

[Dman]

Why would we want another ??? SO divisive in her effect.
Dianophiles find it hard to recognise the fact but she was, and remains a deeply divisive figure, as this recent anniversary has shown ALL too clearly

Not true at all. Her name is used by others to divide people. She's been gone to 20 years, but people have capitalized off of her for over 20 years and done so to spread their own personal agenda.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Not true at all. Her name is used by others to divide people. She's been gone to 20 years, but people have capitalized off of her for over 20 years and done so to spread their own personal agenda.

Dman, I know you admire Diana greatly, but to say it is "not true at all" that she was divisive is putting your head in the sand. She was directly involved in Andrew Morton's book about her among other things.

Diana's children loved her and miss her. She did charitable things, whether to help others, make herself look good or feel good or a combination of all these things no one will know--but she did help people. But she was not a saint and had her personal demons that made her behave in ways that didn't always support the royal family.

 

[Denville]

To be honest Muhler, I don't think we'll ever see the likes of Diana again and most certainly there is no one that would want to aspire to be iconic and deemed "the most popular in the world". When looking at the life and times of Diana, one thing that cannot be said about her is that she was 100% a team player for the good of the monarchy. In a way, I think we could almost say she had a bit of Henrik in her and wanted to make herself heard.

never turned into a public soap opera.

I think that we wont see another Diana partly because she was an unusual person,and that doesn't happen that often. She had a fascination and charm that wasn't to do with talent or even her looks.. it was something special about her that made the camera love her and attracted people to her. She used that gift badly at times and at times well. but I think that among todays royals they are I'm sure very wary of any of them "watnting to be another Diana" because - well isn't it obvious? her life ended in tragedy. Her charm and beauty attracted people, and had the press chasing her all the time. And her more volatile side meant that instead of insisting on proper protection for herself, she refused to have protection, and ended up relyng on the haphazard security of the Fayed family, which caused her death. Why would anyone want that?

 

[wyevale]

With respect, Dman, you live abroad to I assume you aren't British ?

MANY people here, including staunch monarchists were unhappy [during her marriage] by her tendency to court publicity, when essentially the role of a consort is to support their spouse in the leading role THEY have..
Her popularity SO clearly 'went to her head'. As the marriage deteriorated things got worse, and her manipulation of any weapon at her disposal with it...

I will say no more, but truly there is truth in what I say.