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

[Iluvbertie]

Are there any books on Charles and Diana's relationship that are credible? I would like to read one but I want to avoid those that take sides.

Not going to happen. Historians are by their very nature biased even when looking at things from the ancient past based on their own backgrounds, religious beliefs etc.

The biggest mistake many people make when looking at biographies is thinking that such a thing as an unbiased account is possible. Historians have to choose what sources to use and what to leave out - the question then has to be 'why did they choose that one and not the other one?' That is already showing a bias for one side or the other.

You need to read four or five from each side and then make up your own mind - and even then you will choose bits and pieces from each one to use to make up your mind - it is human nature.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some so called "Diana experts", like Richard kay, are behind the Mail and they used the late Princess as a cash machine for years ...

The DM was nicknamed the 'Di Mail' in the 1990s and Richard Kay was Diana's tame reporter. He was the one with the 'scoops' because she rang him and told him where she would be, especially with the boys.

 

[duchessrachel]

None of them will be unbiased ...however if you want their personal thoughts/views read the two they were directly involved in (the Morton and Dimbley books).

Past that there's dozens of them out there (Her former bodyguard wrote one, Wharfe). Not sure I'd give them too much weight though...again, just opinion.



LaRae

Thanks. I have read the Morton book and plan to read the Dimbley book.

 

[duchessrachel]

There are a lot of books out there on Diana and they are written by people that have researched her, have known her and have worked for her. My advice is to read quite a few of them and form your own opinion of what you feel rings true to you and what doesn't. If I had to suggest the top three of the books I've read on Diana they would be:

1. Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess by Sally Bedell Smith.

2. The Housekeeper's Diary by Wendy Berry

3. Diana: Closely Guarded Secret by Ken Wharfe

The reason I picked these three is because the first one is written by a woman that is an excellent biographer in my opinion. She did her research very well and talked with a lot of people that knew Diana. The other two are people that knew Diana by working with her or for her and, to me, are unbiased.

Of course this is just my opinion on reading material. Others here may have other favorites for their own personal reasons. There is a *lot* of information out there if you look for it.

Thank you. I will check those out.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There are a lot of books out there on Diana and they are written by people that have researched her, have known her and have worked for her. My advice is to read quite a few of them and form your own opinion of what you feel rings true to you and what doesn't. If I had to suggest the top three of the books I've read on Diana they would be:

1. Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess by Sally Bedell Smith.

2. The Housekeeper's Diary by Wendy Berry

3. Diana: Closely Guarded Secret by Ken Wharfe

The reason I picked these three is because the first one is written by a woman that is an excellent biographer in my opinion. She did her research very well and talked with a lot of people that knew Diana. The other two are people that knew Diana by working with her or for her and, to me, are unbiased.

That very sentence identifies their bias - they knew her personally. Their personal experience of her, for good or bad, will affect the way the write about her and thus that forms a large part of their bias view of her.

 

[Curryong]

Who is 'unbiased' then? Penny Junor, who knows Camilla and Charles personally and also writes about them and Diana, whom, she avers her editor father was 'in love with'?

IMO there are many valuable biographies and memoirs written by those who knew their subject. I'm reading a memoir of the Empress Friedrich (Vicky) at the moment, written by Walberga Lady Paget, who knew her well as a young woman.

I also like Sally Bedell Smith's bios of Diana and Charles, as well as 'The Housekeeper's Diary' and Wharfe's 'Closely Guarded Secret' as well as Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana.

IMO we are not likely to get anything unbiased about Diana or Charles and Camilla or the disintegration of the Wales marriage (at least from primary sources) until long after Charles's death, and perhaps not even then.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Who is 'unbiased' then?

No one.

Everyone has a bias - it is human nature.

Penny Junor, who knows Camilla and Charles personally and also writes about them and Diana, whom, she avers her editor father was 'in love with.'

Penny Junor is certainly a favourite for Charles' supporters.

IMO there are many valuable biographies and memoirs written by those who knew their subject. I'm reading a memoir of the Empress Friedrich (Vicky) at the moment, written by Walberga Lady Paget, who knew her well as a young woman.

Any well-researched biography is 'valuable' but bias is something different.

If you know someone they you are forming your opinions based on personal knowledge. If you don't know someone you are forming your opinion based on others who did but not everyone who knew someone knows them the same way. Taking your example of Lady Paget - her view of Vicky is coloured by her position, her own relationship but wouldn't be the same as say Bismarck's opinion of Vicky - both knew her but had different opinions of her. Neither is wholly right or wholly wrong but anyone who wants to learn about Vicky will read works from both of these, her letters, and the views of others who knew her or were alive at the time and even then they still will have bits missing.

I also like Sally Bedell Smith's bios of Diana and Charles, as well as 'The Housekeeper's Diary' and Wharfe's 'Closely Guarded Secret' as well as Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana.

I too like these biographies.

IMO we are not likely to get anything unbiased about Diana or Charles and the disintegration of his marriage (at least from primary sources) until long after Charles's death, and perhaps not even then.

I agree we won't get anything unbiased by would extend the time frame until never.

We don't get the entire diaries for instance - whoever edits them will choose what to leave in and what to leave out and that is caused by the person's own bias.

 

[Curryong]

I'm just putting it out there that Mantel is not only a very talented writer but is a convinced republican. She rarely writes anything generous about the BRF or individual members of it and is fascinated seemingly by the myths and public perceptions of Royal females and the differences between the public persona and image and the private person.

Hilary has lectured and written about Marie Antoinette and Elizabeth I in the past. I remember her essay on Kate shortly after the Cambridges were married was avidly seized on by those who didn't/don't like Kate, and rushed to comment, so people's take on this article may well be skewed by their opinions of Diana I suppose, though it is certainly not overly critical of her.

 

[Osipi]

Lets face it. Even the Morton book which was touted as being "In her own words" and hence the closest thing to an autobiography written by Diana is extremely biased towards Diana's opinions. The book should have been made out of rubber as there was a lot of stretching the truth in it.

I stand corrected by Iluvbertie as she is absolutely right. There is bias in anything written unless one is writing a textbook. Come to think of it, even textbooks need to be updated as new information can become available and change things up.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Having written a textbook, and been involved in the writing of a few others I can assure you there is bias in the writing there as well e.g. I had to met the criteria set by the NSW History syllabus so had to write according to what the government want the students to learn not necessarily a balanced approach at all e.g. in the Australian High School History syllabus there is no compulsory units on Australian history other than those dealing with Australia's role in the World Wars - forget about anyone else's - and Indigenous Australians from the beginning of their history to the present day. There is no compulsory study of the Europeans in this country other than their impact on indigenous Australians but that is what the powers that be want our kids to learn (I suspect it is the same in many countries where the negative story is emphasised rather than trying to get a balance in there somewhere).

 

[Osipi]

Good points. I always keep that in mind with my studies (via books) on ancient civilizations and its people. I have to keep in mind that, for the most part, all we have really is theories of what might have been based upon what we've discovered so far.

I think this conversation has been useful with the idea of getting to know who Diana was, what her life was like and why things happened the way they did. With reading what others write from looking at Diana from all angles and for different reasons, we can begin to get a full picture of what Diana *may* have been like. With Diana no longer with us and interest in her still prevalent 20 years after her death, I think it would be wise for all of us to look at it from all directions. Up, down, sideways, upside down and from out in left field in a galaxy far, far away. See the good, the bad and the ugly and the exaggerated.

 

[Denville]

I do agree. Some members of the media have been milking everything out of Diana for many years. It's rather sickening.

but that's what journalists of that ilk do. They are not writing political analysis or hard news. They are writing light stuff, mostly and most people don't take it too seriously but I find that people on forums like this DO seem to take every word as gospel or attack them for being inaccurate or biased. the journalists on the Mail and other papers wouldn't write about Diana if there wasn't a market for it, ie people WANT to read this stuff and dotn seem to care that it is mostly re hashed..
ANd of course they switch their viewpoint at times. Soemtimes Di is in favour, sometimes Charles.. its all in the game of getting people to read it.. but one can read it and just take it for what it is.. ie it may have few nuggets of truth but it is probably nothing like 99% accurate.
There is no point IMO of blaming people for doing their job, ie writing articles about people in the public eye, Diana is a cash cow to them, so are the rest of the RF and the celebs

 

[Rudolph]

We should honour Diana's place as one of the most important women of the 20th Century, says Professor KATE WILLIAMS

The flowers started coming at 5.30am.

First was a bunch of lilies wrapped in newspaper. Then more. A group of night clubbers heard the news from a DJ and arrived with red roses. Some scribbled notes – but most people had no words. Diana, Princess of Wales was dead and at first no one could comprehend the loss.

The outpouring of grief was cataclysmic and the reverberations have continued down the decades as far even as today, with fresh cards and flowers left outside the gates of Kensington Palace, a makeshift shrine, as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches.

Diana has too often been dismissed. Too much emphasis has been placed on her beauty, her lack of a formal education, her divorce and tragic death.

Read more: We should honour Diana's place in history

 

[Osipi]

The thing is that, to me, things are drastically overblown.

Should Diana had not died tragically, all the calls for sainthood and calls to honor Diana's place in history and the focus on the ex wife of The Prince of Wales that has practically been going on all summer with articles, documentaries and everyone and their grandmother getting into the act making a big deal out of being dead for 20 years, Diana would have gone down in history for the time she was the Princess of Wales and remembered for being someone that did what a Princess of Wales is supposed to do and maybe a blurb or two on how she continued in life after leaving the BRF.

They've turned remembering Diana for who she was into a three ring circus.

 

[Dman]

Everyone should be following William and Harry's lead in honoring Diana. Carrying out her legacy of giving and caring for those who's in need of love and guidance.

The media need to follow in the Princes leads too.

None of this should be about smearing Charles and Camilla and relitigating the past drama over and over again.

 

[Curryong]

I agree with you both but with one little caveat. Diana's enormous worldwide popularity, and a charisma that drew people to her and her causes, made her far beyond what other Princesses of Wales were and how they did things. It also made that funeral and the lead up to it almost inevitable IMO.

Now everybody except Princess Michael's cats have said everything that is possible to say about Diana and the Diana phenomenon, I should think by the end of next month everything will have died down considerably and we will be discussing many other things, including perhaps, a Royal engagement!

 

[Mirabel]

The thing is that, to me, things are drastically overblown.

They've turned remembering Diana for who she was into a three ring circus.

Absolutely!

Diana did some admirable things, but to call her one of the most important women of the century seems a stretch.

But this too shall pass. I only hope it is sooner rather than later.

 

[TLLK]

Now everybody except Princess Michael's cats have said everything that is possible to say about Diana and the Diana phenomenon, I should think by the end of next month everything will have died down considerably and we will be discussing many other things, including perhaps, a Royal engagement!

HMMMM if we expand our search, I'm sure that one of our royal detectives can find commentary from Princess Michael's cats on their former neighbor.

 

[ladongas]

HMMMM if we expand our search, I'm sure that one of our royal detectives can find commentary from Princess Michael's cats on their former neighbor.

Say- just how old are those cats?

 

[wyevale]

How important was Diana ?

As Chairman Mao said of the importance of the French Revolution [two centuries earlier].. "It's too soon to tell"..

 

[Osipi]

I agree with you both but with one little caveat. Diana's enormous worldwide popularity, and a charisma that drew people to her and her causes, made her far beyond what other Princesses of Wales were and how they did things. It also made that funeral and the lead up to it almost inevitable IMO.

Now everybody except Princess Michael's cats have said everything that is possible to say about Diana and the Diana phenomenon, I should think by the end of next month everything will have died down considerably and we will be discussing many other things, including perhaps, a Royal engagement!

Fame and popularity are fleeting things and as history is written in the future, it will be Diana's work as the Princess of Wales that is the focus. When we really think about it, if we were to draw up lists of what Diana did as far as charitable work and a list for Charles' charitable works as Prince and Princess of Wales, next to Charles', Diana's would look like an amateur taking a stab at things. Its looking at the facts. I do realize that Diana's list was cut short by a tragic accident. I'm not demeaning the work Diana did do or her effect on people that she met but history tends to boil things down to dates, times and events.

 

[TLLK]

Say- just how old are those cats?

Well with nine lives...they could be pretty old by now.

 

[Duchessmary]

She will never be forgotten, and that is right and proper. She was human, just like the rest of us, and in her last days, she was surrounded by boneheads and idiots that only wished to capitalize on her vulnerability.

 

[Dman]

Video:
Fans of the late Princess of Wales recall their meeting with the Princess on her first royal tour in Wales-
https://itnproductions.com/news/vid...ing-the-princess-on-first-royal-tour?type=raw

 

[BMC]

Say- just how old are those cats?

IIRC her cats are Siamese and they have been known to live well into their twenties. My cousins had one who lived to be 25.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

William, Harry & Kate pay tribute
Princes William and Harry pay tribute to mother Diana | Daily Mail Online

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I think it does make a lot of sense. It's a pity it rained, but the gardens looked very nice. Ive been thinking about Diana a lot this month and the way she missed her boys growing up into men. I wonder what their thoughts were as they looked around and talked to the gardeners, including one who knew Diana, and then went to have a chat with the workers for the charities their mother worked for and with. She certainly made a difference in her 36 years.

 

[Dman]

Video:
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry Meet Representatives of the Princess of Wales's Charities at Kensington Palace-
https://itnproductions.com/news/vid...ies-that-diana-supported-20-years-on?type=raw

 

[Rudolph]

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry visit Princess Diana's memorial garden

 

[Lumutqueen]

Prince William and Harry pay tribute to mother Diana | Daily Mail Online

Twenty years ago when they stood in front of the gates of Kensington Palace as young boys, hearts broke at the sight of two young princes in pain as they struggled to come to terms with the enormity of their loss.

And today history repeated itself and William and Harry returned to their mother's former home to view floral tributes to their late mother Diana ahead of the 20th anniversary of her death in a Paris car crash on August 31 1997.

Two decades ago, William, 15, and Harry, 11, were dressed in the sombre dark suits, ties and smart shoes, while today both opted for a much more casual look.