The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1281  
Old 11-19-2014, 10:36 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
The world is not the U.S. or U.K. It is the world.

Diana did not have a global impact. Diana's charity work was not covered world wide. Her visit to an AIDS clinic in 1987 did not have a global audience.

Diana may have contributed to raising funds but that is not the same as having an impact.

As far as the coverage in Chicago, apparently she was here for 3 days, yet even though I regularly watch the news, I heard nothing about it.

I think this more accurately portrays her visit to Chicago.

Media have made Diana what she is: Princess of Hype
But the alleged Diana giddiness still boils down to maybe a dozen or so Chicagoans.

Media Have Made Diana What She Is: Princess Of Hype - Chicago Tribune
Whether Diana was loved by all in Chicago was not the point you were arguing. You stated that Diana's visit to Chicago didn't make the news. In fact, you said that "Diana never made news in Chicago". I and many others, have given you proof that she did make the news in Chicago. What's funny, is that even your own article states that Diana's visit was covered live by local Chicago stations. Why you've switched to talking about how hyped Diana was, I don't know. No one here was even discussing that.

I honestly have no idea if Diana's overall charity work with AIDS/HIV had a global impact and I wasn't debating that. I'm strictly talking about her visit to Middlesex Hospital and the global attention that visit received. But I have a feeling that we're going to go around and around on this, so it's probably best that we agree to disagree.

ETA: I just realized the article that you posted is satire...the quotes aren't actually from real people.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 11-19-2014, 10:56 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,756
I wish there was a foundation setup in her name and that William & Harry and even Catherine were involved so her causes would get more press attention and people would benefit from the foundation, not only in the UK, but also in the US.
__________________

__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 11-19-2014, 11:14 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I wish there was a foundation setup in her name and that William & Harry and even Catherine were involved so her causes would get more press attention and people would benefit from the foundation, not only in the UK, but also in the US.
Although Diana isn't mentioned so much these days, William's work with Centrepoint is a continuation of Diana's and Sentebale (Forget Me Not) was established by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho in memory of their mothers. Harry was also named Patron of the Halo 25th Anniversary Appeal last year and has done quite a bit in regards to continuing to bring land mines to the forefront as his mother did.

I don't think that it is necessary that Diana's name be highlighted in any of the continuing efforts with the charities that she was involved in but the seeds that she planted will continue to grow and bear fruit through the efforts of her family.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 11-19-2014, 12:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Lets look at this from another perspective. Instead of AIDS, lets look at Polio. It wasn't until 1955 that Jonas Salk presented his first polio vaccine. Today, its among the WHOs most necessary vaccines. Although there have been outbreaks of polio as recently as 2013 in Syria, there really isn't much in the news about this disease. I'm sure in the past there have been spokespeople and fundraisers that spoke out on polio but I'd be hard pressed to be able to tell you who they are. What is amazing too is the list of well known personalities that contracted polio and survived and aren't generally known to the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the one most commonly known but people like Alan Alda, Johnny Weismuller, Donald Sutherland, Judy Collins aren't well known. What history teaches us is that Jonas Salk invented the vaccine.

It will be the same with AIDS. Diana did stand up and speak up for AIDS and many of us here do remember it but AIDS also will follow the route of polio when it comes to history with hopefully a name added that has come up with a cure/vaccine against AIDS/HIV.

Diana, I don't think, will be singled out for her charity work as all of the British Royal Family does this. Its what was expected of them in that time frame and continues on in our present. What Diana did will have no more impact on history than what anyone else in the family has done. Perhaps if Diana had set up a Princess of Wales Research Center where the cure/vaccine would possibly be found, it would have more of an impact and she would have been remembered for that contribution but this didn't happen. Spokespeople and fundraisers call attention to causes and its the cause that is remembered, not the person when it comes to the annals of history.
Very insightful, as always, Osipi. There is a difference between leaving a legacy and being an important figure in history. Everyone on this board will leave a legacy. We've all affected our family and friends in many ways and the changes we made may be small, but have changed the course of history in some way. We will never know how our great-great-grandparents' decisions impact us today, but they do.

That is different than who will be remembered by the general public or studied by historians. Diana was one of many celebrities who raised money for AIDS research. Perhaps the money she raised will not directly lead to a cure, but it will help--if nothing else, failed research helps successful researchers know what didn't work. In some cases, failed research into one disease may lead to breakthroughs for other illnesses.

I agree with Queen Camilla that some people exaggerate both the amount of charity work she did and its impact--I believe Prince Charles's work has had more impact on day-to-day life--but Diana did bring publicity and funds to many charitable causes. She also helped people feel better psychologically, which is important but hard to measure.

It's all part of her legacy. Whether she will be a known historical figure in 200 years is an open question.
Reply With Quote
  #1285  
Old 12-14-2014, 05:23 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,043
One thing that I don't understand is why, if she didn't want official protection, she didn't at least hire professional, well-qualified security for when she was "out and about." She could certainly afford it. She was so worried about her safety, yet she'd go around London and other places unprotected, where anyone could have taken a shot at her. Where there's a camera, there can be a gun. Where there's a long-distance lens, there can be a sniper.
Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 12-15-2014, 03:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,324
I thought Diana was more worried about a car accident happening to her than snipers. She wrote that a certain person (never publicly named) was planning an accident involving brake failure for her in a handwritten letter only ten months before she died. She supposedly gave this letter to Paul Burrell as 'insurance'.
Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 12-15-2014, 04:21 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
One thing that I don't understand is why, if she didn't want official protection, she didn't at least hire professional, well-qualified security for when she was "out and about." She could certainly afford it. She was so worried about her safety, yet she'd go around London and other places unprotected, where anyone could have taken a shot at her. Where there's a camera, there can be a gun. Where there's a long-distance lens, there can be a sniper.
Because she knew her enemy was very powerful. If they decide to kill her, some professional security wouldn't help at all. The result won't be different, merely adding more names to the casualty list. Hiding in her house forever is not practical. So I tend to believe she did make some secret tapes as a blackmail in exchange of her safety. However, the most efficient way to guarantee her safety is to drop her landmine campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 12-15-2014, 04:46 AM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I thought Diana was more worried about a car accident happening to her than snipers. She wrote that a certain person (never publicly named) was planning an accident involving brake failure for her in a handwritten letter only ten months before she died. She supposedly gave this letter to Paul Burrell as 'insurance'.
If she was so worried about a car accident then surely the very least she should have done was wear a seatbelt when she was in one! The fact she didn't proves she wasn't all that worried at all.

To be blunt, Diana just wasn't important enough for anyone to bother assassinating her. MI5/MI6 had much, much bigger worries on their plates at that time than a former royal whom only the tabloids and gossip rags were all the interested in.
Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 12-15-2014, 05:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,324
I'm sure that's true, and as I said earlier I am not a conspiracy theorist. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Diana FELT that she was in danger. It was her perception, her view, that someone or some organisation was trying to eliminate her.
Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 12-16-2014, 08:24 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
To be blunt, Diana just wasn't important enough for anyone to bother assassinating her. MI5/MI6 had much, much bigger worries on their plates at that time than a former royal whom only the tabloids and gossip rags were all the interested in.
I think this saying is too extreme. When she was alive, she definitely was an important voice in the humanitarian work, as what the the following article said

Quote:
A journalist colleague worked for years to write articles about the campaign against anti-personnel landmines. I, too, reported on the issue, writing stories about African amputees caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines that remained hidden and deadly across wide swathes of territory, long after the conflicts ended. Our articles never got the kind of placement in the media that we felt they deserved.

Then Princess Diana went to Angola in January 1997. Iconic images of her walking through landmine areas and sitting with young amputees were on the front pages of every newspaper in the world and were beamed by every television network. She made an impassioned statement against anti-personnel landmines and urged all responsible governments to stop using them, producing them and selling them.

Single-handedly Diana made the anti-landmine campaign a hot topic.
Is Africa Hollywood's playground? | Opinion: Landmines weren't an issue until Princess Diana walked in a minefield. | World | Boise Weekly
Reply With Quote
  #1291  
Old 12-16-2014, 09:25 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/.../doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.
Reply With Quote
  #1292  
Old 12-16-2014, 10:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.
As someone who worked on this issue, I will say that we were very happy when Diana's photo ops made a lot of headlines. But you are right, the anti-landmine campaign was in place for years before Diana's involvement.

The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Catholic Relief Services, and Church World Service were all actively working these issues before Diana was involved. There were segments highlighting this issue on 60 Minutes and 20/20 (two major US news programs) and BBC also ran several programs. There were also prominent articles in major U.S. newspapers and magazines.

By 1997, the landmine ban was gaining a lot of steam. Belgium had passed legislation in 1995 and Canada scheduled the talks for the Ottawa Treaty in 1996. Every country (including the UK) that signed the treaty indicated they would do so BEFORE Diana made her famous photo ops. I would be happy to be proven wrong if anyone can provide the name of one signatory of the treaty who wouldn't have done so without Diana's involvement.

She certainly helped bring more awareness to the issue among the general public, but its ludicrous to suggest that she was murdered by weapons manufacturers.
Reply With Quote
  #1293  
Old 12-16-2014, 11:25 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/.../doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.
The only intention I quote another person's article is to argue the saying that Diana had no infulence on anything serious. I definitely have no intention to undermine any other people's contribution on the landmine issue. So please let the debate stop here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I agree; however, keep in mind that Diana did have insecurities. She often thought some friend was betraying her in some way, and then she'd drop that person. So she may have sometimes fancied she was in danger, whether or not there was any foundation for that belief.
One of her friend gave a testimony in Diana's inquest confirmed that Diana did receive a phone call from a man who warned her to drop the landmine campaign, otherwise "an accident might happen." So it is not a total fancy.

After Andrew Morton's book come out, she once told a friend "After this they are gonna kill me". It is around that time she made a will. Yes, I believe she made a will because she worried about her life.
Reply With Quote
  #1294  
Old 12-18-2014, 12:22 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucymae88 View Post
Diana was very powerful in her own right. I think she was killed because if she was alive she would have made sure Charles never become king!!! She was the number one threat to Charles and she had made it clear she didn't think he should become king on TV.
1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?
Reply With Quote
  #1295  
Old 12-18-2014, 12:22 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucymae88 View Post
Diana was very powerful in her own right. I think she was killed because if she was alive she would have made sure Charles never become king!!! She was the number one threat to Charles and she had made it clear she didn't think he should become king on TV.
1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?
Reply With Quote
  #1296  
Old 12-18-2014, 01:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,324
Diana, had she lived, would have remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family and specifically Charles. I certainly don't believe that she was assassinated, by the way, nor was such a thing planned, by Prince Charles, Prince Philip, security services, or anyone else.

Nevertheless, Diana did have power, the power of people's love and admiration, not just in Britain but all over the world.

Yes, by 1997 there were critical articles written in the Press, but nobody seeing those mountains of floral tributes, condolence books in British Embassies overseas, people's spontaneous reactions at the shock of Diana's death, could have denied the impact.

The Queen, the Head of State, was forced by the strength of public opinion to broadcast a tribute to her ex daughter in law, and bow her head outside Buckingham Palace as the funeral cortège passed by.

Diana was loved and mourned all over the world and in that lay her power.
Reply With Quote
  #1297  
Old 12-18-2014, 01:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,276
Nobody who remembers that week should underestimate the power of the press in manipulated the people's 'affection' for Diana.


The press were initially blamed, by people at KP, of killing Diana. I am talking within those first couple of hours where the press were yelled at and words such as 'killers' and 'you killed her' were directed by the public to the press.


The press then had to react:


1. blame Diana's fans (after all they were the ones who fuelled the presses interest as she made the press money and it was because they would buy the magazines etc with the photos in it that triggered the demand that the paparazzi were able to exploit) - not going to happen as that would mean losing money and the press weren't going to do that


2. blame the royal family - they had treated her badly etc etc and she had already set up a 'they are dysfunctional', 'they are hard and unloving' type stories that many people still prefer to believe - easy targets as they wouldn't fight back and really couldn't fight back.


As a result the media stories focussed on the non-appearance of the monarch and the taking of the boys to church etc etc rather than on the paparazzi and who would have bought the photos OR on Diana's own poor decision making that lead to her death.


The public were manipulated big time over Diana - first by her and then by the press.


Many people are more aware today of the way that people can be manipulated but many others still fall for the stories - not only about Diana but a range of figures, incidents etc.


The press wee turning on Diana over that summer and had she lived that would have continued. Headlines like 'just how many holidays does one person need in a year?' come to mind.


I have spoken to many British people who now are ashamed of the way they were manipulated that week - and ashamed of how they badgered The Queen into doing what she did. They have been able to go review their actions and realise that they were victims of the press and that in reality they didn't care that much for Diana.


In many ways we are seeing something similar this week in Sydney - everyone who goes near the city is expected to lay flowers outside the café but how many of them are doing so because they actually are connecting with what happened or is it more 'it is the thing to do this week?' Some people will have been affected - having known people or been in the place etc but many simply are doing it because 'it is the thing to do' and the Diana week was the same thing - it was the thing to do if you were in London that week.
Reply With Quote
  #1298  
Old 12-18-2014, 03:47 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/.../doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.
No one did any good works, charity works, loving gestures, etc. before the advent of Diana. She was soo terrific she had to be stopped. Yeah right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana, had she lived, would have remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family and specifically Charles. I certainly don't believe that she was assassinated, by the way, nor was such a thing planned, by Prince Charles, Prince Philip, security services, or anyone else.
The press were just warming up on the excesses of The Perfect Princess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Nevertheless, Diana did have power, the power of people's love and admiration, not just in Britain but all over the world. Yes, by 1997 there were critical articles written in the Press, but nobody seeing those mountains of floral tributes, condolence books in British Embassies overseas, people's spontaneous reactions at the shock of Diana's death, could have denied the impact.
You are kidding aren't you. The articles of Diana and her behavior were in a state of almost hate. "How many holidays . . . " type headlines with her in bathing suits and bikinis were becoming virilent. Her halo had officially slipped the year before her death. That sea of flowers is more a tribute to the power of the press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The Queen, the Head of State, was forced by the strength of public opinion to broadcast a tribute to her ex daughter in law, and bow her head outside Buckingham Palace as the funeral cortège passed by.

Diana was loved and mourned all over the world and in that lay her power.
Ah the power of the press. The first reports came in that she had died while being chased by the media and there was a groundswell of anger and hatred toward the paparazzi. The media, realising they were "in the gun" swung the spotlight on the royal family. The rest is history . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Nobody who remembers that week should underestimate the power of the press in manipulated the people's 'affection' for Diana.

The press were initially blamed, by people at KP, of killing Diana. I am talking within those first couple of hours where the press were yelled at and words such as 'killers' and 'you killed her' were directed by the public to the press.

The press then had to react:

1. blame Diana's fans (after all they were the ones who fuelled the presses interest as she made the press money and it was because they would buy the magazines etc with the photos in it that triggered the demand that the paparazzi were able to exploit) - not going to happen as that would mean losing money and the press weren't going to do that

2. blame the royal family - they had treated her badly etc etc and she had already set up a 'they are dysfunctional', 'they are hard and unloving' type stories that many people still prefer to believe - easy targets as they wouldn't fight back and really couldn't fight back.

As a result the media stories focussed on the non-appearance of the monarch and the taking of the boys to church etc etc rather than on the paparazzi and who would have bought the photos OR on Diana's own poor decision making that lead to her death.

The public were manipulated big time over Diana - first by her and then by the press.

Many people are more aware today of the way that people can be manipulated but many others still fall for the stories - not only about Diana but a range of figures, incidents etc

The press were turning on Diana over that summer and had she lived that would have continued. Headlines like 'just how many holidays does one person need in a year?' come to mind.

I have spoken to many British people who now are ashamed of the way they were manipulated that week - and ashamed of how they badgered The Queen into doing what she did. They have been able to go review their actions and realise that they were victims of the press and that in reality they didn't care that much for Diana.

In many ways we are seeing something similar this week in Sydney - everyone who goes near the city is expected to lay flowers outside the café but how many of them are doing so because they actually are connecting with what happened or is it more 'it is the thing to do this week?' Some people will have been affected - having known people or been in the place etc but many simply are doing it because 'it is the thing to do' and the Diana week was the same thing - it was the thing to do if you were in London that week.
Harsh, but I cannot find a anything to rebutt your post. It is all an ugly, unforgettably cruel memory. Proof that we are fallable, we are easily manipulated and proof that we can be as mean as Diana was.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1299  
Old 12-18-2014, 03:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,324
Yes, there were many people who were manipulated by the Press, mass hysteria, whatever you like to call it, and there were many who weren't. I happened to be in England the week that Diana"s funeral was held, and I walked around among those crowds.

I was born and brought up in England, at a time when respect for the monarchy was probably at it's highest, and I am telling you that the mood that I felt among the crowds was a very, very strange one. It was one that I have never before experienced, and I have been among huge crowds that have greeted the royals over the years.

The public isn't one big homogenous lump. There were some who did blame the Press. I was told of death threats made to magazine editors and photographers following Diana's death.

Others identified with Diana in her troubles and that included people from all over the world. I was speaking to someone only the other day who came from a small village in India. We spoke about the royals and he recalled his mother and other village women weeping when they heard of Diana's death. They would hardly have been manipulated by the British media. Another friend remembered mourning with others in a small town in Czechoslovakia. They weren't either.

No-one can say Diana's power was or is negligible. If it was why are threads devoted to her in forums like this years after her death? And why is Camilla the only wife of a Prince of Wales in recorded history who took one of her husband's subsidiary titles because royal advisers were worried about public reaction should she be named Princess of Wales?
Reply With Quote
  #1300  
Old 12-18-2014, 05:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, there were many people who were manipulated by the Press, mass hysteria, whatever you like to call it, and there were many who weren't. I happened to be in England the week that Diana"s funeral was held, and I walked around among those crowds.

I was born and brought up in England, at a time when respect for the monarchy was probably at it's highest, and I am telling you that the mood that I felt among the crowds was a very, very strange one. It was one that I have never before experienced, and I have been among huge crowds that have greeted the royals over the years.

The public isn't one big homogenous lump. There were some who did blame the Press. I was told of death threats made to magazine editors and photographers following Diana's death.

Others identified with Diana in her troubles and that included people from all over the world. I was speaking to someone only the other day who came from a small village in India. We spoke about the royals and he recalled his mother and other village women weeping when they heard of Diana's death. They would hardly have been manipulated by the British media. Another friend remembered mourning with others in a small town in Czechoslovakia. They weren't either.

No-one can say Diana's power was or is negligible. If it was why are threads devoted to her in forums like this years after her death? And why is Camilla the only wife of a Prince of Wales in recorded history who took one of her husband's subsidiary titles because royal advisers were worried about public reaction should she be named Princess of Wales?
Great post
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, legacy, memorial, princess diana


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
Left Or Right-Handed Royals? Peggy Royal Life and Lifestyle 49 02-03-2016 02:34 AM
The Legacy of Elizabeth II vkrish British Royals 21 12-18-2012 07:45 AM
Princess Grace's Legacy HMTLove23 Princely Family of Monaco 16 02-18-2011 06:15 AM




Popular Tags
70th birthday celebrations of king carl xvi gustaf aristocracy ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit british baby names catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll felipe vi greece kate middleton king abdullah and queen rania king abdullah ii king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles princess charlene daytime fashion princess marie princess marie events princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima dresses queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania dresses queen rania fashion replica september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france 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 women deliver conference


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 01:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises