The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1441  
Old 03-20-2015, 09:45 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
There seems to be little appreciable legacy left by the Princess, other than the genes in her sons..

As the years pass, the memory fades, and she becomes a photo of a beautiful woman, just as Marilyn Monroe has..
I think Diana still has an appreciable legacy but it is only natural that memories of Diana will fade over time. When people study the 1980's and 1990's people will discuss her impact on fashion, tabloid journalism, her charity work, and her influence on the reigns of King Charles and King William.

What some people don't understand is that when they exaggerate the impact of her charity work, they actually minimize it. They are basically saying that the truth isn't impressive on its own, so they have to argue that Diana was so much more compassionate and loving than everyone else.

Diana could be compassionate and loving with people who were in physical pain. But, frankly, it isn't hard to show compassion to very sick children and their families. Her gift was being able to convey that compassion through a camera because she was very videogenic. I don't call that an accomplishment.

Diana did little on AIDS prevention but she helped demonstrate that AIDS is not spread by casual contact, which was important at the time. The campaign to ban landmines was actually quite successful before Diana got involved, but she did bring a lot of publicity, which generated new energy to the drafters of the treaty. I'm sure the photo ops helped international relief organizations raise money, which is always a great accomplishment.

I hope that over the years, people will accept the truth about Diana, that she was mentally ill--through no fault of her own. She tried to overcome it and was able to make some very positive contributions but her dark moods also hurt a lot of her friends of family. It's the extremes in her personality that make her so interesting.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1442  
Old 03-20-2015, 09:59 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I wouldn't call Ethel wild. She is definitely quirky and fun, but she always tried to take a more supportive, back seat role to her husband. She didn't chase the limelight the way some of the Kennedy women did. Living in the countryside with her family and pets was her comfort zone.

As for her being devoutly religious, well there sure was a lot of rumours about her and Bobby Darin after Robert's death. Just saying...

She was accused of stalking the Kennedy brothers, the same way Catherine was accused of stalking William. There's more evidence against Ethel.

With their love of skiing, family, supporting roles, and sequestered silliness - I happen to see a lot of similarities between the two women. We have to agree to disagree.

Just like we won't agree on the Diana vs. Marilyn front.
She never had an affair with Bobby Darin. She had a widely reported romance with Andy Williams, but in the end refused to marry him because she said she "could see Bobby looking at me from Heaven" and she still considered herself his wife.(her EXACT quote by the way)


The fact that a woman has a brief romantic involvement after the death of her husband has no bearing on the fact that she is deeply religious. Ethel attends Mass and receives the Sacrament daily, something I am willing to wager has never been Kate's custom.(daily church attendance)

Nor did she ever "stalk the Kennedy brothers". She didn't have to. She first met Bobby in Mont Tremblant, Canada on a ski holiday in the late 1940's and he fell for her sister Patricia first. The feelings were not mutual. Ethel sat miserably in the wings and had decided to become a nun. Bobby's sister Jean played matchmaker for the two, and Bobby finally fell in love with Ethel and persuaded her to forget about being a nun and marry him instead...which happened June 17, 1950.

Mission accomplished in about 3-4 years... no stalking required.

She wouldn't have bothered with Jack...she wasn't his type and she was sensible enough to know it.

I'm not sure where you get your information or your sources, but I've been reading about Ethel and the Kennedys since I was a small child and with all due respect miss whirley your information is completely incorrect.

"The Kennedy Women" by Laurence Leamer
"Ethel, Jackie, and Joan" by Randy Taraborrelli
"The Other Mrs. Kennedy-The Story of Mrs. Robert Kennedy" by Jerry Oppenheimer
"A Woman Named Ethel" by Lester David
"Ethel"....HBO documentary nominated for awards at the Sundance Film Festival

As for Diana vs. Marilyn, I am not denying that there are a few surface similarities. But I am just reporting that it's a comparison that Diana found unflattering and I have had quoted at least one source for that information.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old 03-20-2015, 10:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
Diana took up with Dodi as a show of defiance to Charles and the RF? Do you have any evidence to suggest this, for example, her personal letters, her conversation with people, etc?
Although I don't recall where I read this, I know some of Diana's intimates thought she was through with Dodi, and planned to end their relationship once she was back in England.

Let's face it, Dodi was a sleazy sort. Diana had to have known that.

As for why I believe she took up with him as a show of defiance, it is because the Fayeds have tried for years to enter the upper echelons of British society. I think it became something of a joke that they were shut out.
Your views may differ.
Reply With Quote
  #1444  
Old 03-20-2015, 10:26 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I think Diana still has an appreciable legacy but it is only natural that memories of Diana will fade over time. When people study the 1980's and 1990's people will discuss her impact on fashion, tabloid journalism, her charity work, and her influence on the reigns of King Charles and King William.

What some people don't understand is that when they exaggerate the impact of her charity work, they actually minimize it. They are basically saying that the truth isn't impressive on its own, so they have to argue that Diana was so much more compassionate and loving than everyone else.

Diana could be compassionate and loving with people who were in physical pain. But, frankly, it isn't hard to show compassion to very sick children and their families. Her gift was being able to convey that compassion through a camera because she was very videogenic. I don't call that an accomplishment.

Diana did little on AIDS prevention but she helped demonstrate that AIDS is not spread by casual contact, which was important at the time. The campaign to ban landmines was actually quite successful before Diana got involved, but she did bring a lot of publicity, which generated new energy to the drafters of the treaty. I'm sure the photo ops helped international relief organizations raise money, which is always a great accomplishment.

I hope that over the years, people will accept the truth about Diana, that she was mentally ill--through no fault of her own. She tried to overcome it and was able to make some very positive contributions but her dark moods also hurt a lot of her friends of family. It's the extremes in her personality that make her so interesting.

I think a great deal of people have come to understand the truth about Diana, and not the twisted stories and false diagnoses that's been placed on her.

Diana wasn't a mentally ill woman. Sure she had a messed up childhood, and as young woman, she had an eating disorder, but Diana wasn't mentally off the rails. She was a young lady that was thrown into an extraordinary situation and struggled to find her place for several years. Over time in her new lifestyle, she grew into a nice young woman; wife, mother and princess. Due to her and her husbands terrible mistakes, her marriage fell, but she continued on serving the people by supporting numerous charities and other organizations.

Diana, Princess of Wales wasn't a saintly public figure. That's the stamp that was placed on her memory by the world's press after her tragic death. She didn't try to come off as perfect, but as a person who was human, and she did her best to use her position to help other people.
__________________
"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
  #1445  
Old 03-20-2015, 11:04 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think a great deal of people have come to understand the truth about Diana, and not the twisted stories and false diagnoses that's been placed on her.

Diana wasn't a mentally ill woman. Sure she had a messed up childhood, and as young woman, she had an eating disorder, but Diana wasn't mentally off the rails. She was a young lady that was thrown into an extraordinary situation and struggled to find her place for several years. Over time in her new lifestyle, she grew into a nice young woman; wife, mother and princess. Due to her and her husbands terrible mistakes, her marriage fell, but she continued on serving the people by supporting numerous charities and other organizations.

Diana, Princess of Wales wasn't a saintly public figure. That's the stamp that was placed on her memory by the world's press after her tragic death. She didn't try to come off as perfect, but as a person who was human, and she did her best to use her position to help other people.
An eating disorder IS a mental illness. She also admitted that she suffered from depression, which is also a mental illness. Many people, including me, believe that she suffered from a personality disorder, which is true for about 60 percent of people who suffer from bulimia.

Unfortunately, some of her fans continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or negative personality trait. It is not. It is a medical condition, not an insult.
Reply With Quote
  #1446  
Old 03-20-2015, 11:12 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
Just a personal opinion. But after many days of discussion here, I found the biggest problem of this board is people just express their own opinions without providing or only providing very little substantial evidence to support them. I read in another thread that a member said "it seems we know so little about the Royal". I personally think, of course we would know little if we are here just reading other people's opinions instead of real information.
I don't think that accepting Diana's word at face value proves or disproves anything. First of all, there are few tapes, so we have to rely on the memory and honesty of the person who relays the quote.

Also, we have to judge people not just by their words, but by their actions. If I claim that I don't like to shop, my husband can present evidence that I do. Diana may have claimed that she didn't care about her own publicity, but when several observers--including her friends--say they observed behavior that suggests otherwise, such as pouring over her daily news clips and calling reporters.
Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old 03-20-2015, 11:34 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,303
This thread is not about Ethel Kennedy or Kate. If you wish to discuss the Kennedy's please do so in the Kennedy Family thread. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.
Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old 03-20-2015, 11:50 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
An eating disorder IS a mental illness. She also admitted that she suffered from depression, which is also a mental illness. Many people, including me, believe that she suffered from a personality disorder, which is true for about 60 percent of people who suffer from bulimia.

Unfortunately, some of her fans continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or negative personality trait. It is not. It is a medical condition, not an insult.
She had some issues that took some time to work out, but she wasn't mentally ill. Diana wasn't no longer suffering from an eating disorder in the late 80's and early 90's. It was an issue she studied on and got under control. There's no proof that Diana had a personality disorder. She went through a tough time in her personal life, but there's no proof of Diana having a personality disorder.

I was a Diana fan, but I know how to face facts about her, and I don't make it a habit to misdiagnose her and dismiss her as a total mental case.
__________________
"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
  #1449  
Old 03-20-2015, 12:11 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 515
'disgraced wife' because life isn't fair, and memories arent fair. She lost in the end (early death, cheating, not beeng Queen, ongoing doubts about the paternity of Harry - (IMHO Harry is very much Charles Son - he has enought Windsor in his looks to show that) so YES, I believe she will be remembered in not too far a distance as a disgraced wife.... That Charles cheated - oh well - you know, he is a man ...

This is not what I wish for, but this is the normal working of time - do look back in history, how other people and there memories faided away.
Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old 03-20-2015, 12:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
She had some issues that took some time to work out, but she wasn't mentally ill. Diana wasn't no longer suffering from an eating disorder in the late 80's and early 90's. It was an issue she studied on and got under control. There's no proof that Diana had a personality disorder. She went through a tough time in her personal life, but there's no proof of Diana having a personality disorder.

I was a Diana fan, but I know how to face facts about her, and I don't make it a habit to misdiagnose her and dismiss her as a total mental case.
I have a lot of facts about Diana too. She was on anti-depressants in the last few years, which help control the symptoms of the eating disorder, but she remained mentally ill. Diana admitted she was mentally ill and she continued to be treated up until the day of her death. We can dispute the efficacy of some of the healers she consulted, but she was in treatment.

Diana was prone to mood swings throughout her life. She was not the joy to be around that you described. This was demonstrated by the fact that she had cut off most of her friends, mostly without without warning, which is a symptom of mental illness. For example, she hadn't spoken with her good friend Fergie because Fergie accused her of having warts. Her actions disprove your theory that Diana didn't care about her public image or publicity.

You claim that she was passionate about her charities, yet she drastically cut back on her charitable work the last few years of her life and left no money to them in her will. I don't have the number of public appearances she made for charities in 1997, but I am confident that the actual numbers will prove that she spent more time on vacations and shopping.

You deny her illness because you think it reflects negatively on her. In fact, I think one of Diana's greatest achievements is that she started to destigmatize eating disorders. Unfortunately, she sought to cast blame for her illness instead of accepting that it was beyond her control. I tend to think that had she lived, she would have accepted that her illness didn't make her weak.
Reply With Quote
  #1451  
Old 03-20-2015, 12:35 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I have a lot of facts about Diana too. She was on anti-depressants in the last few years, which help control the symptoms of the eating disorder, but she remained mentally ill. Diana admitted she was mentally ill and she continued to be treated up until the day of her death. We can dispute the efficacy of some of the healers she consulted, but she was in treatment.

Diana was prone to mood swings throughout her life. She was not the joy to be around that you described. This was demonstrated by the fact that she had cut off most of her friends, mostly without without warning, which is a symptom of mental illness. For example, she hadn't spoken with her good friend Fergie because Fergie accused her of having warts. Her actions disprove your theory that Diana didn't care about her public image or publicity.

You claim that she was passionate about her charities, yet she drastically cut back on her charitable work the last few years of her life and left no money to them in her will. I don't have the number of public appearances she made for charities in 1997, but I am confident that the actual numbers will prove that she spent more time on vacations and shopping.

You deny her illness because you think it reflects negatively on her. In fact, I think one of Diana's greatest achievements is that she started to destigmatize eating disorders. Unfortunately, she sought to cast blame for her illness instead of accepting that it was beyond her control. I tend to think that had she lived, she would have accepted that her illness didn't make her weak.

I'm not saying that Diana's personal issues made her weak. I'm saying, Diana had an eating disorder, but she got it under control and publically admitted that she was no longer suffering from it. She did her homework on bulimia nervosa and took some over her situation.

Diana had a nice group of friends, but like all friendships, the relationships have it's ups and downs.

Diana spent a great deal of her time working with her charities and other organizations. She made a great deal of public appearances, but she also made a great deal of unofficial private visits to her charities, hospitals and centers. She cut back on a hundred of patronages, to focus on a select few that she could really be hands on with. Diana also auctioned off many of her famous dresses for charity. Many of the dresses continue to raise money for worthy causes.

Yes, Diana had some mula and could afford to go shopping and take a nice vacation when she could. That's not a crime. I think many people do this.
__________________
"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
  #1452  
Old 03-20-2015, 12:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I'm not saying that Diana's personal issues made her weak. I'm saying, Diana had an eating disorder, but she got it under control and publically admitted that she was no longer suffering from it. She did her homework on bulimia nervosa and took some over her situation.

Diana had a nice group of friends, but like all friendships, the relationships have it's ups and downs.

Diana spent a great deal of her time working with her charities and other organizations. she made a great deal of public appearances, but she also made a great deal of unofficial private visits to her charities, hospitals and centers. She cut back on a hundred of patronages, to focus on a select few that she could really be hands on with. Diana also auctioned off many of her famous dresses for charity. Many of the dresses continue to raise money for worthy causes.
Andrew Morton's book, Diana, Her New Life, revealed that she took anti-depressants. One cannot overcome bulimia by simply doing homework--it is a mental illness. Some people can control their symptoms but that doesn't mean they are cured. Some people go into remission and others remain actively ill throughout their lives. We don't understand why. Diana was taking anti-depressants and she was seeing a counselor because she knew she was mentally ill and needed the assistance.

Most friendships have ups and downs but most of us don't cut off our friends without warning. It can be a symptom of mental illness when a person cuts off many friends in a short period of time.

I think that using the dress auction to claim that Princess Diana was passionately involved in her charities is almost silly. Most people donate old usable clothes to charity but, like Diana, we expend little energy doing so. What else was she going to do with the dresses? She certainly wasn't planning to wear them again.

Diana's clothes raised money because of who she was, not the amount of time she spent going through her closet. It wasn't even her idea, it was William's. The auctions raised a lot of money and she got some great publicity--something she craved. I would be more impressed if she had left some money to charity in her will.
Reply With Quote
  #1453  
Old 03-20-2015, 01:23 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Andrew Morton's book, Diana, Her New Life, revealed that she took anti-depressants. One cannot overcome bulimia by simply doing homework--it is a mental illness. Some people can control their symptoms but that doesn't mean they are cured. Some people go into remission and others remain actively ill throughout their lives. We don't understand why. Diana was taking anti-depressants and she was seeing a counselor because she knew she was mentally ill and needed the assistance.

Most friendships have ups and downs but most of us don't cut off our friends without warning. It can be a symptom of mental illness when a person cuts off many friends in a short period of time.

I think that using the dress auction to claim that Princess Diana was passionately involved in her charities is almost silly. Most people donate old usable clothes to charity but, like Diana, we expend little energy doing so. What else was she going to do with the dresses? She certainly wasn't planning to wear them again.

Diana's clothes raised money because of who she was, not the amount of time she spent going through her closet. It wasn't even her idea, it was William's. The auctions raised a lot of money and she got some great publicity--something she craved. I would be more impressed if she had left some money to charity in her will.

I have friends who cut me off without a warning, and I don't believe they're mentally ill. Friendships come and go, that's called life!

Yes, William gave the idea to Diana to auction off her dresses for charity. Yes, her being a famous member of the royal family helped with the auction. One of the main reasons why many of the royals charitable patronages do so well, is because of the enormous attention the royals have and they use their public platform to shine light on worthy causes.

I notice some people like to dismiss Diana's love for her charities and for the people to pretty much nothing. I think that's very much unfair and very unnecessary. One doesn't have to like Diana, that's your prerogative, but let's not try to tarnish her memory and the great things she did while she was here. Her life was short, but it meant something. She was a great mother and did her thing as HRH The Princess of Wales. She wasn't perfect and she had her own personal issues, but she cared for others who suffered from aids, cancer, homelessness, landmine victims, leprosy and other countless issues. She used her royal position to help shine some light on others who needed it, and no one on the internet can take that from her.
__________________
"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
  #1454  
Old 03-20-2015, 07:05 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't think that accepting Diana's word at face value proves or disproves anything. First of all, there are few tapes, so we have to rely on the memory and honesty of the person who relays the quote.

Also, we have to judge people not just by their words, but by their actions. If I claim that I don't like to shop, my husband can present evidence that I do. Diana may have claimed that she didn't care about her own publicity, but when several observers--including her friends--say they observed behavior that suggests otherwise, such as pouring over her daily news clips and calling reporters.
I think you are talking about Diana's words with respect to "criticism from press". Here is my opinion.

First, she had openly talked about this. That means she had thought about the issue of "criticism from press" on a CONSCIOUS level. She had consciously expected that some of her actions would draw criticism on herself. Unconsciously, sure she would be hurt. But consciously she knew she should draw strength from this criticism and continue on the path she had chosen for herself. If a people had already realized the existence of a certain issue and consciously knowing what was the right way to deal with them, then we can not totally dismiss this person's state of mind to the otherwise.

Second, sure, even if she was consciously knowing what was the right way to do, it doesn't mean she would follow it strictly. We always need our actions to back up our words. Diana said those words on Aug 21st, 1997. I think she had a specific reason to say them at that moment. We all know, during that period, she had openly started a relationship with Dodi. Now, with much more information available to us, especially her three thank-you notes, her co-workers' memoirs, her own words during the Mid-August trip to Bosnia,

Quote:
"The reporters and photographers have made my life horrible, so I would like to make their life horrible by taking them to places they normally otherwise would not visit and covering issues they normally otherwise would not cover"
and her tipping paparazzo herself to take intimate photos of her and Dodi. We can reasonably deduce that she did that on purpose to draw attention in order to make her voice louder when she attended the Landmine conference.

However, her relationship with Dodi had drawn a great deal of criticism on her. But had these criticism deterred her? No, even Kelly Fisher's didn't. What such actions had showed us was definitely not a mentally weak person, but a very strong person who was extremely focused on her own goal.
__________________
"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true..."
-- The Road Less Travelled
Reply With Quote
  #1455  
Old 03-20-2015, 11:35 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
The concept of including victim assistance language wasn't particularly controversial. Common sense would tell you that no one involved in drafting the anti-landmine treaty was opposed to assisting victims--the drafters were involved because they against the use of landmines because landmines hurt people.

I would agree with you that Diana had few contribution to the "Ban" issue. But that was not her focus, because it was a political issue. What exercised Diana most was victim assistance, which was a humanitarian topic. Load Deede's article (Oct 1997) had already told us about that

However, I couldn't agree with you that victim assistance topic was not controversial. The LSN report gave two fundamental reasons why policy makers were reluctant to include victim assistance language in the treaty.

(I) Most wealthy countries were reluctant to take on that kind of responsibility for the effects that many of their landmines had caused in developing countries -- LSN report

First of all, we should know that the victims got injured through no fault of their own. Most landmine accidents happen in peaceful time; most victims are not combat forces but civilians. However, since landmines are triggered by the victims themselves, there is no direct liability to their injures. They have to take on all their suffering by themselves. Among them a lot of victims were farmers, the lost of limbs had a more severe effect on their lives. That is why the mine victims' situation were particularly miserable.

Why these tragedies would happen? Fundamentally, they happened due to the lack of self-destruct mechanism of landmines. Therefore, mine manufacturers should assume some form of liability to pay damages consequent upon their defective product. The LSN report and a couple of professional papers have studied on this issue on behalf of mine victims.

Reference:
[1] Hoover, Reynold N., "Landmine Liability: Holding Manufacturers Responsible for the Cost of Victim Compensation", 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 121 (1997-1998)
[2] Tara Ashtakala, "Landmine Monitor Report 2000: Producer Liability", Landmine Monitor, 2000.
[3] Richard R. Murray, Kelly L. Fabian, "Compensating the World's Landmine Victims: Legal Liability and Anti-Personnel Landmine Producers", Seton Hall Law Review, Vol 33, Issue 2, 2003.

Here are some arguments why the manufacturers and their states have obligation to compensate mine victims.

Quote:
Strong argument can be made that states are legally obliged to assist or compensate mine victims. The use of mines violates two basic principles of international humanitarian law. Landmines scattered over large areas likely to be used by civilians during or after a conflict do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. This violates the principle of discrimination, which holds that weapons must be able to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Landmine injuries also inflict much more severe injuries than other conventional weapons and often result in excessive injury or suffering to civilians. This violates the principle that prohibits attacks that produce “unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. Violations of humanitarian law trigger a duty to compensate or assist victims of those violations. Therefore, the unlawful use of landmines generates a legal obligation to assist mine victims -- LSN report.
Quote:
None of these products could distinguish between combatants and civilians, and most landmine producers made no effort to reduce the threat to post-conflict civilians by including simple and readily available mechanisms to self-destructor self-deactivate the landmines after a certain time period reasonable for their intended uses.

A landmine is no different than most other products —- it is a good supplied to others for use. Manufacturers of landmines should be held liable, just as other manufacturers are held responsible and accountable, for the dangerous condition of or defects in their products. In order to compensate innocent civilian victims and prevent future injuries, producers of landmines must take responsibility for the damage their products have caused and continue to cause. [3]
Moreover, 1997 is a sensitive year to talk about manufacturer liability. A worldwide lawsuit against tobacco producers was on the show in the same year. On 20 June 1997, the "Global Settlement Agreement" was proposed. It called for payment from tobacco producer to the states of $368.5 billion. The general theory of these lawsuits was that the cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems among the population, which in turn resulted in significant costs to the states' public health system. The same logic can be applied to landmines. Due the defectives of land mines, they causes unnecessary injures to the innocent civilians during peaceful time, which in turn resulted in significant costs to the affected countries. This on-going event would make the policy makers more wary about the talk of legal obligation to assist landmine victims.

Fundamentally, the mine victims were not asking mercy from the international society, they were asking for their justice and their legal right to be represented in the Treaty. It seesm Diana herself have a similar idea

Quote:
Even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons, this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the Globe. "The evil that men do, lives after them." And so, it seems to me, there rests a certain obligation upon the rest of us. -- Princess Diana
However, even though mine victims were absolutely entitled to some form of compensation for their rehalibilation, they were too weak and their voice was too low, chance was very slim if there wasn't huge press coverage about their situations. That is why it is necessary to use some manner to bring press coverage on them.

(II) Because it would then be a precedent in international law -- LSN Report.

The advanced countries take it as self-granted freedom to sell, or not rarely at all, to give for free their weapons to the poor countries to support their representatives there in all kinds of wars, without needing to worry about taking any responsibility for the casualties or injures their advanced weapons will cause to the civilians there. Landmine is just one type of these weapons. Since as the LSN report put it, ``the inclusion of mine victim assistance language would require states to accept certain affirmative duties toward towards individuals", this would set up a precedent of manufacteruer countries' responsibility towards individuals' loss caused by their weapons, which would fundamentally harm their ``freedom" to dump weapons anywhere without taking any responsibility of the consequence.

On the surface, it looks like the talk of assistance to mine victims is so charitable that it would not be a sophisticate issue at all. However the potential legal liability issue and the precedent it would set make it a forbidden topic in the treaty. The topic of victim assistance wasn't less controversial than the "Ban" itself.
__________________
"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true..."
-- The Road Less Travelled
Reply With Quote
  #1456  
Old 03-21-2015, 12:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
It's very difficult to discuss the complicated process of drafting treaty language in a forum like this, but I will try. First, the issue of liability for the injuries arising from tobacco use is irrelevant to the landmine issue. You are comparing apples to parsnip.


The liability of tobacco companies was decided by the court system, not treaty obligation. The courts ruled that the tobacco companies misled consumers about the safety of their product. Landmine manufacturers did not suppress evidence that their product was dangerous.


As I indicated in one of my posts, there were concerns about including victims' assistance language in the treaty, but the concept was not particularly controversial among the people who drafted the treaty. Some people were concerned that creating a treaty obligation to assist victims of landmines would have required that landmine victims received priority over virtually everyone else, regardless of need. I'm not sure Diana understood that was an issue.


The people who were drafting the treaty did not need to be reminded about the victims. This issue was raised by some NGOs in 1996, before Diana got involved in landmines. There were some objections but no one was drastically opposed. The compromise language would have been included even if Diana had never gotten involved.
Reply With Quote
  #1457  
Old 03-21-2015, 01:56 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
It's very difficult to discuss the complicated process of drafting treaty language in a forum like this, but I will try. First, the issue of liability for the injuries arising from tobacco use is irrelevant to the landmine issue. You are comparing apples to parsnip.

The liability of tobacco companies was decided by the court system, not treaty obligation. The courts ruled that the tobacco companies misled consumers about the safety of their product. Landmine manufacturers did not suppress evidence that their product was dangerous.

As I indicated in one of my posts, there were concerns about including victims' assistance language in the treaty, but the concept was not particularly controversial among the people who drafted the treaty. Some people were concerned that creating a treaty obligation to assist victims of landmines would have required that landmine victims received priority over virtually everyone else, regardless of need. I'm not sure Diana understood that was an issue.

The people who were drafting the treaty did not need to be reminded about the victims. This issue was raised by some NGOs in 1996, before Diana got involved in landmines. There were some objections but no one was drastically opposed. The compromise language would have been included even if Diana had never gotten involved.
Amazing that TRF has someone with your background, US Royal Watcher, to make all this clear. I find myself being engrossed in this aspect of the conversation. I've learned a lot, and you are, of course, exactly right in your analysis. Many, many thanks.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1458  
Old 03-21-2015, 04:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Amazing that TRF has someone with your background, US Royal Watcher, to make all this clear. I find myself being engrossed in this aspect of the conversation. I've learned a lot, and you are, of course, exactly right in your analysis. Many, many thanks.
I hope I haven't left the impression that I was someone important. My background is that I worked for an international relief organization. Landmines were not its only focus, but we were one of the members of the the coalition that made up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I was assigned to represent my employer at conferences where these issues were discussed and I helped to forge compromises. The most controversial issue was whether the treaty would include a ban on cluster bombs.

During my employment, I travelled to countries who were affected by landmines, including Cambodia, Mozambique, and Somalia. I was privileged to met some incredible aid workers who lived and worked in primitive conditions, sometimes risking their lives to help others.

I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.
Reply With Quote
  #1459  
Old 03-21-2015, 05:25 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I hope I haven't left the impression that I was someone important. My background is that I worked for an international relief organization. Landmines were not its only focus, but we were one of the members of the the coalition that made up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I was assigned to represent my employer at conferences where these issues were discussed and I helped to forge compromises. The most controversial issue was whether the treaty would include a ban on cluster bombs.

During my employment, I travelled to countries who were affected by landmines, including Cambodia, Mozambique, and Somalia. I was privileged to met some incredible aid workers who lived and worked in primitive conditions, sometimes risking their lives to help others.

I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.
Fascinating work. You make excellent points. You never came across as putting yourself forward as someone important. Just so you know.

IMO there is a big difference between 'the talent' out front drawing attention to a problem, or trying to spark interest for donations, and those who do the nitty-gritty work 'in the trenches'. 'The talent' knows that they are inconvenienced (if at all) minimally, or for a few hours, maybe a day. Often there are perks associated with doing such work, in fact: travel to exotic locations, being well-housed if not actually receiving an honorarium, meeting fascinating people doing exceptional work. 'The talent' can even start to be seen as an 'expert', someone to speak for the cause - a two-edged sword.

Anyway, thank you yet again for sharing your knowledge in the matter.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1460  
Old 03-21-2015, 07:15 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
My impression is that Diana's effectiveness in the matter was drawing attention to it. For myself, I'd never really thought about landmines until Diana made her visit to Angola. (Why would I have? I've never lost a limb or a person to a landmine. I don't live in a country that's littered with them. I knew someone involved with the Ottawa Accord process but never talked about it with him.) For that reason, I do tend to connect Diana with the landmine issue. But that's the only reason. She was a mouthpiece for the Red Cross to publicize the problem, and I think that she understood that. We saw what she could do when given a real-life issue to publicize. I thought her work on the documentary was professional and very much focused on the victims and the conditions in Angola. I have no doubt, however, that putting a spotlight on the issue in the public mind--simply because of who she was--was the largest part of what she did. I don't believe that she performed a great humanitarian act, and she didn't seem to think of having her will amended to include funds for landmine victims. Her trip to Bosnia, sadly, was her 'swan song'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.
__________________

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
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 duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece josephine-charlotte kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week pierre casiraghi portugal prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene outfits 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 mathilde's daytime fashion 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 fashion royal fashion september 2016 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 10:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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