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
 
  #1461  
Old 03-21-2015, 08:06 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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'.
Diana also bought landmines to my attention. Anytime, I hear or see anything to do with landmines, my first thoughts are with Diana and the images of her walking through the landmines field.

I think the 'Concert for Diana' did a great job in highlighting her humanitarian work. Her refforts had a major impact.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #1462  
Old 03-21-2015, 08:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,638
This has been a very interesting and informative discussion.

What comes to mind for me is the saying "there are no small parts only small actors". Everyone that contributes to a cause is important. Without the dedication of those that work tirelessly to make things happen, there would be no need for a spokesperson and without a spokesperson, the dedicated workers have a harder road to travel.
__________________

__________________
“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
  #1463  
Old 03-21-2015, 10:07 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Yes. Each needs the other.

"Without the dedication of those that work tirelessly to make things happen, there would be no need for a spokesperson and without a spokesperson, the dedicated workers have a harder road to travel."
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 03-23-2015, 01:48 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Quote:
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.
First, I am not sure whether this is the only concern the drafter had, and I am not sure whether all their concerns were totally selfless. They wouldn't tell us everything right? And I am not sure whether the compromise language would have been included if Diana had never gotten involved, because we see, in the first draft of the treaty (June 24-27, 1997), there was not one word about victims assistance at all. The things you told me doesn't match the history I know.

Here is a piece of real history. When the first draft came out in June 1997, there was no one words about victim assistance in it. However some language of victim assistance did appear in the final draft which was negociated in from Sep 1-18 in Olso. Nevertheless, charity was the only form of assistance the treaty promised, which means no party has to bear any form of obligation towards mine victims. Time would tell us whether such soft language would be helpful. In Sep 2009, a groundbreaking report "Voice From the Ground" by Handicap International showed that "despite progress in stockpile destruction and landmine clearance, governments around the world are not living up to their promises to treat and reintegrate landmine survivors into society. Ironically, the preface of the report reads "When asked if they had a final comment, survivors most often said that this survey was an opportunity to get people to finally...LISTEN TO US". Pratically speaking, those soft languages on victim assistance in the final draft is only a placebo. And according to Jerry White, Diana, who just died several days before the conference, wanted STRONG language on rehabilitating mine victims in the treaty. She was preparing her speech right before she died. Actually, according to Simone simmon's testimony in the court, she had been even secretly gathering information of landmine producers herself.

Quote:
"She did a lot of research on landmines asking questions of people on the ground, checking with those in authority whom she had met as the Princess of Wales, cross-examining anyone she met who knew something about the subject. She compiled a dossier which she claimed would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from their proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS, which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names', she declared. She intended to call her report 'Profiting Out Of Misery'" -- Simone Simmons

References:
[1] "Landmine Survivors Call on Governments to Live Up to their Mine Ban Treaty Promises", ICBL Report, 26 Aug 2009.
[2] "Voices From the Ground", Handicap International, 2009.
[3] "Hearing of Inquest into the Deaths of Diana and Dodi { Simone Simmons", 10 Jan 2008
morning.

Second, even though the policy makers had their concerns, whatever they were, so what! Other people also have their own concerns, for example the welfare of the victims, and these people had very strong arguement to suppor their appeal too. Just because they were policy makers, their concerns were primary, while others' were secondary? It is not a ditatorship system right? At the end, it all depends on which side could recruit more support.

Third, on whether the topic was controversial or not. Well, I don't want to use such a subjective word, because it all subject to personal opinion. All I know is the fact that before the landmine conference in Olso, there were two groups of people who had a totally opposit appeal on one issue. Both had their own concerns, and both had their reasonable arguements, and one group was obviously trying very hard to attract attention and press coverage, and then suddenly ...

Forth, about the worry that the mine victims would have priority over other, why not? The priority just should be put on the mine victims. Why it is necessary to ban landmine, not any other weapons? It is because landmine was a very inhuman weapon. They stayed in the ground decades after the war had ended (because of the neglection of mine manufacturer to put an self-destruct mechanism in it), and therefore it will injure innocent civilians for many years. In a word, the ultimate goal to have such a treaty is to protect potential mine victims. However, as what Diana said in her speech, only ban was not enough, because there were already millions of landmines in the ground. Inevitablly, there would be more victims sufferring from these reamaing weapons even after they were banned. It is very reasonable, morally and legally, to put some language to ensure the assitance for these potential mine victims.

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...

If an international ban on mines can be secured it means, looking far ahead, that the world may be a safer place for this generation's grandchildren.

But for this generation in much of the developing world, there will be no relief, no relaxation. The toll of deaths and injuries caused by mines already there, will continue.
Fifth, of course the case of mine producer liability was not exactly identical to the Tobacco producer liability. But public would not have such knowledge to distinguish them. Plus the tobacco lawsuit was a big event in 1997, it drew a lot of press coverage. Therefore it would help to bring press coverage to mine victim's case too. See who would get more sympathy? The victims or the weapon producers?
__________________
"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
  #1465  
Old 03-23-2015, 09:36 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,444
anbrida - thanks for this wonderful non-revisionist research.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 03-23-2015, 10:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
There are many reasons that some people had concerns about prioritizing aid for landmine victims over other victims. Funds are limited and prioritizing one set of victims over another is not always good policy. Losing a limb is very traumatic, regardless of whether a person is the victim of a landmine, an earthquake or the Revolutionary United Front. I know some people only care about landmine victims but there are a lot of people suffering all over the world.

About 26,000 people a year are injured by landmines, less than 10% of the estimated 300,000 people who die as a result of violent conflict and war. There are also 2.5 million children who die of hunger related causes annually and 1.5 million children who die of diseases that could be prevented with vaccinations. Why do you believe that Diana would have believed that landmine victims should be prioritized ahead of all others? International aid agencies need flexibility in order to ensure the people most in need receive services regardless of why they need assistance.

It was not a surprise that the first public draft did not include the victims' assistance. The first draft is often, if not always, changed during negoation. No prior treaty had included a victims' assistance clause. The concept wasn't particularly controversial but the drafters wanted to get feedback from the participating governments.


Regarding the issue of charities using celebrity spokespeople, I agree spokespeople have their place but I am not sure that they are essential. The largest charities in the world include the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Doctors without Borders, and Catholic Relief Services, don't rely on celebrity spokespeople--although they sometimes use them. UNICEF uses celebrity spokespeople like Audrey Hepburn and Alyssa Milano, but I think they could operate without them. They might not raise quite as much money but I don't think it would make a huge difference.

I also disagree with anbrida's post (#1455) that Diana's real focus was victims' assistance. If that were the case, she could have just posed for a few pictures with landmine victims, but it was her walk through a cleared minefield that helped people understand the need for the Ottawa Accords. It was very effective because people had a strong emotional bond with Diana.

Diana's photo ops were memorable but it is revisionist to claim that they made any substantive difference. The effort to draft a treaty was underway before Diana was involved. Diana supported the idea of including victims' assistance in the treaty but it wasn't her idea. There is nothing to say to posters who insist that a few letters from Diana succeeded and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which consisted of the largest international aid agencies in the world, would have failed. http://www.icbl.org/media/342067/icb...5_v4-pages.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 03-26-2015, 03:03 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367


I think it is quite lame to say that because there are other types of suffering in this world, so we should not try our best to help this type of people. And I didn't expect Diana to be a super woman who could solve all the world's problems at one time.

Second, since it is arguable that those who profited from landmine production should take some form of responsibility to rehabilitating mine victims. The money could come from them instead of the "fund", whatever it is. There was no confliction between mine victims and other suffering people.

Third, it was hard to speculate if Diana could attend the meeting whether the history would be different all not. But since it was argueable that mine producers should take some form of liablity upon damage and suffering caused by their the defective products, if this topic can be discussed on a global stage, history might be changed. Actually, LSN, the organization Diana had been working with, had hired an law consulting company Arnold & Porter to draw up a memo regarding mine victim assistance proposals could be legally be included in the treaty. And there were strong arguements. In a word, it was not because Diana had any political power which could changed policy makers' mind single-handedly, it was because the mine victims were completely entitled to such compensation. But their voices were too weak to be heard. Diana's role was to draw attention and press coverage on them, as a MESSENGER.

Forth, Diana's main focus in the campaign was very clear. There were speeches, articles, conversation, interviews and letters and PHOTOS for references.

(1) March 19, Diana attends the Daily Star Gold Awards ceremony in London to presents an award to former Royal Marine police captain, Chris Marine police captain, Chris Moon who lost a leg when trying to clear a landmine in Mozambique. This is the first time she's accepted the invitation to attend the event. Diana tells guests at the award, "Chris truly symbolises what selfless bravery is". At the lunch afterwards they talk about landmines:

Quote:
"We had a long chat about every aspect of the landmines issue. She was very interested in the detail of what was going on in different places to clear mines and to assist victims. We were discussing the best strategy for helping people and she knew it was not always straightforward. She was looking seriously at where the money was going and what was going to be the most effective and efficient course of action" -- Chris Moon [1]
(2) June 12, Diana gave her first speech on landmine issue in a conference in London, in which she said "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'" [2]

(3) June 18, Diana gave a short speech at a Red Cross gala in Washington D.C.. She emphasizes again "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'"[3]

(4) Aug 8-10 Diana went to Bosnia to meet the mine victims there. About her real motivation for that trip, her trip organizer Ken Rutherford told ITN in a TV interview during the trip:

Quote:
"Right now I think it is a forgotten issue that people get hurt by landmines is forgotten. There are many speeches, but there isn't reaction. And she is showing she wants actions for the victims. They are smart, intelligent, if you give them a leg, they have a life." -- Ken Rutherford [4]
(5) Article by Lord Deedes, who accompanied Diana to Bosnia, Aug 8-10
Quote:
She decided to keep out of the minefelds on this trip, and instead spent most of time visiting the many victims. Sensibly, she insisted on setting at least 30 minutes for each sojourn. People who have experienced tragedy in their lives need time in which to tell their tale.

Apart from demonstrating her already well-known humanitarian qualities, what did Princess Diana hope to achieve by the Bosnia mission? That is a serious question, to which there is a serious answer.

Much of the world suddenly hopefully towards an international ban on the use of anti-personnel mines. To attribute this to the Princess of Wales would be a mistake. The main thrust behind the movement comes from Canada, where to date 110 nations have joined what is called the Ottawa process.

For victims of anti-personnel mines, past, present and future, a ban will achieve nothing. That is one factor that exercised the Princess Wales. The move towards a ban on mines is mainly a political matter. Raising more support for crippled victims is a humanitarian mission and expensive. [5]
(6) Diana's three thank-you letters after the Bosnia Trip Aug 11

Quote:
Diana's letter to Jerry White, co-founder of Landmine Survivors Network, Aug 11, 1997.

I was so pleased to be able to gain some insight into the issues facing victims and their families.?Their tragic stories are a desperately sad reflection of man's inhumanity to man.?The victims I met and their senselessly inflicted injuries have stiffened my resolve to ensure their needs for care and support are not overlooked in the search for an agreement to outlaw landmines"[6]

Diana's letter to Keneth R. Rutherford, co-founder of LSN, Aug 11, 1997.

I hope that you felt that all your hard work was worthwhile in raising awareness of the plight of survivors and helping to ensure that they are not forgotten in the framework of negotiations for a ban on anti-personnel landmines. I could not help but be intensely moved by the needless and senseless of the injures of the victims I met and, no less so, by the sensitive care and support they receive from their families. You should be justifiably proud of the wonderful work you are doing to bring hope and a sense of personal values to those who have suffered so much at the hands of these terrible weapons" [7]

Diana's letter to humanitarian campaigner Dilys Cheetham, Aug 11, 1997

Thank you very much for writing to tell me about the wonderful work you are doing by taking aid to the refugee camps around Mostar and in arranging for children to go abroad for prosthesis.

There was not enough time for me to visit the Mostar area whilst I was in Bosnia, but I was able to visit a number of anti-personnel landmine victims and their families. I could not help but be deeply moved by the experience which hardened my resolve to ensure that the world does not forget that those who have been so needlessly maimed by these terrible weapons will need care and support for many years to come" [8]
Reference:
[1] "ONE YEAR SINCE ANGOLA THE LANDMINES CAMPAIGN; Princess Diana's inspirational campaigning for a ban on landmines will never be forgotten - especially by one man who has now lost his best ally in the ght for peace.", The Mirror, 17 Jan 1998.
[2] Diana, Princess of Wales, "Responding to Landmines: A Modern Tragedy and its Solutions", June 12, 1997.
[3] "Princess Diana in Washington DC, 1997", Youtube, 18 Jun 1997.
[4] "Princess Diana arrives in Bosnia- August 1997", Youtube, 8 Aug 1997
[5] Lord W.E.Deedes, "The Last Crusade", Majesty Magazine, Oct 1997.
[6] "Diana 1961-1997: Remembering: Landmines Vow In Her Last Letters; Princess: I'll fight for ban", The Mirror, Sep 10, 1997.
[7] Keneth R. Rutherford, "Disarming States: The International Movement to Ban Landmines", 2011.
[8] "Diana's last official letter", Daily Mail, April 24, 2014.
__________________
"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
  #1468  
Old 03-28-2015, 05:19 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
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.
Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.

I will forever be eternally grateful to Diana for publicly admitting to her mental illnesses. For many people suffering from mental illness, there is so much shame and self loathing felt. Society, family, consider you selfish, abnormal, and say hurtful things, like "you should be locked up in a padded room for your foolishness," having someone like her come out and say I suffered from it and you aren't selfish, foolish, or weak, meant a lot then and still means a lot today.

Recently on Tumblr, I saw a gif of one of her speeches on HIV/AIDS. In short Diana basically said, people with the disease aren't dangerous, you can interact with them, hug them they need it. And yet what she said is simple and profound. That post has more than 420 thousand reblogs and likes. Out of those 420 thousand people, who responded to that post, I'm sure that a certain number of them have the disease, but to hear such positive words, must give them some comfort I hope.
A Place for my Random thoughts | willcub: So many of you are too young to remember...

I remember reading a blog of a teenage girl who was a cutter. She recently learned that Diana was a cutter as well, and felt not only surprised but also solaced that someone like Diana not only understood what she was going through, but was also like her as well.

I haven't posted on these boards in a long time as my interest in royalty has waned, but I had to add my 2,3,4,5 cents in. I will always be thankful to Diana for publicly campaigning and talking about issues and people that society preferred to ignore.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 03-28-2015, 02:12 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.
I am young(ish) in the age bracket of William and Harry. I had a mother who was very much into the BRF and I knew a lot about Diana 'in passing' though she was never an interest of mine. This does not make me an 'expert', only that I have been around 'Diana stuff' a lot, and likely had a teenage reaction against it all, too. My teenage impressions and opinions of Diana are better left unspoken. I like to think I have a more balanced view now.

This statement, however, that detractors have used Diana's 'mental illness' to 'degrade' her, I have never seen, and I have read a lot. This is the kind of inflammatory statement that fuels the fire for those who are on some level devoted to the image of Diana, rather than the reality of who she was as a human being: flawed, as we all are, and no more nor less deserving of regard as anyone else. She was not unique. It's this insistence that Diana was somehow unique and special that can grate and needs looking at imo. We all have our story to tell, but there are points by which we have to accept that we make choices in how we will react to the pressures of the world. We're in charge. For me, Diana was never a very solid role-model in how to handle one's life.

I also know a great deal about the anorexia/bulimia situation as it swirled around in those days. In the 80's, what Diana was doing was not fully understood, but the BRF (Charles, and I would guess the Queen) understood enough to make psychological help available to Diana, which she did not fully accept. She clearly did not like being labeled (who does) but she never accepted that she had a problem, lashing out at others as the excuse for her unusual behavior. It was never her at fault. It was always others who were the cause. Even her mother. Then her husband. Then the whole BRF as the in-laws from hell (apparently). It's all there in the record for anyone to read, unfortunately. Diana made sure of that.

I have at no time experienced anyone as mean-spirited who has seen Diana for the troubled woman she was. Diana exhibited a lot of mean-spiritedness, but in the face of it, I have never heard/read one person who really knew her and had to deal with her say anything mean about her. She seemed to have most people's compassion, even in the face of how difficult it was to deal with her.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 03-28-2015, 02:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
VERY well put, Lady Nimue.. I couldn't agree more !
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 03-28-2015, 02:38 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
This statement, however, that detractors have used Diana's 'mental illness' to 'degrade' her, I have never seen, and I have read a lot. This is the kind of inflammatory statement that fuels the fire for those who are on some level devoted to the image of Diana, rather than the reality of who she was as a human being: flawed, as we all are, and no more nor less deserving of regard as anyone else. She was not unique. It's this insistence that Diana was somehow unique and special that can grate and needs looking at imo. We all have our story to tell, but there are points by which we have to accept that we make choices in how we will react to the pressures of the world. We're in charge. For me, Diana was never a very solid role-model in how to handle one's life.
I said many, I didn't say all. You may not have seen it but I have.
And on the subject of her being unique, you don't see it and that is perfectly fine. But some other do, personally I believe everyone is unique and has her or his own special qualities.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #1472  
Old 03-28-2015, 03:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Diana's disclosure that she suffered from mental illness helped a lot of people and is very much part of her legacy. Unfortunately, she never really understood illness but it is a major comfort to people to know that they are not alone.


I have seen a few people use her illness to attack her, but not often. It's more common to see some of Diana's fans become offended when someone points out that her mental illness was a factor in the breakup of her marriage. Despite Diana's courage in coming forward, too many people, including some of her fans, continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or a fault.
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.

I think what happens more is that Diana's detractors degrade her because of her behaviour, while pointing out that her behaviour may very well have been caused at least in part by her mental illnesses.

Diana suffered from bulimia and depression. Many believe she may have suffered from other undisclosed or undiagnosed mental illnesses. These in themselves are not things that she should be degraded for - they are illnesses, and I think in the way that she did acknowledge some of her problems did great things for bringing awareness to the issues and helped those suffering from bulimia, anorexia, and depression.

That said, there are times when Diana's behaviour was deplorable. There are stories about things she did and said that depict her as having been rather cruel and as having been in ways an abusive person. I don't think this is what she herself was like at her basic core, but the behaviour described in these stories show a woman who behaved atrociously at times - and that behaviour can be seen as a symptom of both her childhood and her mental illnesses. I don't think Diana should be criticized for having had a mental illness, but I do think that her mental illnesses are explanations for her at times deplorable behaviour, and she should be criticized for said behaviour.

Having a mental illness doesn't mean you should be criticized. But it also doesn't mean that you get excused for bad behaviour.
Reply With Quote
  #1474  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:22 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
I said many, I didn't say all. You may not have seen it but I have.
Fair enough, I accept that that is so. I trust you have dealt with such kindly and wisely when you have seen it happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
And on the subject of her being unique, you don't see it and that is perfectly fine. But some other do, personally I believe everyone is unique and has her or his own special qualities.
In that sense, I for sure agree with you. We are all deserving of respect for that 'something special' that is unique and that only each of us can bring. Quite so.

Where I draw my own line is when I detect that someone is being made unique above all others, that then makes the actions they do that are really 'not nice' apparently 'okay'. Diana, unfortunately, created havoc in the lives of those around her. There's no getting around it. She may have had the 'courage' to place a hand on an AIDS child (after being assured by the doctors that she would not be infected), but she had no problem destroying lives around her in her personal life. I find it hard to laud the former when the latter (to me) is the more front-and-center important action she ever took.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:33 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
That said, there are times when Diana's behaviour was deplorable. There are stories about things she did and said that depict her as having been rather cruel and as having been in ways an abusive person. I don't think this is what she herself was like at her basic core, but the behaviour described in these stories show a woman who behaved atrociously at times - and thatbehaviour can be seen as a symptom of both her childhood and her mental illnesses. I don't think Diana should be criticized for having had a mental illness, but I do think that her mental illnesses are explanations for her at times deplorable behaviour, and she should be criticized for said behaviour.

Having a mental illness doesn't mean you should be criticized. But it also doesn't mean that you get excused for bad behaviour.
IMO, her childhood and 'mental illness' are used as excuses for her bad behaviour. Her childhood is overdramatized and her 'mental issues' are exaggerated.

The reality is her childhood was happy. Her parent divorce had little impact on her. (Sources: several people including her nanny.)

IMO, her depression was overblown. Lot of people get the blues. Whether it is the baby blues or blues related to disappointments in life.

Diana rewrote her life and some people believe it and use it as excuses for Diana's bad behaviour toward others.
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:58 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
IMO, her childhood and 'mental illness' are used as excuses for her bad behaviour. Her childhood is overdramatized and her 'mental issues' are exaggerated.

The reality is her childhood was happy. Her parent divorce had little impact on her. (Sources: several people including her nanny.)

IMO, her depression was overblown. Lot of people get the blues. Whether it is the baby blues or blues related to disappointments in life.

Diana rewrote her life and some people believe it and use it as excuses for Diana's bad behaviour toward others.
Excellent post imo. Excellent points. I agree with every item, especially the final bolded one: Diana did re-write her life, and I have a theory why. In every instance when she did so, she was trying to get out of hot water. Her behavior was so bad she was experiencing consequences, so telling the tall tales was her 'get out of jail' card. That she was so resoundingly believed is the stunning part. That so many were willing to toss Charles out on his ear baffles, a man who has never said one negative word about Diana, and if anything, exemplifies good conservative social values regarding manners and duty.

The tactic she used is familiar to me, because I used it to great advantage as a teenager. Yep. It's called mis-direction. I have done something I would like to have overlooked, so cook up a greater sin my brother has done. It worked more times than I care to admit. Happily, my brother doesn't hold grudges.

What Diana did was far more egregious, though, imo. She really did damage to people. She played a piper's tune that a whole nation seemed to dance to: why? I think that will always be the social historian's great question when it comes down to Lady Diana Spencer.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 03-28-2015, 11:38 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
She played a piper's tune that a whole nation seemed to dance to: why? I think that will always be the social historian's great question when it comes down to Lady Diana Spencer.
Reply With Quote
  #1478  
Old 03-28-2015, 11:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
There are some individuals (celebrities and others) that just exude vulnerability and a warmth that draws people to them. I think that Diana, whatever her private flaws, had that.

Also, remember the times when Diana first came to public notice. No internet with its constant revelations. A large proportion of women who regularly bought magazines. A British public who enjoyed the fairy-tale aspect of a pretty Earl's daughter marrying her Prince Charming.

People were a lot less cynical about PR, spin-doctoring etc in those days, and the wedding was magical. Some of that magic remained with Diana all her life and combined, imo, with the qualities that attracted others to her.
Reply With Quote
  #1479  
Old 03-29-2015, 03:14 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.
That described my feelings in a nutshell and it still does. She had magic, and an indefinable aura about her or she would not inspire such intense feelings in people to this day. Grace Kelly was also a radiant woman who manufactured an image of her herself that was not all that it seemed, but she does not inspire the type of intense pro/con debate that Diana did and does.

The fact that she was deeply troubled and flawed is beside the point for me. I accept that about her as part of a COMPLETE PACKAGE.For me, the fact that this uneducated, unsophisticated rather sheltered young woman came to symbolize what she did in her brief life...compassion, courage, beauty and elegance are what people will remember about her in 100 years, not her disturbing dark side. She made more people happy than unhappy during her journey here on Earth.

I became interested in the Windsors solely because of Lady Diana Spencer and the stark truth is that I don't really care that much about any of them now. No offense to William, Kate and Harry.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 03-29-2015, 04:13 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Thank you all three for trying to give me a sense of what it was that mesmerized people about her. It's curious the interpretations of her because as a child I never found her interesting. I suppose it must be akin to liking an actress: for one person an idol, for another grating like fingernails on a chalkboard. From my child's perspective I found her indirect gaze off-putting, 'insincere', and interpreted her 'smile' as a 'smirk'. How different. It's why I never bothered with her growing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
There are some individuals (celebrities and others) that just exude vulnerability and a warmth that draws people to them. I think that Diana, whatever her private flaws, had that. [...] People were a lot less cynical about PR, spin-doctoring etc in those days, and the wedding was magical. Some of that magic remained with Diana all her life and combined, imo, with the qualities that attracted others to her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
That described my feelings in a nutshell and it still does. She had magic, and an indefinable aura about her or she would not inspire such intense feelings in people to this day. Grace Kelly was also a radiant woman who manufactured an image of her herself that was not all that it seemed, but she does not inspire the type of intense pro/con debate that Diana did and does.

The fact that she was deeply troubled and flawed is beside the point for me. I accept that about her as part of a COMPLETE PACKAGE.For me, the fact that this uneducated, unsophisticated rather sheltered young woman came to symbolize what she did in her brief life...compassion, courage, beauty and elegance are what people will remember about her in 100 years, not her disturbing dark side. She made more people happy than unhappy during her journey here on Earth.

I became interested in the Windsors solely because of Lady Diana Spencer and the stark truth is that I don't really care that much about any of them now. No offense to William, Kate and Harry,
However, due to my mother, I did read a great deal about her. I was also around for a lot of her actions during my teenage years. I have seen a great deal of the video of her and I cannot honestly figure out how people could have been drawn to such an obviously unpleasant person. That's what I saw as a teenager in those trips she took with Charles. I mentioned that I will not repeat my adolescent opinion of what I saw, I will abide by that. It was not flattering. Just leave it that what I saw was a smirky smugness that I have never been able to un-see. I knew girls in school like her, or so I projected.

As I've also said, I think my view of her is far more balanced now, due in large measure to my mother's efforts, I do believe. I think I am more reasonable and understanding regarding her.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
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 e-mail fashion poll fox news grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel 2016 nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince constantijn princess eugenie eveningwear princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution 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 07:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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