Diana's Legacy: What is left or what will be left?

[mercuryin]

hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity.


my personal opinion is that diana was genuine in her charity work. the landmine campaign attracted severe criticism from members of parliament. if she was only doing it for the publicity, why wouldn't she quit then with all the hassle she was getting? after all, there are other more pleasurable ways of getting attention, so why put up with the attacks? but she kept on, so i'd say that chose to weather the controversy and not drop the campaign because she genuinely cared for landmine victims.


i heartily disagree with Incas for saying that it was poor judgement and disingeneous for diana to join the campaign and then profess political ignorance. she approached the issue from a humanitarian point of view: people were having their limbs blown to bits and this was deplorable and had to stop. end of. there was nothing self-serving about her documentary; it highlighted the landmine victims' plight.


if diana was a fake in her charity work, then can someone explain why she would go visit patients in hospital when there were no cameras about? it's one thing to say she was faking it when the cameras were there to boost her image, but why go to the extreme of actually doing it when no press was there? if she didn't care, surely she would prefer to be elsewhere and why dedicate herself to this extent when a simple photo op with press in the daytime will do more than enough to achieve her aim of boosting her image?


diana took up the AIDS cause when it was considered unacceptable and deplorable and pariah-like. if she was only doing these things to boost her image, do you not think she would have chosen a more socially acceptable cause where she was certain of an outcome of praise from society? bearing in mind that this was in the early to mid eighties when no one could predict that one day, the AIDS cause would become accepted as the right thing to support and would win you fans for embracing it. if diana was just looking for causes to boost her image do you not think she would have done something where she was sure to get applause rather than take her chances on something that was considered beyond the pale and where chances were high that it would destroy her image altogether?


and even after the public view of AIDS became less hostile, she still had to put up with a bit of opposition. in ken wharfe's book he recounted how he escorted diana to a meeting with the queen where her majesty told her it was better to support a less gruesome cause. and a few royal books have related how at various times, courtiers made the same suggestion to diana and tried to make her stop. they all eventually stopped opposing diana on her AIDS stance but this was after a while, when it was now socially acceptable to take on AIDS charities. but for that period of time when there was no support for what she was doing, would it not have been easier to quit her support for AIDS charities? yes it would have. there were other causes available for her to use to boost her image, so why stick with this one that was not exactly a walk in the park? when someone does some good, even at the cost of their own convenience, it is because they genuinely care.



in the last years of her life, yes she dropped several of her charities of which she was patron. it has been recounted in books by some of diana's closest friends that this was because she was concerned that more money was being spent on 'administration' than on doling out money to people in need. she was not satisified with the tradional way of charity work any longer, and was looking for other avenues and methods to continue doing good. the books i have read,and even if i'm not mistaken the diana inquest, have disclosed that she was planning to open a string of hospices mother-theresa-style around the globe. she died before this could happen.


yes, she went on holidays in the last few months of her life. what's wrong with that? no one can work all the time without a break and diana had been working very hard that year with her landmine commitment.


to suggest that diana was insincere in her motives regarding her humanitarian work, is really mean spirited imo. she had spent her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, dying people, people who looked terrible in their leprous condition and had even nursed a friend who was dying of AIDS ( adrian ward-jackson). i think any human being would be affected by all that and feel compassion. to say it was fake and just a ploy to get publicity is implying that diana must have had no heart all. whatever her faults - and yes there were many of them as her critics love to point out - i don't think she was a cold, unfeeling evil person and only a truly evil person would fail to feel compassion surrounded by people wasted away from AIDS and limbless from landmines and deformed from leprosy. and however good an actor one is, it is impossible to keep up the act all the time for 16 years. you cannot fool the recipients of your compassion for so long, and all the victims who ever received sympathy and support from diana have said that she really connected with them and they felt her love.



no one is saying that diana was a saint, she was far from it with her mood swings and choice of men and habit of dropping her friends. but she never claimed she was a saint and would laugh at such a claim as even her private secretary who has sometimes been quite critical about her, has written. but who is a saint? no one. we are all human being with shortcomings. that diana was a human being with shortcomings did not make her a bad or terrible person. rather what she did was show us that whatever our problems and trials and weaknesses and vices, one can nevertheless express the best part of themselves and be compassionate and make a positive difference in the lives of others.



diana having flaws didn't lessen her compassion or deprive her of having a positive side to her. and yet, people will endlessly point out and in some cases exaggerate her flaws, as if to argue that her being so flawed meant there was no good in her. i have been a lurker on this forum for some time, and i have noticed that this seems to be the stance of some people, because whenever someone points out a virtue of diana, another person immediately jumps in and denounces diana and says that this virtue was absent in her. is she to be allowed no virtues whatsoever then, and only flaws?



however inflicted with shortcomings a person may be, i don't believe there is any such thing as someone having no good in them. it is no crime to be anti-diana, we can't all hold the same views. but even if you are anti-diana, surely it must be evident to any mature adult, that in the same way that there is no such thing as there being only good and perfect in one person, there is also no such thing as there being only bad in one person as well. if this is apparent to anti-dianas, then why must they challenge absolutely every little nice thing said about her, as if she was a lady with nothing good in her at all? why not just acknowledge it (or ignore it if you can't stand to hear diana being praised over anything) and move on to bring up an indisputable flaw like moodiness, rather than just argue that every good quality was non-existent?



diana, during her years on Earth, devoted herself to causes like AIDS, cancer, homelessness, leprosy, abolition of landmines, sick children. she was truly an extraordinary person and humanitarian. she helped make AIDS less of a stigma, brought the plight of lepers and landmine victims to the attention of the world and lived her life in search of love. all her mistakes and strengths were motivated by this search for love.

 

[Grace Angel]

Diana's caring was real enough, but it wasn't her job, true. She had other things to do in life and she had other roles to play. Maybe if she not been who she was, she might have made a job of caring, had a job with a caring role, but as nobility and later royalty charity work was the way to express that caring. Of course Diana had many other sides to her.

 

[iowabelle]

I would agree that there's different levels of involvement, "caring" if you will... and being a celebrity on a visit is different than being a social worker or a NICU nurse or something like that. And even though Diana didn't work in the field like those professionals, she did bring attention to issues and joy to the people who met her... so that is also a worthwhile contribution. I'm sure she had lots of days where she didn't really want to be on show, but she probably felt she had an obligation not to disapppoint people with illnesses, and I think that takes an effort.

I'm disappointed that after her death some people have felt that she was superficial in her approach and that she abandoned many of her causes.

Like I said, I'd rather remember the good that came from her, and the enjoyment she gave so many of us.

 

[sirhon11234]

hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity. <snip long post>

Well said mercuryin, and welcome to the forums. I agree she was brilliant with her charities.

 

[Skydragon]

my personal opinion is that diana was genuine in her charity work. the landmine campaign attracted severe criticism from members of parliament. if she was only doing it for the publicity, why wouldn't she quit then with all the hassle she was getting?

Perhaps because she saw it as a way of 'getting even'?

if diana was a fake in her charity work, then can someone explain why she would go visit patients in hospital when there were no cameras about? it's one thing to say she was faking it when the cameras were there to boost her image, but why go to the extreme of actually doing it when no press was there?

To visit her latest love perhaps?

in ken wharfe's book he recounted how he escorted diana to a meeting with the queen where her majesty told her it was better to support a less gruesome cause.

I would find that hard to believe, as Charles was the one originally invited but as he was unable to attend, Diana was sent instead. Had it been true about HM 'having a word', excuses would have been made beforehand.

and even if i'm not mistaken the diana inquest, have disclosed that she was planning to open a string of hospices mother-theresa-style around the globe. she died before this could happen.

Having followed the inquest closely, there was nothing to say this.

to suggest that diana was insincere in her motives regarding her humanitarian work, is really mean spirited imo. she had spent her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, dying people, people who looked terrible in their leprous condition and had even nursed a friend who was dying of AIDS ( adrian ward-jackson).

Lets have a touch of reality here, Diana did not spend her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, the dying or lepers. Nor did she nurse AWJ!

but even if you are anti-diana, surely it must be evident to any mature adult, that in the same way that there is no such thing as there being only good and perfect in one person, there is also no such thing as there being only bad in one person as well.

I have read very few posts on here saying Diana was all bad, but exaggerated claims over any person should be challenged or is it better, IYO, to perpetuate inaccuracies? Of course posters are going to give their opinion on whatever royal, take a look at the remarks posted in the Duchess of Cornwell threads, good and bad. Should those that don't try to hide their hatred of DoC stay here in the Diana threads, because if that is the case, where is the discussion.

The thread title is asking a question, asking for each posters opinion, good or bad!

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is so true, and I find it on many message boards.

hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity.


.

 

[scooter]

Perhaps because she saw it as a way of 'getting even'?To visit her latest love perhaps?I would find that hard to believe, as Charles was the one originally invited but as he was unable to attend, Diana was sent instead. Had it been true about HM 'having a word', excuses would have been made beforehand.Having followed the inquest closely, there was nothing to say this.Lets have a touch of reality here, Diana did not spend her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, the dying or lepers. Nor did she nurse AWJ! I have read very few posts on here saying Diana was all bad, but exaggerated claims over any person should be challenged or is it better, IYO, to perpetuate inaccuracies? Of course posters are going to give their opinion on whatever royal, take a look at the remarks posted in the Duchess of Cornwell threads, good and bad. Should those that don't try to hide their hatred of DoC stay here in the Diana threads, because if that is the case, where is the discussion.

The thread title is asking a question, asking for each posters opinion, good or bad!

Mercuryin gave you her opinion, to which she is as entitled to as you are to yours. It might be nice not to attack a new member on their first post, line by line, even though you disagree with her.

 

[Roslyn]

hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity.

Hi mercuryin.

I don't think it is quite this clear cut. Some of us have complex feelings about Diana. I didn't particularly like her, but I do believe that she had a genuine concern for people who were disadvantaged or suffering and wished to help, and that her actions regarding landmines and HIV/AIDs and visiting people in hospitals (apart from those which were a ruse to enable her to be close to Dr Khan) were primarily motivated by a desire to do what she could, in her own way, to help.

 

[Skydragon]

to which she is as entitled to as you are to yours. It might be nice not to attack a new member on their first post, line by line, even though you disagree with her.

Really, I am entitled to my opinion, so why the need to complain that I stated it? The poster concerned made a number of claims in her post that are wholly inaccurate. I could have pointed out that it was not a discussion on her opinion of other posters, I could even have followed other posters examples and PM'd a moderator! I could have really gone line by line, however I replied to the main points I disagreed with.

She asked, presumably, a genuine question, "why wouldn't she quit then with all the hassle she was getting", I gave a reason.

She made mention of the not so secret hospital visits, which turned out to be visits to Khan.

Did Diana live her entire royal life in the company of sick people, etc? No she lived in excellent accommodation with servants to answer to her every whim, she holidayed, etc, etc.

It might be helpful to a discussion, (I missed any point about her legacy in your post), if you perhaps read what had been written before yet another unfounded attack. Would you have refrained, if the poster had posted something you considered highly inaccurate, first post or not, I doubt it!

----------------------- --------------------

To get back on track, Diana's legacy - what is left or will be left.

I read that as what she will be remembered for, not just by her fans but by ordinary people. Even today many people associate the AIDS charity with Elton John and the like. Most people can't remember what charities she was involved with but they do know she was involved with the Landmine campaign and they do know William & Harry are her sons. These, IMO, will be what she will be remembered for!

 

[mercuryin]

thanks for the welcomes!

Perhaps because she saw it as a way of 'getting even'?

getting even for what? how had members of british parliament wronged her?

To visit her latest love perhaps?

diana was doing private visits long before she met khan. in 1992 for example, she regularly visited patients in a hospital the name of which escapes me. she would take a hands on approach and empty bed pans and the like.

Lets have a touch of reality here, Diana did not spend her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, the dying or lepers. Nor did she nurse AWJ! I

diana spent alot of time devoting herself to AIDS, leprosy, and sick people charities, during her royal career. that is a fact. and yes she did nurse adrian ward-jackson along with her friend angela serota.

I have read very few posts on here saying Diana was all bad, but exaggerated claims over any person should be challenged or is it better, IYO, to perpetuate inaccuracies?

no one has actually come out and stated blankly that diana was all bad, but it seems to me that this is what is implied when a poster challenges every single positive thing said about diana. ok, we can't all hold the same views, if one disagrees with a positive trait claimed about diana, there's nothing wrong with that and debate is healthy. this is not a diana fan site after all, it is a debating forum. but when someone almost obsessively always challenges every single little positive thing said about diana, then i have to assume that the attitude of the poster is that she had nothing good in her at all. because if the poster was of the opinion that diana did have some good points, then why not let someone else write of a positive quality without challenging that every single time ?

if a poster is of the opinion that diana had some good qualities as well as bad, then that poster would acknowledge the good in her and also point out the bad INSTEAD OF just pointing out the bad all the time and refuting the good all the time. to me that kind of behaviour implies that the poster is of the opinion that nothing good existed at all in her.

Of course posters are going to give their opinion on whatever royal, take a look at the remarks posted in the Duchess of Cornwell threads, good and bad. Should those that don't try to hide their hatred of DoC stay here in the Diana threads, because if that is the case, where is the discussion.

The thread title is asking a question, asking for each posters opinion, good or bad!

no one is saying that all opinions should be good, but i am questioning why certain posters refute, not some, but all the good opinions about a person. it makes it look as if they think that only bad existed in someone.

for example, i am no fan of camilla and i may write something negative about her and if someone writes positive things about her i may refute some or most of these positive opinions but not absolutely all of them. if i did, that would imply that i think camilla is nothing but bad and has no positive in her. i may never write anything good about camilla because i am no fan of hers, and if i disagree with alot of positive things claimed of her, then i will refute those claims. but i do believe that no person is incapable of good traits and therefore will never refute absolutely every single little thing that reflects her in a good light.

it seems to me that for some people here, not a single good thing about diana is allowed to go unchallenged. i would understand it if someone challenges some good things said about her or most good things said about her, but it seems that all good things said about her are challenged by some posters. i don't get that attitude if you believe that there's good and bad in every person and that diana wasn't all bad. my thinking is:

a) if you are not a diana fan

b) and can't stand to hear diana being praised

c) but do believe that like all people there was good as well as bad in her...

then go ahead and do nothing but criticise her and refute some or most good things said about her. nothing wrong with that, and that is the approach i would take with camilla. but why challenge absolutely every single positive thing said about her? not only does this makes it look as if you think she was nothing but bad and no good ever entered her, but you also come across as someone who is trying to bully someone off the forum,for daring to write good about her.

It might be helpful to a discussion, (I missed any point about her legacy in your post), if you perhaps read what had been written before yet another unfounded attack. Would you have refrained, if the poster had posted something you considered highly inaccurate, first post or not, I doubt it!

i did write about her legacy at the end of my post, which is: i think she helped to de-stigmatise AIDS and leprosy. my post was not an attack, and there was nothing unfounded about it. no need to roll your eyes at me, thank you.

 

[georgiea]

I think we can be certain that the minefield had been cleared, thoroughly for the photo op. The men who clear the land of such things would have made doubly sure of that and yes once they have worked a particular area, it is clear. How many cases of people being caught by a mine, in a cleared area, have you ever heard of?

Sarah Bradford's Diana stated: Diana insisted on going to Huanbo and Cuito where the war had left the countryside infested with mines. The television reporter Sandy Dall described Diana's' action as extremely courageous: he had encountered mines in Afghanistan and knew how dangerous it could be to walk through 'cleared' minefields. I guess we have to disagree to agree.

It is easy I would imagine to continue an illusion for the hours needed for each appearance.

I strongly disagree with the above statement. Jephson was with her seven or eight years on these appearances and stated it wasn't an act so Skydragon we aren't there how do we know it was an illusion for seven and eight years? I guess we have to disagree to agree.

As sirhon said, she tried to be a good mother!

This we agree to agree on about Diana, Princess of Wales and her legacy.

 

[Skydragon]

getting even for what? how had members of british parliament wronged her?

It is reported that Diana wanted a role, within government as an ambassador. She had not been offered one.

diana was doing private visits long before she met khan. in 1992 for example, she regularly visited patients in a hospital the name of which escapes me. she would take a hands on approach and empty bed pans and the like.

It would perhaps help if you could reference where you read this.

diana spent alot of time devoting herself to AIDS, leprosy, and sick people charities, during her royal career. that is a fact. and yes she did nurse adrian ward-jackson along with her friend angela serota.

Diana supported these charities with appearances but this was not all of her royal career by any means, as I am sure you must see. To nurse someone, IMO, means to look after their needs, whilst I agree that Diana supported AWJ, I have seen nothing to suggest she actually nursed him.

no one has actually come out and stated blankly that diana was all bad, but it seems to me that this is what is implied when a poster challenges every single positive thing said about diana.

Then it is just your interpretation, not the fact you appeared to present

but when someone almost obsessively always challenges every single little positive thing said about diana, then i have to assume that the attitude of the poster is that she had nothing good in her at all.

I could understand your view if, as an example I, critised everything Diana wore, everything Diana said, her parenting skills, her performances at every charity event, but I haven't. I do tend to try to bring reality back into the picture painted by some. It is all very well to attack other posters on your assumption or your interpretation of their posts, but it does help if you know your facts.

if a poster is of the opinion that diana had some good qualities as well as bad, then that poster would acknowledge the good in her and also point out the bad INSTEAD OF just pointing out the bad all the time and refuting the good all the time. to me that kind of behaviour implies that the poster is of the opinion that nothing good existed at all in her. ---- no one is saying that all opinions should be good, but i am questioning why certain posters refute, not some, but all the good opinions about a person. it makes it look as if they think that only bad existed in someone.

Again your interpretation, not necessarily the truth. Although I understand you are new to posting, can you point us to any post that says Diana was bad and had no good points. There are streams of posts waxing lyrical, without a negative post from what I have seen.

i may never write anything good about camilla because i am no fan of hers, and if i disagree with alot of positive things claimed of her, then i will refute those claims. but i do believe that no person is incapable of good traits and therefore will never refute absolutely every single little thing that reflects her in a good light.

And yet you clearly state that you will refute claims you disagree with, so my interpretation is that it is OK for you to disagree with anything positive said about Camilla but it is not acceptable if anyone else does it??????

but you also come across as someone who is trying to bully someone off the forum,for daring to write good about her.

I have had some good debates with posters who think the world of Diana, bullying becomes an overused word when it is bandied about because someone disagrees with your views.

i did write about her legacy at the end of my post, which is:i think she helped to de-stigmatise AIDS and leprosy. my post was not an attack, and there was nothing unfounded about it. no need to roll your eyes at me, thank you.

It might be helpful if you read the post (shown in blue above my reply), I was answering. It was not a reply to you or your post! However, your posts in this thread, including the one I am replying to in this instance, attack posters who disagree with your view.

 

[Skydragon]

The television reporter Sandy Dall described Diana's' action as extremely courageous: he had encountered mines in Afghanistan and knew how dangerous it could be to walk through 'cleared' minefields. I guess we have to disagree to agree.

I can't say I remember him but to some people being within 500 miles of a mine must be frightening, so yes, we must agree to disagree.

I strongly disagree with the above statement. Jephson was with her seven or eight years on these appearances and stated it wasn't an act so Skydragon we aren't there how do we know it was an illusion for seven and eight years? I guess we have to disagree to agree.

How can any of us say it wasn't in that case? I think Diana was 'of the moment', did she go home from these events and cry her heart out for these people, did she think about them as she was wined and dined? Probably not, but as you say none of us can know what was in her mind. I did not mean it was an act/illusion over a period of years, but during the event.

This we agree to agree on about Diana, Princess of Wales and her legacy.

 

[Incas]

no one has actually come out and stated blankly that diana was all bad, but it seems to me that this is what is implied when a poster challenges every single positive thing said about diana.

This says more about you and how you handle disagreements than about other posters.

this is not a diana fan site after all, it is a debating forum. but when someone almost obsessively always challenges every single little positive thing said about diana, then i have to assume that the attitude of the poster is that she had nothing good in her at all.

Again, this is about you.

if a poster is of the opinion that diana had some good qualities as well as bad, then that poster would acknowledge the good in her and also point out the bad INSTEAD OF just pointing out the bad all the time and refuting the good all the time.

There is no rule on this forum that commands all posts must be impartial and include both good and negative comments.

for example, i am no fan of camilla and i may write something negative about her and if someone writes positive things about her i may refute some or most of these positive opinions but not absolutely all of them.

Since you have stated no one came out to say Diana is all bad, and it seems OK for you to refute posts on other royals, I’m not sure the point of your post.

 

[Menarue]

I wonder what the people who think Diana had far more faults than positive points about her are supposed to do.
Actually I find very little to laud her about except the fact that she dressed beautifully and showed clothes to the very best advantage.

She had numerous affairs while married to the heir to the British throne. She pestered people by phone, she made sure that photographers knew exactly where she would be with the young princes. She said publicly that her husband Prince Charles was not King material, she admitted adoring her riding instructor to millions on a TV interview..
I am afraid without speaking to someone who was present I cast great doubt on her actually having nursed, in the real sense of the word, any of these sick people mentioned.
She visited them for sure, we have all seen photographs of her racing up stairs to see a dying aids person, but it makes me wonder if it was just luck that the photographer was there to see and take the picture.
She is said to have encouraged her sons to vote on a TV poll against the monarchy.
She was also said to have caused the divorce of a rugby (or was it football) player.
I really think that she was really lucky she lived in this modern time with modern morals and not in the time of Henry VIII.

She showed great promise at the time of her marriage and perhaps with someone else who had more patience with her foibles she might have turned out differently but from my point of view the people who seem to think she was some kind of saint are gravely deluded.
Her sons are her legacy and I am sure we all hope that they will have happier and lives than their mother.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You are so right.
She did a few good things but the bad far outweighs the good in my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity.<snip long post>.

Would it be possible for you to include capital letters at the beginning of your sentences?

I find it hard to tell where one sentence ends and the next begins, thus making it hard to read your arguments without the punctuation.

As a result I simply gave up reading your posts and cannot make any comment on what you have written.

Others mightn't have a problem but I do so I am asking you to add the capital letters at the beginning of each sentence to aid the reading of your posts.

 

[mercuryin]

A) It is reported that Diana wanted a role, within government as an ambassador. She had not been offered one. B) It would perhaps help if you could reference where you read this. C)Diana supported these charities with appearances but this was not all of her royal career by any means, as I am sure you must see. To nurse someone, IMO, means to look after their needs, whilst I agree that Diana supported AWJ, I have seen nothing to suggest she actually nursed him. D) Then it is just your interpretation, not the fact you appeared to presentI could understand your view if, as an example I, critised everything Diana wore, everything Diana said, her parenting skills, her performances at every charity event, but I haven't. I do tend to try to bring reality back into the picture painted by some. It is all very well to attack other posters on your assumption or your interpretation of their posts, but it does help if you know your facts.Again your interpretation, not necessarily the truth. Although I understand you are new to posting, can you point us to any post that says Diana was bad and had no good points. There are streams of posts waxing lyrical, without a negative post from what I have seen.
E)And yet you clearly state that you will refute claims you disagree with, so my interpretation is that it is OK for you to disagree with anything positive said about Camilla but it is not acceptable if anyone else does it??????I have had some good debates with posters who think the world of Diana, bullying becomes an overused word when it is bandied about because someone disagrees with your views. F) It might be helpful if you read the post (shown in blue above my reply), I was answering. It was not a reply to you or your post!

A)diana started her landmine campaign at the beginning of 1997. it is well known that she had been hoping that blair would appoint her an ambassador if he came to power. but he didn't live up to his promises to her. blair came into power around may, june. now if diana had started her campaign after may or june, then it might be a valid theory that she was only doing her campaign as revenge for not appointing her ambassador.

B)i have read about diana's private visits in morton, burrell books. ok, i know you are going to say that burrell was a liar and that morton was inaccurate. in which case i could question the accuracy of claims made by penny junor in her 'victim or villain' book or other pro-charles/anti-dianabooks seeing that they are charles cronie and biased against diana and therefore probably inaccurate. the truth is no one can be certain of the accuracy of any royal book, it is all a matter of what you choose to believe. and with morton, burrell, simone simmons (who wrote that diana would phone her in tears to talk about some dying patient or another after private visits) and several other authors who are not friends with each other all saying the same thing, i choose to believe that diana did indeed embark on her private visits to patients long before she met khan.


C) i never said her charities were all the things that she did in her royal career. i simply said she supported these charities in her royal career. she helped to nurse adrian ward-jackson, angela serota is on record as saying so.


D)i never stated that there are posters that specifically say 'diana was all bad and no good.' what i said was that this was implied to me by the actions of the posters i.e. always refuting every single good thing said about diana.

skydragon, i personally have nothing against you, i'm sure you are a lovely person. but i have noticed, after lurking here for over two years, that every time something good is said on diana, be it her charity performances or relationship with her parents or her relationships with men or her attitude towards camilla or her relationship with charles, it is not long before you wade in trashing diana to bits. before long, thanks to your relentless persistence in not allowing a good thing said about diana to settle,your view is what dominates that topic and other viewpoints have been drowned, the posters of those other views having long since abandoned the thread. there is, i repeat, nothing wrong with having a critical view on something, but you don't just have a critical view on some things but on everything.

if you criticised diana on some things and left other things unchallenged, then i would understand. if you criticised diana on most things and left other things unchallenged, then i would understand. but it is every sinlge thing that you challenge, every single thing. there's is nothing wrong with challenging a positive view on diana but when you challenge every positive opinion on every aspect of her life, then that creates the impression that you think that diana was nothing but a bad person through and through and incapable of possessing any good in her. i don't have the time to go back to pick out and post certain thread topics for you, you can check for yourself to see my point. on any given thread on diana be it the one on frances shand kydd, her legacy, her relationship with charles et al. i can understand you criticising her on most of them, but all of them? makes no sense to me if you believe that diana did have a side to her that was good.

E) your interpretation is wrong. i didn't say that i will refute claims i disagree with but it is wrong for you to do likewise. what i said was if you want to refute positive claims about diana, there is nothing wrong with that but if you go to the extent of refuting all postive claims about diana, then i think there is something wrong with that as it implies that diana had no good side to her at all. in the same way that there is nothing wrong with my refuting positive claims about camilla so long as i don't refute absolutely all poistive claims about her as that would imply that camilla is totally devoid of good. this is what i posted:


' i am no fan of camilla and i may write something negative about her and if someone writes positive things about her i may refute some or most of these positive opinions but not absolutely all of them. if i did, that would imply that i think camilla is nothing but bad and has no positive in her. i may never write anything good about camilla because i am no fan of hers, and if i disagree with alot of positive things claimed of her, then i will refute those claims. but i do believe that no person is incapable of good traits and therefore will never refute absolutely every single little thing that reflects her in a good light....

my thinking is:

a) if you are not a diana fan

b) and can't stand to hear diana being praised

c) but do believe that like all people there was good as well as bad in her...

then go ahead and do nothing but criticise her and refute some or most good things said about her. nothing wrong with that, and that is the approach i would take with camilla. but why challenge absolutely every single positive thing said about her?'



as for bullying, i never said you are a bully if you disagree with an opinion. what i meant was if you wade in with a negative view absolutely every single time something postive is said it looks like you are trying to bully that person off the forum by overwhelming them with your negativity whenever they are trying to let a positive comment through. if you have a negative view some of the time or most of the time when someone says something good about diana, it is not bullying. but all of the time? come on. it just plain looks as if you are trying to suffocate the pro-dianas by not allowing any single good thing said about her pass without a challenge. it's obssessive.

F) truly sorry about that. my mistake.

ILuvBertie, sorry about the lack of capital letters, bad habit of mine. In future, I will take heed. This post was done after I read yours, and I'm only editing it now.

 

[mercuryin]

I wonder what the people who think Diana had far more faults than positive points about her are supposed to do.
Actually I find very little to laud her about except the fact that she dressed beautifully and showed clothes to the very best advantage.

Alot of what you said is is true: she had affairs and harassed people by phone, manipulated the press, publicly doubted Charles' ability to rule, e.t.c. She made more mistakes than I can ever list here.

No has said she was perfect. She wasn't. No one said she was a saint. She wasn't. If you find little that is positive to write about her, then that is your perogative.

I wasn't saying that you should deluge the forum with a Diana lovefest and ban all negative views on her. I wasn't saying that it is wrong to write negatively of her. I wasn't saying that it is wrong to oppose someone who writes something good about Diana. What I was questioning was the mindset of people who always disagree any and every time anything at all positive about diana is said at all: do they mean that she possessed no good qualities at all? Because they are disagreeing every time any good thing is said about her. Not some good things, or most good things but any good thing. What conclusion can one draw except that they think that Diana only ever had a bad side?

 

[Menarue]

Unfortunately true, but perhaps bad isn´t the word, unwise suits better.

 

[Skydragon]

diana started her landmine campaign at the beginning of 1997. it is well known that she had been hoping that blair would appoint her an ambassador if he came to power. but he didn't live up to his promises to her. blair came into power around may, june. now if diana had started her campaign after may or june, then it might be a valid theory that she was only doing her campaign as revenge for not appointing her ambassador.

I believe what you meant to say was that Diana became involved in the campaign, because of course she didn't start it. Diana is reported to have been in touch with John Major to try to secure herself a role, before Blair was voted in but she had also been involved in meetings with Blair before Labour won. Neither man offered her the job she wanted, so yes by going off on a crusade, (right or wrong), she could have been trying to force a rethink.

i have read about diana's private visits in morton, burrell books. ok, i know you are going to say that burrell was a liar and that morton was inaccurate.

Morton was fed many inaccuracies by Diana and Yes, Burrell has been proven to be a liar.

in which case i could question the accuracy of claims made by penny junor in her 'victim or villain' book

I am quite certain there are many sections that are inaccurate, as the book was unauthorised and I am sure much of it was the authors 'understanding, interpretation or imagination'. We won't go into the accuracy of dear Simone, who even ardent fans find hard to believe.

i never said her charities were all the things that she did in her royal career. i simply said she supported these charities in her royal career.

Actually you did.

skydragon, i personally have nothing against you,

Really, that is not the impression you have given.

be it the one on frances shand kydd, her legacy, her relationship with charles et al.

Then again, as has been noted, that says more about you and how you choose to read a post.

your interpretation is wrong. i didn't say that i will refute claims i disagree with but it is wrong for you to do likewise. what i said was if you want to refute positive claims about diana, there is nothing wrong with that but if you go to the extent of refuting all postive claims about diana, then i think there is something wrong with that as it implies that diana had no good side to her at all. in the same way that there is nothing wrong with my refuting positive claims about camilla so long as i don't refute absolutely all poistive claims about her as that would imply that camilla is totally devoid of good. this is what i posted:

And yet if you disagree with claims made, it is your right to disagree?

as for bullying, i never said you are a bully if you disagree with an opinion. what i meant was if you wade in with a negative view absolutely every single time something postive is said it looks like you are trying to bully that person off the forum by overwhelming them with your negativity whenever they are trying to let a positive comment through.

The same could be said about you, if you are going to attack posters who have a different view from yours, as was apparent in your first post. An example, there have been four other posters in this debate who have posted 'negative' opinions or agreed with such posts and yet, you and scooter have singled me out for criticism. If I posted against every single time something positive was posted about Diana, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

Unlike some, I can't say I am overly concerned by this, but I do have to wonder what your comments regarding apparent negative comments etc have to do with Diana's legacy, good or bad.

 

[mercuryin]

Yes, I did mean to say that she joined, not started the campaign. There is no proof that she joined it out of revenge, that's just speculation that you choose to believe because you are biased against her, imo. I never said 'Diana only did charity work in her royal career' or 'all diana did in her royal career was charity work.' I said she devoted herself to charity work in her royal career. You can devote yourself to charity work without it being all that you do.

I have nothing personal against you simply because I disagree with you and choose to answer your posts, Skydragon. I don't know you personally and you are not a friend or sibling or parent who has done me wrong, so what would I personally have against you? I am not bullying; I do have the right to choose which poster to respond to depending on what catches my interest. Yours caught my interest above anyone else's so I am replying your posts. I am not attacking, I am stating my opinions and sorry if it bothers you that they are not copies of your own.

Imo, whether a post is positive or negative about Diana is relevant to the view on her legacy. If you can only think negatively of Diana does that not affect how you are going to answer a question on what legacy Diana leaves behind? And am I not entitled to question why it is that every single positive thing said about her legacy is refuted as wrong, not some or most but absolutely all the time as if she left nothing positive and had no good in her? Personally, I question the validity of a negative opinion about Diana's legacy posted by someone who only ever trashes Diana on other threads all the time. If it was a negative opinon posted by someone who doesn't automatically refute every single positive claim about Diana anyway, then I would be willing to believe that their argument was based on rationality. But if someone posts negative about her legacy, and all they say is negative about Diana anyway, then I am inclined to believe there that the opinion formed is not based on rational arguments but simply driven by blind bias and it is my right to debate a view that I think is irrational. That is what I have done.

I am sick and tired of repeating this but I never said it is wrong to disagree with a positive thing said about Diana. Read my posts carefully. What I said was I think it is wrong to disagree with every positive thing that is said about Diana all the time, because that makes it looks like the attitude is therefore that she was nothing but bad. Because if one thinks that she did have a good side, then one wouldn't disagree about every positive thing that is said about her all the time. Some positive things perhaps or most positive things but not all positive things.

What is so difficult to understand about that, and why do you keep deliberately misunderstanding my posts when I have made myself perfectly clear in bold letters? Is this the way that you are going to respond whenever I write something that you don't like? If so, I probably made a huge error in joining this forum.

I must say, I am quite disappointed. I was hoping to have a reasonable discusson without being misquoted and deliberately misunderstood simply because one disagrees with me. But clearly that is impossible. So all I can say now is goodbye. I don't mind a healthy debate but this deliberate inaccurate paraphrasing is too much. I would rather be on a forum where I am not wrongly paraphrased, otherwise I will expire from exasperation if I remain here. I have had my say and I am sure you are delighted to see me write that I am now am now forever leaving this forum.

Goodbye.

 

[sirhon11234]

You don't have to leave, I don't think anyone here want's you to leave the forum. Its just that in the case with Diana people are very opionated over her. And the best thing to do is to respect other people's opinions and agree to disagree on certain subjects.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, I did mean to say that she joined, not started the campaign. There is no proof that she joined it out of revenge,

Nor did I say she had, I suggested she might have used it as a lever

I said she devoted herself to charity work in her royal career

This is what you wrote

she had spent her royal life in the company of sick and needy people.

I am not attacking, I am stating my opinions and sorry if it bothers you that they are not copies of your own.

I wouldn't expect them to be, but you seem to have spent the last posts stating your interpretation of others, nothing more.

And am I not entitled to question why it is that every single positive thing said about her legacy is refuted as wrong, not some or most but absolutely all the time

If you actually read some of my posts, you will be able to see the inaccuracy of your statement.

What is so difficult to understand about that, and why do you keep deliberately misunderstanding my posts when I have made myself perfectly clear in bold letters?

Just because you bold something, doesn't make it clearer, in fact bolding is the equivalent of shouting, nothing more.

I was hoping to have a reasonable discusson without being misquoted and deliberately misunderstood simply because one disagrees with me.

Are you really saying that everyone who has disagreed with you has misunderstood or misquoted you, when they have in fact linked your posts to their reply? I am surprised to read that you had hoped for a reasonable discussion when your first post was so negative about other posters and their opinions. If you decide to post again, I am quite happy to ignore them as I am sure you can mine!

 

[Skydragon]

You don't have to leave, I don't think anyone here want's you to leave the forum.

You are quite right.

 

[Incas]

The same could be said about you, if you are going to attack posters who have a different view from yours, as was apparent in your first post. An example, there have been four other posters in this debate who have posted 'negative' opinions or agreed with such posts and yet, you and scooter have singled me out for criticism.

Skydragon, I am pretty sure you weren't the original target. That was me. Mercuryin called me out in that first post.

I must say, I am quite disappointed. I was hoping to have a reasonable discusson without being misquoted and deliberately misunderstood simply because one disagrees with me. But clearly that is impossible.

Mercuryin, a piece of advise from experience: it might be helpful to convey your point across if your post is more concise. It was hard to follow what it was you are not happy with when you seem to both agree and disagree at the same time. And as some poster has pointed out, bold letters equals shouting in normal dialogues. It’s not an effective way if you want people to listen to you.

So all I can say now is goodbye. I don't mind a healthy debate but this deliberate inaccurate paraphrasing is too much. I would rather be on a forum where I am not wrongly paraphrased, otherwise I will expire from exasperation if I remain here. I have had my say and I am sure you are delighted to see me write that I am now am now forever leaving this forum.

You are free to join any forum you choose. Just so you know, when there are long posts, it’s not always convenient to quote back every single word in response, as long as the paraphrasing is getting to the heart of the point of disagreement. If being paraphrased is upsetting to you, perhaps you should consider shortening your posts as well.

So all I can say now is goodbye.

Since you have been interpreting other posters’ intentions, just so you know how you are coming across to me: like a five-year-old stumping off after refused to be given the playground all to himself.

You don't have to leave, I don't think anyone here want's you to leave the forum.

Totally in agreement.

 

[iowabelle]

Ladies and gentlemen, we should all take a breath. This thread is for our entertainment and education, and it shouldn't be a source of aggravation or anger.

The thing about Diana is, that none of us knew her and we all have opinions and differing insights. I think she was an enigma so we'll never really know... So be kind to each other, please.

 

[Grace Angel]

I quite agree. The thing is, we have the illusion we knew Diana in a way, because we've all read so much about her and we have seen so many pictures that make her seem so so immediate. So it can be easy to become opinionated on her. She wasn't bad or good, but both.

 

[Skydragon]

iowabelle, I am sure we will all try.

She wasn't bad or good, but both.

I agree 100%.

 

[Warren]

The discussion of the comparisons between Diana and Caroline of Brunswick have been moved to a new thread topic, here.