The Late Diana, Princess of Wales, News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

However, I consider her work for AIDS or Landmines as a total success. Yes, she used these causes for her own publicity but is it the most important ? At least people were shocked and reacted to her work (Ottawa Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). She was critized for her spontaneous behavior and considered as a "loose canon".

Totally agree!

A lot of people would have given up but she didn't. By conviction or by simple stubborness to bother the RF, that I don't know.

I believe in her work it was a conviction to be worth something to the world. The relationship with Dodi might have been to bother the BRF.

Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron. And may I remind you that she supported over a hundred of charities before 1993 and that in 1997, she had lost her royal status. I don't know many famous people who support more than one or two organizations.
I find it a little disapointing to see that personal preferences and opinions outshine undeniable achievements of someone who gave some of her time to help.

I really think theTruth your above statement that I bolded hits in it on the head for remembering Diana, Princess of Wales. Thank you theTruth. I could have not stated it any better.
I think Princess Diana would have sorted herself out if she lived and made a life for herself in a public role that would help her self worth and the world causes.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron.

Hi Kelly, Diana was a foreigner who came to a country to protest against the means the people there used to fight each other. I don't want to say it was wrong of Diana, but in a way she was involving herself into the inner affairs of Angola. If she then was asked by the British ambassador to meet with an Angolan lady of high rank, she should have done so. It would at least been polite to listen to the views of said lady. IMHO, of course.

[rmay286]

I have to admit that my opinion of Diana went down the last year or two before her death. I had started to see her as someone who just wanted to live a glamorous lifestyle, party and get attention for herself. I had no patience for the "saint Diana" image in the years after her death.

That being said, I've been kind of surprised just how much public opinion about her has changed. To my eyes it's gone from mostly admiration and even enchantment to largely criticism and mockery. I understand why, to some extent: after Diana's death she wasn't around to maintain her image and all the dirt could be dredged up. And the way she died, leading to the inquest, led to a lot more information coming out that might have otherwise.

Still I'm starting to find it really sad, because in the end everything is about Diana "the image". Either there are people upholding the image of the compassionate Diana who was devoted to charity, or the vindictive self-seeking woman who did everything for personal gain. And in the end Diana the person, who was pretty much an average upper-class girl, taught kindergarten, had a few friends, wanted to get married and have children like every other girl--that Diana is totally lost. And yes, people can say "she did it to herself" but the truth is the media and the public were right alongside her every step of the way, feeding into whatever information they could get about her. When she fed them positive information the image was saint-like, when others started coming out with a different story the image changed into a selfish unhinged woman.

It reminds me of Britney Spears in the US. The media was happy to portray her as a pop idol and equally happy, when her life started becoming unstable, to portray every detail of her downfall.

As far as I'm concerned the only people who have a real right to issue a verdict on Diana, good or bad, are her sons. They saw the best of her and the worst of her. Their opinion might be biased but sometimes biased opinions are best, if they're biased by genuine love.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Hi Kelly, Diana was a foreigner who came to a country to protest against the means the people there used to fight each other. I don't want to say it was wrong of Diana, but in a way she was involving herself into the inner affairs of Angola. If she then was asked by the British ambassador to meet with an Angolan lady of high rank, she should have done so. It would at least been polite to listen to the views of said lady. IMHO, of course.

In this view, I agree that it would have been better to meet this woman. But it was just a formal meeting and I believe Diana liked that sort of "rebel" behavior which she already had in the RF). Disobeying the ambassador's orders was a way to say "No one tells me what I have to do". I'm not saying it was right, though.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Still I'm starting to find it really sad, because in the end everything is about Diana "the image".

I think this is probably due to the fact that to Diana, "the image" was so important, and so much of what she did was about creating and maintaining "the image".

Either there are people upholding the image of the compassionate Diana who was devoted to charity, or the vindictive self-seeking woman who did everything for personal gain. And in the end Diana the person, who was pretty much an average upper-class girl, taught kindergarten, had a few friends, wanted to get married and have children like every other girl--that Diana is totally lost. And yes, people can say "she did it to herself" but the truth is the media and the public were right alongside her every step of the way, feeding into whatever information they could get about her. When she fed them positive information the image was saint-like, when others started coming out with a different story the image changed into a selfish unhinged woman.

I'm one who says she did it to herself, because from the very beginning of her relationship with Charles she was all about sending out an image she wanted to project, and she later involved the media in her plan. At the beginning she created an image she knew would attract Charles. When she had his interest she created an image that attracted the media; from the moment that day on the riverbank with Charles when she walked up and hid behind a tree and attracted the photographers' attention by looking at them with a mirror, Diana involved the media in her life. She actively enlisted their support before the engagement by chatting to them and agreeing to pose and provide photo opportunities, and later she'd cultivate relationships with her favourites and provide leaks. This was all so the image she wanted to convey was in fact conveyed to the public, because it was the public image she cultivated that gave her power.

It was not the real Diana that the public adored, but the image. The public didn't get to see or know the real Diana, only the image. The public didn't see the Diana who was selfish and manipulative and vengeful, the woman who tried to push her stepmother down the stairs, or threw tantrums when things didn't go her way or had long telephone conversations with her lovers in which she disparaged the Royal family and complained they didn't appreciate what she'd done for them. They only saw the smiling, well dressed, beautiful young princess with the beautiful figure who openly showed affection to her children in contrast to those cold Windsors, and who genuinely cared about the less fortunate and wanted to help them. Even the people who were close to her (her "friends", not Charles or the staff) didn't get to know the real Diana, only those parts of her that she wanted them to see and allowed them to see.

I think perhaps the real Diana got lost somewhere in the process of creating and maintaining "the image". I have no doubt that she genuinely cared and wanted to help, and that she did what her particular and limited abilities allowed her to do to help, but it all got so messy, especially when the media started to turn on her.

I can't agree that only her sons have a real right to issue a verdict on her. Once you collaborate on a book with the intention of stating your case, and initiate a television interview in which you openly compete with the Queen for the public's affection and question your husband's fitness to be King, you are fair game and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Since when it was her role to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings ? She was no longer a member of the RF, and so, it was none of her business. After we would have blamed her for spending more time meeting miss X. than doing her job of patron.

Originally the Red Cross were against her being involved with their campaign. I posted the link some time ago and if I have time later, will trawl through the threads to see if I can find it. They realised she was using them and one would have thought that a simple request to meet some dignitaries would have brought more local publicity for the cause. Diana it would appear to me, was only interested in publicity back home. I would imagine it would have meant a great deal to the woman she was supposed to meet and would perhaps have gained another high profile (in Angola) supporter for the cause, rather than the possibility that this white girl was only interested in the good press she could get out of it.

There was a big enough fuss here when the French visit was cut short.

I find it a little disapointing to see that personal preferences and opinions outshine undeniable achievements of someone who gave some of her time to help.

Why, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to why Diana got involved with charities. Personal preferences and opinions colour everyone's view, even yours, there are very few altruistic people in the world and IMO Diana was not one of them.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Personal preferences and opinions colour everyone's view, even yours, there are very few altruistic people in the world and IMO Diana was not one of them.

As I haven't read the Diana Chronicles yet (I planned to wait for the end of the inquest to see the "revised" edition then ) I wasn't aware that the author, as someone stated here lately, had put forward the motive for Diana, that it made her personally feel better to be together with people who are much worse of. It was a motive I never thought of myself - till I read at the beginning of this year a thriller by a British authoress calles Val MacDermid (sp.?) about a British TV presenter who did his charity work for exactly the same reason while being a nasty piece of work himself. That book really made me think about this motive and I wouldn't put it past Diana to have had the same motivation behind some of her deeds. Plus there is helper's syndrome. But then - who knows?

She without any doubt had a positive impact on a lot of people by her example and she's dead, so.... But it's true - I prefer people who do good deeds and are trying to be good in their private life as well. But all in all for the world at large the outcome is the most important thing and here Diana scored quite well, whatever her personal reasons.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

As I haven't read the Diana Chronicles yet (I planned to wait for the end of the inquest to see the "revised" edition then ) I wasn't aware that the author, as someone stated here lately, had put forward the motive for Diana, that it made her personally feel better to be together with people who are much worse of. It was a motive I never thought of myself - till I read at the beginning of this year a thriller by a British authoress called Val MacDermid (sp.?) about a British TV presenter who did his charity work for exactly the same reason while being a nasty piece of work himself. That book really made me think about this motive and I wouldn't put it past Diana to have had the same motivation behind some of her deeds. Plus there is helper's syndrome. But then - who knows?

I have met one or two absolutely nasty people that you would not want to be on your card list but have been leaders in the world of charity. One particularly nasty piece of work (IMO) disowned one of his children when they became Disabled, but he was high up in a charity that works tirelessly for disabled and disadvantaged children. Weird, IMO.

It's Val MacDiarmid IB.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It was not the real Diana that the public adored, but the image. The public didn't get to see or know the real Diana, only the image. The public didn't see the Diana who was selfish and manipulative and vengeful, the woman who tried to push her stepmother down the stairs, or threw tantrums when things didn't go her way or had long telephone conversations with her lovers in which she disparaged the Royal family and complained they didn't appreciate what she'd done for them.

This is exactly the problem: the public didn't get to see this side of Diana. We only hear about this side of Diana, for the most part, through other people's accounts (except for the telephone conversations and I would say that even though she disparaged the royal family in them, we don't have full knowledge of exactly how much justification she had for her complaints: and in those conversations she did say how much she enjoyed helping people).

What I'm saying is for the most part, people who want to expose the nasty side of Diana are often doing so for an agenda themselves. Either to get attention, or tell Charles' side of the story because they are more sympathetic to him. Sure, these perspectives are probably often true. But the way Diana behaved in public was "real", too--as long as she was out in public she really did behave in a sweet and compassionate way. We still only have a few more perspectives helping to construct a picture of someone none of us ever knew. No one here saw everything she did, saw what went through her head, we only have these two vastly different pictures of her. But it's still never going to be the full truth.

And my problem is I can't really see how dredging up the darker side of Diana nearly 11 years after her death is helpful. Most of the nastier information came out after her death. She never had a chance to defend herself, to be confronted publicly with the disparity between her "image" and reality and never had the chance to try to change after such a confrontation. While she was alive photographers were constantly swarming around her and the media was commenting on how beautiful and charitable she was: of course she just perpetuated her act. She never experienced the shock of the media turning against her, because they fed straight into her image.

I suppose the argument could be that people still believe in the "sainted Diana" myth and so the truth needs to be repeatedly told. Well really, if people still believe Diana was a saint after the inquest, nothing anyone can say to them will ever change their minds. You don't have to think she was a saint to have some compassion for the woman.

[kimebear]

Love her or hate her, this is just vile!


T-shirt company's blunt advice for those still mourning Princess Di

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by rmay286

But the way Diana behaved in public was "real", too--as long as she was out in public she really did behave in a sweet and compassionate way.

You obviously never saw the Panorama-interview.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by kimebear

Love her or hate her, this is just vile!


T-shirt company's blunt advice for those still mourning Princess Di

I personally thought the photoshopped pic of HM and the DoE funny.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

You obviously never saw the Panorama-interview.

I have. Several times. And to me Diana appears incredibly manipulative and self-centred in it. It was probably the single greatest contributor to the drop in my opinion of her.

I still maintain she was genuinely compassionate at times, though. And I still don't have any interest in rehashing the worst aspects of her behaviour 10 years after her death.

[Mermaid1962]

I think that a person would have to have genuine compassion to put ones-self through the trauma of seeing that young girl in the hospital in Angola. She passed away shortly after seeing the Princess IIRC. I remember Diana actually pushing the camera away at that point.

Originally Posted by rmay286

I still maintain she was genuinely compassionate at times, though. And I still don't have any interest in rehashing the worst aspects of her behaviour 10 years after her death.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by kimebear

Love her or hate her, this is just vile!


T-shirt company's blunt advice for those still mourning Princess Di

Ignorance pure ignorance. I hope William and Harry haven't seen these shirts.

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

I think that a person would have to have genuine compassion to put ones-self through the trauma of seeing that young girl in the hospital in Angola. She passed away shortly after seeing the Princess IIRC. I remember Diana actually pushing the camera away at that point.

I remember she put a blanket on the girl and told the photographer to stop taking pictures.
On another occasion when she was sitting next to a woman who had lost a limb the cameramen shoved the microphone in front of her face and Diana pushed it out of the way.