News thread for the late Princess Diana, part 3 - Page 7

Princejohnny25 · #**121** 01-03-2006, 10:54 PM

The Enquier is a trashy tabloid that will do anything to make drama. Diana is history. Just because one potrait is taken down doesnt mean the whole world is going to forget about her or C and C are working a conspiracy to erase her from history. It is the natural flow for Diana to start to fade a little. Thats what happens when you are no longer alive. She is a part of history.

**Elspeth** · #**122** 01-03-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

the new is in others newspapars too, is from a month old.

Feel free to provide links.

corazon · #**123** 01-03-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

The Enquier is a trashy tabloid that will do anything to make drama. Diana is history. Just because one potrait is taken down doesnt mean the whole world is going to forget about her or C and C are working a conspiracy to erase her from history. It is the natural flow for Diana to start to fade a little. Thats what happens when you are no longer alive. She is a part of history.

yeah, she is part of british history, like many another princess, kings and queens. she have her place in the british's history like every member of the royal family from the present and the past.

corazon · #**124** 01-03-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Feel free to provide links.

the BBC published this:
The National Portrait Gallery has been accused of airbrushing Princess Diana out of history after it removed all 41 portraits of her from its walls, reports the Scottish Sunday Express

the history not is new.

ysbel · #**125** 01-03-2006, 11:07 PM

The Bryan Organ portrait is not very good. I saw it when I went to the National Portrait Gallery in 1982. It was done during the engagement and showed Diana hunching over wearing blue jeans smack dab in the middle of the canvas. He did a portrait of Prince Charles around that time that is equally as cartoonish and bad.

The one really spectacular portrait of Diana is at Althorp and was painted by Nelson Shanks. I couldn't find a decent pic but this gives you an idea of what it looks like.

http://www.althorp.com/house-grounds/saloon.asp

I saw it on an exhibit in Philadelphia and the photos don't do justice to it. It just glows. Nelson Shanks was a teacher at my art school and he was a terrible teacher but a fantastic painter.

**Elspeth** · #**126** 01-03-2006, 11:15 PM

Corazon, that is a synopsis of an article containing an accusation - an article in a tabloid newspaper. It doesn't say who's making the accusation; the only thing I can find is a statement from the gallery saying that it's been removed for restoration.

Apparently people are concluding, on the basis of absolutely no evidence, that the pictures of Diana were removed from the National Portrait Gallery in order to pretend she never existed or to salve Prince Charles's guilty conscience or something. It would be very nice to back up these suppositions with something resembling facts.

corazon · #**127** 01-03-2006, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Corazon, that is a synopsis of an article containing an accusation - an article in a tabloid newspaper. It doesn't say who's making the accusation; the only thing I can find is a statement from the gallery saying that it's been removed for restoration.

Apparently people are concluding, on the basis of absolutely no evidence, that the pictures of Diana were removed from the National Portrait Gallery in order to pretend she never existed or to salve Prince Charles's guilty conscience or something. It would be very nice to back up these suppositions with something resembling facts.

I don't lnow if the story of the gallery is true, I never acussed to prince charles or another person. the story not is new, was published in december 21. is old, not said nothing about this in the web page of the royal gallery.

Queen Mary I · #**128** 01-04-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Corazon, that is a synopsis of an article containing an accusation - an article in a tabloid newspaper. It doesn't say who's making the accusation; the only thing I can find is a statement from the gallery saying that it's been removed for restoration.

Apparently people are concluding, on the basis of absolutely no evidence, that the pictures of Diana were removed from the National Portrait Gallery in order to pretend she never existed or to salve Prince Charles's guilty conscience or something. It would be very nice to back up these suppositions with something resembling facts.

Well my sister-in-law is good enough for me as to the Portraits. You are right, she was told 'restoration' purposes. I think it only natural to suspect Royal sensibilities are being spared after the fiasco at yet another location of another Diana portrait removed ( and then placed back after the uproar) when Charles and Camilla were going to visit. I'll get back with the link. Here it is:

Artist demands return of Portrait - from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4693205.stm

If they needed to 'restore' Diana's portraits why wasn't it done sooner? Rather than AFTER C & C's nuptials? It's all suspect IMHO. I mean it's curious timing at best. They are certainly never going to admit that it was done for C & C.

corazon · #**129** 01-04-2006, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

Well my sister-in-law is good enough for me as to the Portraits. You are right, she was told 'restoration' purposes. think it only natural to suspect Royal sensibilities are being spared after the fiasco at yet another location of another Diana portrait removed ( and then placed back after the uproar) when Charles and Camilla were going to visit. I'll get back with the link. Here it is:

Artist demands return of Portrait - from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4693205.stm

the portrait in wales back to his place after the visit? I did not know that

Queen Mary I · #**130** 01-04-2006, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

The Enquier is a trashy tabloid that will do anything to make drama. Diana is history. Just because one potrait is taken down doesnt mean the whole world is going to forget about her or C and C are working a conspiracy to erase her from history. It is the natural flow for Diana to start to fade a little. Thats what happens when you are no longer alive. She is a part of history.

According to what I was told by visitors to the Gallery ALL 41 portraits have been removed. I won't be in England until September so I can't check it out for myself. Perhaps a poster here could check it out and confirm. But I stand by my sister-in-law's report.

corazon · #**131** 01-04-2006, 12:38 AM

The web site for the gallery says they have 41 different portaits of Diana. and it says one of her with William and Harry is currently on display, I try to find some confirmaion from the gallery's staff.

Queen Mary I · #**132** 01-04-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

the portrait in wales back to his place after the visit? I did not know that

But of course it had nothing to do with C & C's visit. They needed to put up some scrolls or something in it's place. Right. And I'm the Queen Of Sheba.

corazon · #**133** 01-04-2006, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

But of course it had nothing to do with C & C's visit. They needed to put up some scrolls or something in it's place. Right. And I'm the Queen Of Sheba.

ha ha,

**Elspeth** · #**134** 01-04-2006, 12:41 AM

It's a shame when you get a situation where a city council decides to move a picture, apparently because they don't want to offend the prince, and the story morphs into criticisms of the prince for being easily offended. The decision there was the council's, not the prince's; I may be mistaken, but I rather doubt that Prince Charles would have turned round and walked out of the building just because it had Diana's picture in it.

If the National Portrait Gallery has taken down all of Diana's pictures - and the ones I looked at on the website all said "Not on display," it would be nice if someone from there would explain why they did it. Otherwise no doubt someone on a website somewhere will start speculating that someone at the Palace asked them to do it, and before we know where we are it'll be being reported as fact.

**Elspeth** · #**135** 01-04-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

But of course it had nothing to do with C & C's visit. They needed to put up some scrolls or something in it's place. Right. And I'm the Queen Of Sheba.

And this decision was the council's decision, not Charles's, right?

Queen Mary I · #**136** 01-04-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

The web site for the gallery says they have 41 different portaits of Diana. and it says one of her with William and Harry is currently on display, I try to find some confirmaion from the gallery's staff.

Having them and putting them up for display are two different things. But if they are to be believed the Portraits are being 'restored'. On another Forum a poster is saying the NPR was 'embarassed after being bombarded with emails protesting the removal of the late Princess' Portraits'. I have not been able to confirm the source for THAT information but I have emailed the NPR myself. I am still awaiting a response.

Queen Mary I · #**137** 01-04-2006, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

And this decision was the council's decision, not Charles's, right?

The councils. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But I will still wonder. If it happens again what are we supposed to think Elspeth? Restoration again? Scrolls?

I don't think Prince Charles would want bad press like this-so I must say it would be like working against himself. Whatever one may think of her no one can deny the impact this young woman had on British history and her portrait deserves a place of honor at the NPR. At least one. I'm sure when Camilla's goes up it will be placed well away from hers.

corazon · #**138** 01-04-2006, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It's a shame when you get a situation where a city council decides to move a picture, apparently because they don't want to offend the prince, and the story morphs into criticisms of the prince for being easily offended. The decision there was the council's, not the prince's; I may be mistaken, but I rather doubt that Prince Charles would have turned round and walked out of the building just because it had Diana's picture in it.

If the National Portrait Gallery has taken down all of Diana's pictures - and the ones I looked at on the website all said "Not on display," it would be nice if someone from there would explain why they did it. Otherwise no doubt someone on a website somewhere will start speculating that someone at the Palace asked them to do it, and before we know where we are it'll be being reported as fact.

you're right elspeth, but why charles can offend for see a picture of the woman who was her wife and continues being the mother of her children?
only was a portrait of the princess of wales in wales.