News Thread for the Late Princess Diana, part 2 - Page 4

mya · #61 11-30-2004, 10:38 AM

i think the whole thing is kind of funny. first the world loved her. then they despised her. when she died she became the people's princess and everyone (except camila) loved her and now the world wants to show how crazy and on the edge she was. hmm i think its hilarious the amount of time we spend building up a person and then tearing them down. nothing about those tapes will change anyones mind about how they feel about princess diana. if you loved her before you will love her now. if you thought she was a little flaky before you will continue to think she was flaky. this like everything else about the woman is about money. the royal family is about imagae and money and they will always be. so why get upset over a tape???? tapes will come and tapes will go...etc. etc. etc...

RoseMary · #62 11-30-2004, 04:50 PM

Although I don't agree with Mr. Settelen decision to sell the tapes. It did give me the chills hearing what Diana had to say about her relationship with her husband. Many books have been written about her and her boys but to hear it out of her own mouth all the frustration, anger, regret, and sadness.

I would rather see these tapes than some new book with a new spin on her life.

Britters · #63 11-30-2004, 05:37 PM

I watched the tapes, more out of curiosity in what Diana had to say then out of anything else. I am one of those people who thinks Diana did some truly wonderful things for the world, but at the same time was a little off her rocker. After the first installment I have to say that I my opinion hasn't changed all that much (as an earlier poster pointed out-I don't think there is much that can be said that would change my mind). I also think this is incredibly one sided. We don't get to hear Charles's side or the BRF's side-all we hear is Diana's side, and of course she's going to paint herself the complete and total victim in everything-it's human nature to do so. I've said it multiple times before, and I will say it again, Diana was not perfect, she played a tremendous part in the break down of her marriage as well!

In reply to the post about shame on the US channel who aired the tapes, and to those of us who watched it-it's natural to be curious about what someone in a high profile has to say about the tragedies of thier life. People still talk about Columbine High School and the tragedy that occured there-there are always new stories or theories or conspiracies coming out about it. I had a friend die in the tragedy-but to say it's in the past, and they are in the past, and to move on and forget about it, forget about them, and not hear the new "evidence" or what not, is like pretending it didn't happen. The tapes being aired give people an insight into what Diana was feeling. No one can deny what she was feeling, and perhaps it helps people understand her a bit more. If this is truly about money-then yes it's completely wrong-but it's his choice. But the Speech consultant has come out in this interview, when asked why, and said that he wants people to hear Diana's viewpoints. There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

wymanda · #64 11-30-2004, 07:28 PM

Britters,
Maybe it's a bit of English reserve showing up in this Australian but I've always believed that you shouldn't air your dirty laundry in public and that you shouldn't put down either on paper or, in this modern age, on tape anything that you would not want your children to read. My concern is for William & Harry. I think that the breakup of their parents marriage, Diana's determination to involve them in that breakup and the tragedy of her death have scarred them enough. The total disregard by television networks (and I include the Australian channel that is airing the tapes) for two young men who are trying to build lives for themselves after so much tragedy is appalling.

Dennism · #65 11-30-2004, 09:12 PM

Well said, Wymanda

maryshawn · #66 01-22-2005, 02:15 AM

So what about the ham and cheese sandwich and how many cubes of ice did she put in that Diet Coke? I caught part of the last airing and missed those pieces of information---used by NBC to promote it? Does she actually talk about stuff like that? I'm not being facetious and agree with much of what you've written. The promo bit on this thread did pique my curiousity as to what they got into and what she actually discussed. I saw her rehearsing, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britters

I watched the tapes, more out of curiosity in what Diana had to say then out of anything else. I am one of those people who thinks Diana did some truly wonderful things for the world, but at the same time was a little off her rocker. After the first installment I have to say that I my opinion hasn't changed all that much (as an earlier poster pointed out-I don't think there is much that can be said that would change my mind). I also think this is incredibly one sided. We don't get to hear Charles's side or the BRF's side-all we hear is Diana's side, and of course she's going to paint herself the complete and total victim in everything-it's human nature to do so. I've said it multiple times before, and I will say it again, Diana was not perfect, she played a tremendous part in the break down of her marriage as well!

In reply to the post about shame on the US channel who aired the tapes, and to those of us who watched it-it's natural to be curious about what someone in a high profile has to say about the tragedies of thier life. People still talk about Columbine High School and the tragedy that occured there-there are always new stories or theories or conspiracies coming out about it. I had a friend die in the tragedy-but to say it's in the past, and they are in the past, and to move on and forget about it, forget about them, and not hear the new "evidence" or what not, is like pretending it didn't happen. The tapes being aired give people an insight into what Diana was feeling. No one can deny what she was feeling, and perhaps it helps people understand her a bit more. If this is truly about money-then yes it's completely wrong-but it's his choice. But the Speech consultant has come out in this interview, when asked why, and said that he wants people to hear Diana's viewpoints. There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

james · #67 01-23-2005, 06:41 PM

I just feel it is like the abdication all over again. Even though I am a British citizen who pays for the upkeep of these people I am reliant on people from the U.S.A., Austrailia etc to keep me informed of the contents of the tapes as our own media won't screen them. Can you imagine if during the Bill Clinton saga Americans couldn't view certain footage or reports detailing the President's actions but the rest of the world could? There would be have been outrage and rightly so but the British people are treated like children in regard to a lot of Royal reporting just like we were in 1936.

maryshawn · #68 01-23-2005, 10:29 PM

Your point is excellent, James. I always was under the impression certain media would broadcast revelations like the tapes in the UK. Look at how the BBC worked with Diana re: her Panorama interview. Who is in charge of surpressing the broadcast of the tapes in the UK? I don't know how that works as in the US, anything and everything is shown, regardless of how any individual may feel (Bill Clinton, for instance). As a democratic country, it certainly doesn't feel so democratic if news may be withheld. I do remember seeing a copy of a book years ago re: Diana and Charles written by their housekeeper and there was a stamp on it "Banned in Britain." How can one ban a book.......? Is it because the housekeeper broke some rule about not writing about her employers? The Kennedy's have such a rule in place--or did during the White House years. It didn't matter; after JFK was assassinated, books by friends and books sanctioned by the family began popping up all over. (And JFK was against having staff sign the confidentiality paperwork; his wife was the one who pressed for it).

**Elspeth** · #69 01-23-2005, 10:36 PM

I think it did have to do with the fact that Wendy Berry had signed a confidentiality agreement. Mind you, the way things are going now, the royal family would be prosecuting a different person every week since so many of the staff who worked for Charles and Diana or their families have decided to write books about it.

As far as what can and can't be published in various countries, it differs. I gather that the American investigative journalist Greg Palast can really only get his articles into British newspapers because American ones are so fearful of lawsuits from some of the corporations and high-level government officials he goes after that they've refused to touch anything he writes.

tipper · #70 01-24-2005, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sara1981

its good memory of Princess Diana she wores of Wedding dresses when she got married to Prince Charles in 1981 but im sure if have more dresses when she visit on tours and attend opera&ballet?

let Princess Diana good works and she let rest in peace

Sara Boyce

I'd like to share with u my memory of my beloved Lady di, on her wed day, I was there inon july 29, 1981, I stayed next the statue for lots of time and she finally showed on the balcony and every1 was shouting for a kiss, so Charles kissed her, she was so lovely... she did not deserve to die young after years of pain, loneliness etc.-hope she rest in peace. I'll never forget her, I was at her last home, outside in the gardens on the 6th anniversary of her death.

maryshawn · #71 01-28-2005, 12:22 AM

In January 11th issue of "Hello," there is a brief article on the auction of a piece of the wedding cake and bottle of Dom Perignon champagne from the ceremony.

The auctioneer Dominic Winter sold off the piece of cake for 234 (UK dollars) and the champagne for 1050. Despite being 23 years old, a spokesperson for the auction house said "it may still be edible as it's fruit cake saturated in alcohol so I don't think it would do you any harm, I don't think. It might be a bit musty but if someone had a few drinks they might not necessarily notice." Hysterical! I don't think the buyer will be consuming the slice anytime soon....just my opinion! Musty cake wouldn't sound too tasty even if one consumed a few bottles of dom!!!! Ugh.

corazon · #72 01-31-2005, 01:00 PM

91 months without Diana.

**Elspeth** · #73 01-31-2005, 04:28 PM

I know a good-quality dark fruit cake is supposed to be edible after five years (some of them survived the secon world war in good shape), but I wouldn't risk it with a 20-year-old cake, especially if it still had its marzipan layer.

maryshawn · #74 02-02-2005, 04:15 AM

I just finished reading a book "Diana: Portrait of a Princess" and it was quite interesting. Even in her dating days, she was clever enough to publicly place a suitcase in her car, go back in her apartment, then slip out the back.

She confided to her friends and butler she was going to stick mainly to her leopard print swimsuit on that last vacation so all their photos would look alike and they would lose interest. And, to some degree, she succeeded. I thought it most clever!

scupidu · #75 02-04-2005, 07:00 PM

RSS-News about Princess Diana

You can now watch the news and headlines about Princess Diana as an RSS (XML) feed.
If you are already familiar with RSS, you can copy and paste the following URL into your RSS reader:

------------------------------------------------
http://www.princess-diana.com/diana/news/rss.php
------------------------------------------------

XML feeds are a new and efficient way to get personalised news on your computer (Feed-Reader):
No email - no spam - no registration - anonymous.

More infos at:
http://www.princess-diana.com/diana/...a_rss_feed.php

Princess Kersti · #76 02-12-2005, 06:11 PM

Where royalty rules: we've got you covered

By Nene King
February 13, 2005
Page 1 of Friday's London Daily Star.

Princess Diana was the ultimate covergirl. Every time we put her on the front of Woman's Day the circulation shot up. On a good week I would sell 1.1 million of them. Then the stories came out about her marriage trouble and Camilla Parker Bowles being behind it. The poor woman was compared to this beautiful princess everyone thought was part of a fairytale. Poor Camilla! Hobbling around on a horse, with the dress sense of the landed gentry - and the future king's madly in love with her!

We're so shallow, really: people saw Diana as being pretty and Camilla as anything but. Mind you, she would look frumpy in a black dress with a split up it. I never put her on a full cover. I thought she could not sell it on her own. So I always put Diana beside her - comparing them in black dresses.

Camilla is up there with Lindy Chamberlain as bad cover material: it's all physical, but women in particular didn't like that type of person. If we ever said anything nice about Camilla, how she was helping Charles get on with his life, I'd get hate mail.

She's probably a very nice woman, and very entertaining. Charles should have married her in the first place, but there was this belief the future monarch should marry a virgin. So Di was dragged into this hornet's nest so far removed from the real world. Camilla knew the background and would have fitted better. I would have thought that whatever happened between Charles and Camilla, they would have stayed married. Sure, he would have had dalliances, but she would have been the staunch wife to the end, as so many of these women have been.

Anyway, it is a real love story that has lasted a long, long time. In years to come, when we talk about Napoleon and Josephine, we'll include Charles and Camilla.

It will be interesting to see how the magazines handle the wedding. We've had Rove's wedding, the Trump wedding - that put royalty to shame. I'm not sure I'd put Camilla on the cover by herself. I'd want to see what she looked like - if she's had any Botox or Jenny Craig, or a whitening-up of the teeth. If not, one of the magazines is sure to give her one. Maybe a smart shot, say at home at Clarence House. But a big headshot with a cheesy grin? I'm not so sure.

I would rather slit my wrists than put Charles on a cover. He's just not saleable. Maybe if he had fallen in love with Jennifer Aniston and there were scoop photos of their hideaway in the Bahamas. That's the only reason you'd put him on. Even if he died, I'd be loath to have him the cover.

No, there was never a cover person like Diana. After she died, we continued putting her on the cover, but she never sold as many copies as she did when she was alive. People wanted us to leave her alone.

Nene King worked in magazines for 25 years. A former editor of Woman's Day and Women's Weekly, she was responsible for many royal exclusives, including Sarah Ferguson's toe-sucking pictures.

Amira · #77 03-15-2005, 07:35 PM

Car in Princess Diana crash was last-minute replacement

LONDON (AP) — The car in the crash that killed Princess Diana in Paris was a last- minute replacement either meant as a media diversion or because the vehicle she was supposed to take failed to start, according to British government documents released Tuesday.

The papers, released by the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act, detailed correspondence between the government and British officials in France in the days after the Aug. 31, 1997, high-speed crash that killed Diana, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and the driver Henri Paul.

A memo sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair on the day of Diana's death claimed the couple was "immediately subject to media attention" as they arrived at the Ritz Hotel on the evening of Aug. 30 and were surrounded by journalists as they left early the next morning.

"They tried to leave quickly but the first car failed to start," states the document, whose author is not revealed.

A second document sent to then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and signed Jay — believed to be Michael Jay, Britain's ambassador to France at the time — made the same allegation. "Because apparently their getaway car failed to start they got into another nearby car driven by a Ritz driver," it said.

Another document, sent by Jay to the Foreign Office on Sept. 23, gives a slightly different version of events, saying the switch to another car had been "a last minute plan aimed at diverting awaiting paparazzi."

A French court ruled in 2002 that the crash was an accident caused by Paul, who was drunk and speeding. British royal coroner Michael Burgess opened another investigation last year, however, to determine whether the deadly crash could have been the result of a plot.

Fayed's father, Egyptian-born businessman Mohammed al Fayed, has maintained the car crash was plotted by people who disapproved of Diana's relationship with his son. He also says the circumstances of the crash were covered up.

The document sent by Jay to the Foreign Office also detailed how Mohammed al Fayed arranged for a British pathologist to challenge test results that showed Paul had high levels of alcohol in his system when the car crashed.

The papers, posted on the Cabinet Office Web site, also reveal diplomatic discussions on arrangements to remove the princess' body and start an investigation into the crash.

sara1981 · #78 03-16-2005, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kersti

Where royalty rules: we've got you covered

By Nene King
February 13, 2005
Page 1 of Friday's London Daily Star.

Princess Diana was the ultimate covergirl. Every time we put her on the front of Woman's Day the circulation shot up. On a good week I would sell 1.1 million of them. Then the stories came out about her marriage trouble and Camilla Parker Bowles being behind it. The poor woman was compared to this beautiful princess everyone thought was part of a fairytale. Poor Camilla! Hobbling around on a horse, with the dress sense of the landed gentry - and the future king's madly in love with her!

We're so shallow, really: people saw Diana as being pretty and Camilla as anything but. Mind you, she would look frumpy in a black dress with a split up it. I never put her on a full cover. I thought she could not sell it on her own. So I always put Diana beside her - comparing them in black dresses.

Camilla is up there with Lindy Chamberlain as bad cover material: it's all physical, but women in particular didn't like that type of person. If we ever said anything nice about Camilla, how she was helping Charles get on with his life, I'd get hate mail.

She's probably a very nice woman, and very entertaining. Charles should have married her in the first place, but there was this belief the future monarch should marry a virgin. So Di was dragged into this hornet's nest so far removed from the real world. Camilla knew the background and would have fitted better. I would have thought that whatever happened between Charles and Camilla, they would have stayed married. Sure, he would have had dalliances, but she would have been the staunch wife to the end, as so many of these women have been.

Anyway, it is a real love story that has lasted a long, long time. In years to come, when we talk about Napoleon and Josephine, we'll include Charles and Camilla.

It will be interesting to see how the magazines handle the wedding. We've had Rove's wedding, the Trump wedding - that put royalty to shame. I'm not sure I'd put Camilla on the cover by herself. I'd want to see what she looked like - if she's had any Botox or Jenny Craig, or a whitening-up of the teeth. If not, one of the magazines is sure to give her one. Maybe a smart shot, say at home at Clarence House. But a big headshot with a cheesy grin? I'm not so sure.

I would rather slit my wrists than put Charles on a cover. He's just not saleable. Maybe if he had fallen in love with Jennifer Aniston and there were scoop photos of their hideaway in the Bahamas. That's the only reason you'd put him on. Even if he died, I'd be loath to have him the cover.

No, there was never a cover person like Diana. After she died, we continued putting her on the cover, but she never sold as many copies as she did when she was alive. People wanted us to leave her alone.

Nene King worked in magazines for 25 years. A former editor of Woman's