Preparations for the 10th Anniversary Concert and Memorial Service - Page 2

ysbel · #21 12-12-2006, 02:20 PM

Most charity events I know of has a sponsor who puts up money to run the event and the event charges admission fees to cover these upfront costs and raise a profit for charity.

If that's the way the concert is run, if its run well, the event will earn a tidy profit for charity and the Duchy will be reimbursed for their expenses.

I think the problem is if the event is not run well, then its possible the costs won't be covered and there's nothing left for charity. I hope they think things through better than they did with the fountain.

sassie · #22 12-12-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I was being sarcastic, it gets the better of me sometimes!

Why is there a presumption that her ex husband should contribute anything? When you divorce, it severs all ties IMO, otherwise the men and women who have 3, 4, 5 ex's would be very busy and very much out of pocket.

Not when they have had children together. Ties still exist then, through the kids, even loose ones.

Jeez, if Prince Charles wants to contribute something towards commemorating the mother of his sons, why not? It's his money, and it's a not altogether unadmirable thing to do.

**Elspeth** · #23 12-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I was being sarcastic, it gets the better of me sometimes!

Why is there a presumption that her ex husband should contribute anything? When you divorce, it severs all ties IMO, otherwise the men and women who have 3, 4, 5 ex's would be very busy and very much out of pocket.

Well, most exes don't rate tenth-anniversary concerts either; she was a public figure for over a decade, and this concert seems to mean a lot to her (and Charles's) sons since they're so closely involved right from the start. It isn't a presumption as much as a conjecture: "I wonder if Charles will contribute" isn't the same as "Charles should pay for it."

BeatrixFan · #24 12-12-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

That's a rather unkind and unfair assessment. "She" hasn't cost you anything since 1997.

It isn't unfair or unkind. It's realistic. Money has been spent because of her since 1997 and amounts to millions. The public did not ask for a concert, they should not be landed with the bill.

sassie · #25 12-12-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It isn't unfair or unkind. It's realistic. Money has been spent because of her since 1997 and amounts to millions. The public did not ask for a concert, they should not be landed with the bill.

No, realistically, in regard to the enquiries, millions have been spent since 1997 because a lot of people don't want to accept the truth. She can hardly be blamed for that.

If the money fronted by a sponsor is to becovered by the admission fees, then the public that attends is choosing 'to be landed with the bill'. If they don't want to pay for it, then they won't go.

Skydragon · #26 12-12-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie

Not when they have had children together. Ties still exist then, through the kids, even loose ones.

Once the obligation of ensuring financial security for children is realised, at 18 in the UK, then there really should be no further need of ties, of any sort to the ex.

They were not happily married, they were divorced, it is not as if he lost a loving or beloved wife.

The only ties that exist are for the children, not through the children.

sassie · #27 12-12-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The only ties that exist are for the children, not through the children.

Ties are ties.

Skydragon · #28 12-12-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie

No, realistically, in regard to the enquiries, millions have been spent since 1997 because a lot of people don't want to accept the truth. She can hardly be blamed for that.

If the money fronted by a sponsor is to becovered by the admission fees, then the public that attends is choosing 'to be landed with the bill'. If they don't want to pay for it, then they won't go.

Even I think she can be held responsible. If she hadn't apparently made allegations against Charles with her letter, if she hadn't made whisperings to the press before her death, about 'plots', then the majority, IMO, would have accepted the fact that it was a speeding drunk driver and lack of seatbelt, that caused her death.

I would imagine the cost of hiring the new stadium will be immense, I don't know how many it is expected to hold, but, lets hope the sale of tickets does cover the cost of the hire, insurance, lighting, electricity, sound systems etc and that the 'artists are all going to perform for free!

**Zonk** · #29 12-12-2006, 04:15 PM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't he considered a widower because she died..at least to the Church of England? That being the case...I am sure if he did make a contribution it wouldn't be a problem.

Whatever the facts maybe (cause we dont know them all)...we have six LONG months to discuss this in great detail...why don't we wait for some more details to come out?

In regards to her being blamed for the costs of the inquiry and the concert...Goodness gracious...its no wonder why no one can move on...let's blame global warming on her as well.

Skydragon · #30 12-12-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie

Ties are ties.

That is the sentiment normally held by ex wives, trying to keep their claws into their ex husband.

Once the children are grown, there is normally no need for contact on a social or financial level, with ex's.

Skydragon · #31 12-12-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk

In regards to her being blamed for the costs of the inquiry and the concert...Goodness gracious...its no wonder why no one can move on...let's blame global warming on her as well.

I can only imagine your comments are based on the fact that it is not your money being used.

If all her 'fans' would like to contribute to the cost of the inquiry, then I am sure it would ease the burden on the ones who are, at the moment paying the sunstantial bills!

**Zonk** · #32 12-12-2006, 04:29 PM

Actually my comments are based upon the fact that we don't know any true details regarding the concert (cost of the venue, sponsorship, ticket info, etc)...so know one (fans and detractors) should not jump too any conclusions.

In regards to the inquiry...I too think its a waste of money but blaming Diana for the inquiry (since she has been dead since 1997 regardless of any letters, comments she may have made) is a little ridiculous in my mind and I don't have to be a taxpayer to have that opinion.

Panther2000 · #33 12-12-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

And visa versa on occasion. It does, of course, go both ways

I just think it unfortuante that so often they are played against each other from various factions outside the 'know'.

Here Here you got that right.

the woman is dead& can't defend herself any longer. & If her sons take up for he & come to her defence or celebrate her in some public way then they are being forced by the public & media.

Yeah, the boys don't have mind of their own.

I would say vice versa on many many occasions.

Back on topic I am happy by that Article that they boys wanted to do something that they new would make their mother happy. Something that she would love. A musical Concert. So much for the Media forcing the boys into doing something that they did not want to do.

I don't know what to make of the August Memorial with Camila in attendence. It is a no win situation(sp) with that. No matter what Diana is(even in death) the Mother of future King & she & Charles will always be tied together because of that. & As the Father of her children he mus attend &Camila as his current wife & part of the royal family she too must attend. She as to attend. That will be on hard day for both She & Charles. No one is looking forward to that day.

But, on a happier note: I loved the Video Clip. Harry forever the joker. Telling us to call Williams cell & will taking it in stride telling him to shutup. Love the brotherly banter. It is great to see

**Zonk** · #34 12-12-2006, 04:42 PM

I actually don't think Camilla or Charles will attend. Nor will any other senior member of the Royal Family. First of all, I think Camilla's attendance is just wrong..they weren't friends when she was alive...so why would she want to attend. Charles is another matter...but he won' go due to loyalty to his wife...and he should be loyal to her. I just don't see any of family members attending. IMO this is just the media throwing out names without any concrete proof to start up the Diana vs. Camilla thing again. But we have six months to plan it so we will see.

corazon · #35 12-12-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk

I actually don't think Camilla or Charles will attend. Nor will any other senior member of the Royal Family. First of all, I think Camilla's attendance is just wrong..they weren't friends when she was alive...so why would she want to attend. Charles is another matter...but he won' go due to loyalty to his wife...and he should be loyal to her. I just don't see any of family members attending. IMO this is just the media throwing out names without any concrete proof to start up the Diana vs. Camilla thing again. But we have six months to plan it so we will see.

when the fountain was open the queen was there and don't was an official event about diana, this concert is approved for the queen and organized for william and harry, it's a VERY official event but I think it most possible tha the queen and some members of the royal family go to the memorial that the concert.
about charles, i sure he will be here, the concert is for to celebrete the diana's life and he was part of that life, for respect to the women with he had 2 sons, he will be there and for support william and harry too

Skydragon · #36 12-12-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk

I actually don't think Camilla or Charles will attend. Nor will any other senior member of the Royal Family. First of all, I think Camilla's attendance is just wrong..they weren't friends when she was alive...so why would she want to attend. Charles is another matter...but he won' go due to loyalty to his wife...and he should be loyal to her. I just don't see any of family members attending. IMO this is just the media throwing out names without any concrete proof to start up the Diana vs. Camilla thing again. But we have six months to plan it so we will see.

William and Harry have both stated that the family from both sides will be attending the memorial service and that includes Camilla.

btsnyder · #37 12-12-2006, 04:48 PM

Do you think the Duchess of Cornwall will attend these events? I know it's been a decade and I DO think the Duchess is fantastic, but I imagine it would be a bit awkward. What does everyone think?

**Zonk** · #38 12-12-2006, 04:51 PM

Yes, they did say that...but they didn't state any specific names. And we got six months...so things can change. And again, Camilla could attend but I personally think its tacky. And for the record, I would think it would be tacky if the positions were reversed. I won't go into the whole Diana/Camilla/Charles debate because that has been discussed enough but hopefully you understand what I am saying.