Preparations for the 10th Anniversary Concert and Memorial Service


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
sirhon11234 said:
I wonder if the tables were turned and had it been charles or Camilla who had died in that crash would you be singing a different tune.

No, I would have expected there to have been the funeral, a memorial (at the time), a statue of some sort and then thats it!

ysbel said:
I thought charity events are tax-exempt, regardless of the type. Its supposed to encourage charitable donations, etc. skydragon, you mean that charity events don't have that de facto privilege in Britain?
Only some portions of them. If you make a donation to a registered charity, you fill in a form to declare that you are a taxpayer and pay more tax than the amount the charity is likely to claim back. Any charity event has to pay some tax unless they get an exemption from the erstwhile Mr Brown.
The problem arises because it is not the charities themselves that are organising this event and so, any money they receive will be a 'gift' and not earned income through trade, (which is exempt for charities). Live 8 managed to get their VAT bill reduced by £2 million. Tax and VAT, although both taxes, are different things.
 
Last edited:
Jo of Palatine said:
I remember it clearly - it was the first time I ever heard of a country named Bangla-Desh and I still know how touched I was when George Harrison played his song "Help the people of Bangla-Desh". I liked the way Indian music had been woven into the music and the sirit of it, which was really about peace and help and love. The concert BTW as a DVD still has a sales rank with Amazon and it's a low 3.128 in DVD (at amazon.de)! As an aside: when I made the same area with my latest book, I sold more than 25.000 copies in 6 months, which is quite something when it comes to special interest titles. I guess with the flood of DVDs it's similar. (The whole album was remastered and republished last year, so it's quite an new item).
Congratulations on your book sales. :flowers: We must all have been busy with our own thing, although some this morning vaguely remember a concert, only one chap remembered it was for Bangladesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh

I expect it was one of those things back in the 70's where you had to be interested in 'popular' music and artists! :rolleyes:
 
Skydragon said:
The point is that of the 100's who were going to be at KP every year, very few turned up this time.

Hm, there are enough people who visit graves in ancient graveyard all around the world - just have a look at Pere Lachaise in Paris on any given day. As Diana's grave is unapproachable for most of the years and is quite a distance from London, I guess people will always use Kensington Palace as their place to mourn somebody who touched them. And why not? I haope that someday when William is king he will give her a grave or at least a plaque of commemoration in Westminster Abbey or another appropriate church (eg St. Paul's), so people have a better place to mourn her than at that fountain. Hopefully a place with wheel-chair access because Diana's fans are bound to get older year after year and I don't see crowds of new ones coming.

But it came as it always come: the fame of dead celebs ceases to work after some years for huge crowds, but I don't think Diana will ever be forgotten. But once she fits into the long stream of former members of the monarchy's premier family, all will be back to normal and what you describe is probably the first step towards a rather "normal" way of commemoration.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
I guess people will always use Kensington Palace as their place to mourn somebody who touched them. And why not?
If people want to go to KP, fine, all I was trying to say, is that people, for whatever reason do forget (except the family and close friends), life takes over.
 
Skydragon said:
Congratulations on your book sales. :flowers:

Thank you.

I expect it was one of those things back in the 70's where you had to be interested in 'popular' music and artists! :rolleyes:

No, I don't think so. I was eg not interested in Woodstock. But this was a way to interest younger people for a charity which was new and fresh and interesting. Woodstock was just interested in itself and the celebration of its own culture which was different from that of the "grown-ups" but just as serious as theirs. The popculture for teenies was anything but something to be taken serious.

And then there was this concert when artists came to gether to create a warmer, more human spirit and to create awareness for the suffering of other people. Today I don't care that much for charity concerts, because IMHO it's a perfect way for the artists to boost their reputation on appearing not longer as greedy as they probably are - and I don't like hypocrisy. But "Bangladesh" was the first of its kind and thus IMHO warrants to stay in mind. Just my opinion. :flowers:
 
Jo of Palatine said:
You make a very valuable point here. But is it for charity first and foremost? Okay, the money they (hopefully) make from it will go to charities but the name "Concert for Diana" and the talk about a birthday present that prince William used doesn't sit overly well with me. Diana is dead and you cannot give her a birthday present. I agree that her sons want to commemorate her and to share their feelings with other people, while doing something for the purposes that were dear to Diana's heart. So from the princes' side it's okay, I suppose. But still the wording and the surrounding facts don't resonate positively with me. But then I don't like the Spanish processions either, where they take the skeleton of saints from the crypt and, after carrying them around in a glass coffin, sit them at the top of a celebration table and offer them food. I once saw a film about that and it was pretty necrophilic.

I don't want to celebrate the lífe of a person who is dead and has been for 10 years. I don't want to listen in on a concert that is for somebody who is not longer there. Mourning and memorial services and all that is okay, but to have fun dancing on the graves is not something I enjoy.

I understand your reservations Jo :) and 'see' what you're saying.

The name 'Concert For Diana', is what it is I guess. Its a concert for charity in memory of the lady whom has, by way of living, made this event possible. She isn't here and if she were then no concert would be organised I'm sure, so I think it does make sense (I hope I'm making sense.lol.).

As for the birthday present comment, I guess from the perspective of her two sons (as you mentioned), they could very well look upon it as their personal gift to her memory. And that 'gift' encompasses the communal celebration they wished to make it.

I don't see it, personally, as dancing on someones grave. They are not celebrating her life as such, but the memory and legacy she left on having taken an active and passionate role in charity. Again, something that was widely known.

Commemorating her, as the person, comes at the memorial service. That's its purpose and that's where reflection of a unique and appreciated life shall take place :flowers:
 
Last edited:
I think few would object to William and Harry making a personal memorial to their mother. The mother-son bond is inviolable.

Where some would have a problem (including myself) is if the government or the monarchy itself decides to memorialize Diana since her presence in the monarchy and some of her public actions towards the institution are believed by many to have actually weakened the position of the monarchy. She may have had very understandable reasons for doing so but the effects were the same.

Exactly 11 years ago today the Queen told Charles and Diana to divorce. On today's BBCs On This Day is the original newstory that the BBC ran and it highlights just how much in turmoil the monarchy was after one of Diana's actions.

Some quotes from the original article (bolds are mine):

The Queen's action comes just weeks after the princess's interview on Panorama which sparked a national debate on the future of the monarchy.

Diana was also repeatedly critical of her husband's ability to become king, his family, and their advisers

Generally the purpose of a memorial is to point to a person's life as an example of how others should live and conduct themselves. Given how some of Diana's actions affected the institution of monarchy and led to her early demise, I'm very wary of any event that holds Diana up as someone little girls should pattern themselves after.

Yes, I do have problems with the Queen in her position as head of the monarchy memorializing a person who put the monarchy in such an untenable position. The Queen may have been personally very fond of Diana and it appears that she was very understanding of the difficult position Diana was in, but that fondness does not necessarily translate to the Queen using her position as head of the British monarchy to honor Diana.

Some sympathy and compassion for Diana is certainly warranted. She meant well and I believe she touched a lot of people. But her public actions against the monarchy and questionable actions with the press regarding her own safety in the months prior to her death disqualify her IMO as a role model for young women.
 
ysbel said:
Some sympathy and compassion for Diana is certainly warranted. She meant well and I believe she touched a lot of people. But her public actions against the monarchy and questionable actions with the press regarding her own safety in the months prior to her death disqualify her IMO as a role model for young women.
A very good point, one I agree with. Diana always failed to appreciate that, in speaking against the monarchy, and, more personally, Prince Charles, she was attacking the very institution that gave her the platform she spoke from.

Yes, I do have problems with the Queen in her position as head of the monarchy memorializing a person who put the monarchy in such an untenable position.
But, isn't the fountain (if it ever works) an official memorial?
 
sassie said:
But, isn't the fountain (if it ever works) an official memorial?
It is indeed.
 
ysbel said:
Where some would have a problem (including myself) is if the government or the monarchy itself decides to memorialize Diana since her presence in the monarchy and some of her public actions towards the institution are believed by many to have actually weakened the position of the monarchy. She may have had very understandable reasons for doing so but the effects were the same.

When I'm thinking of Diana, I always see a well-meaning, but absolutely self-centered woman. She simply couldn't understand that if she really suceeded in using her influence with the media to omit Charles as next king in favour of her own son, she would endanger her own son's reign! Modern monarchy is a relic of former times which people, the new power, still appreciate and thus it survives. On endangeriung "ye olde rules" she endangered the whole thing! This is something Diana never saw.

So to celebrate her means to celebrate a woman who did her best to abolish the monarchy and who would want that?

Personally I always have related to Diana and was very sad when she diedm but still... she had no understanding of the styetm she married into and used it for her own ends, which is something I cannot condone!
 
the fountain was open for the queen, i think is a official tribute
 
Jo of Palatine said:
So to celebrate her means to celebrate a woman who did her best to abolish the monarchy and who would want that?

Do you really think that Diana, whatever her faults, would have wanted to abolish her children's birthright? I seriously doubt that she stayed home at nights plotting to make Britain a republic:rolleyes: While some of her actions were extremely ill conceived (The Panorama interview). I think IMO that those episodes of judgement were the result of a troubled emotional state not a resolute determination to bring about the monarchy's downfall.
Whatever anyones opinions of Diana maybe I think in the long run we have to concede that she did an amazing job in raising her boys and that is what I believe we should focus on and celebrate in the the 10th anniversary of her death. Her legacy should and does carry on with them, not the constant rehashing of her faults and missteps.
 
lord_rankin said:
Do you really think that Diana, whatever her faults, would have wanted to abolish her children's birthright? I seriously doubt that she stayed home at nights plotting to make Britain a republic:rolleyes: .

Of course, not lord rankin. :) Her friends said many times during her lifetime that she did not want to destroy her children's (especially William's) inheritance. What I believe happened is that Diana mistakenly thought she alone knew what was best for the monarchy and only she could lead it forward.

During Diana's tenure as Princess of Wales, reporters like Richard Kay continually disparaged the rest of the Royal Family as cold, out of touch, unfeeling, cruel, insensitive, inhuman and showed Diana as an example of how the Royal Family should be, open, hugging, spontaneous, someone who gives sound bites, candid photos and candid interviews. Now you may find it interesting that Richard Kay was one of Diana's closest friends. If Diana, as I suspect, mistakenly thought she was the saviour of the British monarchy it was because people like Richard Kay told her that over and over while she was trying to sort out some pretty difficult situations within the Royal Family. Is it any wonder that she did as she did? Its totally understandable given the people around her but whatever her reasons for doing so the effects on the monarchy were the same.

Now lord rankin, you mention that her legacy should not focus on her faults and her missteps. I totally agree, but just to focus on the hugging Diana who visited an AIDS hospital or the proud mum hugging her sons doesn't do justice to her legacy either.

Diana's legacy, in my mind, is of a woman who dared to care and dared to show that she cared. It is also a legacy of a woman who in her own pain lashed out at the monarchy and in her pain hurt those who had never hurt her while also doing incalculable damage to herself. Yes, its a conflicted legacy, not all bad and not all good but I think that is a by-product of the modern media age. In fact to talk about Diana's legacy without talking about the current practice of the press to pry into every single private detail of a public figure's life (especially royal life) is to ignore what is possibly Diana's biggest legacy. If people are focusing on the unpleasant private facts of Diana's life, they are following Diana's lead who herself focused on many private embarassing details of her life and released these details in interviews and books. And the general public is not only doing it with Diana's life but every new royal princess and celebrity that comes to light. After Diana, we treat celebrities much differently than before and we treat royals much much differently than before. Before Diana, the press was interested in the royal family but still deferential; the press now looks on Diana's future daughter-in-law Kate Middleton as a piece of hot copy. Even Diana's death is a permanent monument to the insatiable nature of this press coverage and its tragic consequences.

I think it was a byproduct of her need to get close to people. She wanted to hug, she wanted to break down the barriers, she wanted to disclose her private thoughts and feelings to show that she was just like you and me and this willingness to be open had a special captivating charm. But the openness had a drawback. It was dangerous for herself and for others around her.

That is why I believe her legacy as a whole was conflicted. And so when we're talking about a monument to celebrate someone's life, it is normal to reflect on that person's entire legacy not just one part or another.
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
she wanted to disclose her private thoughts and feelings to show that she was just like you and me.

Very good piece, IMO.

The trouble was, that Diana, with her upbringing and background of wealth and self indulgence, could never be like Miss or Mrs average. The media, because they were encouraged, no longer have respect for anyone.
 
Last edited:
I think it was a case of things feeding off each other. The press was already getting out of control - whether Princess Margaret's antics had made them less deferential, whether Prince Charles's ongoing search for a bride had got their competitive instincts raging, whether Rupert Murdoch was just encouraging a different outlook altogether, or whether it was a sign of the less deferential times that followed the 1960s - and Diana and the press eventually brought out the worst in each other. The scenario ysbel describes, with the way Richard Kay and his friends were doing their reporting, is very self-serving toward the press, who were no doubt encouraging Diana in her celebrity ways because it made their lives easier as much as anything else. I doubt she even had any idea she was playing right into their hands.

We can always speculate what might have happened if she'd been less insecure and Charles hadn't had another woman he really wanted to be with, but the actual situation was fraught with weaknesses, and the press are experts at exploiting weakness when they find it.
 
Diana knew exactly what she was doing with the press, it was only when she had used them and tried to discard them, that she suddenly realised that they were out of control and were no longer playing her game. IMO.

Elspeth said "We can always speculate what might have happened if she'd been less insecure and Charles hadn't had another woman he really wanted to be with"
In the end you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

I hope the concert works out for the boys, but I still think it is a waste of time and money and inappropriate.
 
Skydragon said:
I just think it is a little 'rich' the way those not from the UK and therefore not taxpayers, inform us that if needs be, we should pay!
As one fellow taxpayer, I have no objections to this concert whatsoever. Even if we end up paying some of the costs. Having asked around none of my friends or family have a problem with it either. So I definitely disagree with your previous assertion that most people are opposed to this concert. There are far bigger wastes of taxpayers money in this country.

As for the matter of inconvenience to Londoners, I don't see anybody complining about Party in the Park which is an annual event.
 
Little_star said:
Having asked around none of my friends or family have a problem with it either. So I definitely disagree with your previous assertion that most people are opposed to this concert.
As for the matter of inconvenience to Londoners, I don't see anybody complining about Party in the Park which is an annual event.

What a great pity it is then that you, your family and your friends are not able to divert all of your taxes to pay towards any extra expenses, instead of where our tax is supposed to go. There will always be occasions where people will not be happy at the 'possible prospect' of misuse of public funds. I believe I said 'a lot of people', not most, as you misquote.

Quite a few people complain about the cost of security, clean up, extra crime etc, at these events and also the demo's that people hold. But then I expect you have to spend at least some time living in London to appreciate that!
 
Last edited:
Skydragon said:
Diana knew exactly what she was doing with the press, it was only when she had used them and tried to discard them, that she suddenly realised that they were out of control and were no longer playing her game. IMO.

In that case, I would humbly submit that Diana did not know exactly as she was doing or else she would have been able to discard them. The whole art of managing a public image is pretty complex. A large part is influencing the media at certain times so that the person gets less press coverage not more.

I think if a taxpayer thinks of Diana as a person worthy to be commemorated, they would probably not mind the taxpayer's money being spent. If a taxpayer thinks of Diana as a person not worthy to be commemorated, they would mind the money being spent.

For myself, I think its great that William and Harry want to honor their mother and I think now that they're adults and settling in their careers, and Charles and Camilla are doing fine, now is a good time for the young men to bring some closure to their tumultuous family history and acknowledge both their parents, Charles and Diana, as they have done so with their stepmother and grandparents. Its possible that William and Harry can inspire some healing in the family by showing they accept and love all their family whether or not different parts of the family can accept each other.

I still have reservations about holding Diana up as someone that little girls should try to be like but I think enough time has passed by, that people see the mistakes she made and even if they admire Diana, they would not necessarily extol others to do exactly as Diana did.

I think rather than seeing the event as just a memorial to Diana herself to the exclusion of everything else, it is more helpful to see it as an event that can give the Royal Family a great deal of healing and closure to a difficult time in all of their lives and can actually be a cornerstone that makes the family even stronger.

After all the success of the monarchy is not about any one person but about the institution and the family that for generations has carried it forward. Anything that makes the family stronger can only help the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
In that case, I would humbly submit that Diana did not know exactly as she was doing or else she would have been able to discard them. The whole art of managing a public image is pretty complex. A large part is influencing the media at certain times so that the person gets less press coverage not more.

This is true. I think Diana had been told so many times that she was a whiz at media relations that she failed to see that she actually wasn't, and that she was, to the press, just a tool to sell newspapers. For all her touted 'sophistication', Diana never grasped the true cynicism of the press.
 
Skydragon said:
What a great pity it is then that you, your family and your friends are not able to divert all of your taxes to pay towards any extra expenses, instead of where our tax is supposed to go. There will always be occasions where people will not be happy at the 'possible prospect' of misuse of public funds. I believe I said 'a lot of people', not most, as you misquote.

Quite a few people complain about the cost of security, clean up, extra crime etc, at these events and also the demo's that people hold. But then I expect you have to spend at least some time living in London to appreciate that!

Everybody can point to something they don't want their taxes to be used for - there are a few things I'd like to have my tax money protected from, I can tell you - but it doesn't work that way. I think we've got the message that you don't want your tax money used for security and expenses suprrounding large events if they happen to be events you don't find important. Other people don't want their tax money used to finance things which they don't find important; in some of those cases, they include royal weddings and funerals and the royal family in general.

As long as the use of the tax money isn't actually illegal, it comes down to personal opinions about its best use. I think we've all throroughly got the message that you don't think this is a good use of taxpayer money. Other British citizens and residents think it is. As I said a few days ago, we're going round in circles here. Could we all agree to disagree on this subject and just move on?
 
Skydragon said:
Quite a few people complain about the cost of security, clean up, extra crime etc, at these events and also the demo's that people hold. But then I expect you have to spend at least some time living in London to appreciate that!
Well if you choose to live in the capital then you have to expect the good with the bad. That includes protests, major events and demonstrations.

Moreover, I might not live in London but I spend plenty of time there visiting friends and family and have done all my life. Kindly don't presume that I have no idea of what the city is like.
 
I hope the concert and memorial service go off without a hitch and both of these young men can finally get the closer they need.

No one in this situation was innocent of anything. If these young men want to honor their mother this way then good for them. What a wonderful tribute to this lady to have ths concert and service to recognize and show love and respect to her.

It is going to happen next year so I guess everyone should get used to the idea. If you choose not to watch on your telly then that is your decision.
 
The taxpayer argument has been rehashed for so many times that there is no need for it anymore. We have already gathered that British people have different views when it comes to using the taxpayers’ money. Consider this issue to be off limits.

Also making personal remarks about other members lowers the level of the discussion and is ALWAYS off limits in the threads.

Thank you for co-operation,
British Moderators Team
 
ysbel said:
In that case, I would humbly submit that Diana did not know exactly as she was doing or else she would have been able to discard them. The whole art of managing a public image is pretty complex. A large part is influencing the media at certain times so that the person gets less press coverage not more.

I think the trouble there was that the press and some of the public adulation had fooled her into believing that she was invincible. The press were already starting to comment on the amount of holidays she appeared to be taking and Britain is, IMO, famous for 'Putting them on a pedestal, just so they can be knocked off'. The moment she would not play ball and wanted some privacy, that is the moment the press started to turn.

I think if a taxpayer thinks of Diana as a person worthy to be commemorated, they would probably not mind the taxpayer's money being spent. If a taxpayer thinks of Diana as a person not worthy to be commemorated, they would mind the money being spent.

I quite agree, the only reason it was mentioned by me again, was in response to a post that was directed at me. The subject of tax/VAT etc has been done to death. IMO and I will of course ignore any further references to it by other posters.
I still have reservations about holding Diana up as someone that little girls should try to be like.
As do I
 
corazon said:
charles don't wil asist to diana's tribute
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006036904

Even after ten years he won't support the memory of Diana. You would think he would be there-Camilla does not have to be there. I guess even in death Diana hurts his ego.:sad:

I thought Charles supported the water tribute to Diana and attend the dedication.:wacko:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom