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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

After reading the article I was happy to learn that the Princess had already chosen the role and path she would follow in life;

We have no idea as to the accuracy of Browns opinion, further to this, nobody else has in the past 10 years spoken of it.

We do know that she wanted to be involved with Blair, we don't know if he wanted to be involved with her, (from Campbells report, he didn't).

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

We have no idea as to the accuracy of Browns opinion, further to this, nobody else has in the past 10 years spoken of it.

We do know that she wanted to be involved with Blair, we don't know if he wanted to be involved with her, (from Campbells report, he didn't).

One thing we do know since the inquest: that Diana told each and any person a different story. So even if she told friends that she'd like to do such documentaries, it's not necessarily what she actually planned.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Warren

Oh please, there are some things which really need to be placed in perspective. Making a hagiography of Diana's future-that-never-was is not only absurd by its over-statement but merely serves to diminish her real and concrete achievements.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think "discussing what could have been"
diminishes her real and concrete achievements such as her work with AIDS and Red Cross causes.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I respect your opinion, but I don't think "discussing what could have been"
diminishes her real and concrete achievements such as her work with AIDS and Red Cross causes.

Sirhon, I AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION about Diana, Princess of Wales. She was just getting somewhere in her charities when she died. I will try to repect other opinions on this site, but truly it is hard to see a dead person diminished because Diana fans will always wonder what other wonderful causes Princess Diana would have champion if she lived.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

She was just getting somewhere in her charities when she died. I will try to repect other opinions on this site, but truly it is hard to see a dead person diminished because Diana fans will always wonder what other wonderful causes Princess Diana would have champion if she lived.

She had dropped most of her charities!

Makes me wonder how some people would have reacted if she had decided to continue being a party girl, we know her popularity was diminishing here in the UK, (my opinion and based on newspaper articles at the time) where she was being portrayed having holiday after holiday.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I respect your opinion, but I don't think "discussing what could have been" diminishes her real and concrete achievements such as her work with AIDS and Red Cross causes.

Discussing "what she could have been" is somewhat different to stating, as you did, that "she was on her way in becoming one of the world's greatest humanitarians".

This type of projection based on nothing but wishful thinking serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the "sainted" Diana myth. People's lives should be commemorated for their achievements, not for overstated fantasy.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Warren

Discussing "what she could have been" is somewhat different to stating, as you did, that "she was on her way in becoming one of the world's greatest humanitarians".

This type of projection based on nothing but wishful thinking serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the "sainted" Diana myth. People's lives should be commemorated for their achievements, not for overstated fantasy.

And I think Diana was well thanked for her work and achievements. We had a perfect demonstration of people's gratitude in 2007, for the 10th anniversary of her death. She's one of the most commemorated person in the world and I doubt she would have had this impact if she had died later than in 1997. Like Skydragon said, her reputation was going down and I really don't know what future would have turned her into.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I doubt she would have had this impact if she had died later than in 1997. Like Skydragon said, her reputation was going down and I really don't know what future would have turned her into.

I don't think a summer of fun ruined her reputation. Diana, Princess of Wales always had a way of coming back to the graces of her fans. We really don't
know what the future could have been, but Princess Diana, in a documentary in Africa, STATED that she wished she could become an ambassor for her homeland.

Discussing "what she could have been" is somewhat different to stating, as you did, that "she was on her way in becoming one of the world's greatest humanitarians". This type of projection based on nothing but wishful thinking serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the "sainted" Diana myth. People's lives should be commemorated for their achievements, not for overstated fantasy.

The statement right above is true about what could have been, but Princess Diana fans do not think of her as sainted, but a very troubled woman that wanted to do good on this earth. After this inquest how could you think we fans don't know Princess Diana with all her troubles? I believe even people on this forum who didn't like Princess Diana, like other famous people who have troubles.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I don't think a summer of fun ruined her reputation. Diana, Princess of Wales always had a way of coming back to the graces of her fans.

She had not, until that point had the tabloids turn against her and where the tabloids led, the Diana fans appeared to follow. There were mutterings from all but the hardcore fans, about the dropping of the charities, the Panorama disaster and what were seen as constant holidays.

We really don't know what the future could have been, but Princess Diana, in a documentary in Africa, STATED that she wished she could become an ambassor for her homeland.

She could state it all she wanted, but it would have been reliant on Blair, the government and HM.

I believe even people on this forum who didn't like Princess Diana, like other famous people who have troubles.

Not me.

[Russophile]

Well, she went the way most artists do to become immortal: she died.

[Polly]

From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.

Whatever Diana might or might not have been, and I'm quite aware of her many faults and shortcomings, it is too ungenerous, in my view, to be disdainful towards the very real good which she did accomplish in life.

Stephen Lee, director of Britain's Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers,said '(Diana's) overall effect on charity is probably more significant than any other person's in the 20th century.' (Hubbard et al, 1998).

At the time of her death, Diana was the official patron of Royal Marsden NHS Trust (a cancer fund); Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London; the National AIDS Trust (an umbrella group for a wide array of AIDS causes in the UK); The Leprosy Mission, the English National Ballet, and Centerpoint Soho (which provides services to homeless youth). She was also closely associated with the British Red Cross, indeed, the International Red Cross' Anti-Personnel Land Mines Campaign.

I have a photo of Diana in Bosnia with the Landmines Survivor Network in August, 2007, not long before her demise. She was working, in the August holiday-month, almost to the end.

In 1998, Robin Smith, the Foreign Secretary, introduced the second reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the House of Commons, thus:

"All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGO's that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines."

Which, arguably, it did!

In 2001, Bill Clinton said:

"In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserve no isolation, but compassion and kindness. It helped change world's opinion, and gave hope to people with AIDS."

Diana's dignity has been torn to shreds, publicly, in recent times, when it was not possible for her to utter even the tiniest squeak in retort or defend herself or reputation. I believe that we might now justifiably permit her memory to embrace her very real accomplishments, if not for her then for the sake of her sons, and let that be an end to it.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Polly

From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.

All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought we were talking about what she might have done if she hadn't died, not the over the top reaction, egged on by the same tabloids (to cover their guilt), that were about to bring her to heel. All IMO

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

Diana already had had a time in her life when the tabloids turned against her and most biographers of her claim that this had a serious impact on her - she became dependent on her journalist friends. Kay told that she had called him on the evening of her death to find out what was in the Sunday papers and she was not happy about it. Okay, getting herself killed was a bit overdramatic an action for Diana to get more positive headlines , but she had shown very often that she manipulated the media when she thought it was necessary. But exactly this is what the tabloids find amusing. So I guess they would have continued to press her for more and more information while OTOH feed her to the masses who love to see people falling off their pedestals. And Diana was no longer protected by her Royal rank, so destroying her reputation was not longer going to seriously threaten the monarchy (which is, I believe, a point where most papers stop).

Skydragon, are some of these early edition links still working? And where could I find them? Thank you in advance.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Skydragon, are some of these early edition links still working? And where could I find them? Thank you in advance.

Unsurprisingly many of the links in the folders no longer work - however I did find this synopsis of the early editions and the ones that were hastily rewritten.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

All IMO - Before her death, she was a fading 'star', it was by her death that her reputation was saved from being shredded further by the press and ordinary men and women. I have in the past, posted many news articles that were the early editions published on the morning of her death, including the famous 'woodentop' one. All criticised the amount of holidays and playgirl behaviour.

I do accept your opinion that Diana was a 'fading star'. However, I was resident in England at the time of her death and didn't particularly notice it.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought we were talking about what she might have done if she hadn't died, not the over the top reaction, egged on by the same tabloids (to cover their guilt), that were about to bring her to heel. All IMO

Well, no, we weren't. That 's how the thread developed, however.

My post was a direct negation, based on documented fact, that the late Princess had become an uncaring and disdaining party girl. She hadn't.

Personally, I have every respect and affection for Charles and his Duchess, though I cannot see how this could ever mean that I should dismiss and disparage the late Princess and her attributed good works, attested to by some of the world's eminent and most prestigious citizens, including Nelson Mandela.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Polly

My post was a direct negation, based on documented fact, that the late Princess had become an uncaring and disdaining party girl. She hadn't.

In your opinion of course. The fact remains, IMO and to many, that she used the trip to Angola to try to bolster her flagging reviews. She went against the governments advice and embarrassed the ambassador with her refusal to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings. Good manners cost nothing. Five patronages is not really a great many is it, I haven't counted the Ballet as it is not a charity.

Personally, I have every respect and affection for Charles and his Duchess, though I cannot see how this could ever mean that I should dismiss and disparage the late Princess and her attributed good works.

I don't see the relevance of your feelings with regard to Charles or Camilla, to what we are discussing.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Polly

I believe that we might now justifiably permit her memory to embrace her very real accomplishments, if not for her then for the sake of her sons, and let that be an end to it.

I personally doubt there can be an end to it as so many things with Diana tend to have more than one side to it. And that's the fun on discussing a topic.

I must say that I really appreciate the effect Diana's involvement had for certain causes. She was - and I think we will all agree to that, even if we judge that character trait in a different way - she was not afraid to do what she thought was right. Alas, she was not always wise in her judgment. One thing she did right, IMHO, was the engagement for AIDS victims - here I think she really helped people to get rid of their fears on contacts with sufferers. I'm convinced she really wanted that ban on landmines and her taking position in the discussion helped.

But some of the things she did later turned out to have been mere publicity stunts. Eg. the idea of her "secret" visits to Brompton Hospital was created to cover up her liaison with Dr. Khan when she was found out by a journalist. There are believable reports of people who were there about how she was different at a charity events before and after the cameras were switched off - one can be read here on the forums by a member from South Africa.

Plus what I read about how she "froze" people out permanently because they had done something she didn't like - this does not really fit in with the character one thinks a "great humanitarian" should have beyond the glamour of the public stage.

So when I personally have to chose which approach to charity is more serious, I'd go for princess Anne or Charles, who have worked for ages for so many causes and who manage to follow up on them without being interested in glamour shootings. I have yet to see a comparison of the time princess Anne spends per week for her charity work and for shopping/amusement and the time Diana spend working and having fun, but my gut feeling is that Diana was much more out on the fashion/entertainment circuit than princess Anne has ever been. And noone has yet declared The Princess Royal the greatest humanitarian. And I wonder if this could be because Anne does not cater to the media and is not as beautiful as Diana was?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unsurprisingly many of the links in the folders no longer work - however I did find this synopsis of the early editions and the ones that were hastily rewritten.

Thank you! Very interesting reading. I wonder if the info about Squidygate 2 was accurate and if so, how much longer it will take till we can read the transcript in yet another biography of Diana?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Polly

From certain memory, it didn't seem to me that Diana's popularity had diminished so very much, given the overwhelming public reaction to her death and funeral.

Whatever Diana might or might not have been, and I'm quite aware of her many faults and shortcomings, it is too ungenerous, in my view, to be disdainful towards the very real good which she did accomplish in life.

Stephen Lee, director of Britain's Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers,said '(Diana's) overall effect on charity is probably more significant than any other person's in the 20th century.' (Hubbard et al, 1998).

At the time of her death, Diana was the official patron of Royal Marsden NHS Trust (a cancer fund); Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital, London; the National AIDS Trust (an umbrella group for a wide array of AIDS causes in the UK); The Leprosy Mission, the English National Ballet, and Centerpoint Soho (which provides services to homeless youth). She was also closely associated with the British Red Cross, indeed, the International Red Cross' Anti-Personnel Land Mines Campaign.

I have a photo of Diana in Bosnia with the Landmines Survivor Network in August, 2007, not long before her demise. She was working, in the August holiday-month, almost to the end.

In 1998, Robin Smith, the Foreign Secretary, introduced the second reading of the Landmines Bill 1998 to the House of Commons, thus:

"All Honourable Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGO's that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines."

Which, arguably, it did!

In 2001, Bill Clinton said:

"In 1987, when so many still believed that AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, Princess Diana sat on the sickbed of a man with AIDS and held his hand. She showed the world that people with AIDS deserve no isolation, but compassion and kindness. It helped change world's opinion, and gave hope to people with AIDS."

The Head of the National AIDS Trust that Diana was still patron of, last year in a documentary about Diana retold how difficult she was to deal with. Eventually they didn't invite her carry out engagements for them, the breaking point was when she was due to open an HIV/AIDs information centre and she asked to bring along Aileen Getty who at that time was the 'celebrity AIDS sufferer' on a tour of the UK. The AIDS Trust people agreed as long as she stayed in the background, Diana kept signalling her to come forward ( film footage was shown of this). The next days papers only had a photo of Diana holding Aileen Getty's hand ( quite a famous photo) and nothing on the clinic or the National AIDS Trust, they got no publicity at all. Diana had manipulated the situation for her own ends with the 'caring Diana holding hands with the AIDS sufferer' she got all the publicity the AIDS Trust and their work none. At the time of her death Diana hadn't done any work with the AIDS Trust for a number of years.

Also the Head of the National AIDS Trust recounted how Diana originally got involved with them. They had contacted Buckingham Palace asking for the Prince of Wales to perform an engagement on a specific date, the answer came back that the POW already had an engagement that day would the Princess of Wales do? Diana didn't have a major interest in the issue of AIDS contacting organisations asking to work with them, she originally was just a 'fillin'.

The Bosnian trip that Diana carried out was after 2 cruises with the al Fayeds ( this timeline was provided at the inquest) so she was hardly working until the last moment, she'd already been on 2 cruises and was about to go on another one with Rosa Monkton and then the final cruise with Dodi) It was a 2 day trip and all the press wanted to know about was her romance with Dodi, the landmines issue got no press at all, it wasn't a success. There was a huge contingent following her but the stories that appeared in the paper were all about her romance.

The 1997 Nobel Peace Prize was given to Jody Williams and the Anti-mines lobby group she founded. Diana may get a lot of publicity for the very little work she had done ( one trip to Angola and one to Bosnia) but the woman who really made a difference to the land mines issue was acknowledged not by politicians courting the populist vote, once Diana was dead, but rather by a committee with very stringent criteria. Diana wasn't even nominated, and never has been to my knowledge at least.

The press coverage of Diana the last few months of her life was extremely negative, the British press had a field day, she wouldn't have recovered from the bad publicity. More than likely Diana would have ended up living in the US where she remained popular due to the fact that 'glamour' and celebrity is valued in the US, in the UK it's not as far as royals are concerned. Skydragon is right Diana's light was on the wane in the UK, eventually Diana would have ended up like Sarah, Duchess of York---liked in the US, despised in the UK.

The outpouring of grief wasn't a good indication that she was still popular, researchers have shown how easy it is for people to become caught up in 'mass mourning'. ( And if someone dies young then myth and legend grows around them and they are deified) Judging by comments in last years' British papers many Brits deliberately went on holiday away from the UK when Diana's funeral was on to avoid it all. I know friends of mine went ahead with their child's birthday party that day, complete with adults, no-one went near the TV and the adult conversation revolved around how appalled they were with the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding Diana's death.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

The Head of the National AIDS Trust that Diana was still patron of, last year in a documentary about Diana retold how difficult she was to deal with. Eventually they didn't invite her carry out engagements for them, the breaking point was when she was due to open an HIV/AIDs information centre and she asked to bring along Aileen Getty who at that time was the 'celebrity AIDS sufferer' on a tour of the UK. The AIDS Trust people agreed as long as she stayed in the background, Diana kept signalling her to come forward ( film footage was shown of this). The next days papers only had a photo of Diana holding Aileen Getty's hand ( quite a famous photo) and nothing on the clinic or the National AIDS Trust, they got no publicity at all. Diana had manipulated the situation for her own ends with the 'caring Diana holding hands with the AIDS sufferer' she got all the publicity the AIDS Trust and their work none. At the time of her death Diana hadn't done any work with the AIDS Trust for a number of years <snip>

I agree that Diana's image was fadding and that her death created a drama which wasn't really representative of many. 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". 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.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

In your opinion of course. The fact remains, IMO and to many, that she used the trip to Angola to try to bolster her flagging reviews. She went against the governments advice and embarrassed the ambassador with her refusal to meet the daughter of one of the African Kings. Good manners cost nothing. Five patronages is not really a great many is it, I haven't counted the Ballet as it is not a charity.

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.