The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News & Questions Thread 8: June 2008- 2020

[Pranter]

It has nothing to do with her being young or being a supporter of hers...I fully recognize her faults within her marriage etc.
There have been umpteen books about Diana...all rehashing the same old stuff for the most part with the occasional twist (true or not). So what if she was involved with Clapton...no one cares except the guy writing the book who thinks if he adds this paragraph it will increase his sales.

At some point enough is enough. The woman has been laid bare...now it's just insult to injury.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is a biography about Clapton though - so if they had a relationship then it is relevant to his life and so should be included in a biography about him as well.


Books on Diana will still be being written in 1000 years time and some people will use biographies of other people as part of their research.

 

[royal rob]

So anyone can say whatever they like about her in their book so it sells. Then the Diana haters can get their jollies by repeating it and writing vile comments IMO
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

Basically yeah. It's sad and downright wrong, IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No it isn't that at all. If she had a relationship with another person then that relationship should be dealt with in a biography of that other person.
A good biographer would have evidence to support that claim.
It isn't a matter of the Diana haters having a field day at all but it is a matter of writing an accurate biography of those whom she came into contact with on a regular basis.

Would anyone expect a biography of James Hewitt or Hasnet Khan or Paul Burrell to not include a discussion of their relationship with Diana? No of course not. So why should any other person's biography, who had any detailed contact with her, not include a discussion of that relationship?
Many people had a relationship with Diana - they weren't all sexual - and those relationships need to be discussed if relevant to the other person's life. It isn't all about Diana but about other people as well.

Clapton was known to have talked to her and had some sort of relationship with her. What the nature of that relationship was, I don't know but that there was one is known. Why should that not be discussed? It is part of his life as well as hers and is therefore relevant to his biography as much as hers.

 

[royal rob]

Because the other person isn't alive to say if it's true or not. IMO people love to put down Diana and say things about her they would never say about a living person
Anyway I'm just giving oxygen to the haters

 

[Lumutqueen]

Just because people have an opposing opinion, it suddenly makes them haters does it? That's a new one.
Iluvbertie is right, as pretty much always. If anyone, ever met a royal under any circumstances and had the opportunity to write a biography meeting a royal is going to be included whether they're alive or dead.

 

[Roslyn]

Based on a quick google I just did, it seems the book alleges they may - may - have had a fling in 1993 - after Diana was divorced! We know they met earlier than that, because there are photographs of them together. This is a biography of Clapton. Diana was a person he met and, according to a source who provided information to the biographer, later - I repeat: after she was divorced - spent time together in which she seemed to be blatantly flirting.

"According to a society friend of Clapton's, who was also on speaking terms with Diana, the attraction between them was 'absolutely obvious,'" he wrote. "There was a 'Carry On' film element to it,' says the friend. A lot of winking and overtly steamy looks. A story went around that one time when she and Eric were both at San Lorenzo, Diana began sucking suggestively on a piece of ice as she gave him the eye. Everyone loved that."

I think it would be a very strange and incomplete biography of Clapton if the biographer had hold of this piece of information and didn't use it.

 

[roseroyal]

Diana was divorced in 1996.

 

[Roslyn]

My bad. The article said 1993 and I swallowed it. They were well and truly separated though, so they might as well have been divorced and it makes no difference in my mind.

 

[roseroyal]

True. However I always consider their divorce date as 1996. No problem.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Because the other person isn't alive to say if it's true or not.

If the only biographies that can ever be written are those of living persons historians wouldn't be able to write most biographies or even histories as they generally write about dead people.

 

[Curryong]

So, because Diana, who was quite a flirtatious person when she wanted to be, seemed to onlookers to be flirty with Clapton, the author of this biography is inferring they had an affair! Anything to sell copies!

 

[Roslyn]

So, because Diana, who was quite a flirtatious person when she wanted to be, seemed to onlookers to be flirty with Clapton, the author of this biography is inferring they had an affair! Anything to sell copies!

I think the fact that Diana appeared to have been flirting with Clapton is sufficient to warrant a mention of the event in a biography of HIS life.

If the fact a person is now dead were reason to exclude mention of that person in a biography of another person's life, then mention of interactions between Clapton and his son, Conor, would be prohibited.

 

[Mermaid1962]

These are my thoughts as well. There's quite a leap between a public flirtation and an out-right affair.

So, because Diana, who was quite a flirtatious person when she wanted to be, seemed to onlookers to be flirty with Clapton, the author of this biography is inferring they had an affair! Anything to sell copies!

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana was flirtatious with multiple men.

If a lover, relative, friend or an acquaintance tells the author it led to a fling or a relationship happened, the writer is not making the story up nor is he assuming more than what he was told.

The Daily Mail used Diana to sell its story on the book. It was not the author selling the story to the DM. The author was not interviewed.

Blaming and attacking Eric Clapton as some have done is wrong.

Blaming and attacking the author without reading the book is also wrong.

It is best to see if the writer has named his sources. Or based on the information in the book, if one can surmise the name of the source or the person's relationship to Clapton and Diana.

IMO, blindly dismissing or agreeing with any story without reading it is also wrong.

I personally check dates and timelines to see if the 'story' adds up.

 

[Dman]

The bottom line is- people have lied about Diana one too many times to sell books, gain attention to their articles, documentaries and movies. Some people have made a great deal of money out her over the years since her death.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The bottom line is- people have lied about Diana one too many times to sell books, gain attention to their articles, documentaries and movies. Some people have made a great deal of money out her over the years since her death.

And some people wrote books and articles about her while she was alive that were dismissed as lies and have proven to be true.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The bottom line is- people have lied about Diana one too many times to sell books, gain attention to their articles, documentaries and movies. Some people have made a great deal of money out her over the years since her death.

As they do with all historical figures.

Whether they are lies or interpretations is often a fine line based on the way the author sees things as well.

Like it or hate it Diana is a figure of historical interest so her life will be racked over the coals for centuries to come just like Marie-Antionette, Empress Alexandra of Russia or Anne Boleyn for instance - women about whom many books have been written, some with outlandish allegations but they sell and will continue to sell - just as similar books about Diana will do so.

Her fans will object, but they are getting older and to the newer generation who weren't alive through those years she is no different to them than someone like Marie-Antoinette - a divisive figure within her own lifetime.

 

[Nico]

When discussing about the docu "Reinventing the Royals" and why, in my view, it was unecessary to rehash the same old stories, i've been told, rightfully that it was a part of the History of the House of Windsor.
Now i would like to know why bringing back stories (often rumors) about the BRF in general and Charles and Camilla in particular is always "History" and the ones about Diana are "Lèse-Majesté".
Don't get me wrong, the Clapton thing is of course a provocative headline to sell the book but i can't help but think that there's is a real double standard regarding Diana, making some unbiased discussions about her very difficult sometimes.

 

[royal rob]

It's a pity people don't think that her sons are alive and they loved their mother very much.
To make money by adding stories(unproved) to a book must upset them. Maybe we should all think how we would like our mother to be treated alive or dead.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Nico]

The same can be said about their loving father and the last unauthorized biography full of unproved stories and rumors ...

 

[royal rob]

But he is alive so if he wished he could deny it

 

[Nico]

I agree but the BRF never (or rarely) confirm or deny any unauthorized information about them. So basically you can write anything you want , and it's generally the case.
I think 80% , if not more, stories about the BRF are pure speculation.

 

[royal rob]

But he could deny or arrange to have others deny it for him.

 

[Nico]

Well William and Harry could deny the rumors about their mother as well. They don't. I think they are just used to it, it's a very sad part of the job.

 

[royal rob]

They were young when their mother died so they could hardly deny things that supposedly happened when they were in school !!!!
We tend to forget how young they were when they become motherless

 

[Nico]

But as you said earlier, they could also issue a statement asking the respect of the memory of their mother, like in 2007 when Channel 4 aired the distasteful last photos of Diana.

Letter from William and Harry to Channel 4 - Telegraph

I think the memory of the late princess is well guarded by her sons and doesn't need some more watch dogs. Rumors and speculations will be forever part of her life, and as such will be discussed like any other historical figure.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Assuming something is a rumor and lie does not mean it is a rumor or a lie.

Stories should always be checked.

Not liking what you are reading does not mean it is not true.

The same as believing what you are reading is the truth because you want to believe it is the truth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What you are really saying is that historians shouldn't write a history about anybody or anything while anyone living associated with that event or their descendants who knew them are still living.

You can't say 'you can't write about Diana because her sons are still living' and allow someone to write about Stalin because his daughter is still alive. By that standard we would have been able to start writing about Queen Victoria around about 1982 when Princess Alice died, as she did know her personally and had clear memories of her grandmother. Alice lost her father at an even younger age than William and Harry lost their mother and was not much older than them when Victoria died so it is reasonable comparable.

Historians, and thus biographers, write about living and dead people - simple and the recently dead are of interest as much as those long dead.
Take the personalities out of it - which I am trying to do - and what the Diana fans on here are really saying is that we can't really even start to write the History of the 20th century yet as there are people still alive who knew people from that time.

That is ridiculous.
People are concentrating on the individual without looking at what they are really suggesting.
Obviously there should be no biographies of the Queen Mum because of the many allegations in that those that have been made - because she can't deny them - or of JFK or Churchill etc etc. And this isn't even a biography of Diana anyway but of Clapton - and again there is a lot of evidence that they had a relationship - so it is relevant to his life. How far that relationship went - who knows and who cares. We know that she had a number of lovers in her lifetime - is one more or less really going to matter?
.