|
|
|
#41
07-25-2003, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
http://news.bbc.co.uk
25 July 1989: Royal approval for Aids sufferers The Princess of Wales has opened a new Aids centre in south-east London. She gave director Jonathan Grimshaw - diagnosed HIV positive five years ago - a firm handshake before going inside the Landmark Centre in Tulse Hill for a private tour. This was the first attempt to de-stigmatise the condition by a high profile member of the Royal Family Mr Grimshaw said: "The princess was genuinely moved by the difficulties facing patients." The Landmark aims to be more than just a refuge and will offer advice and support on issues from housing to dietary needs. Princess Diana spent an hour in the community-based centre and joined in a discussion group with some of the first clients to use the facility, including women. She was surprised to learn about the additional prejudices women with Aids and HIV have to deal with. "I think it's terrible what they have to go through", she exclaimed. Afterwards the Princess of Wales staged an impromptu walkabout, in spite of the heat. About Aids Aids - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - was first recognised as a medical condition in the US in 1981. Later that year Dr Tony Pinching diagnosed the first case in the UK, in a heterosexual woman, at St Mary's Praed Street Clinic in London. By the end of 1984, 108 people were known to be suffering from the disease in the UK and there had been 46 deaths. In 1985 the UK Department of Health published its first advice on Aids and it was reported in 51 countries. Within two years the UK Government launched the 'Don't Die of Ignorance' public awareness campaign and Princess Diana opened the country's first Aids ward at Middlesex Hospital. The symptoms of Aids include chronic fatigue, diarrhoea and severe skin rashes. It is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and there is no known cure. In Context Early in 2001 the services provided by Landmark were integrated with Lighthouse, part of the Terrence Higgins Trust, and became known as Lighthouse South London. Richard Hill became director of the centre, but Jonathan Grimshaw - now living and working in Brighton - still chairs various groups and works as a consultant. The Landmark Centre at Tulse Hill provided a drop-in service for Aids and HIV positive sufferers until the facility moved to Waterloo in summer 2002. The World Health report listed Aids as one of the fourth biggest global killers in 1999. Princess Diana's work in de-stigmatising the illness has been recognised with the Diana, Princess of Wales, Lectures on Aids, beginning in 1999. Video The BBC's Jennie Bond reports: "there was a firm handshake for the project's director." |
|
#42
08-17-2003, 04:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I just read about Dianas niece Emily beeing illl.. does anyone know how she´s doing?
poor girl... I hope she gets better!
__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates... you'll never know what you're gonna get Last edited by Elspeth; 07-15-2006 at 06:12 PM. Reason: Delete uncredited photo |
|
#46
08-23-2003, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The recent Discovery Channel program called Unsolved History claimed to do a forensic analysis of the crash in Paris which killed Diana and Dodi Fayed but it was quite disappointing. Other than repeatedly saying it was an "accident", they offered little of substance -- other than to effectively point out that the driver Henri Paul was probably not drunk as claimed in official reports.
http://www.geocities.com/murderinparis/ritz.html During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London. Prince Charles was finally “coming out” with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity. As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe “Less Than Lethal” optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale. ............................................................................... Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. .............. “When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds. Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion. |
|
#47
08-23-2003, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What if, just what if the whole story is different than that fed the media -- being the conspiracy nut that I am -- what if Charles wasn't the one that rejected Diana initially, but the other way around?
I remember thinking when they got married that Diana had far to much style, grace, charm and beauty to be paired with Prince Charles who never did seem exactly like 'Prince Charming', and that she just married him to be the HRH, Diana Princess of Wales and she would soon tire of him. What if she did quickly tire of him and start having affairs, and to save face for each of them, they both agreed to switch the real roles each played, because after all, who has ever rejected the Prince of Wales in history? It's always about the Prince of Wales and his other women instead. That is the way the story is suppose to be. With the current scenario, Diana could then become the beloved queen of hearts, and Charles could be the preferred Macho Lover Man. It always seemed if the story given the media was true, that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip would have had more sympathy for Diana -- after all, she just loved their son, and he just had cheating on his mind. The level of hostility displayed by Prince Charles's parents towards Diana suggests that this is not the real story. Of course, I merely have anecdotal experience to suggest this, but I remember my parent's response to my brother's wife who cheated on him. If she had an HRH before her name, they would certainly have stripped it from her. More anecdotal evidence is that in most divorces caused by the obvious adultery of just one of the parents, the children affected by that divorce will usually show quite a bit of hostility towards the cheating parent -- assuming they know about it, which obviously William and Harry did, and yet, these boys seem to have a lot of affection for their dad, Prince Charles. Things don't quite add up, and 2 + 2 /= 5 no matter what the media claim??? Last edited by Elspeth; 07-15-2006 at 06:20 PM. Reason: Delete uncredited photos |
|
#48
08-24-2003, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Thissal!!
Interesting theory, and I think you could have a point. But, I thought I would just add this, apparently, for a period, the boys did resent Charles, at the beginning of the seperation. I think they got over it because, apparently, the one thing Charles and Diana never argued over was their boys. Moreover, I'm sure they know about Hewitt and Camilla because they were so publicized, but do you think they know about all of Diana's lovers? Well, I guess there is no real way of knowing, but basically I'm saying, if Diana was the one to reject Charles, do you think they would be aware of the situation? Also, when Diana and Charles divorced, there wasn't really a royal protocol on how to handle these situations. So, perhaps the Queen thought she was doing the proper thing by removing her HRH because, after all, here is a women that married into royalty, and now she is unmarring into the family, therefore she shouldn't be considered royal. And, when the years went on and Diana became increasingly public about the royal family (The interview with Martin Bashier comes to mind), perhaps the Queen and Prince Philip became more and more hostile because of the revelations. I guess this just goes to show that there are two sides of every issue!! :P
__________________
~Mirth~ Last edited by Elspeth; 07-15-2006 at 06:20 PM. Reason: Delete response to deleted post |
|
#49
08-24-2003, 11:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
when she divorces from Prince Charles in 1996 because she hate him lots she knew because Charles had affair with Camilla since 1972 before Diana married to Charles in 1981.
I think Diana and Charles need good married and trust love not ingore but both got affair with other people but Her Majesty didnt know that Diana and Charles got affiar since Harry's birth. Diana got affair with James Hewitt after Harry's birth till 1990 then she had more lovers like Rugby, Olive Horace but i read about Diana and James got kissed but photographer caught both it! but Her Majesty didnt know that! Sara Boyce |
|
#50
08-25-2003, 01:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
here Diana's websites is
http://www.angelfire.com/in/thewindsors/diana.html I look Diana's image its cool with water when she dies i like it! Sara Boyce |
|
#51
08-25-2003, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Jalmey,
You could have a point too in that the only ones who really know what happened between Charles and Diana is either one/or both of them. However, there isn't always 2 sides to every issue, at least not 2 "good" sides because there are many sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists and criminal minds in the world making up one side of the story. I'm sure Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Jeffrey Dalmer etc., would like to claim they had some justification on their side, but you might understand why I'm doubtful. :flower: |
|
#52
08-25-2003, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Last edited by Elspeth; 07-15-2006 at 06:23 PM. Reason: Delete uncredited photo |
|
#53
08-25-2003, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do suspect that "the firm" was trying to brand Diana as mentally unstable and thus unfit to be mother and their intention was to keep her children away from her and to leave her without any significant financial resources. Under those circumstances, I don't blame Diana for making everything as public as she could. It probably was needed for her to maintain contact with her children. Last edited by Elspeth; 07-15-2006 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Delete uncredited photo |
