The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 4: September 2006-April 2007

[rosana]

Did anyone buy Point de Vue this week??? Diana is on the cover. Maybe you can tell us what´s that of her "last love".

 

[Panther2000]

Diana, Honored by TIME as one of the great Heroes

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2006/diana.html

Thanks for the article.

That was a great writeup. & It speaks the truth really. Just to remember the days before diana showed up. There was no emblishment there. It was in a sad state of affairs.

Nice to see something written nice about her
& not something from a Tell all book full of halftruths & out right lies( to make the author look good).

 

[Skydragon]

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2006/diana.html
"into a miserable land", he obviously didn't know anyone who lived here at that time!

In fact, it was a liberating celebration of a life that spoke for what Britons now wanted to be; not defined by cups of tea and stiff upper lips; not deferential; not condemned to live in a nation of perpetual, autumnal decline; not quiet; not old-fashioned; not dull; not sexless.

But somehow or other, Britons know, and are grateful.

This article is so funny, it was obviously not written by a Brit! Take a look at some of his other 'articles', how about.

How to deconstruct the strange case of Janet Jackson's breast
Why is fandom so important
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/elliott

 

[sirhon11234]

Princess Diana
Expected to keep quiet and fit in, she instead learned to speak out and became more potent a symbol than the royal house she joined

Thats exactly true.

 

[Skydragon]

Thats exactly true.

You forgot the 'In your opinion', many people in the UK didn't and don't think so.

 

[sassie]

In fact, it was a liberating celebration of a life that spoke for what Britons now wanted to be; not defined by cups of tea and stiff upper lips; not deferential; not condemned to live in a nation of perpetual, autumnal decline; not quiet; not old-fashioned; not dull; not sexless.

Is that meant to insinuate that, without Diana, the British people would never have evolved culturally since 1981?

Not to criticize the Princess, but that's hardly a realistic statement. Evolution is inevitable. This is akin to saying that without Jacqueline Kennedy, American culture would have remained in the 1950's.

JMO.

 

[Skydragon]

Is that meant to insinuate that, without Diana, the British people would never have evolved culturally since 1981?

Not to criticize the Princess, but that's hardly a realistic statement. Evolution is inevitable. This is akin to saying that without Jacqueline Kennedy, American culture would have remained in the 1950's.

JMO.

Now we all know that some believe that the BRF did not exist before Diana

not defined by stiff upper lips; not deferential;

This is still the way a lot of Brits would prefer to be defined! IMO.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2006/diana.html
"into a miserable land", he obviously didn't know anyone who lived here at that time!

In fact, it was a liberating celebration of a life that spoke for what Britons now wanted to be; not defined by cups of tea and stiff upper lips; not deferential; not condemned to live in a nation of perpetual, autumnal decline; not quiet; not old-fashioned; not dull; not sexless.

But somehow or other, Britons know, and are grateful.

I doubt Britons wanted to become mentally slightly unstable ("not dull") cheaters on their husbands ("not sexless") who prefered joining their boyfriends on yachts in the Mediterranean (far, far away from "autumnal decline") and blabbing to the media ("not quiet") to doing their duties. If that is old-fashioned, I'd personally prefer to be old-fashioned, enjoy my cup of tea in front of the fire-place and keep my contenance even if confronted with the real world....

 

[rosana]

I admire Diana for the courage she had to rebel against the situation she lived from the very moment she married.What else could she do? keep quiet as her husband and his mistres wanted, but she was not that kind of woman. I liked the article very much,good portrait of the Princess and the society she lived.

 

[Skydragon]

I liked the article very much,good portrait of the Princess and the society she lived.

As has been proved time and again rosana, there was no 'situation from the moment she married'!

The article does not in anyway portray the society or time in which she lived, how could it. It was written by an American, who was not part of either!

 

[Lily97]

I believe "the situation" was that Camilla always had Charles heart and was his only true love even if he was faithful to Diana for the first 5 years. Just my opinion of course. What a way to start a marriage!

Lily

 

[Skydragon]

I believe "the situation" was that Camilla always had Charles heart and was his only true love even if he was faithful to Diana for the first 5 years. Just my opinion of course.

You really ought to read some of the other accounts, like this one, although not perfect, it does try to show there was another side to the sorry tale, as written by people who actually 'saw it'.


"We have had the Princess's side as told to Andrew Morton. Millions of people all over the world are judging the Prince of Wales by that book. I believe there has been a grave injustice. All I am trying to do is present an alternative picture, as witnessed by people who were there from the very beginning to the end." It is Junor's contention that there was "no villain" of the piece. Diana was a vulnerable girl with a serious personality problem who married "because she wanted to be looked after and to become the centre of Charles's attention".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F11%2F09%2Ftljun9.html

How we got to this I don't know, when all I was trying to say is the article everyone is referring to, is by an American, who was not part of the society he is pretending to know so much about!

His article is just horse manure. IMO.

 

[Lily97]

Skydragon, all I was doing was stating that I thought there was a situation whereas you stated there wasn't one. I have read many different views on the subject (as my poor bookcase will prove) but you cannot deny that Charles and Camilla had vast affection for each other when Charles married. That was the only point I was trying to make and for me that is a situation. We do agree on one thing, Diana was vunerable. As to the article, I think you have valid point.

Lily

 

[Skydragon]

you cannot deny that Charles and Camilla had vast affection for each other when Charles married. That was the only point I was trying to make and for me that is a situation. We do agree on one thing, Diana was vunerable. As to the article, I think you have valid point.

Lily

I believe that it is possible to remain friends with your ex boy/girlfriends and 'love' them, but, not be 'in love' with them. Coming from the social circle they all did, it was a certainty that they would continue to bump into one another.

I think with Diana's troubled family life and insecurity, any marriage was a disaster waiting to happen.

Like many men and women, they go into married life with unrealistic expectations, IMO.

 

[Avalon]

Remember that this is a thread for the news for late Diana, Princess of Wales.
This is neither a thread for comparison of Charles/Camilla/Diana, nor a thread to find out who was right and who was wrong.

Thank you for co-operation.

 

[Panther2000]

I admire Diana for the courage she had to rebel against the situation she lived from the very moment she married.What else could she do? keep quiet as her husband and his mistres wanted, but she was not that kind of woman. I liked the article very much,good portrait of the Princess and the society she lived.

Yeah I agree with you on that.
But she seemed to grow stronger after the marriage(eventhough for a short period of time). She really came into her own.

I love it how Diana thread in her fourm seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

 

[ysbel]

I love it how Diana thread in her forum seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

I don't think its bashing Diana per se-just a defense of the Queen and the British Royal Family from the apparent insult they received in that article that praised Diana.

Quiet, dull, old-fashioned and sexless as the article described is an incredibly insulting way to speak of the influence of the British Royal Family in the country in the decades and centuries before Diana. Its also pretty dismissive to suggest that the royal family was meaningless before Diana.

It would be great if people could praise Diana without insulting the Royal Family but that doesn't happen often.

 

[Madame Royale]

It would be great if people could praise Diana without insulting the Royal Family but that doesn't happen often.

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'.

 

[sassie]

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'.

Especially considering that they themselves were working together to overcome the animosity of the past when Diana died. Seems to me that, if the major players were willing to forgive and move on, the public should, too.

 

[Madame Royale]

Especially considering that they themselves were working together to overcome the animosity of the past when Diana died. Seems to me that, if the major players were willing to forgive and move on, the public should, too.

Definitly, sassie

 

[Skydragon]

I love it how Diana thread in her fourm seems to have bashers here bashing. it is just sorry really.

This is just one thread in a forum about all the royals, not a forum dedicated to just one woman, who died 9 years ago! An article was posted that was written by a non Brit, commenting on the British way of life and the British Royals, which IMO, was totally inaccurate.

If anyone were to post an article about the way the US did something, that was not based on facts, I would expect the article to be challenged. Hopefully by people that were actually there, at the time and had not just read about it!

Quiet, dull, old-fashioned and sexless as the article described is an incredibly insulting way to speak of the influence of the British Royal Family in the country in the decades and centuries before Diana.

That is the authors description of the British people before Diana! Possibly you had to be there to know just how laughable a statement it is! He clearly missed the revolution of the 60's in the UK!

 

[Skydragon]

Diana Crash Car: Owner Wants £1m

The owner of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, died is demanding it is returned to him - so he can sell it as a souvenir. Jean-Francois Musa says he believes he can get more than £1m for the wrecked Mercedes. Mr Musa owns the Etoile Limousine company which rented the car to Diana and Dodi Fayed in August 1997.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04122006/140/diana-crash-car-owner-wants-1m.html

 

[sassie]

Diana Crash Car: Owner Wants £1m

The owner of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, died is demanding it is returned to him - so he can sell it as a souvenir. Jean-Francois Musa says he believes he can get more than £1m for the wrecked Mercedes. Mr Musa owns the Etoile Limousine company which rented the car to Diana and Dodi Fayed in August 1997.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04122006/140/diana-crash-car-owner-wants-1m.html

I'm not sure it would be his to sell-he must have filed an insurance claim on it, and if the insurance company paid him the full value of the car-I assume they did, because it was totaled-then they, in effect, bought the car.

I think this guy, by going public with this, is attempting to extort the money from Al Fayed in exchange for the car. He knows Mohammed has the money and will pay it.

Sad, very sad. The James Dean reference is also inaccurate. That car was purchased by a private party in 1958 for the cost of the scrap, and hasn't been seen since (I would guess that the buyer did the moral thing and had the car reduced for scrap.) Just because some museum offered $1 million for it if it is ever found isn't the same thing. One can't actually buy what isn't for sale.

 

[Skydragon]

I'm not sure it would be his to sell-he must have filed an insurance claim on it, and if the insurance company paid him the full value of the car-I assume they did, because it was totaled-then they, in effect, bought the car.

I think this guy, by going public with this, is attempting to extort the money from Al Fayed in exchange for the car. He knows Mohammed has the money and will pay it.

You are right, if he received an insurance payout, then the car belongs to them. Has he though?

If the car is still the subject of a police investigation, they don't normally release the car to the insurers or owner, so in preparation of the release, he could be negotiating.

Sick as it seems to us, the car could be worth more as 'the wreck' than he had it insured for and if he didn't put in a claim, his NC would not be affected!

 

[sassie]

You are right, if he received an insurance payout, then the car belongs to them. Has he though?

If the car is still the subject of a police investigation, they don't normally release the car to the insurers or owner, so in preparation of the release, he could be negotiating.

I have no way of knowing if he did or not, but I would assume that he did-since he owns a limousine company, that kind of claim would be standard business practice. Since the car itself was locked up in a police garage for an indefinite time, it would have been the only way, in 1997, for him to recoup his loss. He certainly had no way of knowing then whether the car would ever be released, and since he had lost the lease income from the car, filing a claim would seem only logical.

Now that the inquest is over and the findings are pending, the car has to be released to the owner. There isn't any other law enforcement agency that could claim they are beginning a new inquest and need the car as evidence.

Course, you are right, he could have been playing the odds and not filed a claim hinging on the prospect of selling the wreckage someday.

 

[sirhon11234]

But its so sick to sell a wreck car that was the cause of death for three people.

 

[Roslyn]

I have no way of knowing if he did or not, but I would assume that he did-since he owns a limousine company, that kind of claim would be standard business practice. Since the car itself was locked up in a police garage for an indefinite time, it would have been the only way, in 1997, for him to recoup his loss. He certainly had no way of knowing then whether the car would ever be released, and since he had lost the lease income from the car, filing a claim would seem only logical.

Now that the inquest is over and the findings are pending, the car has to be released to the owner. There isn't any other law enforcement agency that could claim they are beginning a new inquest and need the car as evidence.

Course, you are right, he could have been playing the odds and not filed a claim hinging on the prospect of selling the wreckage someday.

It may be that he could settle the claim with the insurance company on the basis he kept the wreck. This could be done here a few years ago and as far as I know it's still the case. There's simply a reduction made in the payout figure for the value of the wreck as scrap metal.

 

[sara1981]

that riddance for car limo since late Diana,Princess of Wales's death in 1997 and if she would alives if she would think about insurances to pays or the car owners would sues for that! but Diana is DEAD! let her rest in peaces

 

[sirhon11234]

That car should be destroyed!

 

[Vanesa]

I wouldn't purchase this car, for sure, but we must accept that now, it is an historical object. I think that the knife what was used by Sissi's murder, is now in a museum, and was not destroyed.

Vanesa.