The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 05-18-2016, 03:58 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
It started with Diana and Sarah in the 1980's. Before then the European royal families, think about Queen Juliana, Queen Fabiola, Queen Sofía, Grand-Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte, etc. were so much more stern and sober and everything was so far from celebbies and fashion at all. It culminated in the public-fought War of the Waleses. There was no distance anymore. There was no difference between a bitch-fight of two "stars" in the celebrity magazines and this nasty period in the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales. Every distance, every reverence, every dignity, all was thrown overboard. Very sad and damaging. Never in modern era it became more clear that monarchy was a vaudeville full of spin.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-18-2016, 05:14 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Grace Kelly????

Most of the royal ladies had their young fashionable days in their times. They weren't old women 40 years ago.

Before Diana and Fergie, there was another generation of royals on covers.


Paola
Queen Paola Magazine Cover Photos - List of magazine covers featuring Queen Paola - FamousFix

Elizabeth
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/268456827757653018/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/409686897323100609/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/238198267766296447/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/484207397410391790/

Margaret
TIME Magazine Cover: Princess Margaret - Nov. 7, 1955 - Princess Margaret - Great Britain - Royalty
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/532972937132181908/
Princess Margaret, Jours de France Magazine 25 August 1962 Cover Photo - France
Princess Margaret Magazine Cover Photos - List of magazine covers featuring Princess Margaret - FamousFix

Grace
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/262827328226283022/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/259660734741721395/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/288230444883843837/

Caroline of Monaco (series of covers)
Princess Caroline of Monaco Magazine Cover Photos - List of magazine covers featuring Princess Caroline of Monaco - FamousFix

Anne-Marie
TIME Magazine Cover: Princess Anne-Marie - July 3, 1964 - Royalty - Denmark - Women
King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie Magazine Cover Photos - List of magazine covers featuring King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie - FamousFix

Princess Anne
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/560276009871376594/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/290341507202160393/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/527765650053616508/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/528469337494190575/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/576320083534876045/

Benedikte
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/527765650057146268/

Silvia
The Royal Watcher
https://in.pinterest.com/pin/428827195750491043/
https://in.pinterest.com/pin/299067231486651488/
1982 Finnish Vintage Anna Magazine 29 Queen Silvia of Sweden on Cover | eBay
Finnish Vintage Anna Magazine 1983 Royal Family of Sweden Queen Silvia on Cover | eBay

Fabiola
https://www.flickr.com/photos/httpww...n08/1142224475
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/479140847836926545/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/479140847836741853/

Sofia
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/543176405039266963/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/399131585705671260/

Beatrix
Queen Beatrix, Hola! Magazine 12 March 1966 Cover Photo - Spain
Vintage Royal Romances Magazine - Issue 19 Queen Beatrix & Claus von Amsberg | eBay
For the Record | Rutgers Magazine
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-21-2016, 01:07 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-21-2016, 02:11 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
It never ended and it will never end. Sadly the line between royalty and celebrity has become thinner and thinner. There are media who bring royalty news under the general tab "showbizz"... which is telling.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-21-2016, 02:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
When the world realized that there was nothing special about royalty (a made up affectation), they are no more special than others. But since they have amassed great wealth and visibility, they became celebrities. And, today, they are showbiz.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-31-2016, 06:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
not really. But Diana did take the RF into soemthing close to showbiz...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-31-2016, 07:13 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Well it is arguable that their primary purpose is to entertain.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-31-2016, 08:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
The media treats royalty like some section of showbiz celebrity, yes, though I'd argue that they don't do that when reporting on the Queen and Prince Philip's lives, for example. (They were lucky really that they were young at a time when the British press behaved in a very different way.)

One of the main differences, of course, is that there are very very few celebrities who appear in their mother's arms as new babies on the front pages of newspapers and magazines and who then have a relentless spotlight on them every year of their lives from then on until extreme old age and death, after which their funeral is covered by the national (and sometimes international) media. That's the fate of many senior royals and their heirs.

When Diana joined the Royal family a phenomenon that became known as 'Di mania' began, and I do think that was something very different from the huge popularity the Queen and Princess Margaret enjoyed as young women. It was as if the media fed off Diana and couldn't get enough of her, from her engagement onwards. At least some of this was due to the fact that no Prince of Wales, direct heir to the British throne, had wed for almost 120 years, so there was enormous interest already.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-31-2016, 08:03 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,442
I have always thought the photo of her at daycare, child on her hip, sun behind her, revealing her legs was the moment that the press transformed her into a thing rather than a person. It was all downhill from there.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-31-2016, 10:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It never ended and it will never end. Sadly the line between royalty and celebrity has become thinner and thinner. There are media who bring royalty news under the general tab "showbizz"... which is telling.
As far as Diana, it will end when the many are no longer alive that were here when she died. My children vaguely remember her and were never obsessed with her [being American] and my grandchildren [all in their 20s] don't care who or what she did. Me, I remember her well and was in sorrow due to how young she was leaving her sons motherless. To me she was never a celebrity but just lovely daughter-in-law to Queen. Tragedy, of course, but never saint- like as many tried to portray even then.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-01-2016, 10:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Well it is arguable that their primary purpose is to entertain.
NO, their primary purpose is ot promote their country, as the "first family" by doing representational, diplomatic and charity work...Diana did foolishly slip over the line into "celebrity", talking about her private life on TV and mixing with "celebs" who were in that world.. Even though many of them did try like say Clive James to talk her out of doing things like that. Others like Carling's wife, when Diana flirted with her husband, reacted like a typical celebrity and made a public drama out of it... and that was a big mistake on Dis' part...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
I have always thought the photo of her at daycare, child on her hip, sun behind her, revealing her legs was the moment that the press transformed her into a thing rather than a person. It was all downhill from there.
A thing?? Hardly. it was a bit of an intrusive shot, but it was harldy enough to make her a "thing rather than a person". Diana was lovely, she had charm and charisma and had the press been reasonable, and had she herself not collaborated and used her charm against the RF, it would have been a great thing that she was so well loved nad popular...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
As Me, I remember her well and was in sorrow due to how young she was leaving her sons motherless. To me she was never a celebrity but just lovely daughter-in-law to Queen. Tragedy, of course, but never saint- like as many tried to portray even then.
I am not sure. Of course as time passes, less people will remember her as soemone they saw on TV a lot or maybe even met up with once or twice. But she's a fascinating figure, there are bios of her, stuff on youtube etc.. She has a lot of fans, and Im sure she will always have people who are interested in her.. like Marilyn Monroe..
I remember having a really sad moment a few months after her death, when I was in a church, can't remember where now and a child had written in the prayer slips, "Pray for Will and Harry who have lost their Mummy".. it really choked me..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-05-2016, 05:48 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?
It didn't "end" as such. there are plenty of people who really idolise Diana still to a ridiciulous degree. And many who still love and admire her, even if they are aware of her faults...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-05-2016, 08:28 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
. . . . . Even though many of them did try like say Clive James to talk her out of doing things like that. Others like Carling's wife, when Diana flirted with her husband, reacted like a typical celebrity and made a public drama out of it... and that was a big mistake on Dis' part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It didn't "end" as such. there are plenty of people who really idolise Diana still to a ridiculous degree. And many who still love and admire her, even if they are aware of her faults...
Unfortunately Xenia, it will never end. The celebrification of Diana was tacky and tasteless, but the canonisation is offensive. We still see people here and elsewhere who are willing to downgrade Diana's string of adulterous affairs as if somehow she was above the tenets of common decency. Conversely, every one of her lovers has been viciously vilified for their kiss and tell books or interviews when they got kicked to the kerb (or in Hasnet Khan's case, ending the relationship) yet Diana had 'written' or spoken publicly about their affairs, even doing the 'Panorama' interview which was the supreme example of Diana buying into her own celebrity.

Blaming Julia Carling for being hurt, distraught and very, very angry at Diana's affair with her husband when the ink wasn't even dry on their marriage licence is a brilliant example of giving Diana a free pass. The only difference between Julia and the wives of Diana's other married lovers was that Julia was a strong, confident, TV personality, a "Celebrity" no less, so when she was publicly humiliated she publicly fought back, kicked out her cheating husband and publicly named Diana as the reason for the ensuing divorce.

Diana no better or worse than any other 'Celebrity' but even before her separation she knew she would always be in the public eye, she knew she was photographed everywhere, she knew a picture was worth more than a thousand words in dozens of tabloids, and yet she continued to play out her life like episodes of Celebrity Wives.

What's happened to Diana's men? | Express Yourself | Comment | Daily Express
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-05-2016, 09:24 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
I don't think anyone excuses Diana's affairs with married men. However, do these married men, the Oliver Hoares, the Will Carlings, bear no responsibility for their own actions? Were they mere putty in the hands of an enchantress, apparently unable to speak up or move away or even think of their wives as soon as Diana came into view? She apparently seduced them all, without a word of protest from these males, poor lambs!

And Charles's adulterous affair with a married woman? Is that too, 'beyond the bounds of common decency?' You see, what's OK for the gander is not OK for the goose for some. Camilla's role in helping to unravel the Wales's marriage is excused every bit as much by fierce Charles/Cam defenders who deeply dislike Diana as she has ever been by those who admire her.

Yes, smooth the Camilla business over, sweep it all under the rug, and just let us just perpetually concentrate on Diana's affairs and mistakes and misjudgements and mental condition and unimportance to her charities, plus apparently her complete insignificance to people nowadays.

Yes, Diana was a 'celebrity' all right, a celebrity who performed hundreds of engagements every year, in wind, rain, and shine. She was a 'celebrity' who performed royal duties for years, without, it must be said, much audible support from her husband (except at the beginning) or his family.

Here was a celebrity who brought new focus and a spotlight on many things, including hospices and AIDS and landline campaigns, and valuable publicity to the British fashion industry at the same time. She also brought new informality to a royal family who were often thought dull and stiff and formal. She also bore two boys, one of whom may well become King one day in his turn. Plenty there to celebrate if you want to contemplate Diana's 'celebrity'!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-05-2016, 06:59 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
well the reason I brought it up was to say that there are still people who are very very obssessed Diana fans.. who will still see Diana as an angel, no matter what, but that in general, I think her fans see her as a human being who did soem things wrong, and got many things right.. not as a super being. And while people may be a bit more cynical now, in general I think that fascinating as Di was, mostly people were fond of her but didn't idolise her.. during her lifetime. She was clever at putting herself forward well but nobody can truly be seen as perfect.
Curryong yes she did do a great job as Princess, and I think she did bring a speical magic to the job, that no other royal woman has brought to it.. before or since. But then again you could say that most royal women have done the job of performing engagements, with or without support from the RF or their husbands, and been deserving of praise...It is what they're paid for, and Diana didn't do hundreds more engagements than any other royal lady...
But Really, I agree with you that her private life was hardly soemthing to villify her about, or if it is, then Charles too should be villified or other royals who have had affairs.
I dont see the point of attacking either of them for trying to find some consolation for an unhappy marriage.. and I can't quite see how Diana's affairs are terrible, but charles' are Ok, OR that Charles's affairs are (as some royal watchers seem to see it) evidence that he is a terrible human being.. whereas Di's affairs are either "not proven" or somehow Ok.
I think that both of them were guilty of hurting other people in their affairs, I dont think that he considered enough how his relationships with Cam and Kanga Tryon may have hurt their chidlren, or that even teh easy going Andrew PB got fed up with tolerating his affair with Cam when he (Andrew) wanted to be free to remarry..
And Diana didn't consider that her affair with Hoare was bothering his wife, or her flirtation with Carling... She was certianly guilty IMO of being too intense, and demanding too much of a lover, when he had commitments elsewhere.
But I cna't see that Di spoke of their relationships publicly while they were villified for kiss and tell books etc. She only spoke of one affair publicly, and that was after J Hewitt had already outed the relationship and he was completely at fault for "kissing and telling." her other lovers have not spoken of their relationships at all, except for Hasnat Khan, who was forced to at the inquest and who didn't get involved iwth her until she was getting a divorce...
She was reasonably discreet in her love affairs and managed to keep them out of the press, except when she lost her head over Hoare, and when Hewitt outed the affair.
and overall whatever her faults, I think she DID do her royal job well, she was a good Mother and she tired her best to be a good wife. It was not her fault that she was ill equipped for many aspects of royal life, or for winning Charles' heart when it was already given...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-06-2016, 02:15 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
I think this discussion is better continued on the Charles and Diana thread.

I specifically mentioned Diana getting a free pass when her married and single lovers didn't and still don't. This has nothing to do with Charles, Camilla, Kanga, etc. It is about the celebrification of Diana, how she bought into her own press and how there is a glaring double standard regarding her lovers and how they became unwitting "celebrities" for all the wrong reasons.

I do not for one moment dismiss her charitable work, BUT that is not what this thread is about and, more importantly, her charity work cannot realistically be a considered a mitigating factor for her affairs.

By mentioning her affairs I am not denigrating her or singling her out. I merely remarked on the unfairness of the way the men were and are still treated as opposed to how Diana is treated. They were all adults and they all made their own choices.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-06-2016, 04:21 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
what men? Her "married lovers" are only Oliver Hoare who has not tlaked about their affair and Will carling who probably was not her lover and who explicitly denied an affair...So how are they being treated unfairly?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-06-2016, 07:01 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
To be honest it is irrelevant if they were married or single, they have all been hammered. I was talking about Will Carling and, if he can be identified as one of her lovers at the inquest without legal challenge, I believe that settles that. Denying it to the media is one thing, a court of law is quite another.

You only have to read the threads that cover her various lovers and read what has been written about books, articles and interviews they have contributed to. People seem to forget that it was their lives too and, as such, they have as much right to talk about it as Diana had. If being one of Diana's lovers brought them celebrity in the negative or the positive, they had and still have the right to respond.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-06-2016, 08:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
No-one on the Diana threads has stated that Oliver Hoare or Carling have no right to be heard. Nor have I read of them being 'hammered' in the way you describe. James Hewitt and his motivations have been widely discussed, (he was unmarried) but as far as I can see Carling barely comes up in conversations online or otherwise.

Neither Hoare nor Carling have written books about Diana, unlike Hewitt, and what we have read of them have been just titbits through the prism of others like Ken Wharfe. If either had an affair they were IMO as culpable as Diana was in getting involved with them. Both she and they were culpable.

However, these men weren't innocents. They knew the media sniffed around trying to get stories on Diana, (one of the most famous women in the world) so must surely have been prepared for some kind of disclosure by the press and subsequent criticism, (though, as I've said, I've read few comments on either man, bad or good.)

And why is Diana responsible for the loss, if any, of these men's reputations or for people criticising their actions? As I've stated in my previous post, if a husband commits adultery does he bear no responsibility if the woman concerned happens to be famous?

And No, I realise it's never the right time, the right thread, the right anything to get to the nitty gritty of Camilla's motivations and part in the destruction of Diana and Charles's marriage. It's remarkable really.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-06-2016, 08:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
To be honest it is irrelevant if they were married or single, they have all been hammered. I

You only have to read the threads that cover her various lovers and read what has been written about books, articles and interviews they have contributed to. People seem to forget that it was their lives too and, as such, they have as much right to talk about it as Diana had. If being one of Diana's lovers brought them celebrity in the negative or the positive, they had and still have the right to respond.
No they dont. It is IMO horrible behaviour. I dont know whether Will C was her lover or not, he certainly was involved in a heavy flirtation with her, but he has as far as i know explicitly denied an affair whch IMO is what he should do.
what sort of man makes a career move out of telling about his affair with a woman?? esp a married woman?
I dont know what you mean by "they have all been hammered." Who hammered them? what does that mean? Have they been harmed? I dont think so.
I dont really know what you mean about the inquest. After denying his affair with Di, (if it happened) he is harldy going to raise the issue again..
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death? Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 528 09-09-2011 11:49 AM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-06-2011 12:20 AM
Did Sophie Copy Princess Diana? ivana31 The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 84 10-03-2009 12:05 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria's maternity fashion current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jubilee celebration kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction military monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises