When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by anbrida

that happened at july 14th, and camilla's birthday party was july 17th.
I think things happened on july 14th, would be on the headline on july 15th, or 16th, and camilla's birthday party headline should be on july 18th or 19th.

I still do not see why we have to compare Camilla's 50th birthday party to photos of Diana, Princess of Wales in a bathing suit or kissing. Camilla got her man to give her a big bash, Di got the playboy. Both in my opinion, had the partners they wanted to be with.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

My question is, has anyone else seen these "monuments" and are they as hideous as I think they are???
......

Hideous doesn't quite cover it but I can't think what words would. Almost as bad as his lifesize waxwork of him in a tartan outfit, well Madam Tussaud's wasn't going to do him, so he did his own. I suppose that could be his next step, Diana and Dodi in wax!

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Hideous doesn't quite cover it but I can't think what words would. Almost as bad as his lifesize waxwork of him in a tartan outfit, well Madam Tussaud's wasn't going to do him, so he did his own. I suppose that could be his next step, Diana and Dodi in wax!

Ewww ... Please Mr Al-Fayed, not another illustration of bad taste

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Hideous doesn't quite cover it but I can't think what words would. Almost as bad as his lifesize waxwork of him in a tartan outfit, well Madam Tussaud's wasn't going to do him, so he did his own. I suppose that could be his next step, Diana and Dodi in wax!

Oh YUCK! But, I cannot help myself--Skydragon--have you a picture of this??

[tinkerbell1948]

Those "monuments" are just so tacky beyond belief.

Where is the waxwork of him?

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I still do not see why we have to compare Camilla's 50th birthday party to photos of Diana, Princess of Wales in a bathing suit or kissing. Camilla got her man to give her a big bash, Di got the playboy. Both in my opinion, had the partners they wanted to be with.

Me either, to me all so-called evidences are very plausible. I don't know why only these evidences can make people have such strong conclusion.

Actually the most frequent used arguement was Diana manipulated the press. And there is a funny circulation here. Once you suspect Diana manipulated the press, you would find the stealing thunder thing possible. And once you find the stealing thunder thing possible, you would find the manipulation more possible, then the stealing thunder thing even more possible, then ... This two are just like egg and hen. You don't know whether hen produces egg first or egg produces hen first, but they produce each other.

Be honest, several day before, I didn't objected this allegation too much. Actually since ten years ago, I've read infinite many articles "asserting" Diana's stole Camilla limelight, though without further explanation. It seems any statement if being repeated 1000 times will become a truth. After 1000 times, it fosters a thinking habit.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Oh YUCK! But, I cannot help myself--Skydragon--have you a picture of this??

I don't know about Skydragon, but I found one . You'll notice it is hosted on his website, which might be an interesting place to snoop around. Or not.

http://www.alfayed.com/upload/busine...af_waxwork.jpg

[jcbcode99]

That's just sad--and creepy. Really, really creepy. And the outfit it doesn't really make sense--a Scottish Muslim? Its not what one would expect, but then again, it's a wax figure....
Thanks Roslyn!
And yes, interesting place to snoop about----that wine glass is still the creepiest thing, though.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

And the outfit it doesn't really make sense--a Scottish Muslim?

Here's a picture of a right Scottish muslim : born a Scot of a noble and ancient family, Sir Abdullah Archibald Hamilton converted to islam in 1924....

http://www.radwan.cwc.net/feb1935.jpg

Difference to Al-Fayed is that Sir Abdullah was a member of the clan whose tartan he wore. Knowing how important the tartan is to the Scots, I believe Al-Fayed is really, really rude to present himself that way. Or did he get an invitation of a clan chieftain to wear the colours of that clan (in case a chieftain can grant the right to wear the tartan to non-clan members?)

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Knowing how important the tartan is to the Scots, I believe Al-Fayed is really, really rude to present himself that way. Or did he get an invitation of a clan chieftain to wear the colours of that clan (in case a chieftain can grant the right to wear the tartan to non-clan members?)

Seems he bought the right to wear that tartan. This is the story that goes with the pic: Alfayed.com - The website of Mohamed Al Fayed but perhaps it should come with a warning that there's a rather disturbing mental image towards the end.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Seems he bought the right to wear that tartan. This is the story that goes with the pic: Alfayed.com - The website of Mohamed Al Fayed but perhaps it should come with a warning that there's a rather disturbing mental image towards the end.

Seems it's not a real tartan at all but rather a piece of cloth that Al-fayed had designed for himself.

[Roslyn]

When is a tartan not a tartan? I don't know the answer, but it looks like a tartan to me. Scottish tartans-Scotland clans heritage from Scotland On Line

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

When is a tartan not a tartan? I don't know the answer, but it looks like a tartan to me. Scottish tartans-Scotland clans heritage from Scotland On Line

I think that there is a difference with the official tartan designs that are recognized as symbols of the clans of Scotland and those who were created for commercial purposes.

As with heraldry, dealing with the right of a person to a Coat of Arms, the clan's tartans are registered with the Lord Lyon, king of arms and his office.
Here's a quote from the site you gave the link to:

"The Lyon's Office

The Lord Lyon, King of Arms, regulates Heraldry in Scotland. Sir Thomas of Learney, the Lord Lyon, published The Tartans of the Clans and Families of Scotland in 1938. By this time, the heraldry of the Scottish Chiefs was controlled by statute and a number of clan and family tartans became officially recognised in the Lyon's Court Book, and this was a useful way to "register" new clan tartans, though it was not a tartan register."

So what Al-Fayed did was to order the creation of a tartan design for use at Harrod's and he named it after his Sottish estate. But that has nothing to do with the way tartans have depicted the belonging of a person to a certain clan from historic times till today, it's just a commercial design like any other which tries to appear as if it was the "genuine" thing which esists till today in Scotland and has to do with following ancient traditions.

[jcbcode99]

Ah-ha! So, could this be considered another way that Fayed is continuing his social climb?

[ToytownZara]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

Those "monuments" are just so tacky beyond belief.

Where is the waxwork of him?

I lived in KSA for three years, and the expats used to use the term "Saudi gaudy" to describe anything overdone to the point of nausea. You know - too much gold, too much red velvet - I'm sure you get the idea. I go to London quite a lot and I have seen the "memorials" in Harrods on more than one occasion. The statues are actually quite hideous - Dodi and Diana with some bird (I'm guessing a dove) flying off between them. Then there's the stuff on the landing of the Egyptian staircase (I think I have that right). Totally tacky. And the wine glass is WAAAYYY too creepy - and of course the ring is there as well (or what is probably a good copy - I confess I don't know too much about that, but there IS a ring there in the case, which if memory serves me correctly is a pyramid!) The portraits would be nice (for whatever Al-Fayed is or isn't, that is his son, and I have to give people benefit of the doubt on that one)- if it weren't for the horrid double "D" frame that they're in. And if it WERE about his son, I would think he'd leave Diana out of it.

Guess I need to coin the phrase "Egyptian gaudy"!

I have pics and would post them if I knew how. If someone can explain or PM me how to do it, I'll get them up.

BTW, it would be difficult for anyone to convince me of anything other than that Al-Fayed engineered the whole Diana/Dodi thing from the start - not that Diana was completely blameless, because I do think she saw an opportunity to both p*ss off the BRF and make Hasnat Khan jealous. Looking back, the whole thing was a bit strange. I can remember seeing the photos at the checkout in the grocery store and thinking, what the h-e-double hockey sticks is she DOING? I had made up my mind to not even pick up a copy to flip through, because at that point the press was making me physically ill. Then I cut on the news that night before going out with some friends and I thought, huh - didn't we sort of know something catastrophic was coming? It was like she was on a breakneck course for disaster.

They announced her death that night in the bar I was in, and you could have heard a pin drop. Everyone sort of just looked around, like, WHAT? I admit, the girls I was out with and I did cry - all I could think about was her boys - not what a mess she was and not what else she may or may not have been. The three guys who were with us put their arms around our shoulders and didn't say anything. She was someone's mum. She was only a year older than my sister, and I thought about that too. We drank a toast - a bunch of us did - to William and Harry. Then the next morning I called my sister and my own mum straight away, at some god-awful hour their time.

I picked "other" in the poll - because as I aged, my opinion of her (or maybe it's best said my view of her) did change. As a kid, I thought she was perfect - the embodiment of the fairy tale. As years passed, I learned otherwise. She was no saint, no fairytale princess. I know she was manipulative (and probably emotionally immature as well as an emotional mess), vindictive, and probably impossible to get along with. But I do believe she did the best she could with what she had (mentally and emotionally), and I don't believe she was evil or out to deliberately destroy people. She knew better, but just couldn't do it alone - but she didn't know what to do to get help. What a mess; what a sad situation to live - and die - in.

I'm not in the Saint Diana camp, nor am I in the Evil Charles camp. He's a whole other thread - and Camilla is DEFINITELY another posting...