The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/)
-   -   Diana and Dodi (and Tony Blair) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/diana-and-dodi-and-tony-blair-37311.html)

anbrida 08-11-2014 03:58 PM

Diana and Dodi (and Tony Blair)
 
In Tony Blair self-biography "a journey", he disclosed that when she visited him at Chequers in July 1997, he and Diana had a conversation about her relationship with Dodi. He told Diana he felt Dodi Fayed was a problem.

Quote:

but I also felt -- and I don't know, maybe I would be less punctilious about it nowadays -- that Dodi Fayed was a problem. And This was not for the obvious reasons, which would have made some frown on him; his nationality, religion or background didn't matter a hoot ot me. I had never met him, so at one level it was unfair to feel nervous about him, and for all I know he was a good son and a nice guy; so if you ask me, well, spit it out, what was wrong, I couldn't frankly say
Quote:

I just broached the subject of her and Dodi straight out. She didn't like it and I could feel the wilful side of her bridling. However, she didn't refuse to talk about it, so we did, and also what she might do. Although the conversation had been uncomfortable at points, by the end it was warm and friendly.
Tony Blair didn't tell what exactly his concern was, but in an interveiw he gave to abc, he disclosed more of his thought

Tony Blair on Princess Diana, the Queen and Alcohol | Video - ABC News

Quote:

--"I was worried for her, frankly," he said. "I mean I was worried because it was obviously going to be extremely difficult. And I wanted her to know what the implications and consequences of all of it was going to be."

--what is the issue.

--The issue was obviously it was a unusual relationship to be, the question is how you were going to work it out and how it was gona to work out. Think about Princess Diana's become not only an object of fascination of people, she's obviously become such a public property.
Tony Blair didn't disclosed the date of the meeting in his book. He just said it's in July 1997. But from Alastair Campbell diary "The Blair Years", I read that it was on July 6,1997.

July 6, Diana brings William to meet Tony Blair's family at Chequers.
July 11, Beginning of Diana’s holiday with her two sons at the Fayed villa in St Tropez.
July 14 morning, Diana, fed up with press attention, gives an impromptu
news conference at sea, during which she promises, ‘You will get a big surprise with the next thing I do’
July 14 afternoon, Dodi Fayed arrives on board the Jonikal, after being summoned by his father.
July 18 Camilla birthday party
July 19 Diana phones Hasnat Khan’s Chelsea flat. His uncle picks up the phone and she asks him to tell Hasnat to ring her when she gets back.
July 20 Diana and the princes fly back to London
July 26 Diana flies to Paris for hastily arranged ‘date’ with Dodi Fayed
July 29 Diana and Hasnat meet in Battersea Park
July 30 Diana and Hasnat meet at Kensington Palace. According to Khan, Diana tells him the relationship is over. Photographer Jason Fraser is tipped off by Diana herself about she and Dodi’s impending cruise on the Jonikal.
July 31 Diana joins Dodi again for another cruise aboard the Jonikal
Aug 2 Italian photographer Mario Brenna, alerted by Jason
Fraser, awaits the right moment to take photographs of
Diana and Dodi.
Aug 4 Brenna takes the infamous ‘KISS’ pictures.
Aug 8 Diana flies to Bosnia to continue her landmines campaign
Aug 10 The Sunday Mirror publishes the ‘KISS’ picture, and every-one is talking of a romance between Diana and Dodi.
Aug 11 Diana returns from Bosnia. The ‘KISS’ pictures don’t trouble her.
Around Aug 20 Diana gives an interview for the French magazine LeMonde, which was her last interview. One of her saying in it is "Being constantly in the public eye gives me a special responsibility, particularly that of using the impact of photographs to transmit a message, to sensitize the world to an important cause, to defend certain values.''

We knew Diana didn't talk much about her relationship with Dodi to anybody, even not to her most inner circle. Then the fact that she talked about it to Tony Blair, at such an early date, even before she started the vacation, can tell us a lot about the true nature of this relationship. It was definitely an "unusual" relationship, just as Tony Blair put it. So what was it, I am quite confident that this time we will be finally able to see "the truth".

Mermaid1962 08-11-2014 04:24 PM

Simple. Dodi's father was notorious. He bribed members of Parliament, for one thing. Dodi was known to be a cocaine user. I think that had Diana and Dodi continued on with their relationship, thing would have become very difficult for Diana. Mohammad al-Fayed was not and is not a respected man. No matter how nice a man Dodi was, he was his father's heir. If Diana and Dodi had married or even continued a long-term relationship, I think that they would have been constantly interferred with by al-Fayed Sr; and al-Fayed Sr. might have hoped to have influence over William and Harry. I think that's what Mr. Blair meant. I don't think that there's any deep, dark secret about Dodi that has yet to be uncovered; nor do I believe that there's any reason to believe that the accident in Paris was anything but an accident.

Moonmaiden23 08-11-2014 04:40 PM

:previous: This. I agree completely.

Dodi sounds like an essentially decent and kind person. I feel a sadness reading about him. But he had what we popularly call "issues".:sad:

I still have questions about the accident in Paris, frankly a couple of things don't add up. But ultimately I think it was a very tragic and very preventable accident.

Dman 08-11-2014 04:44 PM

Dodi was a "player from the himalayas" and I don't think he and Diana was in a serious relationship. Dodi's father setup a lot of what was going on that terrible summer.

KittyAtlanta 08-11-2014 04:50 PM

IMO, Diana was using Dodi to create scintillation in the newspapers. I don't think she would have wed him at all.

Queen Camilla 08-11-2014 05:05 PM

Never know. Some people marry only days after meeting.

'Her big surprise': Getting married.

Nice Nofret 08-11-2014 05:19 PM

IMHO Diana was much to high on her Spencer and POW-Horse to have wed Dodi; I believe she wanted a rich but also 'purpousfull' husband with high standing in the world, who would be devoted to her.

Dodi was a playboy, who idled his time away, from a rich, but not accepted family - I can't think she was serious about that relationship. I can much easier believe, that she had Dodi just to make Hassnat Khan jealouse...

She wanted to be loved and respected - not laughingstock and despised by her peers.

Dman 08-11-2014 05:21 PM

Diana wasn't going to jump into another marriage. Also, Dodi was engaged to another young lady and who was waiting for him in another yacht while he was with Diana on the Jonikal. Those folks were messing around with Diana and then everything became worse and tragic.

Marty91charmed 08-11-2014 07:16 PM

Rumours had it shewanted to make Hasnat Khan jelaous and therefore she started a relationship with Dodi... But we'll never know...

JulieS 08-11-2014 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty91charmed (Post 1694584)
Rumours had it shewanted to make Hasnat Khan jelaous and therefore she started a relationship with Dodi... But we'll never know...

I heard about this rumour too... Diana took this secret to the grave... :sad:

Marty91charmed 08-11-2014 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieS (Post 1694592)
I heard about this rumour too... Diana took this secret to the grave... :sad:

this speculation was also featured in Diana movie :whistling:

Iluvbertie 08-11-2014 08:11 PM

Let's not forget Dodi's mother's family - the Kashoggi family who were major arms dealers. Diana was forging a name for herself opposing land mines and here she was developing a relationship with a relative of one of the biggest sellers of arms, including land mines, in the world.

Mermaid1962 08-11-2014 08:42 PM

:previous: Yes, Iluvbertie. No matter which way a person looks at it, the Fayeds and their family connections were bad news.

anbrida 08-11-2014 10:07 PM

Guys, you need to be sensitive to the time. Diana and Tony Blair talked about her relationship at July 6, long before the world know their relationship, which was Aug 10 when the kiss picture publiced, even before she went onto the boat. Then how did Tony Blair know about this relationship at such an early stage.

Did he know about it from the media? No, there was not such news at all at such an early stage.

Was Diana and Dodi seeing eath other at such an early stage? No, if they did so, Dodi would have let his father know, and Al fayed would definitely used this as a proof to support the marriage statement in Diana's law suit.

So how did Tony Blair know about that at such an early stage, it must be Diana tell him she was considering about Dodi. Why would Diana have consulted with the Prime Minister such personal stuff, instead of with her friends? If her movatation was to make her boyfriend, would she consulted with the Prime Minister?

Mermaid1962 08-11-2014 10:35 PM

It was Mr. Blair's responsibility and duty to discuss the relationship with her. In the interview, it seemed like he was the one who initiated the discussion.

Moonmaiden23 08-11-2014 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1694548)
Diana wasn't going to jump into another marriage. Also, Dodi was engaged to another young lady and who was waiting for him in another yacht while he was with Diana on the Jonikal. Those folks were messing around with Diana and then everything became worse and tragic.


The young lady was model Kelly Fisher. Dodi, instigated by his father Mohammed, had brutally dumped Fisher. At the time of the tragedy Kelly was suing Dodi in court, since he reportedly urged her to abandon her modeling career to marry him, then when he had a chance with Diana all bets were off.

The lawsuit was dropped when Dodi died. Kelly was truly devastated.

ETA: From everything I've read I believe Dodi was dazzled and besotted by Diana and would have moved heaven and earth to marry her. Diana liked him, but I think she would have eventually grown bored with Dodi. A marriage between them would have been a bigger disaster than her first one.

Another poster put it best...Diana wanted a husband who could not only provide her with the lavish material wealth she was accustomed to, she wanted gravitas and respect. At the end of her life she was hobnobbing with people like Benjamin Netanyahu, Mother Theresa and Henry Kissinger. Dodi would have been an embarrassment in those circles.

You can take the girl out of the aristocracy, but you can't take the aristocrat out of the girl. In the final analysis she was an earl's daughter and the mother of a future king.

anbrida 08-12-2014 12:18 AM

It is also should be noticed that since her death, Tony Blair simply put Diana onto the golden pedestal, not only in 1997 when he gave her the title "people's princess", but also in his 2010 self-biography "a journey".

How did he describe Diana in his book, here are some examples

Quote:

"She captured the essence of an era and held it in the palm of her hand. She defined it."
Quote:

"Of course she was much too smart to give her support to any political party, but in temperament and time, in the mood she engendered and which we represented, there was a perfect fit. Whatever New Labour had in part, she had in whole."
Quote:

"She was extraordinarily captivating. The aura that already surrounded her was magnified by the redical combination of royalty and normality that she expressed. "
Quote:

"She had a strong emotional intelligence, certainly, but she was also very capable of analytical understanding."
Quote:

"She had a complete sense of what we were trying to achieve and why. I always used to say to Alastair (his spin doctor): if she was ever in politics, even Clinton would have to watch out. "
The only not so unpleasant thing he talked about Diana is "manipulation".

Quote:

"We were both in our ways manipulative people, perceiving quickly the emotions of others and able instinctly to play with them"
Of course, Diana had many faults, but it is hard to resist wondering why Blair only singled out "manipulation".

Would Tony have used such words to describe Diana, if she was such a silly woman who would sacrifice her own reputation in order to make her boy friend jealousy, by kissing another man publicly. She might do that if she was still a teenager, but definite not as a 36 old woman who should have learned that this wouldn't work from her first marriage.

Another interesting book to read, which gives me more suspicion, is Alastair Campbell's extracted diary “The Blair Years”. Campbell is Tony Blair's spin doctor, who some media has alleged was the real guy come up with the term “the people's princess”

In his diary, Campbell gave a detailed description of Tony Blair's activity and saying on the night of Diana's death. Here are two conversations they had that night.

Quote:

He (Blair) felt that it (the accident) happened as she was fairly close to the height of her appeal. Dodi was probably a step too far for a lot of people. Had she got married, had another child maybe, she'd have started to fall in popularity. But this will confirm her as a real icon.
Quote:

We (Blair and Campbell) talked about the last time they met Chequers and the letters she sent afterwards. She was a real asset, a big part of 'New Britain'. But somehow he (Blair) knew it was going to end like this, well before her time.
His writing is quite ambiguous. What was her appeal? Why marrying Dodi would confirm her as a real icon. And what did Diana and Tony Blair talked at Chequers would have made Blair think “she was a real asset, a big part of 'New Britain'. But the most surprising thing to know is, she had sent some letters to Blair afterwards. I am very curious what the letters were about.

The more I read, the more I believe Tony Blair and Campbell definitely know something. Although most people think they created the “people's princess” title with the purpose to gain their own popularity by exploiting her death, the more I read the more I see they have some true affection for her, (especially Alastair Cambell).

In “A Journey”, Blair writes the state of his mind when he created “the people's princess” title.

Quote:

The phrase “people's princess” now seems like something from another age. And corny. And over the top. And all the rest of it. But at the time it felt natural and I thought, particularly, that she would have approved. It was how she saw herself, and it was how she should be remembered.
Please remember that before her death, Diana got very terrible press. She was considered as a woman who went on endless vacation with a muslim guy, openly flirting with him, disregarding her own reputation and her children's reputation. How can it be “felt natural” to give her this title, and why Tony Blair would think that was the way she saw herself. More precisely, in Tony Blair's mind, what was the true reason he thought she would display such a weird performance in front of world.

anbrida 08-12-2014 12:28 AM

Obviously, in that summer the Diana in the public's eyes is very different to the Diana in Tony Blair's eyes. It seems to me, Tony Blair was the only person in the world to whom Diana had talk about her motive to be Dodi. And what Tony Blair know but we don't know has created such big difference in our views?

Dman 08-12-2014 12:33 AM

No one really knew what was going on leading up to Diana's death. The whole trip to Paris made no sense and her friendship/relationship with Dodi was a mess and mystery.

Moonmaiden23 08-12-2014 01:32 AM

Well one thing I agree with..."The People's Princess" was utterly silly and cornball. It irritated me then and now, because it was so meaningless.

Dman 08-12-2014 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1694671)
Well one thing I agree with..."The People's Princess" was utterly silly and cornball. It irritated me then and now, because it was so meaningless.

I didn't find it "meaningless." I think she was the peoples princess. She embraced the people and the people embraced her right back. When she passed the people mourned and it was a set of events that a great deal of people will never forget. Blair got it right, she was the people princess. Not just for Britain but for the world.

MARG 08-12-2014 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1694638)
Guys, you need to be sensitive to the time. Diana and Tony Blair talked about her relationship at July 6, long before the world know their relationship, which was Aug 10 when the kiss picture publiced, even before she went onto the boat. Then how did Tony Blair know about this relationship at such an early stage.

Did he know about it from the media? No, there was not such news at all at such an early stage.

Was Diana and Dodi seeing eath other at such an early stage? No, if they did so, Dodi would have let his father know, and Al fayed would definitely used this as a proof to support the marriage statement in Diana's law suit.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1694638)
Please remember that before her death, Diana got very terrible press. She was considered as a woman who went on endless vacation with a muslim guy, openly flirting with him, disregarding her own reputation and her children's reputation. How can it be “felt natural” to give her this title, and why Tony Blair would think that was the way she saw herself. More precisely, in Tony Blair's mind, what was the true reason he thought she would display such a weird performance in front of world.

anbrida, you are the first person in a very long time to give us a bit of a reality check about Diana lifestyle and the press reaction to that lifestyle immediatly prior to her death. It was widely reported that Dodi was a "known" cocaine user and they didn't hold back about his playboy reputation and that Diana was seen to be buying into it at the expense of her charity work and worse, exposing her royal children to such a lifestyle. Flitting off to a "anti landmines" charity promotion then back to partying on a yacht with Dodi seemed to prove their point.

It was in this media reality that Blair (and his spin doctors) saw a window of opportunity, coined the phrase "People's Princess" and played it for all it was worth. The day before she died she was "exploiting her royal children", the day after, she was a Saint called The People's Princess. Pardon my cynicism

Duc_et_Pair 08-12-2014 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1694645)
It was Mr. Blair's responsibility and duty to discuss the relationship with her. [....]

On itself Tony Blair bore no any responsibility for Diana Spencer. Exactly like today David Cameron is not at all responsible for Sarah Ferguson, Mark Phillips, Antony Armstrong-Jones or other former members of the royal family.

:flowers:

Jacknch 08-12-2014 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1694671)
Well one thing I agree with..."The People's Princess" was utterly silly and cornball. It irritated me then and now, because it was so meaningless.

It was certainly well meant, but it never made any sense to me because there wasn't much behind it. What does it mean? Is the Queen "the peoples' Queen"? Who out of William and Harry is "the peoples' prince" or are they both? Is it the same as Pope francis being the people's pope?

The irritating thing for me was that Diana was allowing her life to be lived fully in the public eye, whereas I thought she was fed up with it. That last summer we saw her everywhere from Bosnian mine-fields to glamorous cruises in the Med to intimate dinners in Paris - all of it knowingly in the full glare of the media and it made no sense to me to live a double or triple life like that.

The horrors of mine-fields had to be highlighted and I'm glad she did it and I really do think that had she lived, her role in highlighting these terrible things was more valuable than we will ever know. But to turn around days later and live the jet-set life with a new boyfriend in tow and making odd statements like wait to see what I do next, sort of diminished the importance of her serious work.

As for Dodi, gawd only knows what she saw in him - I never understood it, but her taste in men was never great, bless her. But nonetheless, he may well have been right for her in the long run and we will never know - I wouldn't have objected to him as a new husband on any grounds other than his father being the way he is and interfering all the time.

I always hoped that had Diana lived, she would have ended up with a rich anthropologist or artist or someone a bit grounded who couldn't care less about the media.

Queen Camilla 08-12-2014 05:50 AM

IMO, double meaning to the phrase 'people's princess'.:

In the Panorama interview Diana said she wanted to be the Queen of Hearts. The Queen stripped her of her HRH, so Blair decided to make her the 'people's princess'.

Prince Edward, later King Edward VIII, was describes as the 'people's prince'. At the time of her death Diana's popularity was dropping as fast as Edward VIII. He also died in Paris.

Duc_et_Pair 08-12-2014 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1694707)
IMO, double meaning to the phrase 'people's princess'.:

In the Panorama interview Diana said she wanted to be the Queen of Hearts. The Queen stripped her of her HRH, so Blair decided to make her the 'people's princess'.

[....]

Well, the Queen did not at all strip anything from Diana. The late Diana was a HRH and a Princess by virtue of her marriage. With the end of the said marriage, Diana automatically lost these styles.

Like any divorced lady once married to a titled gentleman, she could keep the style as a honorific behind her first name, as long as she remained in this divorced state:

Diana, Princess of Wales (Lady Diana Spencer)
Sarah, Duchess of York
(Sarah Ferguson)

Widowers however keep the HRH and the style "Princess":

HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent (Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark)
HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester
(Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott)
HRH Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone
(Princess Alice, Lady Cambridge)

:flowers:

anbrida 08-12-2014 09:36 AM

There are some activities of Diana during that summer which might give us some insights of the reason of her relationship with Dodi.

The first thing is during that summer Diana had talked with a bunch of people of her plan to make film to promote some causes which were closed to her heart.

July 1997, during a lunch with Tina Brown, Diana told Brown she'd been discussing the idea of making television films to further promote her work on behalf of the victims of landmines, leprosy, and HIV/Aids
July 1997, Diana had a lunch with a group of friends from professional field, discussing how to develop her fledgling work as a TV filmmaker.
The secrets of Diana's harem | Mail Online

Sep 1997, had she not died, she would bring Dodi to see her indian friend Gulu Lalvani. Diana told Lalvani she wanted to to do a documentary on the AIDS epidemic in Mumbai, just like the documentary she had done on landmines in Angola. She told him she had approached the Indian high commissioner in London and that he had turned her proposal down. She was told that the Government of India might not like the idea because it would expose the AIDS epidemic in India to the world, it would affect tourist traffic to India. So Lalvani offered to hire a local camera crew and said to her, we will just go ahead and do it.


It is very clear that Diana wanted to more develop her role as a film maker. But only passion is not enough, you need money and professional help. Especially like India's case, she won't able to get any government fund to do the film. She would need to find the fund and professional crew herself. Diana was a perfectionist, she wouldn't be satisfied with a local camera crew. She always wanted the best in her work. And now please remember Dodi's occupation was a professional film maker with a very wealthy father.

Di's Indian Friend | Sanjay Suri, Archana Jahagirdar

anbrida 08-12-2014 09:39 AM

The second thing is Tony wanted Diana to play a good-will non formal ambassador role, because her popularity all over the world. Even if a country is not friendly to Britain, it is very possible that she would be still friendly to Diana. The first mission Tony ask Diana to do, is to go to visit China.

Here are some articles about Diana's ambassador role

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/po...mbassador.html
Di's Indian Friend | Sanjay Suri, Archana Jahagirdar
Blair held secret talks with Diana over New Labour 'ambassador' role | Mail Online

July 6, 1997 Diana and Tony Blair had a meeting in Chequers, to talk about “what she could do for the country in a more formal way.

July, 1997 Diana had a lunch with Tina Brown, in which she talked about her wish to visit China, because "I'm very good at sorting people's heads out." she said.

July, 1997 When Diana was on Fayed boat, she was deep in discussions with her friend the Chinese entrepreneur David Tang, who was helping her make plans for her three-day trip to Hongkong on Sep 27, 1997. David Tang helped arrange her charaity appearances there and meetings with government officials. During the visit, Diana would also have a lunch with Beijing's top representative in Hong Kong.

Aug, 1997 Diana gave a birth party for David Tang.

Aug 30, on the way from southern France to Paris Diana talked to David Tang by phone about her appearance in Hong Kong in September. Diana wanted to know how were everything going with her trip to Hongkong. And she also wanted David Tang to help arrange a trip to mainland China. David Tang said she wanted to bring the two princes to visit China someday.

Sep 2, 1997 China's leading People's Daily on Tuesday eulogized Diana as an
''ambassador of peace'' and a ''princess of the people'' and then roundly condemned the Western news media. ''She sympathized with the hardships of ordinary people,undertook charitable works with all her heart and expressed a special concern for society's masses of weak and frail,'' the Communist
Party-run paper said in a eulogy. Please note that Diana had never visited China, but still the Chinese government created a new title "ambassador of peace" for her, besides the people's princess.

Here are some background information of her planned trip to China. On July 1st, 1997 Hongkong was handed over from Britain to China. However, the two governmets were very unhappy with each other, there were a lot of disagreements. So when Tony Blair met Jiang in Hongkong's handover ceremony, Jiang told to Blair something like "the Labor is a new government, you don't have that history burden, let's forget the past and look forward.

I think Tony would use Diana to make visit those not traditional friend countries, in order to warm up the relationship, such as China, Argentina and some Muslim countries. Due to Diana's unofficial status, it would be very convenient for her visit any countries under the cover of charity events.

I have noticed that for each major countries or region, Diana would have a friend she can rely on to arrange visit or meeting local official. Of course such a friend is very critical for her unofficial ambassador role. In China, she had David Tang, in Indian Gulu Lalvani, and do we need to ask who would be her such a friend in the Muslim world?

As popularity concerned, to be a successful ambassador, her popularity in the host countries, such as China, Argentina, Muslim world, and etc, would be more important than her popularity in the home country, Britain.

Dman 08-12-2014 09:50 AM

Diana was on her way to turning her life around after her divorce but she never got that shot. I just wish she didn't accept the Al-Fayed's invitation to vacation with them that summer. It seems her life went out of her own control after that.

AfricanAUSSIE 08-12-2014 10:31 AM

And all this is just a snippet of her apparently complicated life I expect. I confess I am already exhausted! :wacko:

anbrida 08-12-2014 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1694813)
Diana was on her way to turning her life around after her divorce but she never got that shot. I just wish she didn't accept the Al-Fayed's invitation to vacation with them that summer. It seems her life went out of her own control after that.

To the contrary, I think every thing were under her own control except for the last day. Going to Paris was Dodi's idea. She wanted go home. She even told Richard Key on Aug 30, she wanted to get away from the paparrazi and thought "British people must be sick of seeing me in the newspaper".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-network.html

You are right. She was on a major change in her life when she died. Besides the ambassador role, filmmaking plan, she also wanted to open a world-wide hospice network. But do charity also need money, and Al-Fayed was one of the few people who was very generous to her and willing to help make her dream come true.

Moonmaiden23 08-12-2014 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1694706)
It was certainly well meant, but it never made any sense to me because there wasn't much behind it. What does it mean? Is the Queen "the peoples' Queen"? Who out of William and Harry is "the peoples' prince" or are they both? Is it the same as Pope francis being the people's pope?

The irritating thing for me was that Diana was allowing her life to be lived fully in the public eye, whereas I thought she was fed up with it. That last summer we saw her everywhere from Bosnian mine-fields to glamorous cruises in the Med to intimate dinners in Paris - all of it knowingly in the full glare of the media and it made no sense to me to live a double or triple life like that.

The horrors of mine-fields had to be highlighted and I'm glad she did it and I really do think that had she lived, her role in highlighting these terrible things was more valuable than we will ever know. But to turn around days later and live the jet-set life with a new boyfriend in tow and making odd statements like wait to see what I do next, sort of diminished the importance of her serious work.

As for Dodi, gawd only knows what she saw in him - I never understood it, but her taste in men was never great, bless her. But nonetheless, he may well have been right for her in the long run and we will never know - I wouldn't have objected to him as a new husband on any grounds other than his father being the way he is and interfering all the time.

I always hoped that had Diana lived, she would have ended up with a rich anthropologist or artist or someone a bit grounded who couldn't care less about the media.

Jacknch-you've perfectly articulated how I feel about the "people's princess" moniker and why I dislike it. Was the late, phenomenally popular Astrid Queen of the Belgians the People's Queen? She connected with average people too. Was JFK the People's President? Francis the People's Pope?

I wasn't meaning to denigrate Diana by saying that I found the title Blair gave her trite and meaningless. As unattractive as I sometimes found her methods and behavior, I was fascinated by Diana. Her death left me depressed for weeks.

Dman 08-12-2014 11:44 AM

Despite the troubles of her past, Diana was a beautiful light in this world and when it burned out, it was a great loss for everyone. She's been gone for a long time now but I still feel her loss as if it all happened yesterday.

Mermaid1962 08-12-2014 10:25 PM

Ah yes, but she was the mother of the future king and his brother. That is the difference. Had she been anyone else who married into the family, the situation would have been different.:flowers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1694693)
On itself Tony Blair bore no any responsibility for Diana Spencer. Exactly like today David Cameron is not at all responsible for Sarah Ferguson, Mark Phillips, Antony Armstrong-Jones or other former members of the royal family.

:flowers:


Mermaid1962 08-12-2014 10:31 PM

I was just reading Tina Brown's book earlier this evening. The place she wanted to visit was Northern Ireland because she thought that she "could sort people's heads out."


Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1694811)
July, 1997 Diana had a lunch with Tina Brown, in which she talked about her wish to visit China, because "I'm very good at sorting people's heads out." she said.


GracieGiraffe 08-12-2014 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE (Post 1694819)
And all this is just a snippet of her apparently complicated life I expect. I confess I am already exhausted! :wacko:

I completely agree.

Iluvbertie 08-13-2014 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1694736)
Well, the Queen did not at all strip anything from Diana. The late Diana was a HRH and a Princess by virtue of her marriage. With the end of the said marriage, Diana automatically lost these styles.


:flowers:


If it was automatic why did Sarah keep it from her divorce until the Queen issued the LPs?

and

Why did The Queen even have to issue the LPs that stripped both women of the HRH?

It actually wasn't automatic as seen with Sarah still using it from her divorce until Diana's divorce.

PetticoatLane 08-13-2014 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1694979)
I was just reading Tina Brown's book earlier this evening. The place she wanted to visit was Northern Ireland because she thought that she "could sort people's heads out."

Really?! As someone who was growing up in NI around that time, she clearly thought an awful lot of herself if she thought she could make any appreciable difference to the Troubles.

Clearly she was in need of a bit of a reality check at the time, in more ways than one.

Duc_et_Pair 08-13-2014 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1694998)
If it was automatic why did Sarah keep it from her divorce until the Queen issued the LPs?

and

Why did The Queen even have to issue the LPs that stripped both women of the HRH?

It actually wasn't automatic as seen with Sarah still using it from her divorce until Diana's divorce.

This was an uncovered and until then pretty unthinkable situation. "Divorced wives of British Princes? Good heavens!". It was assumed that marriages always ended by death and then the widow kept the style and titles of the deceased husband. To end all possible confusion about this, Queen Elizabeth decreed that any former wife (other than a widow until a remarriage) of a British Prince is not entitled to the style of a Royal Highness. (LP of August 21st 1996).

So Sarah and Diana were not "scrapped" from anything. They were no Princesses or Duchesses in their own right. With the end of their marriages also the use of their former husband's style and titles ended. The HRH is no title or a dignity, it is a style, a honorific, a form of address. Sarah and Diana were HRH by virtue of their marriages. They were no HRH anymore with the end of said marriages. To take away any possible confusion about that, Queen Elizabeth made it clear for once and for all.

:flowers:

anbrida 08-13-2014 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1694979)
I was just reading Tina Brown's book earlier this evening. The place she wanted to visit was Northern Ireland because she thought that she "could sort people's heads out."

I forgot to mentioned that. Tina Brown is a nasty lier. The country she wanted visit was China. It was printed in a 1997 article on The New Yorker magazine,written by Tina Brown herself. I can't find the link to that article now. But I have a copy. And you can read the following bbc article printed in 1997, which will tell you the country is China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/po...mbassador.html

Quote:

Asked about Mr Blair's accession to No 10, she said: "I think at last I will have someone who will know how to use me. He's told me he wants me to go on some missions."
Diana did not go into detail, but she said she would like to go to China and claimed: "I'm good at sorting people's heads out."
I can provide more articles about her trip to China, but they are in Chinese. :ermm:

In her book, Tina Brown did mention Diana'd been talking with David Tang on phone from the boat to arrange her visit to Hongkong. But she gave a nasty reason why Diana would like to visit China. Here is an extract from Tina Brown's book

Quote:

Tang was not a boyfriend, but Diana's new interest in China was also stoked by Gulu Lalvani. The fifty-eight-year old Hong Kong-based eletronics entrepeur.
That is such a nasty lie. Gulu Lalvani is an Indian. He has nothing to do with China. Tina Brown knew very clear why Diana would like to visit China, but she made it sound like it was all because of man

anbrida 08-13-2014 05:22 AM

Here is the link to 1997 Tina Brown's Newyorker article. The country printed there is China not North Ireland.

DIANA 1961-1997: THE PRINCES: ALL MY HOPES ARE ON WILLIAM NOW, I THINK HE HAS IT; Diana tells of pride for her son just weeks before death crash. - Free Online Library

anbrida 08-13-2014 07:15 PM

More surprising information here. According to the paparazi, Jason Fraser, who took the iconic pictures of the princess and Dodi Fayed kissing, it was Diana herself who asked the picture to be taken. And through the whole summer, Diana had been informing Fraser, when and where she was going to appear with Dodi and ask him to stand-by. Fraser said he was very relunctant to publish those picture himself, because he thought "they went worldwide and couldn’t shake off this sinking feeling that the Princess Diana bubble was about to burst", and he didn't want to "change people’s image of her". But he published it because "it was her wish".

Photographer Jason Fraser opens up on his special relationship with Princess Diana | Mail Online

Quote:

Earlier that summer, Diana had made a puzzling public announcement. ‘You’ll be shocked at what I do next’, she said teasingly.
Says Fraser, ‘Like everyone else, I was left scratching my head. I had no idea what she was talking about – or that it would later involve me.’

The over-riding feeling I had at that time was of great concern and fear that nothing would ever be the same again. I felt deeply uneasy at this responsibility.
‘The moment I had seen the pictures I* foresaw* the repercussions once they went worldwide and couldn’t shake off this sinking feeling that the Princess Diana bubble was about to burst.‘
Why, in that case, did Jason release the photographs at all?
Jason, now 46, says he was invited by Diana herself to photograph her holidaying with her lover Dodi in the last days before her death in Paris on August 31, 1997.
When he showed me the prints, we spread them out over the kitchen floor and we sat in silence. I didn’t know what to do. I knew that Diana had wanted them to be taken. But I knew nothing would ever the same again. I didn’t want to change people’s image of her.’
The final photographs of Diana, taken just a few days before her death, were shots of the princess lying next to Dodi on the top deck of the yacht while moored off Portofino. In the film, the scene is recreated in the movie by Naomi Watts, who plays Diana. She is also shown in the movie calling Fraser to tell him her whereabouts for these shots.
Recalls Jason: ‘She let me know she was going to be on a tender going out to the yacht. I think overall, she was happy with all the pictures taken that summer.’

‘So I told Diana that I was going back to London as there was little else for me to do. She agreed and said she’d be back there too in a day or so. But Dodi convinced her to stop over in Paris and to return to London the next day instead.’ It was a decision that would change the course of history.
Isn't it the whole senario very very odd. First, Diana went to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, to talk about Dodi, before she even met Dodi herself. Then she dump her boy friend, who in her close friends' eyes was her soul mate. Her boy friend was so mad about that he said to her "you are dead". Next, she asked the paparazzi to take a picture which would kind of kill her own reputation. There must be something very big going on in her mind, isn't it?

Tarlita 08-13-2014 07:41 PM

One of the many doco's I saw after her death suggested that Dodi's father manipulated his son to go after Diana to make him look good. This is when he was with Kelly. In other words Dodi was persuing Diana under orders from his father and Diana was using Dodi to make Hasnat Khan jealous. I never saw any great romance between the two, except for the deliberate touching done for the cameras. This by a couple who hardly knew each other.

Mermaid1962 08-14-2014 01:44 AM

Agreed. It was Tina Brown's opinion that Diana was delusional at this time, perhaps not clinically but certainly over-estimating her own abilities to an unhealthy degree. I saw a hint of this in her Panorama interview, actually. There was something very unsettling in her manner during the second half of the interview.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1695012)
Really?! As someone who was growing up in NI around that time, she clearly thought an awful lot of herself if she thought she could make any appreciable difference to the Troubles.

Clearly she was in need of a bit of a reality check at the time, in more ways than one.


Queen Camilla 08-14-2014 05:47 AM

I agree she had too high an opinion of herself and her abilities.

She clearly did not listen to the advise of others and only did want she wanted to do.

She wanted to visit China because she was good as sorting people's heads out. The first person who she needed to sort out was herself.

She was a divorced woman dating a muslim man. This would not have given her any credibility in the muslim world.

She did a PSA on landmines for the Red Cross and suddenly she thought she was a film maker.

She was still pursuing a film about HIV in India after the Indian high commissioner in London told her not to do the film.
This would have destroyed any chance of her being a good will ambassador.

Dman 08-14-2014 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1695208)
I agree she had too high an opinion of herself and her abilities.

She clearly did not listen to the advise of others and only did want she wanted to do.

She wanted to visit China because she was good as sorting people's heads out. The first person who she needed to sort out was herself.

She was a divorced woman dating a muslim man. This would not have given her any credibility in the muslim world.

She did a PSA on landmines for the Red Cross and suddenly she thought she was a film maker.

She was still pursuing a film about HIV in India after the Indian high commissioner in London told her not to do the film.
This would have destroyed any chance of her being a good will ambassador.

Despite Diana's own past problems, she was pretty good at helping other people. She didn't think too highly of herself. She knew she had the ability to help other people and she had the status and the world stage platform to do so.

US Royal Watcher 08-14-2014 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1695208)
I agree she had too high an opinion of herself and her abilities.

She clearly did not listen to the advise of others and only did want she wanted to do.

She wanted to visit China because she was good as sorting people's heads out. The first person who she needed to sort out was herself.

She was a divorced woman dating a muslim man. This would not have given her any credibility in the muslim world.

She did a PSA on landmines for the Red Cross and suddenly she thought she was a film maker.

She was still pursuing a film about HIV in India after the Indian high commissioner in London told her not to do the film.
This would have destroyed any chance of her being a good will ambassador.

Islam does not prohibit remarriage for divorced women, although her potential role as an ambassador would have been greatly compromised if she had married either Dodi Fayed or Hasnat Khan. The Muslim world would have welcomed her if she had converted, but there would have been a lot of controversy in non-Muslim countries. If she hadn't converted but had a child, it would have created controversy pretty much everywhere.

Regardless, it seems as though Blair was willing to consider using her as an ambassador. I assume he was thinking of using her on a charm offensive but she wouldn't have been used to "sort people's heads out." Diana was living in a dream world if truly thought her personal charmed would have resolved the serious and complicated issues involved in the UK's relations with China.

If Blair had used her, it would have been in the same role she had while she was married to Charles. Charming world leaders, but not trying to negotiate or "sort out" anything.

I don't think even that would have worked out. I think Blair underestimated her stubborn streak. Diana would have become very difficult to control freed from the constraints of the palace. For example, after the Panorama interview, she went to Argentina in an attempt to demonstrate her abilities. The problem was the British government did not want her to go. (The relationship between the UK and Argentina was still strained after the Falkland's War). No prime minister would want an ambassador who can't follow a script.

Dman 08-14-2014 01:17 PM

Had Diana became an official or unofficial ambassador, she would've did what was asked of her.

Duc_et_Pair 08-14-2014 01:32 PM

Of course, as any other official or inofficial ambassador, see Sharon Stone, see Audrey Hepburn, see any other celebrity who is asked for such a role.

Alexey 1904 08-14-2014 02:44 PM

The Duke of Windsor was 77 or 78 when he died. He lived in Paris. Diana was just visiting. She was to return the day after the accident to see her sons. Mohamed al Fayed had just bought the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's Paris house. Diana was thinking of moving to the US and buying Julie Andrew's house for herself and her sons, so they would be out of the limelight in London and fit right in with the other Hollywood stars.

sndral 08-18-2014 04:34 AM

I don't think the conversation about Dodi occurred on 7/6 for two reasons:
1) William was with her and I would hope Blair would not have had the type of conversation he describes in William's presence
2) Diana had not yet met Dodi, there was no relationship to discuss.
I would assume that there was a later meeting w/ Blair between 7/20-30, when she was mostly back in England and had by then begun the affair with Dodi and that she disclosed the relationship to assess it's impact on the role she was trying to create for herself.
Alternatively at the 7/6 meeting they may have discussed her upcoming vacation with the Fayads which as she was taking the boys Blair may not have liked and she may have known she was going to meet Dodi, and she may have been speaking in general 'what if' terms.

Duc_et_Pair 08-18-2014 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexey 1904 (Post 1695284)
The Duke of Windsor was 77 or 78 when he died. He lived in Paris. Diana was just visiting. She was to return the day after the accident to see her sons. Mohamed al Fayed had just bought the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's Paris house. [....]

Mr Al Fayed did not buy the house. It always was (and still is) property of the Ville de Paris (the city of Paris). The house in the Bois de Boulogne was rented to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. After the death of the Duchess, Mr Al Fayed became the new tenant. The Ville de Paris agreed on a low rent but in return Mr Al Fayed had to renovate the property on his account.

:flowers:

The villa: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...t4-blog480.jpg

Duc_et_Pair 08-18-2014 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexey 1904 (Post 1695284)
[...] Diana was thinking of moving to the US and buying Julie Andrew's house for herself and her sons, so they would be out of the limelight in London and fit right in with the other Hollywood stars.

It is out of the question that two of the direct Heirs are living outside Her Majesty's many Realms. Their path would go to Eton, an university and then the military.

There is also a contradiction between trying to get out of the limelight and then to fit right in with Hollywood stars, if you ask me....

:flowers:

wyevale 08-18-2014 06:44 AM

Quote:

so they would be out of the limelight in London and fit right in with the other Hollywood stars.
As Duc et Pair says.. it is inconceivable that the princes would have been permitted to live outside the realms, away from their father and family, and subject to the vagaries of their mothers somewhat erratic lovelife.
Also they are NOT 'Hollywood stars', and it would be hard to imagine a more malign group of individuals to bring them up with [given the path their lives are set to follow.]

Lee-Z 08-18-2014 06:42 PM

OT, but i've been watching a bit much "Downton Abbey" lately, and i can just imagine the face of Lady Granthem, the dowager Countess, had she heard the words "British princes" and "other hollywood stars" in the same sentence :lol:

Mermaid1962 08-18-2014 07:08 PM

:previous::rofl::flowers:

anbrida 08-20-2014 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1695188)
Agreed. It was Tina Brown's opinion that Diana was delusional at this time, perhaps not clinically but certainly over-estimating her own abilities to an unhealthy degree. I saw a hint of this in her Panorama interview, actually. There was something very unsettling in her manner during the second half of the interview.

Must "sort out people's head" mean solve the problem between two countries ultimately? The sentence itself was quite ambiguous. It can mean change people's hostile attitude, right?

I do believe Tony Blair wanted to use her to send friendly message to the host country, to warm up the air. Such that a formal visit by formal officials become possible. Most of the time the relationship between two countries are so tense that, any dialogue are impossible. In this case, Diana can put a good contribution to break the ice.

Which manner of her make you feel she was unsettling? Can you get into details. Without detailed explanation, such blind talk is quite meaningless. It will only make people feel you have prejudice against her.

Here is the definition of prejudice
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

anbrida 08-20-2014 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 1695953)
I don't think the conversation about Dodi occurred on 7/6 for two reasons:
1) William was with her and I would hope Blair would not have had the type of conversation he describes in William's presence
2) Diana had not yet met Dodi, there was no relationship to discuss.
I would assume that there was a later meeting w/ Blair between 7/20-30, when she was mostly back in England and had by then begun the affair with Dodi and that she disclosed the relationship to assess it's impact on the role she was trying to create for herself.
Alternatively at the 7/6 meeting they may have discussed her upcoming vacation with the Fayads which as she was taking the boys Blair may not have liked and she may have known she was going to meet Dodi, and she may have been speaking in general 'what if' terms.

Tony Blair didn't give the date. The date was given by Alasstair Compbell's diary "The Blair Year". And the article written by Richard Kay also gives the date

TONY BLAIR'S MEMOIRS: Did he really warn Diana about Dodi? | Mail Online

William was at present, but when Blair and Diana had the talk, they were alone, and all the other people were playing football.

Tony Blair had emphasize in his book that was the LAST meeting he had with Diana, there was no other follow-up meeting.

Diana wasn't seeing Dodi at that time. But she was introduced to him by her step-mother in the spring. I think her step-mother wanted to set them up. So Diana come to Tony Blair for advice.

But Tony Blair's answer was really disappointing. He said Dodi was a problem, but it was not due to his nationality, religion or background. And he said he never met him, only know he was a good son and a nice guy, but he still feel Dodi was a problem. In one words, he didn't know why, but Dodi was a problem. This is a very disappointing answer, because it was equivalent to tell Diana, "I have a prejudice against this guy". No wonder Diana wouldn't take his advice, to the contrary, more determined to have a try with Dodi. Diana hated prejudice.

Prejudice -- preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

BTW, "a good son" here was referring to Dodi's devotion to his mother, he would telephone her almost every day up to her death. Dodi once told a friend: "If it meant giving up everything I have—cars, wealth, and women—I would do it to bring my mother back."

Samira Khashoggi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jacknch 08-20-2014 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1696365)
Tony Blair didn't give the date. The date was given by Alasstair Compbell's diary "The Blair Year". And the article written by Richard Kay also gives the date

TONY BLAIR'S MEMOIRS: Did he really warn Diana about Dodi? | Mail Online

William was at present, but when Blair and Diana had the talk, they were alone, and all the other people were playing football.

Tony Blair had emphasize in his book that was the LAST meeting he had with Diana, there was no other follow-up meeting.

Diana wasn't seeing Dodi at that time. But she was introduced to him by her step-mother in the spring. I think her step-mother wanted to set them up. So Diana come to Tony Blair for advice.

But Tony Blair's answer was really disappointing. He said Dodi was a problem, but it was not due to his nationality, religion or background. And he said he never met him, only know he was a good son and a nice guy, but he still feel Dodi was a problem. In one words, he didn't know why, but Dodi was a problem. This is a very disappointing answer, because it was equivalent to tell Diana, "I have a prejudice against this guy". No wonder Diana wouldn't take his advice, to the contrary, more determined to have a try with Dodi. Diana hated prejudice.

I am afraid Mr Blair's answers are and always have been disappointing and I would't believe a single word he says, written or otherwise. It's all a load of old codswallop! Dodi a problem? Why then? You can't tell someone to stay away fro someone else without a proper reason and worse still write about it years later and still not give a proper reason. :bang:

Duc_et_Pair 08-20-2014 11:27 AM

Mr Blair bore no any responsibility for Diana whatsoever, like Mr Cameron bears no responsibility for Sarah or for Mark Phillips, to name some ex-spouses to royals. That is why it is hard to imagine that Mr Blair would be "warning" Diana for people she mingled with. It was none of his business at all and I can not imagine a British Prime Minister, ruled by his demandig agenda, making the time for this sort of futilities as private flings of former royal spouses.

:flowers:

Mermaid1962 08-20-2014 05:25 PM

Quite the opposite actually. I idolized and adored Diana. I thought she was the perfect princess. She had my sympathy in "the War of the Walses."

However, during the Panorama interview, I got my first feelings that things weren't as they seemed. As I listened to the second part of the interview in particular, she took a different tone. I'm used to being around people who aren't quite "in the real world", people who think that they have superior abilities almost like "superpowers." In Diana's interview, she struck me as being like one of those individuals. There was something in her tone and manner that didn't seem "normal" to me. I can't quote her line by line; I can only tell you my impression at the time.

Her manner made me uncomfortable on an emotional level. It wasn't even necessarily what she said. It was more in her attitude.

It took me by surprise, actually. I certainly had no "prejudice" as you put it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1696361)
Which manner of her make you feel she was unsettling? Can you get into details. Without detailed explanation, such blind talk is quite meaningless. It will only make people feel you have prejudice against her.

Here is the definition of prejudice
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."


Mermaid1962 08-20-2014 05:27 PM

Agreed. He's been discredited in many people's eyes. I wouldn't necessarily believe what he says either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1696414)
I am afraid Mr Blair's answers are and always have been disappointing and I would't believe a single word he says, written or otherwise.


Dman 08-20-2014 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1696500)
Quite the opposite actually. I idolized and adored Diana. I thought she was the perfect princess. She had my sympathy in "the War of the Walses."

However, during the Panorama interview, I got my first feelings that things weren't as they seemed. As I listened to the second part of the interview in particular, she took a different tone. I'm used to being around people who aren't quite "in the real world", people who think that they have superior abilities almost like "superpowers." In Diana's interview, she struck me as being like one of those individuals. There was something in her tone and manner that didn't seem "normal" to me. I can't quote her line by line; I can only tell you my impression at the time.

Her manner made me uncomfortable on an emotional level. It wasn't even necessarily what she said. It was more in her attitude.

It took me by surprise, actually. I certainly had no "prejudice" as you put it.

Yeah, that Panorama interview came about during the darkest periods in Diana's life and a very painful time as well. It was an interview that she regretted later on.

There are no perfect princesses and there never was.

wyevale 08-20-2014 05:39 PM

IMO neither Mr Blair nor the late Princess of Wales EVER deserved the widespread adulation they received.. both developed a nauseating taste and talent for self-publicism and care[d] little for the damage this addiction caused to institutions or individuals.
Unfortunately Mr Blair is still around to wreak further havoc...

Dman 08-20-2014 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 1696506)
IMO neither Mr Blair nor the late Princess of Wales EVER deserved the widespread adulation they received.. both developed a nauseating taste and talent for self-publicism and care[d] little for the damage this addiction caused to institutions or individuals.
Unfortunately Mr Blair is still around to wreak further havoc...

Despite her mistakes, I think Diana was a wonderful Princess of Wales and had a real connection with the people. Parts of her private life sucked big time but her official public life and roles were great.

anbrida 08-21-2014 08:09 AM

Does anyone really believe, Tony Blair would make up a lie, which involved a woman who died 13 years ago (A Journey was published in 2010), only for the purpose of publicism? It is ridiculous. Not to mention how immoral it is to do such thing, just think about what is the possible consequence. He didn't disclosed this story any where else, he disclosed this in his own autobiography, a book which will be used to define his year as the prime minister and to judge him as a person in the history. How could he make up such a unnecessary lie in such an important book, giving people a chance to claim him a lair in the history?

I firmly believe such conversation did exist. He is a former Prime Minister, not a Global magazine writer.

So what was the purpose he would disclose this story right now. I think one of the post here is already very close to the point. “can any one imagine a British Prime Minister, ruled by his demanding agenda, making the time for this sort of futilities as private flings of former royal spouses?”. So either the talk never happened, or it was not only a summer fling but a very serious relationship, so serious that Diana would want to consult with Prime Minister. Why she would consult with him? it was not because the Prime Minister had any responsibility to give advice for an ex-royal spouse, it was because at that time they were in a cooperative relationship. Tony Blair wanted her to be an informal Ambassador, so her image (not in Britain, but in those possible host countries) was important to this role.

Have any one ever wondered why he only disclosed what he had said, but said nothing about what Diana had said?
After Diana died, everyone including her close friends said she was not serious with Dodi, it was just a summer fling, it was her way to make Hasnat Khan jealousy. If what Diana told Blair was the same to this version of story, there is no need to hide the content of conversation, right? I think Tony Blair didn't want to disclose what Diana had said, was because what she had said was different to the most popular story the public was told.


In an interview Tony Blair once talked about one of his purposes for the book,
“You wouldn't be human if you didn't feel both a sense of responsibility and a deep sadness for those who have lost their lives. That responsibility stays with me now, and will stay with me for the rest of my life. “
After Diana died, he might be the only one who knew the truth, and the truth he knew was very different to the story the public were told (Actually I really think the story of making Hasnat Khan jealousy story very ridiculous) . So he felt the responsibility to say something, but couldn't disclose all of them, because Al-Fayed is still alive, and till this day he still believes his son and Diana were murdered because they were to marry. If Tony came out and say something which supports Al-Fayed's marriage claim, then the Diana' law case might start-over again.

Mirabel 08-21-2014 09:12 AM

I have always found it impossible to believe Diana would ever, ever have married a man like Dodi Fayed!

(No matter how much she may have wanted to spite Charles, she was a product of her class and upbringing, and I just can't buy that she ever took that relationship seriously! )

Duc_et_Pair 08-21-2014 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1696608)
I have always found it impossible to believe Diana would ever, ever have married a man like Dodi Fayed!

(No matter how much she may have wanted to spite Charles, she was a product of her class and upbringing, and I just can't buy that she ever took that relationship seriously! )

Why would she never have taken that relationship seriously? Seeing the fact that she holidayed with Dodi, even in the presence of her children, seems an indication for the seriousness of that relationship. Diana also took Hasnat Khan very seriously. And James Hewitt. And Barry Mannakee. And James Gilbey. And Oliver Hoare. All of them have enjoyed the pleasure to be allowed in the most private lifesphere of the (once) future Queen of the United Kingdom.

Dman 08-21-2014 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1696615)
Why would she never have taken that relationship seriously? Seeing the fact that she holidayed with Dodi, even in the presence of her children, seems an indication for the seriousness of that relationship. Diana also took Hasnat Khan very seriously. And James Hewitt. And Barry Mannakee. And James Gilbey. And Oliver Hoare. All of them have enjoyed the pleasure to be allowed in the most private lifesphere of the (once) future Queen of the United Kingdom.

Except for Hasnat and James, the others were just rumors but no hard proof of relationships.

Moonmaiden23 08-21-2014 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1696519)
Despite her mistakes, I think Diana was a wonderful Princess of Wales and had a real connection with the people. Parts of her private life sucked big time but her official public life and roles were great.

I agree. If you never knew anything at all about her private life she would be considered beyond reproach. From the beginning of her time as Princess of Wales she carried out her public duties with dedication and true compassion.

In that respect, she was amazing.

Duc_et_Pair 08-21-2014 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1696627)
I agree. If you never knew anything at all about her private life she would be considered beyond reproach. [....]

That is exactly why there needs to be a certain distance between the public and the monarchy. That is the so called "shadow of the throne". This distance keeps the magic, the extraordinary, the specialness of the monarchy.

The closer it all comes, not only by exposing all what is private but also making your classmate, your roommate, your fitness club trainer or the lady who daily came into your living room presenting the news "royal", the distance has completely gone. The difference between a"celeb" and a royal has become totally blurred. Diana was -unwanted or wanted- the motor behind destroying this so necessary distance.

Dman 08-21-2014 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1696627)
I agree. If you never knew anything at all about her private life she would be considered beyond reproach. From the beginning of her time as Princess of Wales she carried out her public duties with dedication and true compassion.

In that respect, she was amazing.

I agree and I think her future was bright. I think after those hard and hurtful years of her private life, there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Sadly, her life was taken when she was very young, full of energy and purpose. I and so many others miss her dearly, but I know her children and family miss her even more.

Queen Camilla 08-22-2014 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1695020)

Thanks for posting the article.

IMO, this article states it was Diana's idea to visit China not Blair's.

She was still attacking Charles just 2 months before she died.
"He was born to the wrong job."

Her only accurate statement about herself.
"I have so much baggage."

anbrida 08-31-2014 01:04 PM

Here I wanted to present my analysis and understanding of Diana's behavior, motivation and the true nature of her relationship with Dodi. The post is very long, and it has to be very long, because the story is so complicated. But it was still short, compared to the time I spent to reach to this final conclusion (it has been 17 years since her death).

I think Diana got in the relationship with Dodi with the purpose of marriage from the very beginning. But it was not out of real affection or love. I think she got the inspiration from Jacqueline*Kennedy. She talked about Dodi with Tony Blair as early as July 6, when she had not even met him. Could she have any real feeling for Dodi at that time? Definitely not, they were not even seeing each other then. Could it be just a fling? Definitely not, you won't talk about your fling with another man with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister wouldn't have time to talk about that with you. The fact is not only Tony Blair had spent a substantial time to talk about Dodi with her, but also he included this talk in his own biography.

It was a serious relationship with the purpose for a marriage. However, as far as Diana was concerned, it was not out of real feeling or real affection not to mention love. That explains why the relationship can progress in such a tornado speed – Their first formal date was a dinner in Paris on July 26, then on Aug 2, she kissed him openly, and by Aug 13, she'd already given him her father's cufflinks. Since real feeling, real love were not her main consideration with respect to this relationship, the courtship should be as short as possible. Just like the courtship between she and Charles – Charles had only dated her 13 times before he proposed to her.

Quote:

August 13, Diana saw Dodi again and gave her father's cufflinks to Dodi. She wrote about the gift: "Darling Dodi, these cufflinks were the very last gift that I received from the man I loved most in the world, my father. They are given to you as I know how much joy it would give him to know they were in such safe and special hands. Fondest love, from Diana." This is a strong indication of a very serious relationship.
However that relationship was not going smooth. On Aug 15, Kelly Fisher, Dodi's (rumor) engaged girlfriend, filed a lawsuit against Dodi Fayed for breaking off their engagement. But at that time Diana was on vacation with Rosa on a small boat (Aug 15-Aug 20), it had a delay for the news to reach her. She still went for another vacation with Dodi on Aug 21st. But obviously Kelly Fisher's incident had changed her plan FOR A WHILE. I think finally she believed that Dodi was two-timing her. From Aug 23 to Aug 29, she had phoned more than 5 friends, telling them “there is nothing between she and Dodi”, “she and Dodi were just friends”, “I need marriage just like a rash on my face”. It seems the relationship was about to be over to this point.

But on Aug 29, the relationship came across a big U-turn. On Aug 29, Diana called Paul Burrel to inform him a change in her trip. Originally, she planned to flight back to London directly from southern France, now suddenly she decided to go with Dodi to Paris on Aug 30 before coming back to London. She informed Paul Burrel the change at such a late moment, it was very likely a last-minute change of plan. Also on Aug 29, according to the Diana's inquiry report, Dodi told his legal adviser “he had 'very exciting news' regarding him and Diana. And as a result of the 'very exciting news' he had a number of things which he would need to discuss with his legal adviser on Sep 1st.” And at the same night, Diana called William, during which according to the Queen's cousin, they had a row.

I think there must be something unexpected happened on the later day of Aug 29, which made Diana change her plan of trip, which was related to the “very exciting news” in Dodi's eyes, which was important enough that Diana had to called William and which William was obviously not very fond of. And I think Dodi wanted to talk to his legal adviser in such a hurry, is because he wanted to settle down Kelly Fisher's law suit as soon as possible.

It is highly likely that the unexpected thing happened on Aug 29 was the hospice plan Diana talked about in a phone call to Richard Kay on Aug 30. The phone call lasted around 30 minutes at around 6:30pm. Diana told Kay she was discussing with Mr Al-Fayed the possibility of setting up a worldwide hospice network, which Al-Fayed would be prepare to financially underwrite. She'd never mentioned such a plan with anyone before Aug 29.

Quote:

“It was to be a very major announcement. It was something she wanted to do, rather than things that other people wanted her to do. “

“It was such an important development that she was going to stop taking on royal engagement after the end of 1997." “Perhaps my destiny is to go abroad,” she told Kay.
It would be too insensitive to think that the hospice plan, her last-minute change of her trip plan, Dodi's exciting news regarding their relationship, and her phone call to William are independent events. After receiving such a big gift from Al-fayed, could she just turn around and run away from his son? No. The problem is how she was going to return the favor? Al Fayed offered such a generous package at the end of the summer holiday season, his intention was very obvious. That was his last attempt to woe her. The consequence of accepting this hospice plan, obviously, was Dodi's “very exciting news” – a big development in their relationship, and their trip to Paris. And this development in their relationship was important enough that she had to talked to William first. It was not hard to understand why William was not fond of it.

She said the hospice plan was still in discussion, but it seems there was no time for discussing at all. Because a major announcement was going to make, and she was going to stop taking on royal engagement because of that. The decision was already made, in a very short time.

However even though she had accepted that gift, it doesn't mean there would be an announcement of engagement right away, at least not before Kelly Fisher's law suite was settled down. That explains why Dodi was in such a hurry to see his legal adviser. But the intention was strong. If you look at the cctv footage when she and Dodi were waiting for the Mercedes car at the lobby of Ritz Hotel, their movements and demeanor could not come from a couple about to break up next day at all. At one point, Dodi even kissed her ear as he draws her closer. It was not only a proof of love (at least from Dodi to her), but also showed that Dodi'd already treated her as his woman. (Part One End)

anbrida 08-31-2014 01:08 PM

(Part Two) I know it was an odd decision to a lot of people. But I think it was a natural decision from Diana. At around Aug 21st,1997, right in the middle of her series vacations, she gave her last interview to a French Magazine, Le Monde. At the end of the interviews, she said the following words,

Quote:

“Nothing gives me greater happiness that trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny. I will run to anyone who calls to me in distress, wherever it is”.
If put these sentences into the context of a series of decisions she made around that time, they sort of explain what was in her mind behind these decisions in that summer. Generally speaking, it told us how much she was willing to devote herself to her humanitarian work. Since nothing could gives her greater happiness than her work, the underlying meaning is she considered her work more important than her man. However, she used the phase “from now on” here, which means the decision of such devotion was made recently. Therefore, I reckon that the reason she broke up with Hasnat Khan, and got into the relationship with Dodi, was because “from now on” she decided that she should seek her ultimate happiness from her work rather than her man. Because “it's a sort of (her) destiny”. I think at that time she was very disappointed with what had happened in her personal life. When you tried and tried, and still can not see the light, then you would believe it is due to destiny. These disappointments had finally driven her to believe that it was her fate she could only achieve real happiness from her work.

Therefore one of the reason I think she wanted to marry Dodi was to settle down herself and give a period mark to her very disappointing search of personal love. No hope then no disappointment. Without the distraction of her personal life, she could devote to her work with her whole heart and from there she should seek her greatest happiness. That was her plan. Moreover although Dodi was very likely not her true love, he could help her to make films to support her causes, he could provide her enough fund to make her dream of the hospices network come true. According to her own words, Dodi would be the man who could gave her the greatest happiness. With this hindsight, the decision she made at the end of her life was very reasonable and natural. She wanted to marry a man who gave her the greatest happiness, a very fair decision, right? No wonder she would have made the decision to accept the hospices plan in such a short time.

If marry Dodi, she would finally have a chance to move abroad too. This is another fundamental factor. In her last interview (Aug 21st,1997), she implied strongly that she wanted to move abroad. The reason she had not yet done so was because of her sons. I reckon that when she meant her sons, she meant her sons' security problem'. In June, Rosa once asked her why she would accept Al Fayed's invitation for vacation, the reason she gave was because Al Fayed had a big security team to protect her sons, which solved a big headache of hers. In her phone call to Richard Kay on Aug 30 she said “Perhaps my destiny is to move abroad” again, which I think was another strong indication of marriage. (Part Two End)

anbrida 08-31-2014 01:13 PM

(Part 3) Here is my conclusion. From the beginning, Diana get in the relationship with Dodi for the purpose of a marriage. But Kelly Fisher's incident changed her mind for a while. However at the end, the hospices plan pulled her back to the relationship. But it was not personal love she was seeking for from this relationship, to the contrary, she wanted to bury it. She wanted to find a man who could give her most help in her work, which she believed would give her the greatest happiness. Moving abroad is another thing she was seeking for from the relationship. (And her last interview also gives me a fairly strong impression that Dodi being a Muslim was another factor she would have picked him.)

This is my analysis of course. But this analysis could explain several things also. It explains why the old Al-Fayed would have been so persistently and stubbornly sticking to the marriage story through the whole span of Diana's law case. No one can be so persistent, if he didn't even believe it himself. Think about how much money and time he had spent on it.

It somehow explains the vague words Tony Blair spoke to Alastair Campbell on the night she died. I think it was because he knew her real motivation to be with Dodi (It makes me more suspicious that Dodi being a Muslim was an important factor. Tony Blair's words sounds like not only she wanted to marry a Muslim, but also to have a child with a Muslim. I hope one day Blair would finally tell us what Diana had talked to him during their meeting)

Quote:

“He felt that it (the accident) happened as she was fairly close to the height of her appeal. Dodi was probably a step too far for a lot of people. Had she got married, had another child maybe, she'd have started to fall in popularity. But this will confirm her as a real icon.'' – Extract from Alastair Campbell's diary “The Blair's years” on the night Diana died
It also explains why after 13 years Tony Blair still felt the need to mention his talk with Diana about Dodi during the July 6 meeting in his biography, but without giving any substantial details. I think he didn't like the stories the public has been told about Diana and Dodi's relationship, but he couldn't speak it out loud his opinion, because Al Fayed is still alive.

anbrida 09-02-2014 01:00 AM

Here is an extract of her own words from the last interview she had ever done. It took place on Aug 21st, 1997 in Kensington Palace, and published on Aug 27th 1997 on a French Magazine Le Monde. The following words gives me a very strong impression that Dodi being a Muslim was a factor in her consideration.

Quote:

"From the first day I jointed that family, nothing could be done naturally any more.

"I feel close to people, whoever they are. We're immediately at the same level, on the same wavelength. That's why I upset certain circles. It's because I'm much closer to the people at the bottom than the people at the top, and the latter won't forgive me for it. I have a real feeling of closeness with the most humble people. My father always taught me to treat everyone as an equal. I've always done so, and I'm sure that Harry and William will follow in my footsteps.

"Being constantly in the public eye gives me a special responsibility, particularly that of using the impact of photographs to transmit a message, to sensitize the world to an important cause, to defend certain values."
She said because she was closer to the people at the bottom, the people from the top won't forgive her for it. Notice that she used a very strong phase “won't forgive” here. I wonder what kind of bottom people she was closing to at that time, to the the extent that the upper people won't forgive her? An very easy guess is she was referring her intimate relationship with Muslim man. Her own mother France Shand called her a “whore” on a phone call in June 1997, when she found out Diana was in a serious relationship with Muslim man. She said she was messing around with f****** Muslim men and she was disgraceful. And meanwhile Hasnat Khan had been receiving unnamed black mail threatening to take his life.

If she was an ordinary woman, I don't think dating a Muslim man would be a big issue. However, due to her status as the mother of the future King, some people especially the people of her heretical class might think of her as a disgrace to the country.

Here is my understanding the what she meant in the first two paragraphs:

From the first day she joined the Royal family, she couldn't do any thing in a natural way, such as dating any man she wanted to be with regardless of religion or background. Some people from the top were unhappy of her choice of man. However her father had always taught her to treat everyone as an equal. This was her own rule of life which she always followed. And she believed that her children would follow the same rule. (Here I think she was implying that she believed her sons would support her on this matter that her partner's religion and background wouldn't be a problem to them. That was most important to her.)

And then she talked about how she would use her photograph to achieve something. Not long before this interview was conducted, she invited a paparazzi herself to take the take the “kiss” picture. Her action was so weird that even the paparazzi himself felt very confused. What was her purpose?

She gave three reasons to use the impact of photographs: transmit a message, to sensitize the world to an important cause, to defend certain values. “Transmit a message” is a general purpose. “Sensitize the world to an important cause” are referring to her photos of touching Aids, leprosy people, or holding a landmine. Then what photo is corresponding to “defend certain values”?

What value was she trying to defend? What value has to be defended? What value was under challenging at that time? From the context of her words and her action around that time, it is most likely that she was talking about the value “everyone as an equal”. It was her typical way to do things. If she wanted to lift the prejudice against some particular group of people in the society, like aids, she would go to “touch” these people herself and show the world, “see, if the Princess of Wales can do it, you can do it too.” This is the way I perceive her motivation behind the “kiss” photo, that is to defend the value that “everyone as an equal”.

Perhaps, Dodi was not happened to be a Muslim, but must be a Muslim. That was her way to defend her value “everyone as an equal”.

KittyAtlanta 09-02-2014 01:02 PM

I know some are still interested, but after 17 years of rehashing the Diana/Dodi relationship, I'm worn out. We will never know. Your interpretation seems far too simplistic, IMO. I even disagree that she would have ever married Dodi...she had too much to lose.

Moonmaiden23 09-02-2014 01:29 PM

I agree KittyAtlanta....on ALL points!

Osipi 09-02-2014 01:31 PM

On the subject of Diana and Muslim men, I really don't see that there would be really any problems on Diana's side should she have decided to marry someone of the Islam faith. The problem that would arise would have been more so with the family she was marrying into. I believe Diana did go and meet Hasnat Khan's family and IIRC, they weren't overly enthused about her. It was eventually the baggage of fame and publicity that came with Diana that made Dr. Khan think twice.

It would have been quite different I think with Dodi's family. Dodi's father, Mr. Al Fayed had been seeking admittance to the higher echelons of British society for years (even to the point of buying a Scottish castle) and I have suspicions that it was his machinations that pushed Diana and Dodi together. That would have been quite a coup for him.

Mermaid1962 09-02-2014 02:45 PM

The Khans wanted Hasnat to marry someone of his own tribe.

Like you, I think that it was Dodi's father who was "pulling the strings". He controlled Dodi's finances. It was he who told Dodi to come on the holiday when Diana was with them. It was he who ultimately gave the "okay" to the security arrangements the night of the crash. All his dreams, as well as his son's life, came to an end that tragic night.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1699037)
It would have been quite different I think with Dodi's family. Dodi's father, Mr. Al Fayed had been seeking admittance to the higher echelons of British society for years (even to the point of buying a Scottish castle) and I have suspicions that it was his machinations that pushed Diana and Dodi together. That would have been quite a coup for him.


sthreats 09-02-2014 05:10 PM

I've been reading this thread and I think we are reaching here. I really don't think Diana was trying to prove any great points or defend any values by going out with Dodi. She evidently was attracted to men of color: Oliver Hoare had an Egyptian background, Hasant Khan and then Dodi. I think she had some attraction to him and calling the press for the staged kiss photograph accomplished two goals : 1. put a nose up at her ex-husband and 2. to make Hasant Khan, whom she really did love, jealous. Dodi did not have a good reputation ultimately entire relationship was a disaster.

I do agree that society had a problem with her going out with a man of color. I also think the non Christian religion bothered people.

I don't know why Tony Blair is stating anything about any of this in his book other than to increase sales. In the many books and articles that I have been reading for the past ten years about Diana, I never got the impression that he was a great confidant.

wyevale 09-02-2014 05:20 PM

Essentially Blair is an opportunist, and [like St Diana] a consummate self-publicist...as well as a PROVEN liar. He knew that the mere mention of her name would sell books, and give him kudos...

sthreats 09-02-2014 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 1699117)
Essentially Blair is an opportunist, and [like St Diana] a consummate self-publicist...as well as a PROVEN liar. He knew that the mere mention of her name would sell books, and give him kudos...


Agree 100 percent



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

anbrida 09-03-2014 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1699034)
I know some are still interested, but after 17 years of rehashing the Diana/Dodi relationship, I'm worn out. We will never know. Your interpretation seems far too simplistic, IMO. I even disagree that she would have ever married Dodi...she had too much to lose.

She had too much to lose? What can she lose? reputation? I think she more concerned with her character than her reputation.

Quote:

"Be more concerned whit your character than your reputation because your character is what really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are!"
That was a memorandum she propped on her desk. And loss of "reputation" was not neccesary a bad thing to her. Less "reputation" less paparazzi.

If marry Dodi, she had much more to gain. Moving abroad. That was her dream for years. She had been talking about this to many people for many years. She couldn't before, because her sons' security problem. With Dodi, it became a possible. And this "abroad" is not necessary very far away. Paris is very close to London. Actually I guess Diana'd already discussed this possibility to Charles. In no way she would have brought the princes to vacation with the Al-Fayed family without consulting Charles. And around the time she accepted the Fayed's invitation, she suddenly started to call him "my husband" again. I think she got a very contenting answer from him. Since the princes spend most time in the boarding school. I don't think Charles would be so cruel to object the princes spent their weekends with their mother in France. He knew how impossible her life was in Britain.

If marry Dodi, she could do the hospices things which would give her most happiness. And Dodi can help her make films to support her causes. She might not be in love with Dodi, but she could get her happiness somewhere else. She said this herself, and did this herself. With words and actions, do we still need more evidence.

Quote:

"Nothing gives me greater happiness than trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny." -Aug 21st, 1997
Quote:

"She told me that she was discussing with Mr Al Fayed the possibility of setting up some sort of worldwide hospice network which she indicated he would be prepared to financially underwrite. It was to be a very major announcement. It was something she wanted to do, rather than things that other people wanted her to do. It was such an important development that she was going to stop taking on royal engagements after the end of 1997"-- Richard Kay's testimony to the jury about their phone call on Aug 30, 1997.
(Obviously the hospices thing -- taking care of the dying was her favorite of favorites, because "it was something she wanted to do, rather than things (charities) that other people wanted her to do. ")

My interpretation was too simplistic? Could you tell me which part of my interpreation is too simplistic or illogic or doesn't make sense. I really like to have a substantial discussion. I can not accept your comment if you don't provide any reason. You said I am rehashing Diana/Dodi relationship. However no one has ever provided a reasonable interpretation of their relationship, based on facts or logic. How can I rehash anything, if there is nothing there to be rehashed at all. No I am not rehashing anything. I am the FIRST one trying to give an interpretation.

Unless you really believe that truely simplistic and stupid interpretation like "making Hasnat Khan jealousy".

Yeah, Diana and Tony Blair together spent a long time discussing how to make Hasnat Khan jealousy, for this they even had an arguement. The argument between them was recorded in Alastair Campbell's diary, not given by Tony Blair himself. Actually a lot of Tony blair's words I quoted are from Alastair Cambell's diary, not from Tony Blair's book. Their diary and book were published in different years.

Yeah, Diana just wanted to use Dodi, but she still gave him her father's cufflinks. Wonder how could she get them back.

Yeah, Diana not only wanted to use Al-Fayed's son, exploit his son's feeling to make Hasnat Khan jealousy, but also wanted to use Al Fayed's money to do her own charity (How shameless she was !!!). And Al Fayed, as smart and successful a business man as he is, would happily agree to be used in this way. Imagine, after the summer, Diana turned around and run away from his son and go back to Hasnat Khan, do you think Al Fayed would still fund her charity cause?

Yeah, in order to make Hasnat Khan she would not only scarify her own reputation, but also make her sons feel embarrassed and ashamed of her. If this was the true motivation of the "kiss" photo, how would her sons think -- "my mother openly flirted with another man in front of the whole world for the purpose to make another man feel jealousy"; how could she explained to her sons the kiss photo. She might not care about how other people think of her, but she definitely cared about how her sons think of her.

Yeah, even with the knowledge that Diana was spending the whole summer flirting with one man in order to make another man jealousy, Tony Blair would still feel she should be called "people's princess". Moreover after many years, when he talked about this again, he still said

Quote:

"although the phase "people's princess" now seems like something from another age. And corny. And over the top. And all the rest of it. But at the time it felt natural and I thought, particularly, that she would have approved. It was how she saw herself, and it was how she should be remembered."
Yeah, Tony Blair thought it was natural that she should be remembered as the people's princess, because her last period of life were spent on exploiting another man to make her man jealousy. And she still saw herself as people's princess in this way, Tony Blair believed.

If she really wanted to use another man to make Hasnat Khan jealousy, she can do it as privately as possible, just enough to let Hasnat Khan see "it", instead of doing it in front of the whole world, let everybody see it, provide a laughing stock of herself to her enemy. This is so unnecessary. Not to mention that the chance to succeed is close to zero. If she was really really so desperate, a baby would have the job done. She always wanted to have a daughter right?

Even if this is her true motivation, even if she had any chance to succeed. And Hasnat Khan would finally agree to marry her. What would be the consequence? Several months ago, you are flirting with a man in front of the world, so happy, and so in love, and then several months later you get into a marriage with another man. How people would think of her? Would she be so stupid to do that.

I can't believe this interpretation "making Hasnat Khan jealousy" can be accepted by so many people for so many years.

Of course there is an ever simpler interpretation. That is "everybody are telling lies". Diana told lies. Tony Blair told lies. Alastair Campbell told lies. If some new information come out not consistent with the preferred "facts", then just dismiss all of them as "lies". Then the prefer "facts" can be preserved. Job done. Proofs? Evidences? No we dont need them. The preferred "facts" are the most important things.

Don't blame me for rehashing. There is nothing here for me to rehash. Nothing substantial has been ever said about Dodi/Diana's relationship. All of those interpretations out there are just "jokes".

anbrida 09-03-2014 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 1699117)
Essentially Blair is an opportunist, and [like St Diana] a consummate self-publicist...as well as a PROVEN liar. He knew that the mere mention of her name would sell books, and give him kudos...

Even though his real intention to bring up the story is to sell books, it doesn't mean the story itself is a lie, right? What is his real intention to talk about this story is not the most important thing. The most important thing is whether it is a true story, whether the conversation between him and Diana concerning Dodi actually exist.

I believe it exists. I don't believe he would be so shameless and so reckless to make up a story which involved a famous dead woman in his own biography, merely for the purpose of selling a little more books. He was a former Prime Minister.

wyevale 09-03-2014 10:23 AM

anbrida,

As a man who lived under the Blair Premiership I can assure you that the fact he was Prime Minister is no guarantee of his integrity, honesty or good will.
It is [convieniently] impossible for the truth of this coversation to be verified. We only have his word for it, and IMHO his word is not to be trusted !

ladongas 09-03-2014 11:35 AM

Kudos, anbrida!
 
Congratulations on making a genuinely analytical evaluation of the known facts about this relationship and supplying a well-reasoned explanation of how -and why-the facts fit together. I've not read anything which tied things up so neatly and logically. There is one further bit I would add: IIRC, didn't Dodi's father take out a long-term lease on the house previously occupied by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor? One story had it that Diana had been given a tour of the house on the day that she died. Perhaps that tour was the reason for the unexpected side trip to Paris after the vacation week.

Your mention of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis brought to mind her comment that she knew 'Ari' could provide her and her children with privacy and protection (this was in the immediate aftermath of Bobby Kennedy's assassination).

Thanks for all your research and clear thinking.

Meg

And as for this explanation being simplistic- sometimes the truth is simple.

US Royal Watcher 09-03-2014 02:33 PM

I can believe that Tony Blair may have cautioned her about getting too close to the Fayed family. Diana didn't know Dodi at the time of the conversation but she had accepted the invitation to take her sons on vacation with the Fayads. I can even believe that Blair had correctly predicted that Mohamed Al-Fayed was going to try and play matchmaker.

That said, I think the several flaws in Anbrida's analysis. First, Diana's closest friends did not think she was serious about Dodi Fayed. The posters on this board (and I include myself) may think that we know the hearts of the royal family, but we really don't. People like Rosa Monckton did and she doesn't think the relationship with serious. Diana had several flings with men she never intended to marry (i.e. Oliver Hoare, Will Carling, James Hewitt). The Fayeds were buying her gifts and she was having fun--at least until the day of the crash. I'm always struck by how strained and unhappy she looked when leaving the hotel--hardly the look of a newly engaged woman. She certainly was not wearing an engagement ring that night.

Second, Diana's commitment to charity work is highly overrated. The interview Anbrida cited is an example of Diana's self promotion. The facts are that Diana voluntarily cut back on charitable appearances before her divorce. After 1993, she made occasional appearances for charitable causes, including two photo opts on behalf of the campaign to ban landmines and she sometimes visited patients in private, but there were no signs she was increasing her charitable work at the time of her death. There were some indications that she was looking for the opportunity to do some high profile appearances, including some on behalf of charities.

Diana wouldn't have needed Dodi Fayed to fund her charitable work. Her own contacts and resources would have enabled her to raise all sorts of money for whatever cause(s) she wanted.

I don't think Diana was a perfect mother but she was a loving one. Diana would have considered William and Harry before she agreed to another marriage. By all accounts, the vacation with the Fayeds was a bust as far as they were concerned. Do you really think she would have decided to remarry without first talking it over with them? Her parents both remarried after their divorce and Diana would have been sensitive to her sons' feelings.

I agree that Diana was beginning to understand that she wasn't going to be able to marry a middle-class man and maintain her lifestyle--which was at least as important to her as her charity work. One of the main reasons Diana married Charles was because of his prestige, so I can believe she would marry another man for his money. I just don't think it would have been Dodi Fayed.

I think she had several reasons to get involved with him. She was using Dodi to try and make Hasnat Khan jealous. I also think she was also trying to goad the royal family. Finally, I think she really liked Dodi, was enjoying the lifestyle and presents, and was having fun.

Dman 09-03-2014 02:53 PM

I'm not sure Diana was in love with Dodi and was going to marry him. I think that idea came from Dodi's father.

I think the man she was really in love with was Charles but she couldn't have him. I thinks she loved that man until the day she died.

KittyAtlanta 09-03-2014 03:26 PM

I think she was in love with love...not Charles. Poor dear, she was pushed toward Charles by everyone and then she was pushed toward Dodi by his father. Frankly, she never had a chance to mature.

Mermaid1962 09-03-2014 03:29 PM

These were Tony Blair's own words about himself and Diana: "“We were both, in our own way, manipulators” — good at grasping the feelings of others and instinctively playing on them." The original article is here:Tony Blair: Diana was a manipulator like me - Telegraph

sthreats 09-03-2014 11:29 PM

Aniyda, I for one do not think your reasoning is simplistic. You obviously spent a lot of time reviewing this : as have many of us. I just don't agree with your entire thesis. I think all of us should be a little bit more careful when we disagree with someone and try to avoid pejorative terms.

That being said some of the points that she would not do that XYZ because of her sons, I don't agree with. Diana was not making the wisest decisions around that time. And there was a conflict between she and William after The yacht trip. Truthfully with her children not being happy with the situation, the security issues , Dodi's reputation and his father's motives , in. retrospect it would have been best not to go with him to Paris.

Very sad situation....

I still maintain that I don't trust Tony Blair there's a slightly different version of these events in Campbell's book and clearly Campbell came up with the People's Princess as a public relations tool. Since Tony Blair sold us on these invisible weapons of mass destruction, He can sell anything including ice water to an Eskimo

Iluvbertie 09-04-2014 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1699314)
I think she was in love with love...not Charles. Poor dear, she was pushed toward Charles by everyone and then she was pushed toward Dodi by his father. Frankly, she never had a chance to mature.

Totally agree - she was in love with the idea of love and with no one else ever.

PetticoatLane 09-04-2014 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1699243)
I don't believe he would be so shameless and so reckless to make up a story which involved a famous dead woman in his own biography, merely for the purpose of selling a little more books. He was a former Prime Minister.

Then you don't know Tony Blair.

As others have said, we lived with TB as PM for 10 years. His shamelessness and dishonesty is a proven fact. It would be hard to think of another living person in the UK who is so distrusted and disliked by the public. None of us believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

anbrida 09-04-2014 05:09 AM

This is a reply to the claim that I am overrating Diana's commitment to her charity work.

Quote:

"Nothing gives me greater happiness than trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny."
When I read these words, actually I more focus on the phase "from now on" and "It's a sort of destiny".

It is not about commitment. Looking for happiness is human being's basic surviving instinct. Usually a person's greatest happiness are from two places -- family life and work. She said "it was a sort of destiny". Whenever she said "destiny", it gives me the feeling that it was not up to her, but her fate. If she believed that she couldn't get the happiness from her family life, then where can she find her happiness? It can only be her work. And she always considered her work was to make people happy, especially the poorest one. No, it is not about commitment, she was just trying to make the best out of what she could have.

And "from now on" ("now" = the summer of 1997), means the belief that she should look for the greatest happiness from her work was not always there, but only come into her mind not long before, which I think indicated that before that summer she still believed she could get the greatest happiness from a marriage, but she gave up now.

That explain why she broke up with Hasnat Khan around that time. She finally believed that a marriage between them was impossible. So seeking the greatest happiness from her work is a second choice after all those "hopes" of her personal life were extinguished. By "hopes" I mean (1) marriage with Hasnat Khan, (2) her "those wishful hopes" for Charles. On July 17, 1997, Charles throwed a big party to celebrate Camilla's coming to 50th age at Highgrove. It was a big blow to her, according to her friend. She talked to her friend "she felt all the darkness in her childhold has come back" and "felt being abandoned again". I think after the divorce, she kept a good relationship with Charles. Very likely she still had some little hopes for Charles. Otherwise she wouldn't have felt so hurt. No hope, no disappointment, right?!

I kind of think she had said those "nothing bring me..." words to herself many times before saying them in that interview. Leaving two men you really love, and going into a relationship (marriage) with a man you don't have too much feeling is not an easy decision. I imagine she'd have been persuading herself many times like "Diana, don't worry too much, you can still get your happiness from your work. You don't have any other choice. It is your destiny." (The reason I said two men here is, her marriage with dodi is equivalent to a marriage gate ticket to Charles and Camilla, that means Charles would leave her ultimately.)

But once she made up her mind, she would carry it through. She was always like that. That explains why merely a hospice plan was enough to buy her -- that is the only place she could seek real happiness, her personal life was too disappointing.

Duc_et_Pair 09-04-2014 06:24 AM

Anyone can utter these words, of course. Even Vladimir Putin can say these words with dry eyes: "Nothing gives me greater happiness than trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny."

:flowers:


sthreats 09-04-2014 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbrida (Post 1699432)
Very likely she still had some little hopes for Charles. Otherwise she wouldn't have felt so hurt. No hope, no disappointment, right?!



I kind of think she had said those "nothing bring me..." words to herself many times before saying them in that interview. Leaving two men you really love, and going into a relationship (marriage) with a man you don't have too much feeling is not an easy decision. I imagine she'd have been persuading herself many times like "Diana, don't worry too much, you can still get your happiness from your work. You don't have any other choice. It is your destiny." (The reason I said two men here is, her marriage with dodi is equivalent to a marriage gate ticket to Charles and Camilla, that means Charles would leave her ultimately.)



.


I understand everything except this last paragraph. How is marriage to Dodi a marriage gate ticket to Charles and Camilla?
She did not love Dodi --she didn't even know him that long. I really don't think she was planning on marrying him. Princess Diana did not need to marry Dodi or anyone to fund her hospice or any other charity. She had. 17 million of her own. And just her name or as you pointed out , her photograph could generate a lot of money for her charities. After being a confining marriage to a member of the British Royal family, it seemed like she was taking some fledgling steps to try to grow up and discover who she really was. I don't think she was planning to be under the thumb any man.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

anbrida 09-04-2014 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sthreats (Post 1699404)
I still maintain that I don't trust Tony Blair there's a slightly different version of these events in Campbell's book and clearly Campbell came up with the People's Princess as a public relations tool. Since Tony Blair sold us on these invisible weapons of mass destruction, He can sell anything including ice water to an Eskimo


If I have to make myself to believe that theory-- she did that to make Hasnat Khan jealousy. Then first I have to convince myself that Diana was the most shameless person. Not only she wanted to exploit Dodi's feeling to achieve her own purpose, but also she would have the gut to go on using his father's money to support her own charity. And she was the most naive person that she firmly believe Al Fayed, as smart and successful a business man he is, will be so foolish to be used in this way.

You see according Richard Kay, on the phone call on Aug 30, she so firmly believed Al Fayed would fund her hospice plan that, she planed an announcement to give up all her royal duties by the end 1997.

Al Fayed turns about to be such an angel that, he will be willing to support Diana's charity work, even though Diana was using his son to make another man jealousy. And Britain must be an evil country that they turned down this angel's application for nationality two times.

I also have to convince myself that Tony Blair, was not only another most shameless person, but also the cheapest, and most stupid person. He was so cheap that for a little more money, he would tell such a lie about his future king's mother. And he was so stupid that, he didn't write this lie anywhere, but in his own biography, a book which will be used to judge him in the history. But I was curious, if the purpose he wrote this lie in his book is to get more copies sell. Then what was his purpose to go to the ABC network to repeat this story again? Can he get money from the network?

Tony Blair: Princess Diana a "Meteor" in the Queen's "Ecosystem" - ABC News

Quote:

In an exclusive interview with "This Week's" Christiane Amanpour, former UK prime minister Tony Blair said he was worried about Princess Diana after her marriage with Prince Charles ended and she started dating Dodi Fayed.

"I was worried for her, frankly," Blair told Amanpour. "And I was worried because it was obviously going to be extremely difficult. And I wanted her to know, you know, what were the implications and consequences of all it was going to be."
I also have to convince myself that Britain is such a speechless country that, its people would let such a shameless, cheap, stupid person to be their Prime Minister for seven years. And Britain's future is so dim that not only because their future King and his brother's mother was such a shameless person, but also because the future King and his brother are also so shameless themselves that they are so proud of such a mother. Due to genes probably.

Sorry, I don't think things in such an extreme way. I can not buy that theory.

sthreats 09-04-2014 07:25 AM

This is an example of Mr. Blair's deceit
"rather than heed growing international calls to lift those sanctions, George W Bush and his neoconservative band chose war which they and their British cohort Prime Minster Tony Blair then sold to the gullible Western population on lies too numerous too list. They were aided by complicit right-wing media with Rupert Murdoch leading the charge, according to diaries of Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell.

Blair was aware that the war would be illegal in the absence of an explicit UN resolution, as his legal advisor attorney general Lord Goldsmith had determined, but he went ahead regardless even as millions of anti-war protestors thronged London's streets. He didn't hesitate to sign-off on an intelligence dossier for public consumption falsely claiming that Iraq could deploy WMD against British interests with 45 minutes of receiving the order to do so--and another containing tracts from a student's thesis published on the internet, typos and all."

From information clearinghouse.com

There are many other references. There are also many references to Al- Fayed's shady busy dealings and Dodi's hard partying lifestyle .

So no I don't believe Tony Blair. His motive may not be money but also to put a positive spin on his name as some sort of confidence of Princess Diana. Just think how many books are still being written by the so-called friends of hers revealing some little details. What's the motivation: they get attention and they get money because she was famous and beloved woman. As for Richard Kay, he made his entire career on gossip about Diana and by exploiting her fragility and insecurities. She's been gone for 17 years and he still doing it. So I always take things he writes a grain of salt.

And although she was having a good time with Dodi and little show off time in the newspaper from running around with him, she's was not going to marry him.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises