hi, i'm new here. interesting discussion. no one can ever say for certain whether or not someone is genuine when they put on a display of caring and charity as one would have to be psychic and see inside the person's heart to say for sure. in the end it seems the people who liked diana are willing to believe it was genuine while those who disliked her are adamant that it was all a show for publicity.
my personal opinion is that diana was genuine in her charity work. the landmine campaign attracted severe criticism from members of parliament. if she was only doing it for the publicity, why wouldn't she quit then with all the hassle she was getting? after all, there are other more pleasurable ways of getting attention, so why put up with the attacks? but she kept on, so i'd say that chose to weather the controversy and not drop the campaign because she genuinely cared for landmine victims.
i heartily disagree with Incas for saying that it was poor judgement and disingeneous for diana to join the campaign and then profess political ignorance. she approached the issue from a humanitarian point of view: people were having their limbs blown to bits and this was deplorable and had to stop. end of. there was nothing self-serving about her documentary; it highlighted the landmine victims' plight.
if diana was a fake in her charity work, then can someone explain why she would go visit patients in hospital when there were no cameras about? it's one thing to say she was faking it when the cameras were there to boost her image, but why go to the extreme of actually doing it when no press was there? if she didn't care, surely she would prefer to be elsewhere and why dedicate herself to this extent when a simple photo op with press in the daytime will do more than enough to achieve her aim of boosting her image?
diana took up the AIDS cause when it was considered unacceptable and deplorable and pariah-like. if she was only doing these things to boost her image, do you not think she would have chosen a more socially acceptable cause where she was certain of an outcome of praise from society? bearing in mind that this was in the early to mid eighties when no one could predict that one day, the AIDS cause would become accepted as the right thing to support and would win you fans for embracing it. if diana was just looking for causes to boost her image do you not think she would have done something where she was sure to get applause rather than take her chances on something that was considered beyond the pale and where chances were high that it would destroy her image altogether?
and even after the public view of AIDS became less hostile, she still had to put up with a bit of opposition. in ken wharfe's book he recounted how he escorted diana to a meeting with the queen where her majesty told her it was better to support a less gruesome cause. and a few royal books have related how at various times, courtiers made the same suggestion to diana and tried to make her stop. they all eventually stopped opposing diana on her AIDS stance but this was after a while, when it was now socially acceptable to take on AIDS charities. but for that period of time when there was no support for what she was doing, would it not have been easier to quit her support for AIDS charities? yes it would have. there were other causes available for her to use to boost her image, so why stick with this one that was not exactly a walk in the park? when someone does some good, even at the cost of their own convenience, it is because they genuinely care.
in the last years of her life, yes she dropped several of her charities of which she was patron. it has been recounted in books by some of diana's closest friends that this was because she was concerned that more money was being spent on 'administration' than on doling out money to people in need. she was not satisified with the tradional way of charity work any longer, and was looking for other avenues and methods to continue doing good. the books i have read,and even if i'm not mistaken the diana inquest, have disclosed that she was planning to open a string of hospices mother-theresa-style around the globe. she died before this could happen.
yes, she went on holidays in the last few months of her life. what's wrong with that? no one can work all the time without a break and diana had been working very hard that year with her landmine commitment.
to suggest that diana was insincere in her motives regarding her humanitarian work, is really mean spirited imo. she had spent her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, dying people, people who looked terrible in their leprous condition and had even nursed a friend who was dying of AIDS ( adrian ward-jackson). i think any human being would be affected by all that and feel compassion. to say it was fake and just a ploy to get publicity is implying that diana must have had no heart all. whatever her faults - and yes there were many of them as her critics love to point out - i don't think she was a cold, unfeeling evil person and only a truly evil person would fail to feel compassion surrounded by people wasted away from AIDS and limbless from landmines and deformed from leprosy. and however good an actor one is, it is impossible to keep up the act all the time for 16 years. you cannot fool the recipients of your compassion for so long, and all the victims who ever received sympathy and support from diana have said that she really connected with them and they felt her love.
no one is saying that diana was a saint, she was far from it with her mood swings and choice of men and habit of dropping her friends. but she never claimed she was a saint and would laugh at such a claim as even her private secretary who has sometimes been quite critical about her, has written. but who is a saint? no one. we are all human being with shortcomings. that diana was a human being with shortcomings did not make her a bad or terrible person. rather what she did was show us that whatever our problems and trials and weaknesses and vices, one can nevertheless express the best part of themselves and be compassionate and make a positive difference in the lives of others.
diana having flaws didn't lessen her compassion or deprive her of having a positive side to her. and yet, people will endlessly point out and in some cases exaggerate her flaws, as if to argue that her being so flawed meant there was no good in her. i have been a lurker on this forum for some time, and i have noticed that this seems to be the stance of some people, because whenever someone points out a virtue of diana, another person immediately jumps in and denounces diana and says that this virtue was absent in her. is she to be allowed no virtues whatsoever then, and only flaws?
however inflicted with shortcomings a person may be, i don't believe there is any such thing as someone having no good in them. it is no crime to be anti-diana, we can't all hold the same views. but even if you are anti-diana, surely it must be evident to any mature adult, that in the same way that there is no such thing as there being only good and perfect in one person, there is also no such thing as there being only bad in one person as well. if this is apparent to anti-dianas, then why must they challenge absolutely every little nice thing said about her, as if she was a lady with nothing good in her at all? why not just acknowledge it (or ignore it if you can't stand to hear diana being praised over anything) and move on to bring up an indisputable flaw like moodiness, rather than just argue that every good quality was non-existent?
diana, during her years on Earth, devoted herself to causes like AIDS, cancer, homelessness, leprosy, abolition of landmines, sick children. she was truly an extraordinary person and humanitarian. she helped make AIDS less of a stigma, brought the plight of lepers and landmine victims to the attention of the world and lived her life in search of love. all her mistakes and strengths were motivated by this search for love.
my personal opinion is that diana was genuine in her charity work. the landmine campaign attracted severe criticism from members of parliament. if she was only doing it for the publicity, why wouldn't she quit then with all the hassle she was getting? after all, there are other more pleasurable ways of getting attention, so why put up with the attacks? but she kept on, so i'd say that chose to weather the controversy and not drop the campaign because she genuinely cared for landmine victims.
i heartily disagree with Incas for saying that it was poor judgement and disingeneous for diana to join the campaign and then profess political ignorance. she approached the issue from a humanitarian point of view: people were having their limbs blown to bits and this was deplorable and had to stop. end of. there was nothing self-serving about her documentary; it highlighted the landmine victims' plight.
if diana was a fake in her charity work, then can someone explain why she would go visit patients in hospital when there were no cameras about? it's one thing to say she was faking it when the cameras were there to boost her image, but why go to the extreme of actually doing it when no press was there? if she didn't care, surely she would prefer to be elsewhere and why dedicate herself to this extent when a simple photo op with press in the daytime will do more than enough to achieve her aim of boosting her image?
diana took up the AIDS cause when it was considered unacceptable and deplorable and pariah-like. if she was only doing these things to boost her image, do you not think she would have chosen a more socially acceptable cause where she was certain of an outcome of praise from society? bearing in mind that this was in the early to mid eighties when no one could predict that one day, the AIDS cause would become accepted as the right thing to support and would win you fans for embracing it. if diana was just looking for causes to boost her image do you not think she would have done something where she was sure to get applause rather than take her chances on something that was considered beyond the pale and where chances were high that it would destroy her image altogether?
and even after the public view of AIDS became less hostile, she still had to put up with a bit of opposition. in ken wharfe's book he recounted how he escorted diana to a meeting with the queen where her majesty told her it was better to support a less gruesome cause. and a few royal books have related how at various times, courtiers made the same suggestion to diana and tried to make her stop. they all eventually stopped opposing diana on her AIDS stance but this was after a while, when it was now socially acceptable to take on AIDS charities. but for that period of time when there was no support for what she was doing, would it not have been easier to quit her support for AIDS charities? yes it would have. there were other causes available for her to use to boost her image, so why stick with this one that was not exactly a walk in the park? when someone does some good, even at the cost of their own convenience, it is because they genuinely care.
in the last years of her life, yes she dropped several of her charities of which she was patron. it has been recounted in books by some of diana's closest friends that this was because she was concerned that more money was being spent on 'administration' than on doling out money to people in need. she was not satisified with the tradional way of charity work any longer, and was looking for other avenues and methods to continue doing good. the books i have read,and even if i'm not mistaken the diana inquest, have disclosed that she was planning to open a string of hospices mother-theresa-style around the globe. she died before this could happen.
yes, she went on holidays in the last few months of her life. what's wrong with that? no one can work all the time without a break and diana had been working very hard that year with her landmine commitment.
to suggest that diana was insincere in her motives regarding her humanitarian work, is really mean spirited imo. she had spent her royal life in the company of sick and needy people, dying people, people who looked terrible in their leprous condition and had even nursed a friend who was dying of AIDS ( adrian ward-jackson). i think any human being would be affected by all that and feel compassion. to say it was fake and just a ploy to get publicity is implying that diana must have had no heart all. whatever her faults - and yes there were many of them as her critics love to point out - i don't think she was a cold, unfeeling evil person and only a truly evil person would fail to feel compassion surrounded by people wasted away from AIDS and limbless from landmines and deformed from leprosy. and however good an actor one is, it is impossible to keep up the act all the time for 16 years. you cannot fool the recipients of your compassion for so long, and all the victims who ever received sympathy and support from diana have said that she really connected with them and they felt her love.
no one is saying that diana was a saint, she was far from it with her mood swings and choice of men and habit of dropping her friends. but she never claimed she was a saint and would laugh at such a claim as even her private secretary who has sometimes been quite critical about her, has written. but who is a saint? no one. we are all human being with shortcomings. that diana was a human being with shortcomings did not make her a bad or terrible person. rather what she did was show us that whatever our problems and trials and weaknesses and vices, one can nevertheless express the best part of themselves and be compassionate and make a positive difference in the lives of others.
diana having flaws didn't lessen her compassion or deprive her of having a positive side to her. and yet, people will endlessly point out and in some cases exaggerate her flaws, as if to argue that her being so flawed meant there was no good in her. i have been a lurker on this forum for some time, and i have noticed that this seems to be the stance of some people, because whenever someone points out a virtue of diana, another person immediately jumps in and denounces diana and says that this virtue was absent in her. is she to be allowed no virtues whatsoever then, and only flaws?
however inflicted with shortcomings a person may be, i don't believe there is any such thing as someone having no good in them. it is no crime to be anti-diana, we can't all hold the same views. but even if you are anti-diana, surely it must be evident to any mature adult, that in the same way that there is no such thing as there being only good and perfect in one person, there is also no such thing as there being only bad in one person as well. if this is apparent to anti-dianas, then why must they challenge absolutely every little nice thing said about her, as if she was a lady with nothing good in her at all? why not just acknowledge it (or ignore it if you can't stand to hear diana being praised over anything) and move on to bring up an indisputable flaw like moodiness, rather than just argue that every good quality was non-existent?
diana, during her years on Earth, devoted herself to causes like AIDS, cancer, homelessness, leprosy, abolition of landmines, sick children. she was truly an extraordinary person and humanitarian. she helped make AIDS less of a stigma, brought the plight of lepers and landmine victims to the attention of the world and lived her life in search of love. all her mistakes and strengths were motivated by this search for love.