Had Diana Lived...

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

The Queen is still alive, so there would be no need for a Regent. She'll never abdicate, and Charles will not be passed over.

I think Diana did love Hasnat Kahn, but their relationship had already come to an impass. I don't think she would have been successful at retreating from public life - the press would have hounded her.

i agree...she never would have been able to get away from the press.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

(my bolding)

I've always thought that they were still "friends" or at least they still entertained a respectful relationship even after their separation. I remember that Charles sent a bouquet roses for one of Diana's birthday a long time after they had separated. Charles was, IMO, quite supportive to her then and he did the best to avoid her problems and she helped him when the press was bringing his image down. People were pleased to say there was a real war going on between them but I don't think it was that bad actually.

I read in a book about Princess Diana that she and Prince Charles were getting to be friends after the divorce, but where still fighting during the separation. When she learned that Prince Charles hired a PR person to make Camilla's look good to the public Diana started to freeze Charles out again.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Plenty of people have bad press and are alive to defend themselves but don't. Let's not forget that alot of the things we've heard about the "naughty" Diana would have come out at some point whether she was alive or not. That image of "nice" Diana would only have sold so many newspapers.

BeatrixFan-Princess Diana had a way with the press. Even when the British public learned about her affairs - I believe it didn't damage her popularity with her public because she knew how to deal with bad press by leaking thing to Mr. Kaye. I really don't believe all the books by her former employees would have been written because she would have defended herself or the employee, like Burrell, would still be working for her.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by anbrida

The press on Diana over the last ten years didn't give me too much impression as "bad", but I did find the intrusion of privacy climbed to an incredible level.

I hope if Diana would have lived, she would be able to come to terms with C&C's marriage. Definitely, I think the "naughty" Diana would be "mad" about it for a while, but after that I hope she would forget it and just go on with her own life.

I agree with you anbrida that Princess Diana would find it hard at first to come to terms with the marriage, but she would have learned to live with it.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I read in a book about Princess Diana that she and Prince Charles were getting to be friends after the divorce, but where still fighting during the separation. When she learned that Prince Charles hired a PR person to make Camilla's look good to the public Diana started to freeze Charles out again.

Well they were still fighting for sure like in any separation but I meant not has terrible as it's been said. The "War of the Waleses" is a silly expression, only created by the press to make the stuff a little more exciting. What proof do we have, except the Panorama Interview, that Diana actually hated Charles ? And it's not surprising that she had a tough time to accept that Charles was planning to put Camilla on stage but it's normal. Like in every divorce, I don't think an ex wife would have be very welcoming to the new partner of her former husband. Consciously or not you feel like this woman is "taking" your place so it must be difficult to bear for a while.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Duchess

i agree...she never would have been able to get away from the press.

I think in time, if Princess Diana would stop courting the press the intrusion to her would have stopped. Or, if she moved to New York and just blended into the celebrity there the press would treat her like everyone else. (Jackie O did it for over twenty years)

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I think in time, if Princess Diana would stop courting the press the intrusion to her would have stopped. Or, if she moved to New York and just blended into the celebrity there the press would treat her like everyone else. (Jackie O did it for over twenty years)

I'm a little skeptical with your argument georgiea. Diana was the person who sold the most newspapers worldwide. The "kiss" picture was bought $450,000 by the Daily Mirror ! And I remember an anecdote with Diana and Mark Saunders, a paparazzi. She was coming out of the gym but from the back entrance and she tapped his shoulder and asked "Do you make enough money with me?" and he replied "No, not enough". They would never have let her go ; it would have been a too important loss of benefits.

[jcbcode99]

Let me ask a question here--I thought that Diana's title was "Diana, Princess of Wales" and even when married she was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland"---so why is she referred to as Princess Diana? She wasn't born a Princess, so it isn't proper to call her Princess Diana. Like with Princess Michael--her title, if you used Princess first would be PRincess Charles---anyway, just a note--Diana, Princess of Wales not Princess Diana

[tinkerbell1948]

It was just a habit people got into. Her official title was "Diana,Princess of Wales" but it was a bit of a mouthful and everyone just got used to saying "Princess Diana"

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Let me ask a question here--I thought that Diana's title was "Diana, Princess of Wales" and even when married she was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland"---so why is she referred to as Princess Diana? She wasn't born a Princess, so it isn't proper to call her Princess Diana. Like with Princess Michael--her title, if you used Princess first would be PRincess Charles---anyway, just a note--Diana, Princess of Wales not Princess Diana

Why should it bother you what the Princess is being called? The media has been calling her "Princess Diana" for quite some time now, they're not going to stop because some people don't like it.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Why should it bother you what the Princess is being called?

Because calling royals by incorrect names does bother some people.

However, I think it's a losing battle to get people to stop the "Princess Diana" stuff, and it's fine by the British mods for our participants to use it. Personally, I don't especially like the Diana, Princess of Wales, name because of the way most people drop the second comma. As an editor, I find that to be painful; I much prefer Princess Diana.

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Because calling royals by incorrect names does bother some people.

However, I think it's a losing battle to get people to stop the "Princess Diana" stuff, and it's fine by the British mods for our participants to use it. Personally, I don't especially like the Diana, Princess of Wales, name because of the way most people drop the second comma. As an editor, I find that to be painful; I much prefer Princess Diana.

The reason I prefer Princess Diana to Diana, Princess of Wales is simply out of laziness. Actually most of time I just use Diana. In the same way, I prefer C&C, because it's really convenient to use. No demeaning here.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Let me ask a question here--I thought that Diana's title was "Diana, Princess of Wales" and even when married she was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland"---so why is she referred to as Princess Diana? She wasn't born a Princess, so it isn't proper to call her Princess Diana. Like with Princess Michael--her title, if you used Princess first would be PRincess Charles---anyway, just a note--Diana, Princess of Wales not Princess Diana

I've already asked myself the same question.
I mostly call her "Diana" ; much shorter and on the British Forums, we usually know of who we are talking about. In France and in a few other countries the appellation of "Lady Di" was commonly used and literally covered the front pages when she died. Even now, when a serious documentary is made on her, it's always "Lady Di" or "Princess Diana". People who haven't got an interest in royalty will never get use to the title thing.

[sirhon11234]

Here in the States especially in NY she is called Princess Diana and Diana, Princess of Wales. For me to, Princess Diana is easier to type. I read somewhere that the Palace allowed the media to call her Princess Diana since she was the mother of the future king.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Why should it bother you what the Princess is being called? The media has been calling her "Princess Diana" for quite some time now, they're not going to stop because some people don't like it.

Sirhon11234 that was a little hostile especially because I meant no harm or offense. Of course I understand that people aren't going to quit calling Diana Princess Diana because some people don't like it--I don't believe I insinuated that at all, either--but in this forum sometimes it is easy to misinterpret the tone of a post (I have done so myself often)--and never mean to offend

I agree with everyone--it is much easier to type PRincess Diana than it is Diana, Princess of Wales. She has also been referred to as Princess Diana since 1981, so old habits are very, very hard to break. I was simply pointing out that Princess Diana is not her actual title and never was--it was a name coined for her because like we have all agreed it is just easier that way--but she was not born a Princess, so technically she can't be styled as Princess Diana because she isn't--that's a fact. It is also a fact that she is known as Princess Diana and that won't ever change, either. But, because of the way it should be I generally refer to her as Diana or Diana, Princess of Wales, or if I'm really lazy, Diana, PoW (which makes me giggle). I mean, really, has anyone called Princess Michael of Kent "Princess Marie-Christine"? No--because it is not her title--that's all I'm saying.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Sirhon11234 that was a little hostile especially because I meant no harm or offense. Of course I understand that people aren't going to quit calling Diana Princess Diana because some people don't like it--I don't believe I insinuated that at all, either--but in this forum sometimes it is easy to misinterpret the tone of a post (I have done so myself often)--and never mean to offend

I agree with everyone--it is much easier to type PRincess Diana than it is Diana, Princess of Wales. She has also been referred to as Princess Diana since 1981, so old habits are very, very hard to break. I was simply pointing out that Princess Diana is not her actual title and never was--it was a name coined for her because like we have all agreed it is just easier that way--but she was not born a Princess, so technically she can't be styled as Princess Diana because she isn't--that's a fact. It is also a fact that she is known as Princess Diana and that won't ever change, either. But, because of the way it should be I generally refer to her as Diana or Diana, Princess of Wales, or if I'm really lazy, Diana, PoW (which makes me giggle). I mean, really, has anyone called Princess Michael of Kent "Princess Marie-Christine"? No--because it is not her title--that's all I'm saying.

I did not intend to sound hostile, I apologize that I came off that way.
I just wanted you to further explain yourself on the subject.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Because calling royals by incorrect names does bother some people.

However, I think it's a losing battle to get people to stop the "Princess Diana" stuff, and it's fine by the British mods for our participants to use it. Personally, I don't especially like the Diana, Princess of Wales, name because of the way most people drop the second comma. As an editor, I find that to be painful; I much prefer Princess Diana.

This only came about with the use of Christian names to refer to royals. When the Queen's father was on the throne, it was the Duke of York, the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. In fact its still the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester as far as the press is concerned. Does anyone know the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester's first names? Or that of their wives? I think the duke of Gloucester's wife's name is Birgitte but you never hear it in the press report and I have no idea what the first name of the Duchess of Kent is.

However, I believe that previously the Brits were less inclined to call people by their Christian names than Americans. An article I read about American tennis star Chris Evert when she was playing Wimbledom and married to Brit John Lloyd made a big to-do about her always being referred to in the British papers as Mrs. Lloyd. It sounded incredibly quaint and old-fashioned to the Americans.

I was particularly horrified when the Royal Family promoted and encouraged the public use of Prince Harry to refer to their second son. Harry is not a name designed to give respect to a young royal. The family may call him Harry but I see no reason for the rest of the world to call him Harry. He should be Prince Henry of Wales.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well they were still fighting for sure like in any separation but I meant not has terrible as it's been said. The "War of the Waleses" is a silly expression, only created by the press to make the stuff a little more exciting. What proof do we have, except the Panorama Interview, that Diana actually hated Charles ? .

Uh, the Morton book and the tapes she recorded for it? She sounded in those tapes that she had a grudge against Charles and indeed a lot of other people. I don't think the War of the Waleses was a total fabrication of the press to convince the world wrongly that two sensible and even headed people were actually at war with each other.

I think by their actions, they showed they were at war with each other which is nothing usual in the lives of those that go through very public and protracted divorces.

Anyone see the movie War of the Roses with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Anyone see the movie War of the Roses with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner?

Now that was brilliant, funny and frightening!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

This only came about with the use of Christian names to refer to royals. When the Queen's father was on the throne, it was the Duke of York, the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. In fact its still the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester as far as the press is concerned. Does anyone know the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester's first names? Or that of their wives? I think the duke of Gloucester's wife's name is Birgitte but you never hear it in the press report and I have no idea what the first name of the Duchess of Kent is.

Katharine (with two a's).

I think part of it is the greater informality in general in the last two or three decades, along with the decrease in deference toward the royal family in general. Prince Andrew was being referred to in the papers as Randy Andy in the 1980s, and I don't think that would have been permitted in the 1950s, regardless of what they might have wanted to call Princess Margaret! I think Princess Alexandra might have been referred to as Alex in the press when she was younger, but I'm not sure.

However, I believe that previously the Brits were less inclined to call people by their Christian names than Americans. An article I read about American tennis star Chris Evert when she was playing Wimbledom and married to Brit John Lloyd made a big to-do about her always being referred to in the British papers as Mrs. Lloyd. It sounded incredibly quaint and old-fashioned to the Americans.

When I first came over here, I was surprised by the use of first names; however, when you look at some of the last names of people who immigrated from Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia or whatever, and wonder how on earth all those z's and h's and w's and y's are supposed to be pronounced without choking yourself, and then the guy's first name is Fred, it gets awfully tempting to start being informal! Mind you, my husband and I were both surprised by the way we were called Mr xxxx and Mrs xxxx by our American friends' children, while some of the American friends were actually offended by being called Auntie Firstname by children of their British friends ("why are they calling us that? we aren't related!"). Another of those "divided by a common language" examples, I suppose.

I was particularly horrified when the Royal Family promoted and encouraged the public use of Prince Harry to refer to their second son. Harry is not a name designed to give respect to a young royal. The family may call him Harry but I see no reason for the rest of the world to call him Harry. He should be Prince Henry of Wales.

It might have been part of the greater informality the royal family was trying to promote. The present Duke of Gloucester's father was called Harry in the family, but I'm pretty sure that he was always Prince Henry in the press. Of course, that was long enough ago that even friends referred to each other by their last names a lot of the time. My grandmother (who was of the same generation as Harry Gloucester) always referred to her best friend as "Mrs Lastname" and she even called her that to her face rather than using her first name.