The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News & Questions Thread 8: June 2008- 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mermaid1962, Diana's family had failed to defend her memory IMO.And it's not the first time.I'm not a fan of Diana but we must be fair, this was very disrespectful.


And on what grounds? Just curious.

Is your curiosity satisfied now?:)
 
Some people think that? Isn't it obvious?
Oh,and what about the tiara and the name? It's a coincidence right?
 
I agree, it was highly disrespectful. But in order to sue, a living person has to sustain a loss. As far as I understand it, there can't be a lawsuit on behalf of a deceased person; and I can't see where Diana's family or sons have sustained an actual loss here.

Mermaid1962, Diana's family had failed to defend her memory IMO.And it's not the first time.I'm not a fan of Diana but we must be fair, this was very disrespectful.
 
I agree, it was highly disrespectful. But in order to sue, a living person has to sustain a loss. As far as I understand it, there can't be a lawsuit on behalf of a deceased person; and I can't see where Diana's family or sons have sustained an actual loss here.
I agree and will add that Diana's memory is well respescted by just looking at these boards and the commentaries. However now and again a situation regarding her memeory and image arises which is unseemly and has to be dealt with.
 
We agree on everything mermaid1962, i don't know anything about the lawsuit but i know that everyone eventually took advantage of her.What i am trying to say is that there have been numerous articles (and books) written about her by people who supposedly loved her but took advantage of her and gained money.And now this..And they won't stop acting like this,showing lack of respect until someone reacts angrily.
 
And now this..And they won't stop acting like this,showing lack of respect until someone reacts angrily.

Helen Anna, I always wondered why her boys or the Spencers did not stop some of the books published since her death. This underwear ad should be taken to court. I think this is the worst injustice to a princess' name. Next we will have her portrayed in a adult film.:ermm:
 
Exactly..I can understand that her young boys were even more devastated.They were feeling numb and sad.But the Spencers..
Anyway speculation is prohibited so i'll stop here.
 
How could they have stopped them? These books are published in countries that have the right to a free press. I don't like the trash written about the Princess either, but I can't see how there can be any kind of injunction against a book written after a person dies. The time to do those things was when Diana was still alive; but again, Britain, the USA, Canada...all these nations have a free press.


I always wondered why her boys or the Spencers did not stop some of the books published since her death.
 
How could they have stopped them? These books are published in countries that have the right to a free press. I don't like the trash written about the Princess either, but I can't see how there can be any kind of injunction against a book written after a person dies. The time to do those things was when Diana was still alive; but again, Britain, the USA, Canada...all these nations have a free press.

Could they have sues to be able to read the book before publication and then have the author change parts of the book? Or band the book in Great Britain and the commonwealth?:ermm:
 
Books by Royal employees can't be published in Britain, but they can be published and bought in the Commonwealth AFAIK...certainly books like THE HOUSEKEEPER'S DIARY can be published and sold here in Canada. Ken Wharfe could publish his book in the UK because he wasn't technically a Royal employee--he worked for the police.

But, outside of that stipulation, because those employees sign confidentiality agreements--the same as employees of government offices and insurance companies, etc.--I don't think that a person can be sued for writing or saying something that a person doesn't like. There would have to be actual falsehood in the text or the story. Then a person could be sued for libel or slander. But there are so many books about Diana and so many articles, that a person would have to be suing all the time to keep false stories out of the press. And, if the person's dead, I don't think that anything can be done. The actual victim of the libel or slander has to be the one suing. At least this is what I understand.

Could they have sues to be able to read the book before publication and then have the author change parts of the book? Or band the book in Great Britain and the commonwealth?:ermm:
 
The company in question is in China. If someone sued over this, it would have to be in the Chinese court system.
 
Princess Diana's Shakespeare notes that prove she did pay attention in class | Mail Online

She famously described herself as ‘thick as two short planks’. Yet a school book discarded by Princess Diana and found in a bin shows she did at least try hard in class.
Notes scrawled by the teenage Diana Spencer on the copy of ­William Shakespeare’s play The Tempest are signs of an academic interest in ­literature never previously credited to her.
The book bears Diana’s signature and the date 1977 on the first page. At this time she was studying for O-levels at West Heath Girls’ School in Sevenoaks, Kent.
 
Yes, it was interesting. I disagree with the writer's view of Diana's panorama interview, though. That interview achieved nothing besides the end of her marriage. For those who already thought that Diana was some kind of paranoid egomaniac, the interview gave them the proof they needed. As for George VI, his speeches were for the benefit of the people of the UK and the Commonwealth. There weren't any references to his own personal problems, unlike there were in many of the speeches that Diana gave in the 1990s. I actually prefer her earlier speeches. She was indeed shy and rushed, but I preferred those speeches over the bold, look-at-me, speeches of the 90s. :ermm:
 
I felt that her later speeches held a lot more meaning than her earlier one's. I know her 1992 or 1993 speech on bulimia was very inspirational to a few of my friends who suffer from eating disorders.
 
There weren't any references to his own personal problems, unlike there were in many of the speeches that Diana gave in the 1990s. I actually prefer her earlier speeches. She was indeed shy and rushed, but I preferred those speeches over the bold, look-at-me, speeches of the 90s. :ermm:

I appreciattee the point you are making. Perhaps I am being slightly harsh here, but IMO, in her later years, a lot of Diana's speeches were about Diana herself, rather than the specific issues she was talking about. I am not suggesting that she did not care about the causes she was supporting, but there was an over riding desire to manage her image and sending out covert (and sometiems overt) messages that was probably paramount.
 
Did Diana's speech about bulimia help them to recover?
Well in a way, but the support of their friends, family, and a psychiatrist are helping them on their path to recovery. They felt ashamed to suffer from the disease and that shame prevented them from coming to me and others for help. So hearing Diana's speech on Anorexia & Bulimia, reading books such as Little Girl Blue: The Life of Karen Carpenter, and Portia De Rossi's Unbearable Lightness, inspired them to seek help and to not feel shame. I am very happy that my two friends are getting help and are on the road to recovery.
 
I'm glad to hear that your friends are doing better, sirhon. :flowers:
Well in a way, but the support of their friends, family, and a psychiatrist are helping them on their path to recovery. They felt ashamed to suffer from the disease and that shame prevented them from coming to me and others for help.
 
Yes, and her tone was more strident as well. I don't think that her role as Princess of Wales was to lecture people, but that's what her speeches came across as at times.

I am not suggesting that she did not care about the causes she was supporting, but there was an over riding desire to manage her image and sending out covert (and sometiems overt) messages that was probably paramount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom