What if things had been different? Alternate History

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I don't agree with this at all. The Majority will have only have seen her on the news and in the papers. To collapse with grief over a photograph just boggles the mind and yet thousands did. It's nothing to do with love. Its to do with wallowing in grief which people seem to love to do.

 

[Warren]

Just put the public response down to extreme shock. We don't expect our Princesses to be smashed to pieces in Paris car tunnels. Shock and disbelief have to be channelled and expressed somewhere. Just as her "birth" in the public consciousness (ie the engagement and wedding) generated intense interest around the world, her death resulted in an even more intense outpouring of emotion. In retrospect it may seem excessive and irrational (there will always be a maudlin element when a public figure dies) but while it was extaordinary, it was certainly real at the time.
.

 

[Elspeth]

Reports at the time said that people around the country were in tears when George V and George VI died; we've heard about the sacks and sacks of hate mail Wallis Simpson received in France. Those were the days when even fewer people had contact with royals other than by reading about them in newspapers and occasionally seeing them during public duties. There was certainly not the media coverage that's occurred since the advent of TV. People identify with public figures; there's no surprise that it happened with Diana. I think the intensity of the reaction was rather surprising, but then again, when people started seeing TV footage of flowers being left outside the palaces, it would have given them the idea to do likewise. The media age is responsible for a lot of the reactions to the lives and deaths of celebrities.

 

[Skydragon]

Perhaps the British public really loved Diana so much that they let go of their "constraint". .

Figures published by the Broadcasting Authority said that only 45% of the UK took any notice of the funeral. You also have to remember that it was at the height of the tourist season, so a lot of the grieving people were not even from this country.
I like many, many people felt sorry for her son's, but I can't say that I 'grieved' at all, after all none of us knew her.
A lot of people got caught up in the hype that surrounded Diana and nowadays, they call the display, 'recreational grieving'.
A brilliant example was illustrated when someone said they had found the body of a baby in a park. 100's of bouquets of flowers and teddies were left. Then the police announced it was the carcass of a chicken.

 

[branchg]

It was a terrible tragedy and a shock to all, including the royal family. Diana was still young when she died and that's always difficult to accept. But the universe works in mysterious ways and her time was up.

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't agree with this at all. The Majority will have only have seen her on the news and in the papers. To collapse with grief over a photograph just boggles the mind and yet thousands did. It's nothing to do with love. Its to do with wallowing in grief which people seem to love to do.

Sometimes in life, people admire someone who they have never met. These iconic figures reach those who have never met them and have made an impact in their lives. I think many people have heros and those they admire greatly. When a figure such as that passes away so young and tragically, the loss is greatly felt. It is quite cynical to put down other people's emotions as exaggerations and that they are part of a "nut brigade". I wonder how you might react if someone you think of as a hero/icon dies. Would you feel great to hear you are an emotional wreck and a nut?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Would you feel great to hear you are an emotional wreck and a nut?

I wouldn't fill a London landmark with flowers, teddy-bears, candles and stand behind a set of gates wailing and shouting. For example, Ronnie Barker died recently. A huge icon in the comedy world. When he died I was upset because I'd met Ronnie a few times at various events and he was always such a charming man. When the BBC showed his BAFTA tribute, I will admit to crying a little because of the nature of the programme and because of my recollections of the man so many were paying tribute to. But that wasn't the same as Diana - people who never knew her, never met her etc etc turned into gibbering wrecks which confirms to me that celebrity culture is well and truly addictive to the masses. I don't have heros and icons - especially not one that I'd put my life of hold for if they died. And if I did, then I'd expect to be called and emotional wreck and a nut.

 

[Squidgy]

I don't have heros and icons - especially not one that I'd put my life of hold for if they died. And if I did, then I'd expect to be called and emotional wreck and a nut.

That's a pretty judgmental statement (& personally one I find rather sad). I have had heros in my life, yet I don't think of myself as an "emotional wreck" (but then again, I'm not a very objective observer on these things, am I?).
One of my heros was fellow Canadian Terry Fox (a young man, who, after being diagnosed with cancer, decided to run across Canada to raise money for research). I never met the man, yet when he died in 1981, even though I was only 12, I remember feeling immense sadness (& I was not alone - every where I went that day, people were subdued).

 

[Alicky]

I can understand the sadness, I mean, if I had been around when John Lennon was murdered I would have been upset, he's my favorite. But I think a lot of people with CC&D are little too into it, take it way too personally and emotionally have way too much invested. The fact that people still cry, hold vigils on the anniversaries and are emotionally so attached to the whole situation and would want to protest against C&C of all people to me is strange and morbid. If only such 'passion' was directed towards more important things.

 

[Squidgy]

I can understand the sadness, I mean, if I had been around when John Lennon was murdered I would have been upset, he's my favorite. But I think a lot of people with CC&D are little too into it, take it way too personally and emotionally have way too much invested. The fact that people still cry, hold vigils on the anniversaries and are emotionally so attached to the whole situation and would want to protest against C&C of all people to me is strange and morbid. If only such 'passion' was directed towards more important things.

I agree with you completely Alicky. However, what upsets me is the assumption in the C&C threads on this forum that all supporters of Diana are irrational, overly emotional, narrow minded "nut cases" living in the past. Of course, the people you describe exist - who hold vigils, wish bad things for C&C. But I am guessing that they represent a small, small percentage of Diana "fans". (Just as I believe the rude, defensive, narrow minded people who support C&C that we have occasionally seen on this forum, represent a small minority of C&C supporters). Perhaps I have to get a certificate from a pyschiatrist saying I am mentally sound & present it here, to prove to people that you can be a Diana supporter & still be sane?

Althought I am not at all a supporter of either C&C, I certainly do not wish them ill. They seemed to have found happiness & considerable contentment at this later stage in their lives & good for them. That's not to say I don't wish things had turned out differently, but they didn't & I have no choice but to accept that.

 

[Skydragon]

I can understand the sadness, I mean, if I had been around when John Lennon was murdered I would have been upset, he's my favorite. But I think a lot of people with CC&D are little too into it, take it way too personally and emotionally have way too much invested. The fact that people still cry, hold vigils on the anniversaries and are emotionally so attached to the whole situation and would want to protest against C&C of all people to me is strange and morbid. If only such 'passion' was directed towards more important things.

As you say a lot of people are 'too into it'. No one vilified John Lennon for leaving his 1st wife and children, which he did, very publicly.
Charles was married to D, it didn't work out, she had other lovers, he returned to the real love of his life. These things happen.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if none of us ever made a mistake.

 

[Warren]

I think its pretty apparent to all members who frequent the British Forums that the majority of participants provide interesting, considered and intelligent contributions.
Wild sweeping statements from a few members regarding "supporters" of C&C and Diana should not be taken to heart, or taken personally.

As far as I know there aren't too many members with a clip-board beside their computers keeping tally with a list of posters, three columns, and a tick in "for", "against" or
"fence-sitter".

We are here because we have a keen interest and the TRF is the best place to share it. We all have our own favourites and areas of specialised knowledge; most of us appreciate this in other members, and value it.

There will always be "partisans" who choose to see people and events in black and white, and who jealously "protect" their favourites. Most of the time this can be accommodated; at other times it becomes tiresome. Most of us can read another's opinion on the Boards without seeing it as a personal attack, although we may disagree with it. A bit of maturity, an adult outlook, and a civil manner are all that's required. Surely not too much to ask.

Warren

 

[Alicky]

I agree with you completely Alicky. However, what upsets me is the assumption in the C&C threads on this forum that all supporters of Diana are irrational, overly emotional, narrow minded "nut cases" living in the past. Of course, the people you describe exist - who hold vigils, wish bad things for C&C. But I am guessing that they represent a small, small percentage of Diana "fans". (Just as I believe the rude, defensive, narrow minded people who support C&C that we have occasionally seen on this forum, represent a small minority of C&C supporters). Perhaps I have to get a certificate from a pyschiatrist saying I am mentally sound & present it here, to prove to people that you can be a Diana supporter & still be sane?

I never meant to make that assumption. I was targeting the more radical protesting bunch out there, not any specific members here. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a fan of Diana's, but I think some get way too carried away and I think it's quite bizarre lol. Once they hit that point, they're not mere fans anymore, they've passed that level and are onto something far else.

 

[Alicky]

As you say a lot of people are 'too into it'. No one vilified John Lennon for leaving his 1st wife and children, which he did, very publicly.
Charles was married to D, it didn't work out, she had other lovers, he returned to the real love of his life. These things happen.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if none of us ever made a mistake.

Good points. John had been betraying Cynthia from their earliest days, had gotten her pregnant out of wedlock, virtually ignored and neglected her and their son once they were married, openly cheated till their divorce with numbers of women, and then sued her for adultery to get her off his back. And that's only part of it, and that was only with the first wife. And yet, no one cares about Cynthia, after all, she was dumpy and John was the star.

 

[Squidgy]

I never meant to make that assumption. I was targeting the more radical protesting bunch out there, not any specific members here. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a fan of Diana's, but I think some get way too carried away and I think it's quite bizarre lol. Once they hit that point, they're not mere fans anymore, they've passed that level and are onto something far else.

I know you weren't making that assumption Alicky and I'm truly sorry if my post implied you were. Personally I think you are one of the more rational "voices" in this thread.

(Now, I think I am going to go back to posting in the Dutch RF threads - the waters seem a little calmer over there ...)

 

[Alicky]

I know you weren't making that assumption Alicky and I'm truly sorry if my post implied you were. Personally I think you are one of the more rational "voices" in this thread.

That's okay, I apologize if you thought I had targeted you. I think you're rational too!

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

This is a very interesting thread, now in my mind there were three incidents that could have been "turning points" (probably a lot more, but these 3 are the ones that stand out for me).
1. What if at the "Trooping the Colour" in 1981, it wasnt blanks, and The Queen was in fact killed?

Would being made King just about a month before the wedding have given him the ability to marry Camilla instead? Probably not with the Queen Mother & Phillip still alive. Would being King have made the marriage to Diana easier or would it have propelled events must faster with the extra strain of reign?

2. What if Charles died in a similar "blanks fired" event in 1988?

We would probably have never known much of the problems in the marriage, there wouldnt have likely been a morton book, or panorama, or dimbleby book. But at the same time, I think Diana wouldnt have felt the need to strike out and find a role as much, so things like the landmines campaign wouldnt have happened, shed have had her hands full raising the boys, and a lot of the problems she had with Charles would have been gone, so she probably would have settled into a widower role, albeit still a famous one.

3. The current one in the thread.

That one would have seen Diana continuing her new role making a massive positive impact on the world for her humanitarian work. Her personal life would be less certain, perhaps time and wisdom may have aided her there, but I fear it would have been more of the same. She likely would have channeled her energy into the boys.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Got this question from another board and thought it was really interesting. What if it had been Charles that was killed and not Diana. What do you think Diana's role would be today? Do you think she would be treated differently by the RF? What about her romantic interests?

This thread is about Diana. Is it possible to move out of C&C's thread?

Thanks
(It was created on August of 2005.)

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This is a very interesting thread, now in my mind there were three incidents that could have been "turning points" (probably a lot more, but these 3 are the ones that stand out for me).
1. What if at the "Trooping the Colour" in 1981, it wasnt blanks, and The Queen was in fact killed?

Would being made King just about a month before the wedding have given him the ability to marry Camilla instead? Probably not with the Queen Mother & Phillip still alive. Would being King have made the marriage to Diana easier or would it have propelled events must faster with the extra strain of reign?

2. What if Charles died in a similar "blanks fired" event in 1988?

We would probably have never known much of the problems in the marriage, there wouldnt have likely been a morton book, or panorama, or dimbleby book. But at the same time, I think Diana wouldnt have felt the need to strike out and find a role as much, so things like the landmines campaign wouldnt have happened, shed have had her hands full raising the boys, and a lot of the problems she had with Charles would have been gone, so she probably would have settled into a widower role, albeit still a famous one.

3. The current one in the thread.

That one would have seen Diana continuing her new role making a massive positive impact on the world for her humanitarian work. Her personal life would be less certain, perhaps time and wisdom may have aided her there, but I fear it would have been more of the same. She likely would have channeled her energy into the boys.

I've been following this forum for 10 years and been a member since 2013, and I am still a member mainly through a stubborn refusal to accept that TRF isn't what it once was.

I used to love it, but many of my favorite members are not posting anymore. And this post says it all: TRF is going down hill.

 

[Marengo]

Closed for mod. review.