The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/)
-   -   Preparations for the 10th Anniversary Concert and Memorial Service (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/preparations-for-the-10th-anniversary-concert-and-memorial-service-11590.html)

Skydragon 12-19-2006 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie
So, because you don't, no one else does either? :wacko:

Well, there are at the moment quite a few of us here and I have to say only one remembers, vaguely, a Harrison concert for anyone. Although we all remember Harrison, the Beatles, the Travellin Wilburys etc. Your statement can of course be reversed, just because you do, everyone should!:wacko:
Quote:

And? Sorry, I am confused as to what that has to do with remembering the concert once it is over.
I didn't realise I would need to make it even clearer! They have moved on, they have forgotten the 'vow' they made, so what makes you think they will remember a concert, which is what you, IMO, suggested in your earlier post?

corazon 12-19-2006 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirhon11234
So your basically saying with time Diana will be frogotten. Because I assure you that will never happen.:rolleyes:

I totally agree with you, diana never wil l be frogotten, and she son't need a GREAT avct to b remember, the people have diaan in the hearts and that is sufficient, now we have a event to remember her with happiness, althorp is a great tribute to her but is sad, she is there (don't for me), all her things are there etc and is say, but with the concert we can to celebrete her and help another people in her name, the best tribute to her for me.

sirhon11234 12-19-2006 06:36 PM

Quote:

didn't realise I would need to make it even clearer! They have moved on, they have forgotten the 'vow' they made, so what makes you think they will remember a concert, which is what you, IMO, suggested in your earlier post?
I wonder if the tables were turned and had it been charles or Camilla who had died in that crash would you be singing a different tune.

ysbel 12-19-2006 06:50 PM

Can I interrupt this exchange to ask one basic question? I thought charity events are tax-exempt, regardless of the type. Its supposed to encourage charitable donations, etc. skydragon, you mean that charity events don't have that de facto privilege in Britain?

Elspeth 12-19-2006 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
Actually, I was saying the concert will be forgotten! :rolleyes: It would be funny to come back to this thread in 2 years and see if the same people are still talking about the concert.

Fine, so it'll be forgotten. Its purpose is to raise money for charity, not to be an event that's remembered for a hundred years. I don't remember any details about the Live Aid or Farm Aid concerts I've watched, but they did what they were intended to do and raised money for charity.

sassie 12-19-2006 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
Well, there are at the moment quite a few of us here and I have to say only one remembers, vaguely, a Harrison concert for anyone. Although we all remember Harrison, the Beatles, the Travellin Wilburys etc. Your statement can of course be reversed, just because you do, everyone should!:wacko:

I didn't realise I would need to make it even clearer! They have moved on, they have forgotten the 'vow' they made, so what makes you think they will remember a concert, which is what you, IMO, suggested in your earlier post?

:bang::bang:

Madame Royale 12-19-2006 09:10 PM

Quote:

Fine, so it'll be forgotten. Its purpose is to raise money for charity, not to be an event that's remembered for a hundred years. I don't remember any details about the Live Aid or Farm Aid concerts I've watched, but they did what they were intended to do and raised money for charity.
Absolutely, Elspeth. I feel you have touched on something that is being greatly overlooked.

Because its in Diana's memory, I see some as insistent upon creating a negative spin on the process and in doing so, are judging its worth by the place it shall hold in history (also, using it as a measure for the publics attitude towards the memory of Diana. Again, a pointless exercise but each to their own).

This is about raising money for charity first and foremost and if William, Harry and the organising officials are successful in achieving this objective then has it not been successful?

What better way to publically honour their mother than to recognise her participation in world humanitarian efforts and as a result, dedicate this great charity event in her memory.

Personally, I feel it will be remembered but that's just me :flowers:

Warren 12-20-2006 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie
So, because you don't, no one else does either?

Don't worry sassie, I remember it! :smile:

Jo of Palatine 12-20-2006 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie
For example, there are many who clearly remember George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh, and that was over 30 years ago.

I remember it clearly - it was the first time I ever heard of a country named Bangla-Desh and I still know how touched I was when George Harrison played his song "Help the people of Bangla-Desh". I liked the way Indian music had been woven into the music and the sirit of it, which was really about peace and help and love. The concert BTW as a DVD still has a sales rank with Amazon and it's a low 3.128 in DVD (at amazon.de)! As an aside: when I made the same area with my latest book, I sold more than 25.000 copies in 6 months, which is quite something when it comes to special interest titles. I guess with the flood of DVDs it's similar. (The whole album was remastered and republished last year, so it's quite an new item).

Jo of Palatine 12-20-2006 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale
Absolutely, Elspeth. I feel you have touched on something that is being greatly overlooked.

Because its in Diana's memory, I see some as insistent upon creating a negative spin on the process and in doing so, are judging its worth by the place it shall hold in history (also, using it as a measure for the publics attitude towards the memory of Diana. Again, a pointless exercise but each to their own).

This is about raising money for charity first and foremost and if William, Harry and the organising officials are successful in achieving this objective then has it not been successful?

What better way to publically honour their mother than to recognise her participation in world humanitarian efforts and as a result, dedicate this great charity event in her memory.

Personally, I feel it will be remembered but that's just me :flowers:

You make a very valuable point here. But is it for charity first and foremost? Okay, the money they (hopefully) make from it will go to charities but the name "Concert for Diana" and the talk about a birthday present that prince William used doesn't sit overly well with me. Diana is dead and you cannot give her a birthday present. I agree that her sons want to commemorate her and to share their feelings with other people, while doing something for the purposes that were dear to Diana's heart. So from the princes' side it's okay, I suppose. But still the wording and the surrounding facts don't resonate positively with me. But then I don't like the Spanish processions either, where they take the skeleton of saints from the crypt and, after carrying them around in a glass coffin, sit them at the top of a celebration table and offer them food. I once saw a film about that and it was pretty necrophilic.

I don't want to celebrate the lífe of a person who is dead and has been for 10 years. I don't want to listen in on a concert that is for somebody who is not longer there. Mourning and memorial services and all that is okay, but to have fun dancing on the graves is not something I enjoy.

Skydragon 12-20-2006 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirhon11234
I wonder if the tables were turned and had it been charles or Camilla who had died in that crash would you be singing a different tune.

No, I would have expected there to have been the funeral, a memorial (at the time), a statue of some sort and then thats it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
I thought charity events are tax-exempt, regardless of the type. Its supposed to encourage charitable donations, etc. skydragon, you mean that charity events don't have that de facto privilege in Britain?

Only some portions of them. If you make a donation to a registered charity, you fill in a form to declare that you are a taxpayer and pay more tax than the amount the charity is likely to claim back. Any charity event has to pay some tax unless they get an exemption from the erstwhile Mr Brown.
The problem arises because it is not the charities themselves that are organising this event and so, any money they receive will be a 'gift' and not earned income through trade, (which is exempt for charities). Live 8 managed to get their VAT bill reduced by £2 million. Tax and VAT, although both taxes, are different things.

Skydragon 12-20-2006 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
I remember it clearly - it was the first time I ever heard of a country named Bangla-Desh and I still know how touched I was when George Harrison played his song "Help the people of Bangla-Desh". I liked the way Indian music had been woven into the music and the sirit of it, which was really about peace and help and love. The concert BTW as a DVD still has a sales rank with Amazon and it's a low 3.128 in DVD (at amazon.de)! As an aside: when I made the same area with my latest book, I sold more than 25.000 copies in 6 months, which is quite something when it comes to special interest titles. I guess with the flood of DVDs it's similar. (The whole album was remastered and republished last year, so it's quite an new item).

Congratulations on your book sales. :flowers: We must all have been busy with our own thing, although some this morning vaguely remember a concert, only one chap remembered it was for Bangladesh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh

I expect it was one of those things back in the 70's where you had to be interested in 'popular' music and artists! :rolleyes:

Jo of Palatine 12-20-2006 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
The point is that of the 100's who were going to be at KP every year, very few turned up this time.

Hm, there are enough people who visit graves in ancient graveyard all around the world - just have a look at Pere Lachaise in Paris on any given day. As Diana's grave is unapproachable for most of the years and is quite a distance from London, I guess people will always use Kensington Palace as their place to mourn somebody who touched them. And why not? I haope that someday when William is king he will give her a grave or at least a plaque of commemoration in Westminster Abbey or another appropriate church (eg St. Paul's), so people have a better place to mourn her than at that fountain. Hopefully a place with wheel-chair access because Diana's fans are bound to get older year after year and I don't see crowds of new ones coming.

But it came as it always come: the fame of dead celebs ceases to work after some years for huge crowds, but I don't think Diana will ever be forgotten. But once she fits into the long stream of former members of the monarchy's premier family, all will be back to normal and what you describe is probably the first step towards a rather "normal" way of commemoration.

Skydragon 12-20-2006 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
I guess people will always use Kensington Palace as their place to mourn somebody who touched them. And why not?

If people want to go to KP, fine, all I was trying to say, is that people, for whatever reason do forget (except the family and close friends), life takes over.

Jo of Palatine 12-20-2006 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
Congratulations on your book sales. :flowers:

Thank you.

Quote:


I expect it was one of those things back in the 70's where you had to be interested in 'popular' music and artists! :rolleyes:
No, I don't think so. I was eg not interested in Woodstock. But this was a way to interest younger people for a charity which was new and fresh and interesting. Woodstock was just interested in itself and the celebration of its own culture which was different from that of the "grown-ups" but just as serious as theirs. The popculture for teenies was anything but something to be taken serious.

And then there was this concert when artists came to gether to create a warmer, more human spirit and to create awareness for the suffering of other people. Today I don't care that much for charity concerts, because IMHO it's a perfect way for the artists to boost their reputation on appearing not longer as greedy as they probably are - and I don't like hypocrisy. But "Bangladesh" was the first of its kind and thus IMHO warrants to stay in mind. Just my opinion. :flowers:

Madame Royale 12-20-2006 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
You make a very valuable point here. But is it for charity first and foremost? Okay, the money they (hopefully) make from it will go to charities but the name "Concert for Diana" and the talk about a birthday present that prince William used doesn't sit overly well with me. Diana is dead and you cannot give her a birthday present. I agree that her sons want to commemorate her and to share their feelings with other people, while doing something for the purposes that were dear to Diana's heart. So from the princes' side it's okay, I suppose. But still the wording and the surrounding facts don't resonate positively with me. But then I don't like the Spanish processions either, where they take the skeleton of saints from the crypt and, after carrying them around in a glass coffin, sit them at the top of a celebration table and offer them food. I once saw a film about that and it was pretty necrophilic.

I don't want to celebrate the lífe of a person who is dead and has been for 10 years. I don't want to listen in on a concert that is for somebody who is not longer there. Mourning and memorial services and all that is okay, but to have fun dancing on the graves is not something I enjoy.

I understand your reservations Jo :smile: and 'see' what you're saying.

The name 'Concert For Diana', is what it is I guess. Its a concert for charity in memory of the lady whom has, by way of living, made this event possible. She isn't here and if she were then no concert would be organised I'm sure, so I think it does make sense (I hope I'm making sense.lol.).

As for the birthday present comment, I guess from the perspective of her two sons (as you mentioned), they could very well look upon it as their personal gift to her memory. And that 'gift' encompasses the communal celebration they wished to make it.

I don't see it, personally, as dancing on someones grave. They are not celebrating her life as such, but the memory and legacy she left on having taken an active and passionate role in charity. Again, something that was widely known.

Commemorating her, as the person, comes at the memorial service. That's its purpose and that's where reflection of a unique and appreciated life shall take place :flowers:

ysbel 12-20-2006 10:44 AM

I think few would object to William and Harry making a personal memorial to their mother. The mother-son bond is inviolable.

Where some would have a problem (including myself) is if the government or the monarchy itself decides to memorialize Diana since her presence in the monarchy and some of her public actions towards the institution are believed by many to have actually weakened the position of the monarchy. She may have had very understandable reasons for doing so but the effects were the same.

Exactly 11 years ago today the Queen told Charles and Diana to divorce. On today's BBCs On This Day is the original newstory that the BBC ran and it highlights just how much in turmoil the monarchy was after one of Diana's actions.

Some quotes from the original article (bolds are mine):

Quote:

The Queen's action comes just weeks after the princess's interview on Panorama which sparked a national debate on the future of the monarchy.
Quote:

Diana was also repeatedly critical of her husband's ability to become king, his family, and their advisers
Generally the purpose of a memorial is to point to a person's life as an example of how others should live and conduct themselves. Given how some of Diana's actions affected the institution of monarchy and led to her early demise, I'm very wary of any event that holds Diana up as someone little girls should pattern themselves after.

Yes, I do have problems with the Queen in her position as head of the monarchy memorializing a person who put the monarchy in such an untenable position. The Queen may have been personally very fond of Diana and it appears that she was very understanding of the difficult position Diana was in, but that fondness does not necessarily translate to the Queen using her position as head of the British monarchy to honor Diana.

Some sympathy and compassion for Diana is certainly warranted. She meant well and I believe she touched a lot of people. But her public actions against the monarchy and questionable actions with the press regarding her own safety in the months prior to her death disqualify her IMO as a role model for young women.

sassie 12-20-2006 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

Some sympathy and compassion for Diana is certainly warranted. She meant well and I believe she touched a lot of people. But her public actions against the monarchy and questionable actions with the press regarding her own safety in the months prior to her death disqualify her IMO as a role model for young women.

A very good point, one I agree with. Diana always failed to appreciate that, in speaking against the monarchy, and, more personally, Prince Charles, she was attacking the very institution that gave her the platform she spoke from.

Quote:

Yes, I do have problems with the Queen in her position as head of the monarchy memorializing a person who put the monarchy in such an untenable position.
But, isn't the fountain (if it ever works) an official memorial?

Skydragon 12-20-2006 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie
But, isn't the fountain (if it ever works) an official memorial?

It is indeed.

Jo of Palatine 12-20-2006 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Where some would have a problem (including myself) is if the government or the monarchy itself decides to memorialize Diana since her presence in the monarchy and some of her public actions towards the institution are believed by many to have actually weakened the position of the monarchy. She may have had very understandable reasons for doing so but the effects were the same.

When I'm thinking of Diana, I always see a well-meaning, but absolutely self-centered woman. She simply couldn't understand that if she really suceeded in using her influence with the media to omit Charles as next king in favour of her own son, she would endanger her own son's reign! Modern monarchy is a relic of former times which people, the new power, still appreciate and thus it survives. On endangeriung "ye olde rules" she endangered the whole thing! This is something Diana never saw.

So to celebrate her means to celebrate a woman who did her best to abolish the monarchy and who would want that?

Personally I always have related to Diana and was very sad when she diedm but still... she had no understanding of the styetm she married into and used it for her own ends, which is something I cannot condone!


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

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises