The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/)
-   -   20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/20th-anniversary-of-the-death-of-diana-princess-of-wales-august-31-2017-a-42008.html)

JessRulz 12-17-2014 09:03 PM

20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017
 
https://i65.tinypic.com/2hhknki.png
Arms of Diana, Princess of Wales

20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales

August 31, 1997
Paris, France


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***

Dman 01-12-2017 07:50 PM

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: 20th Anniversary - 2017
 
Princess Diana’s life to be celebrated - 20th anniversary of her death | Royal | News | Daily Express

cepe 01-12-2017 08:29 PM

I find it difficult to understand how the cult of Diana continues. There are so many people who contributed more to British society, charitable works etc than she did.

I suppose it's down to the modern cult of personality and celebrity.

I consider someone such as George VI who never wanted fame or to be king and who carried out his work with quiet dignity through some of the darkest days in my country's history.

Hardly anyone remembers him at all. I really admire him.

anbrida 01-12-2017 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1953887)
I find it difficult to understand how the cult of Diana continues. There are so many people who contributed more to British society, charitable works etc than she did.

I suppose it's down to the modern cult of personality and celebrity.

I consider someone such as George VI who never wanted fame or to be king and who carried out his work with quiet dignity through some of the darkest days in my country's history.

Hardly anyone remembers him at all. I really admire him.

I don't know other people. Just speak for myself, I find her such a myth, the more I know, the more I realize I still don't know.

And some of her fans just simply confess that, they felt peace whenever they saw her photo. Of course, such feeling are up to individual. Every people have their only feeling towards her. Such feeling should not be subject to other people's judgement. We are allowed to have our own feeling.

For example, I don't know much about George VI, but I completely respect your admiration of him.

royal rob 01-12-2017 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1953887)
I find it difficult to understand how the cult of Diana continues. There are so many people who contributed more to British society, charitable works etc than she did.

I suppose it's down to the modern cult of personality and celebrity.

I consider someone such as George VI who never wanted fame or to be king and who carried out his work with quiet dignity through some of the darkest days in my country's history.

Hardly anyone remembers him at all. I really admire him.


You don't have to understand just respect those of us who do


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

miss whirley 01-12-2017 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1953887)
I find it difficult to understand how the cult of Diana continues. There are so many people who contributed more to British society, charitable works etc than she did.

I suppose it's down to the modern cult of personality and celebrity.

I consider someone such as George VI who never wanted fame or to be king and who carried out his work with quiet dignity through some of the darkest days in my country's history.

Hardly anyone remembers him at all. I really admire him.

I don't understand her cult following, either. She wasn't in the spotlight that long when you consider the decades of work other royals have done. But I do think her star is fading. I doubt there will be any big memorial by the time it reaches the 50th anniversary.

Yes, George VI was special. I would also add QEQM, too. But they would probably prefer to be remembered quietly, instead of all the hoopla and dramatics that seem to follow Diana's legacy.

TLLK 01-12-2017 09:29 PM

IMO the brothers have chosen an appropriate and meaningful way to remember her this year. The concert in 2007 had its place and time, but twenty years on this seems right.:flowers:

Mermaid1962 01-12-2017 10:34 PM

I greatly admire George VI. :flowers: I wouldn't say that I'm a member of the Diana "cult". For me, it's more nostalgia than anything. She was a pretty young woman who arrived on the scene when things were quite grim. There was rioting in the UK and the Cold War was making people very anxious. People needed an escape from their anxieties. Diana had a charming way with children and was kind and friendly to the elderly and sick. For people about my age, this is what we remember. The Diana of the summer of 1997 seems very removed from the Diana photographed on the streets of London in the fall of 1980.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1953887)
I find it difficult to understand how the cult of Diana continues. There are so many people who contributed more to British society, charitable works etc than she did.

I suppose it's down to the modern cult of personality and celebrity.

I consider someone such as George VI who never wanted fame or to be king and who carried out his work with quiet dignity through some of the darkest days in my country's history.

Hardly anyone remembers him at all. I really admire him.


anbrida 01-12-2017 11:01 PM

It is amazing the cult of Diana can continue to nowaday. Some people just have unspeakable connection with her. But not everything can be explained by rationality. Religion is one good example of that. But I actually believe everything happens for some reason.

Dman 01-12-2017 11:10 PM

There's no "Diana Cult." Diana was a very popular member of the royal family and she pretty much became the world princess who was taken from us in such a tragic way. William and Harry and members of both families know how much Diana meant to people.

People still remember her after all these years and it's just fitting to take some time to commemorate her life and legacy.

Mermaid1962 01-13-2017 02:04 AM

:previous: I remember that there was a definite cultic atmosphere right after her death in that there were reports of weird things going on. People seeing things. It's not unusual to hear stories like that when someone dies. A grief-stricken spouse will hear the loved one's voice or feel their presence sometimes. Personally, I think it's a psychological thing. Then there's the way that Diana was elevated to secular sainthood with all the books and tribute sections in papers and documentaries. After a few years, there was more of a trend of people looking objectively at Diana's life; but there were still those who strongly saw her as the innocent victim of a cruel husband and refused to see that she contributed in any way to the breakdown of her marriage. I think that there were definite cultic tendencies back then but not so much now.

Dman 01-13-2017 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1953941)
:previous: I remember that there was a definite cultic atmosphere right after her death in that there were reports of weird things going on. People seeing things. It's not unusual to hear stories like that when someone dies. A grief-stricken spouse will hear the loved one's voice or feel their presence sometimes. Personally, I think it's a psychological thing. Then there's the way that Diana was elevated to secular sainthood with all the books and tribute sections in papers and documentaries. After a few years, there was more of a trend of people looking objectively at Diana's life; but there were still those who strongly saw her as the innocent victim of a cruel husband and refused to see that she contributed in any way to the breakdown of her marriage. I think that there were definite cultic tendencies back then but not so much now.

I don't think it had anything to do with a cult atmosphere, but her passing was a big event and the world did mourn her. The media did make money off of her passing though.

I think everyone knew Diana's story and knew all about her marital problems, but with her passing taking place right after her divorce the previous year, it added to making the story one sided. I think it caused some people to turn on her legacy and memory. That was the medias doing, not the people though.

The Anniversaries are just pretty much to keep her memory and legacy alive.
Her charities are still thriving with people contributing through her memory and I like that William and Harry refuse to allow her memory to die, although some people just want others to move on and leave her in past. It would be wrong to do so. A lot of what they do is to make her proud.

MARG 01-13-2017 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1953945)
I don't think it had anything to do with a cult atmosphere, but her passing was a big event and the world did mourn her. The media did make money off of her passing though.

I think everyone knew Diana's story and knew all about her marital problems, but with her passing taking place right after her divorce the previous year, it added to making the story one sided. I think it caused some people to turn on her legacy and memory. That was the medias doing, not the people though.

The Anniversaries are just pretty much to keep her memory and legacy alive.
Her charities are still thriving with people contributing through her memory and I like that William and Harry refuse to allow her memory to die, although some people just want others to move on and leave her in past. It would be wrong to do so. A lot of what they do is to make her proud.

Diana was lovely, Diana was pretty but her charitable legacy is not of great moment. It was good but if she had been pretty, had not been seen as Shy Di and an innocent taken too soon, we would not be having this conversation!

The death of Diana was treated in a cult-like way, those who disagreed were harassed to silence. The very same reporters and newspapers that had been dragging her through the mud the day before her death, asking who was paying for her high profile celebrity, and totally inappropriate lifestyle, overnight turned her into a saint without blemish. It was creepy and worse was to come with the vile rants rained down on the BRF and the Queen in particular. To me, that too was part of Diana's legacy, the ability to divide, to cause dissension, to cause pain.

So yes, I would like to leave her in the past, a loving mother,
taken to soon. A woman who believed her own press and forgot that she was an ordinary mortal, got into a car with a drunk driver and didn't do up her seatbelt. No more, no less. No great conspiracies, just a sad truth played out on roads around the world.

Perhaps if there is a legacy it is that. Even the great and the good need to use their seatbelts and even the great and the good can be a victim of a drunk driver.

Mermaid1962 01-14-2017 12:42 AM

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zud...201997&f=false


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1953945)
I don't think it had anything to do with a cult atmosphere, but her passing was a big event and the world did mourn her.


Dman 01-14-2017 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1954164)

You can't pay attention those silly things, Mermaid.

What was real was a young princess that touch millions around the world had passed on very tragically and left behind two kids. It was the main cause of The out pouring of grief.

Mermaid1962 01-14-2017 01:31 AM

:previous: I suppose my point is that there were people so distraught that they thought that they were seeing things. Hence the "cultic" side of the mourning of a few.

I don't dispute that Diana was well-loved and that people were genuinely saddened by her death. I certainly was. She was my Princess; and, as a Canadian, I once thought she'd be my future Queen Consort.

I was saddened not only by Diana's death, but by the failure of the Wales's marriage and the impact that it would have on their children.

Dman 01-14-2017 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1954176)
:previous: I suppose my point is that there were people so distraught that they thought that they were seeing things. Hence the "cultic" side of the mourning of a few.

I don't dispute that Diana was well-loved and that people were genuinely saddened by her death. I certainly was. She was my Princess; and, as a Canadian, I once thought she'd be my future Queen Consort.

I was saddened not only by Diana's death, but by the failure of the Wales's marriage and the impact that it would have on their children.

Yes, it was indeed a sad time. For the marriage, my faith teaches me that's there's a reason and season for everything. Fate is mapped out before us all.

Now, reflection should be pretty much a celebration of her life and charitable legacy.

Dman 01-28-2017 04:18 PM

The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry has Commissioned a Statue of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace: Announcement-
https://mobile.twitter.com/Kensingto...48623727050752

The Queen's Support-
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPeterH...49176712544256

The Committee Overseeing the Statue-
Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Julie Samuel:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPeterH...49245561987072

Chairman of the Committee-Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPeterH...49315774656516

Fürstin Taxis 01-28-2017 04:21 PM

Love it :heart:
I just thought about this and how nice it would be to have a beautiful made statue. I hope they don't do something weird avantgarde.

Osipi 01-28-2017 04:26 PM

This is a wonderful way for both William and Harry to remember and pay homage to their mother. Someone suggested here quite a long time ago that a fitting statue would be one with Diana with children around her and that's the first thing that flashed through my mind.

As it is to be privately funded and at Kensington Palace, I am wondering if the statue will be viewable for the public who tour KP or will the princes have it installed in a place such as the private walled garden that they used so often as kids living there with their mum.

Fürstin Taxis 01-28-2017 04:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
The statement says 'in the public gardens at KP', so I guess everyone can see it. :smile:

cepe 01-28-2017 05:09 PM

I hope it is based on something like this, because this is her legacy

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...ure-id52101728

PetticoatLane 01-28-2017 05:13 PM

An utter and complete waste of money. Money that could do so much more good if it were used for just about anything else.

Diana's legacy is so over-stated as to be laughable. I could name about 100 people more deserving of a statue than Diana. I despair, I really do.

PetticoatLane 01-28-2017 05:24 PM

What would be the point?

Many people in Britain and around the world will go to bed hungry tonight but people actually think spending thousands and thousands of £ on a statue of a woman who did some charity work (like millions of people all over the globe) makes sense.

Our priorities are all wrong.

Dman 01-28-2017 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957526)
What would be the point?

Many people in Britain and around the world will go to bed hungry tonight but people actually think spending thousands and thousands of £ on a statue of a woman who did some charity work (like millions of people all over the globe) makes sense.

Our priorities are all wrong.

It's about her two sons preserving her legacy, PetticoatLane. The statue is long overdue, but it's the right thing. I would also like to see a foundation set up in her name. Something like the Princess Grace Foundation.

Osipi 01-28-2017 05:56 PM

There is a very public campaign going on for The Diana Award with a special Legacy Award planned for 2017 to honor the 20th anniversary of their mother's death. Both boys have actively worked to keep their mother's legacy alive through their own personal charity endeavors.

Princes William and Harry support The Diana Award in honour of her 20th death anniversary | Daily Mail Online

The statue is being commissioned by William and Harry and private funding. They have the right to spend their money on whatever pleases them and if its a statue to honor their late mother, that is their choice. I kind of think a statue similar to this picture I found would not only be appropriate but also signify the closeness, the love and the special bond between a mother and her two sons.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...05_468x642.jpg

Valerie Rose 01-28-2017 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1957518)
I hope it is based on something like this, because this is her legacy

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...ure-id52101728

Before I clicked on the link I thought it would be that scene.
Totally fitting.
:flowers:

Molly2101 01-28-2017 06:15 PM

I like the idea of a statue and it also gives George and Charlotte a visual of their grandmother.

royal rob 01-28-2017 06:38 PM

Its wonderful this is finally happening lovely for her sons and grandchildren
Anyone who has a problem with this needs to take a good long look at what their problem really is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Osipi 01-28-2017 06:51 PM

Perhaps the problem some have stated against the statue was the misconception that this statue would somehow be commissioned and sculpted out of funds that could be alloted elsewhere rather than the private funds of Diana's sons and whomever else "private funding" involves.

The main focus though is that there's a public campaign for The Diana Award which, I believe, is a good cause and a good way to mark the 20th anniversary of Diana, Princess of Wales' passing.

Curryong 01-28-2017 06:57 PM

As far as I'm concerned a statue is a lovely way to commemorate Diana's memory on this, the twentieth anniversary of her death. My one concern with statues is that birds love them and they are often splattered with bird poo! This is important to William and Harry otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and part paying for it, with other individuals. I'm just as glad though that her two sons are continuing her memories by being patrons of her charities.

TLLK 01-28-2017 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1957546)
As far as I'm concerned a statue is a lovely way to commemorate Diana's memory on this, the twentieth anniversary of her death. My one concern with statues is that birds love them and they are often splattered with bird poo! This is important to William and Harry otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and part paying for it, with other individuals. I'm just as glad though that her two sons are continuing her memories by being patrons of her charities.

I share your concern about the birds Curryong and for some reason I could see Diana laughing about it as well.:lol:

Like you said it must be important to the brothers or else we wouldn't see one being commissioned.

Daenerys Targaryen 01-28-2017 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1957538)
I like the idea of a statue and it also gives George and Charlotte a visual of their grandmother.

Me too. The fountain is a real disappointment.

royal rob 01-28-2017 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 1957550)
I share your concern about the birds Curryong and for some reason I could see Diana laughing about it as well.:lol:

Like you said it must be important to the brothers or else we wouldn't see one being commissioned.


I can't help but think all the work they have been doing with mental health has given them the courage to say what they want. Wasn't it Harry that said before he wasn't encouraged to talk about how he felt.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Dman 01-28-2017 11:35 PM

Princess Diana memorial statue 'a long time coming' - BBC News

Countessmeout 01-28-2017 11:57 PM

Why is a statue a long time coming? Not every famous person gets one. :ermm:

George and Charlotte don't need a visual of their grandmother. There are plenty of photos and portraits of her. Plenty of memories for dad to share. The same way other kids learn of dead grandparents.

I am honestly disappointed. I was happy they weren't wasting their money on a concert. That they were doing awards to help kids which was a real honor to her memory. A poop covered statue or a scholarship, which do you think is actually a memorial to Diana?

It's not like it's a building? I'd rather a building. Donate money to one of the hospitals she was involved in and put her name on it. Take George and Charlotte to visit the ward, and see the picture likely hung. Establish a school in Africa with her name on it. All better uses of money then a statue.

There is a reason statues aren't made much any more. Upkeep, weather damage, bird poop....many people see them as a waste of money.

Other then her son's Diana is fading. Newer generations don't know her.

royal rob 01-29-2017 12:13 AM

It's what her sons want so your opinion doesn't count.
After all they have been through if they want a statue good for them.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Dman 01-29-2017 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1957577)
Why is a statue a long time coming? Not every famous person gets one. :ermm:

George and Charlotte font need a visual of their grandmother. There are plenty of photos and portraits of her. Plenty of memories fir dad to share. The same way other kids learn of dead grandparents.

I am honestly disappointed. I was happy they weren't wasting their money in a concert. That they were doing awards to help kids which was a real honor to her memory. A poop covered statue or a scholarship, which do you think is actually a memorial to Diana?

It's not like it's a building? I'd rather a building. Donate money to one of the hospitals she was involved in and put her name on it. Take George and Charlotte to visit the ward, and see the picture likely hung. Establish a school in Africa with her name on it. All better uses of money then a statue.

There us a reason statues aren't made much any more. Upkeep, weather damage, bird poop....many people see them as a waste of money.

Other then her son's Diana is fading. Newer generations don't know her.

Many people were thinking that a statue would've been a great honor for her many years ago.

A concert wouldn't have been a waste of money, when it's done to raise money for charity.

The statue is just part of celebrating her life this year.

I think it's very appropriate to introduce Diana to the new generation and keep her memory alive. The Diana Award is already doing this.

PetticoatLane 01-29-2017 08:02 AM

This is not just another rich person spending money. This is apparently being done to commemorate Diana's charity work. Wasting thousands of pounds, which could be used to do some more of the kind of charity work Diana is apparently being commemorated for, on a statue that'll help no one is just plain wrong.

She already has a massive fountain built in her honour at huge expense, at least one charity in her name and a huge pop concert was held in her honour - in Wembley Stadium no less! Are we to expect ever more grandiose memorials at the 25th anniversary, then the 30th, the 40th and the 50th?

I volunteer at least 2 days a week in a women's refuge. Everyone who does works full time as well. We've all been spending our own money to try and keep it going because the govt funding doesn't cover its expenses. What we couldn't do with the £50k-100k that'll be wasted on this piece of cold marble that'll spend most of its time covered in pigeon excrement.

If this makes me a preachy drama queen then I'll wear that badge with honour.

miss whirley 01-29-2017 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1957577)
Why is a statue a long time coming? Not every famous person gets one. :ermm:

George and Charlotte font need a visual of their grandmother. There are plenty of photos and portraits of her. Plenty of memories fir dad to share. The same way other kids learn of dead grandparents.

I am honestly disappointed. I was happy they weren't wasting their money in a concert. That they were doing awards to help kids which was a real honor to her memory. A poop covered statue or a scholarship, which do you think is actually a memorial to Diana?

It's not like it's a building? I'd rather a building. Donate money to one of the hospitals she was involved in and put her name on it. Take George and Charlotte to visit the ward, and see the picture likely hung. Establish a school in Africa with her name on it. All better uses of money then a statue.

There us a reason statues aren't made much any more. Upkeep, weather damage, bird poop....many people see them as a waste of money.

Other then her son's Diana is fading. Newer generations don't know her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957626)
I hadn't realised I was being 'preachy' or throwing a 'hissy fit'. Thank goodness I have you to set me straight.

This is not just another rich person spending money. This is apparently being done to commemorate Diana's charity work. Wasting thousands of pounds, which could be used to do some more of the kind of charity work Diana is apparently being commemorated for, on a statue that'll help no one is just plain wrong.

She already has a massive fountain built in her honour at huge expense, at least one charity in her name and a huge pop concert was held in her honour - in Wembley Stadium no less! Are we to expect ever more grandiose memorials at the 25th anniversary, then the 30th, the 40th and the 50th?

I volunteer at least 2 days a week in a women's refuge. Everyone who does works full time as well. We've all been spending our own money to try and keep it going because the govt funding doesn't cover its expenses. What we couldn't do with the £50k-100k that'll be wasted on this piece of cold marble that'll spend most of its time covered in pigeon excrement.

If this makes me a preachy drama queen then I'll wear that badge with honour.

I agree with you both. Unfortunately, I think this has been in the works for awhile. I remember reading an article back in 2010 or 2011, that said William and Harry were planning a 100,000 statue of Diana to be built in the future.

I don't understand their logic. You would think after that silly bronze statue of Diana and Dodi was built in 2005 by Dodi's father, that they would see how frivolous this kind of tribute is. If they wanted something artistic to honor their mother, maybe do something with the ballet, like fund a production. Diana loved ballet. Seriously, almost anything would have been better than a vacuous statue.

Dman 01-29-2017 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss whirley (Post 1957647)
I agree with you both. Unfortunately, I think this has been in the works for awhile. I remember reading an article back in 2010 or 2011, that said William and Harry were planning a 100,000 statue of Diana to be built in the future.

I don't understand their logic. You would think after that silly bronze statue of Diana and Dodi was built in 2005 by Dodi's father, that they would see how frivolous this kind of tribute is. If they wanted something artistic to honor their mother, maybe do something with the ballet, like fund a production. Diana loved ballet. Seriously, almost anything would have been better than a vacuous statue.

The difference is this statue will be at its rightful place, Diana's home, Kensington Palace. It will be overseen by and done with the blessing from Diana's family. It's just one of the ways William and Harry want to remember her.

Although, I would like to see charitable foundation set up in her name. Something along the lines of the Princess Grace Foundation. I think those kind of foundations do the most incredible things for people.

Countessmeout 01-29-2017 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1957586)
Many people were thinking that a statue would've been a great honor for her many years ago.

A concert wouldn't have been a waste of money, when it's done to raise money for charity.

The statue is just part of celebrating her life this year.

I think it's very appropriate to introduce Diana to the new generation and keep her memory alive. The Diana Award is already doing this.

Other then her grandchildren, why is it important to introduce her to the next generation:ermm:

Diana did great things. Yes. And the awards are good because they continue her legacy. Her legacy is meant to be about helping people not About being famous. A charity with her name could last generations without people knowing who she is. You see it with countless charities that people would have to look up who it wa named for.

She isn't some glorious role model and hero that we need to keep alive for another generation. There is a reason she has rightfully faded.

The concert isn't needed to raise money. Spend the millions it costs to throw a concert on the actual charity.

Al_bina 01-29-2017 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fürstin Taxis (Post 1957513)
The statement says 'in the public gardens at KP', so I guess everyone can see it. :smile:

"Princes have convened a committee to commission and privately raise funds ..." means that nouveau riche can procure an access to royals. Is there a problem for the Princes in question to fund the statue themselves?

Parsimony of the British royals is legendary. Prince William and Prince Henry are not an exception in this respect.

Osipi 01-29-2017 01:52 PM

Private funds means that the cost is coming from William and Harry and other private funders. It could be Charles, the Queen, Camilla, Charles Spencer or Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

It is a way that the boys are privately honoring their mother. There are no exterior motives behind the gesture. They don't even have to put it where the public can view it. They could scrap the project and put the money into other things that would benefit her legacy. Oh wait, they're already doing that and continuing her legacy in various ways. They're supporting The Diana Award. Harry has Sentebale (means forget-me-not) which was started by Harry and Seeiso in memory of their mothers. William continues on with Centrepoint and those are just the ones that come to mind.

I just can't understand the need to downgrade a statue because of bird poop and suggest that the boys could do much better. All that really matters is that this is the way they choose to honor and remember their mother. Perhaps my ways of remembering my mother and my father are a bit "different" too but public opinion of it wouldn't make one little bit of difference to me and I'm sure its the same with William and Harry. I think if they could read some of the responses made to their announcement of a statue, they would regret announcing their plans publicly.

In the long run, it doesn't matter what we think of Diana or how high we hold her in our estimation or what we feel would be the best way to commemorate her memory. It matters to William and Harry and their families and how they wish to remember someone they deeply loved should be respected.

royal rob 01-29-2017 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1957668)
Other then her grandchildren, why is it important to introduce her to the next generation:ermm:



Diana did great things. Yes. And the awards are good because they continue her legacy. Her legacy is meant to be about helping people not About being famous. A charity with her name could last generations without people knowing who she is. You see it with countless charities that people would have to look up who it wa named for.



She isn't some glorious role model and hero that we need to keep alive for another generation. There is a reason she has rightfully faded.



The concert isn't needed to raise money. Spend the millions it costs to throw a concert on the actual charity.


This is being done by her sons it's nobody else's business
Good Lord people


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Daenerys Targaryen 01-29-2017 03:45 PM

I think it's nice that they are doing a statue. I was very unimpressed with the fountain design.

Osipi 01-29-2017 03:51 PM

To be absolutely honest, when I first saw photographs of Diana's "fountain" in Hyde Park, I thought it was a system of drainage ditches.

Molly2101 01-29-2017 04:29 PM

I have never seen the fountain in person but in photos it does look quite disappointing. I hope the statue is realistic and I see nothing wrong with this idea. Many famous people get statues and several deceased royal family members have statues so why shouldn't Diana? I am not a huge Diana fan but at the end of the day she was someone's mother so they can choose to commemorate her life in any way they wish.

Rudolph 01-29-2017 04:46 PM

I think it's the right thing to do. The only thing that gave me pause was there may have been pressure 'from above' not to go ahead with it.


I'm happy William and harry want to honour their mother in this way.

Dman 01-29-2017 06:15 PM

Princess Diana: Princes commission statue 20 years after her death - BBC News

COUNTESS 01-29-2017 07:38 PM

Such hypocrisy. When the royals gets gifts of diamonds and rubies, huge baubles that could build hospitals, schools, give help to the poor and aged, they wear them and lock them in a box and keep them. This is a privately funded statue by her sons and friends, it is none of your business. Tons of waste on what is garnered in costly gifts, don't seem to count.

cepe 01-29-2017 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 1957724)
Such hypocrisy. When the royals gets gifts of diamonds and rubies, huge baubles that could build hospitals, schools, give help to the poor and aged, they wear them and lock them in a box and keep them. This is a privately funded statue by her sons and friends, it is none of your business. Tons of waste on what is garnered in costly gifts, don't seem to count.

You are correct - royal get gifts worth thousands, in total poss millions of ££ in gifts. And they cant sell any of them to raise money for charitable causes.

They belong to the State.

What her sons choose to do is their business but in order to raise a statue in a royal park even they need permission. From the Government, not the Queen.

Frankly, a Diana Scholarship would IMO be of greater benefit but her sons want a tangible (see it, recognise her) monument. A fountain is a water feature, people don't see a scholarship so they have taken the obvious course. It is approved by HMQ and lets hope that at least half the population recognise it as Diana when unveiled.

Osipi 01-29-2017 08:41 PM

What I am wondering now is just how many people who have alternate ideas of what Will and Harry should do instead of a statue commemorating their mother would actually have the courage to say it to their faces. I would imagine 0% of them would or could.

Mbruno 01-29-2017 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1957577)

George and Charlotte don't need a visual of their grandmother. There are plenty of photos and portraits of her. Plenty of memories for dad to share. The same way other kids learn of dead grandparents.

There were several people in the 20th century who can be seen in photos and film, but who nonetheless are now also represented in statues, for example FDR, Churchill, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, etc. etc. I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.

cepe 01-29-2017 08:56 PM

When the news broke I wrote elsewhere that this decision would be divisive.
That was based on two parameters - whether it should be created and placed - and here we are "debating" that.

Secondly, whether it looks like Diana - time will tell!

She continues to create debate on many sides

royal rob 01-29-2017 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1957726)
What I am wondering now is just how many people who have alternate ideas of what Will and Harry should do instead of a statue commemorating their mother would actually have the courage to say it to their faces. I would imagine 0% of them would or could.


So true. And tell all these same people how THEY should remember a loved one. Amazing that people actually think it's any of their business


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

PetticoatLane 01-30-2017 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob (Post 1957729)
So true. And tell all these same people how THEY should remember a loved one. Amazing that people actually think it's any of their business


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Of course it's our business! William and Harry are going to have to cast around for the money, which will no doubt include giving face time to some less than desirable millionaires and billionaires. This leaves them open to all sorts of accusations, the kind that Charles regularly gets criticised for.

They're also going to put it in the gardens of KP which, last time I checked, is owned for all intents and purposes by the state. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if it's not public money that ends up maintaining this statue then it'll be up to Historic Royal Palaces to do so. HRP is a charity that receives no state subsidy. It would be a real outrage if they had to use their precious funds, intended to maintain and protect our nation's heritage, on this statue.

I do wonder, who's going to do the unveiling? The Queen? Or just William and Harry? Would other members of the family be required to attend? It would look bad if they didn't. Will Charles be there? Will Camilla? This is going to be incredibly awkward and lead to criticism for the RF one way or the other.

royal rob 01-30-2017 03:23 AM

Ha ha goodness thats digging deep. But once again it's nothing to with us i


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Duke of Marmalade 01-30-2017 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957748)
Of course it's our business! William and Harry are going to have to cast around for the money, which will no doubt include giving face time to some less than desirable millionaires and billionaires. This leaves them open to all sorts of accusations, the kind that Charles regularly gets criticised for.

They're also going to put it in the gardens of KP which, last time I checked, is owned for all intents and purposes by the state. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if it's not public money that ends up maintaining this statue then it'll be up to Historic Royal Palaces to do so. HRP is a charity that receives no state subsidy. It would be a real outrage if they had to use their precious funds, intended to maintain and protect our nation's heritage, on this statue.

I do wonder, who's going to do the unveiling? The Queen? Or just William and Harry? Would other members of the family be required to attend? It would look bad if they didn't. Will Charles be there? Will Camilla? This is going to be incredibly awkward and lead to criticism for the RF one way or the other.

Agree 100%!!! There would have been much more useful ways to honor Diana's 20th anniversary. As with the fountain, I predict lots of targets for critizism, maintenance/money being only one of them.
If they want to honour their mother, they are free to do it in private, a statue in a public place is only adding to all the controversies that are surrounding Diana (only need to see this thread how tempers are flying high) and that her family hated to much.
IMO Diana is dead now for 20 years and her position within the royal family at the time of her death does not ask for a public rememberance at all.
Let her rest in peace and her family remember her in private.

HRHHermione 01-30-2017 03:48 AM

She's an important part of royal family history, she lived at Kensington and her sons live there now- and it's just a statue.

Seriously, one statue.

It will not cost a fortune to either create or maintain and I bet it becomes a big highlight of visitor trips to Kensington.

Many of you are making this a way, way bigger deal than it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

royal rob 01-30-2017 03:55 AM

A lot of people need to realize this is nothing absolutely nothing to do with them. Once again it's her sons and what they want so the anti lot need to get over it.
If you want to argue about something there is a fellow in US that you could have a good go about


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

ROYAL NORWAY 01-30-2017 04:19 AM

I had decided to stay away from these threads, but I'll make an exception with this post, since this is an interesting topic.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957521)
An utter and complete waste of money. Money that could do so much more good if it were used for just about anything else.

Diana's legacy is so over-stated as to be laughable. I could name about 100 people more deserving of a statue than Diana. I despair, I really do.

I agree!

Diana was pretty controversial before her death (still is). She had turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, she attacked her husband on television, she embarrassed the Queen, she treated her staff/nannies badly and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. I'm not saying that Charles was innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

When it comes to her charity work: She did nothing more for charity than the other members of the royal family did (rather less).
I think it took her several years to become patron of approximately 100 charities and she accepted many of them to boost her popularity during the 90s. She then (I think) dropped most of them.

And I don't think this person deserves a statue, but I do understand that this is something William and Harry wants to do for their mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957748)
Of course it's our business! William and Harry are going to have to cast around for the money, which will no doubt include giving face time to some less than desirable millionaires and billionaires. This leaves them open to all sorts of accusations, the kind that Charles regularly gets criticised for.

They're also going to put it in the gardens of KP which, last time I checked, is owned for all intents and purposes by the state. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if it's not public money that ends up maintaining this statue then it'll be up to Historic Royal Palaces to do so. HRP is a charity that receives no state subsidy. It would be a real outrage if they had to use their precious funds, intended to maintain and protect our nation's heritage, on this statue.

I do wonder, who's going to do the unveiling? The Queen? Or just William and Harry? Would other members of the family be required to attend? It would look bad if they didn't. Will Charles be there? Will Camilla? This is going to be incredibly awkward and lead to criticism for the RF one way or the other.

Yet another reason why this statue is a bad idea.

Curryong 01-30-2017 05:56 AM

Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

Marty91charmed 01-30-2017 10:52 AM

I think this announcement comes out as a lovely tribute from William and Harry. Diana was, before anything else, their mother. I was in a rush when I read the tweet, so I guess people complain for the cost? Will it affect the taxpayers?

PetticoatLane 01-30-2017 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1957779)
Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

It doesn't matter who paid for it (I'd guess the Duchy of Cornwall or whatever entity develops Poundbury).

The reason it doesn't matter is that you simply cannot compare a statue of a Queen consort who played a huge part in the efforts of WWII when our nation's very existence was at stake, as part of an exemplary lifetime of public service, with a former royal who did some charity work.

Of course William and Harry love and miss their mother, like millions of people around the world whose parents have passed away. Those millions, however, don't erect statues of their parents at massive expense. What a statue will do that an enormous fountain, a huge pop concert and several charitable endeavours in her name can't do is beyond me.

Mbruno 01-30-2017 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane (Post 1957861)
It doesn't matter who paid for it (I'd guess the Duchy of Cornwall or whatever entity develops Poundbury).

The reason it doesn't matter is that you simply cannot compare a statue of a Queen consort who played a huge part in the efforts of WWII when our nation's very existence was at stake, as part of an exemplary lifetime of public service, with a former royal who did some charity work.

Of course William and Harry love and miss their mother, like millions of people around the world whose parents have passed away. Those millions, however, don't erect statues of their parents at massive expense. What a statue will do that an enormous fountain, a huge pop concert and several charitable endeavours in her name can't do is beyond me.

If the statue is being paid for with private funding, I don't see it as anyone else's business other than the royal family's.

Duke of Marmalade 01-30-2017 01:29 PM

The family can do what they want in private, but nobody needs a public Diana statue right now. Even more so as the family used to do everything to keep the hysteria down and make the public craving for the semi-goddess Diana go away (eg by burying her outside the public eye).
Why now a statue is beyond me, as old wounds/controversies will be opened up again.

Curryong 01-30-2017 01:44 PM

^ Why now is obvious I think. It will be twenty years in August this year since Diana died in Paris. We had the concert on the 10th anniversary and this tribute comes on the twentieth. Judging by the public ranters in DM the reaction has not been good, and perhaps it may have been better on reflection to have endowed a children's cancer ward or a scholarship instead. However, it's done now, and I'm sure people will visit the statue.

royal_sophietje 01-30-2017 02:05 PM

For those who think a fund is more appropriate: the Diana Memorial Fund already exists :)

Dman 01-30-2017 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royalbooks (Post 1957879)
For those who think a fund is more appropriate: the Diana Memorial Fund already exists :)

Right, the royal foundation now owns it, but let's take it to new heights.

Skippyboo 01-30-2017 03:06 PM

Anniversaries of Diana's Death
 
The Diana Memorial Fund got run into the ground with the suing of the Franklin Mint wasting millions on legal fees and then having to pay the Franklin Mint a large quantity of money. It basically exists in name only because they legally can't shut it down because it's a unincorporated trust.

The statue of the Queen Mother in Poundbury is an exact copy of the statue of the QM that's in London. It's there because the landlord of Poundbury (Charles) wanted it there not because the people who lived there want it there. Thirty years from now if George Duke of Cornwall wanted to replace it with a statue of his beloved first dog Lupo he can.

Al_bina 01-30-2017 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1957779)
Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

The answer has been deleted because the information is wrong

Skippyboo 01-30-2017 04:16 PM

If you actually read the article the part quoted was referring to the original statue in London not the copy in Poundbury.

Al_bina 01-30-2017 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 1957872)
The family can do what they want in private, but nobody needs a public Diana statue right now. Even more so as the family used to do everything to keep the hysteria down and make the public craving for the semi-goddess Diana go away (eg by burying her outside the public eye).
Why now a statue is beyond me, as old wounds/controversies will be opened up again.

Right you are. Prince William, Prince Henry and those, who advise them, seem to fail to grasp it.

royal rob 01-30-2017 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1957896)
Right you are. Prince William, Prince Henry and those, who advise them, seem to fail to grasp it.


I think everyone else fails to grasp it's nothing to do with them. It's what William and Harry want


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Osipi 01-30-2017 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1957876)
^ Why now is obvious I think. It will be twenty years in August this year since Diana died in Paris. We had the concert on the 10th anniversary and this tribute comes on the twentieth. Judging by the public ranters in DM the reaction has not been good, and perhaps it may have been better on reflection to have endowed a children's cancer ward or a scholarship instead. However, it's done now, and I'm sure people will visit the statue.

I'm wondering now if perhaps the Diana exhibit at Kensington Palace got this much criticism when that opened. Checking around, last November it was announced that a "style" exhibit in relation to Diana was in the works.

Its obvious her sons want to commemorate their mother by a statue and by putting it in the KP public gardens, its there for all those who want to see it. It also goes well with the public exhibit focusing on Diana which generates revenue for the Historical Royal Palaces organization.

sthreats 01-30-2017 10:23 PM

I think it's a good idea and long overdue

Curryong 02-04-2017 04:50 AM

Diana was indeed a marvellously elegant woman. Tall, slender, chic and beautiful. Still missed.

Daenerys Targaryen 02-04-2017 10:20 AM

I couldnt agree more. Putting aside those early outfits which her mother helped her choose which had those awful collars, most of her clothes withstood the test of time to look as elegant today as they were then. I think that is because she seldom wore patterned clothes. The solid colors look great no matter when and provided a backdrop that really showcased her jewels.

Valerie Rose 02-07-2017 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1958791)
Diana was indeed a marvellously elegant woman. Tall, slender, chic and beautiful. Still missed.

Totally soignée.

I still recall my daughter, then aged only 8, observing that "even when Princess Diana is wearing jeans and a cotton shirt, she still looks beautiful."

:flowers:

Rudolph 02-13-2017 12:29 PM

Quote:

ABC has teamed with People magazine for a four-hour documentary marking the 20th anniversary of the tragic death of Britain's Princess Diana.

The untitled doc is set to air over two nights in August. ABC has yet to specify a premiere date.

Princess Diana died Aug. 31, 1997, at the age of 36 in a car crash in Paris. The documentary aims to introduce the Princess of Wales, mother of Prince William and Prince Harry, to a new generation and to examine her legacy.
Read more: Princess Diana documentary coming to ABC to mark 20th anniversary of her death - Daily Press

Mermaid1962 02-14-2017 03:48 PM

:previous: It would be great if the new documentary had some new information, perhaps interviews with people we haven't heard from before. I'm not sure how much interest there will actually be from the "new generation", but there's sure to be nostalgic interest from those who remember her.:flowers:

miss whirley 02-14-2017 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 1960967)

I don't have much hope for accuracy in this documentary if they think her title was "Princess Diana".

Dman 02-14-2017 05:08 PM

The best way to produce a documentary on Diana? Include her family and friends. Get her sons, sisters, brother and a host of trusted friends and you'll get the most accurate, insightful and exciting documentary ever.

When these docs involve a host of biographers and journalist, you'd end up with accounts based on their sources and angles. I think this is why there's so much unfounded rumors and accusations on Diana's life. 20 years of this stuff has done a lot of damage to her legacy and memory.

eya 02-15-2017 12:13 PM

*Confirmed* Brenda Emmanus looks at Diana’s most celebrated and exquisite dresses - Saturday 25 Feb, 8pm https://bbc.in/2lPFAKc

Denville 02-15-2017 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1961331)
The best way to produce a documentary on Diana? Include her family and friends. Get her sons, sisters, brother and a host of trusted friends and you'll get the most accurate, insightful and exciting documentary ever.

When these docs involve a host of biographers and journalist, you'd end up with accounts based on their sources and angles. I think this is why there's so much unfounded rumors and accusations on Diana's life. 20 years of this stuff has done a lot of damage to her legacy and memory.

Her family and close friends don't want to talk about her to the press/tv I shsoudl think. THey feel that their relationsip with her was private and that she's been yapped about in the media for so long and should be allowed to rest in peace

Dman 02-16-2017 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 1961611)
Her family and close friends don't want to talk about her to the press/tv I shsoudl think. THey feel that their relationsip with her was private and that she's been yapped about in the media for so long and should be allowed to rest in peace

It would be the best documentary ever produced, because it's real family and friends sharing good memories.

Iluvbertie 02-16-2017 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1961331)
The best way to produce a documentary on Diana? Include her family and friends. Get her sons, sisters, brother and a host of trusted friends and you'll get the most accurate, insightful and exciting documentary ever.

When these docs involve a host of biographers and journalist, you'd end up with accounts based on their sources and angles. I think this is why there's so much unfounded rumors and accusations on Diana's life. 20 years of this stuff has done a lot of damage to her legacy and memory.

Having only those who thought well of a person doing a documentary is far from going to give an accurate account. It would be a whitewash and thus biased to the extreme.

To get an accurate account of any person or any other aspect of history, you need supporters, opponents and those with no axe to grind one way or another.

Otherwise all you get is a one-sided account - which I know many people will regard as 'accurate' but as an historian I would regard it as totally inaccurate and biased - and thus largely unreliable and useless.

Mermaid1962 02-16-2017 02:18 PM

:previous: I agree. Otherwise, a better name for it would be a "Tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales."

Osipi 02-16-2017 02:33 PM

Although I do think its a nice gesture to make a documentary commemorating the 20th anniversary of Diana's tragic death, I really don't see it drawing the interest of a lot of American people. Too much time has passed to draw the attention of people that most likely have long forgotten what happened that night in Paris or even know of Diana and her life outside of the War of the Waleses.

Perhaps four hours is a bit too much even over two consecutive nights. I'm not sure if I'm in the majority of American TV viewers but our weekly prime time viewing here is mostly directed to favorite shows we watch every week. I don't see me watching this documentary. Perhaps if it was on a cable channel that rebroadcasts their shows at different time periods, I would.

I hope I'm wrong on this and its just my opinion.

Dman 02-17-2017 01:08 AM

Handprints of Princes William and Harry on Diana's dress | Daily Mail Online

Countessmeout 02-17-2017 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1961751)
Although I do think its a nice gesture to make a documentary commemorating the 20th anniversary of Diana's tragic death, I really don't see it drawing the interest of a lot of American people. Too much time has passed to draw the attention of people that most likely have long forgotten what happened that night in Paris or even know of Diana and her life outside of the War of the Waleses.

Perhaps four hours is a bit too much even over two consecutive nights. I'm not sure if I'm in the majority of American TV viewers but our weekly prime time viewing here is mostly directed to favorite shows we watch every week. I don't see me watching this documentary. Perhaps if it was on a cable channel that rebroadcasts their shows at different time periods, I would.

I hope I'm wrong on this and its just my opinion.

I agree.

Honestly the only thing that may help is that it is during the summer. Majority of shows are on hiatus. But then again networks have been coming out with summer shows, to keep ratings up.

This is the length of two full length movies. Even if over two nights, I don't see many tuning in. At least if it was movie format, no matter how bad the Diana movie was, it may draw dine interest. But four hours of interviewing people who knew her? Four hours would have been over kill a month after her death. Face it, documentaries aren't big hits. Dis a is fading girl many people, and a whole new generation of tv watchers who don't know who she is.

Honestly would have been better off with an hour prime time special. And making sure in a time lock it has little to no competition.

Osipi 02-18-2017 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1961820)
Honestly would have been better off with an hour prime time special. And making sure in a time lock it has little to no competition.

This is something I really do hope they take into consideration. I noticed last year when they scheduled the prime time presidential election debates, they made sure that it wouldn't be up against shows like The Big Bang Theory and NCIS which are two shows here in the US that spells death for anything on competing channels. CBS also uses these two shows occasionally to draw people to other shows they want folks to watch.

Sadly though, I think no matter where they show it, its going to draw a very minimal viewing audience. I follow the Diana threads and can be termed as a "royal watcher" on here and I'm currently reading "Diana: Portrait of a Troubled Princess" by Sally Bedell-Smith and I'm not that interested in watching it at all.

Skippyboo 02-18-2017 06:07 AM

August is a quiet month tv wise. The new shows have not returned yet. No college or pro football games on tv.

There is more a recent trend for longer style tv documentaries. ABC/ESPN did very well with OJ:Made in America which was multiple hours long and came after the highly rated FX drama series about the OJ.

It's a collaboration with People which is well respected for the British royals coverage in the US. People is doing a limited spring series with GMA's Lara Spencer on ABC focusing on different cover stories called People Icons.

Dman 02-18-2017 08:18 AM

Folks, there's a thing call DVR. I don't think anyone is worried about the doc competing against anything.

Dman 02-20-2017 02:24 PM

@RoyalNikkhah-
National Kindness Day will be celebrated on March 31st @DianaAward marking the 20th anniversary of Princess Diana's death-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyaNikkh...72896253919234

Sun Lion 03-08-2017 04:04 PM

Channel 7 are broadcasting new - and exclusive - interviews with Rosa Monckton, James Hewitt, Ken Wharfe and Paul Burrell this Sunday night in Australia on their "Sunday Night" program.

Here is a preview -

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-nig...rincess/#page1

Curryong 03-08-2017 04:46 PM

Thank you, Sun Lion. This may prove very interesting, and I'll be watching.

bethaliz6894 03-08-2017 05:18 PM

I would love to watch this. But the video is blocked for anyone outside of Australia. Thank you for posting the story.

Curryong 03-08-2017 07:01 PM

Oh, it's bound to be put up on YouTube within days if not hours!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises