Royals Before Diana
- Thread starter ulik
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
Before Diana,royals were more personal and private.They never showed emotion.They never touched an ill or seriously sick person,and they never really were as loving as Diana was about kids.There's a lot of difference in engagement too.Diana always got the biggest crowds out to see here.No one really felt the same way about royalty after Diana.They got more interested.Especially in Britsh royals.
Princess Haya
Commoner
- Joined
- May 13, 2004
- Messages
- 25
I agree that Diana showed the Royals a different way of doing things but I do feel that this has also caused a lot of problems. Princess's like Anne who have worked their tails off for many years for causes like Save the Children etc are now considered to not be good enough because they are not "touchy feely" like Diana and new princess's like Mary, Letizia, Mette-Marit & Maxima are expected to live up to some "Ideal Princess formula" that is based on everything that Diana did and the way she did it.
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
i agree with glossypinky!
Princess Diana allowed to touch with children and people with shakes if have aids nor hiv whatever have cancer patients because Diana was champion aids and hiv since 1981 when Diana got married to Prince Charles.
Princess Diana was popular Princess than Royals Princess or Countess because many people loves her more lots!
She very more private person and she very riches! her father very riches and wealthy man when she was little girls.
i read Diana's dresses that she is Queen of styles because she is popular Princess the American People chose Britain Princess Diana because she really first place for best dresses than worse dresses she been collectors her beloved dresses since she got married to Prince Charles in 1981 but she sold her old dresses in Christies in England and New York but she earned over 5 millions she really riches! because she needs new dresses than old dresses in 1981 to 1996.Diana chose dresses for pictures for christies before she split and divorces to Prince Charles but Diana kept dresses till her marriages over.And her old dresses at Althorp and Kensington Palace many people went see her dresses display i went Kensington Palace last November 2002 its so cool! but its display only! but i cant enter Diana's apartment its private house you know that!
when she got married to Prince Charles she collect daytime dresses to David Sasson or whatever Princess Diana chose designer in 1980's when Diana got married into Royal Family they later Diana chose favourite designer Catherine Walker, Gianni Versace, Jacques Azagury because the designer knew "Diana had great legs very thinner legs!" but her daytimes dresses at Althorp where she buried many people went see her daytime dresses history what she wores.
im so sure i wanted going see Althorp! but i wanted met Princess Diana's brother since i got christmas cards from him! when i come home from England but im so lucky! but im wishes i would become Crown Princess one day! they become Queen of England one day!
Sara Boyce
Princess Diana allowed to touch with children and people with shakes if have aids nor hiv whatever have cancer patients because Diana was champion aids and hiv since 1981 when Diana got married to Prince Charles.
Princess Diana was popular Princess than Royals Princess or Countess because many people loves her more lots!
She very more private person and she very riches! her father very riches and wealthy man when she was little girls.
i read Diana's dresses that she is Queen of styles because she is popular Princess the American People chose Britain Princess Diana because she really first place for best dresses than worse dresses she been collectors her beloved dresses since she got married to Prince Charles in 1981 but she sold her old dresses in Christies in England and New York but she earned over 5 millions she really riches! because she needs new dresses than old dresses in 1981 to 1996.Diana chose dresses for pictures for christies before she split and divorces to Prince Charles but Diana kept dresses till her marriages over.And her old dresses at Althorp and Kensington Palace many people went see her dresses display i went Kensington Palace last November 2002 its so cool! but its display only! but i cant enter Diana's apartment its private house you know that!
when she got married to Prince Charles she collect daytime dresses to David Sasson or whatever Princess Diana chose designer in 1980's when Diana got married into Royal Family they later Diana chose favourite designer Catherine Walker, Gianni Versace, Jacques Azagury because the designer knew "Diana had great legs very thinner legs!" but her daytimes dresses at Althorp where she buried many people went see her daytime dresses history what she wores.
im so sure i wanted going see Althorp! but i wanted met Princess Diana's brother since i got christmas cards from him! when i come home from England but im so lucky! but im wishes i would become Crown Princess one day! they become Queen of England one day!
Sara Boyce
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
You got Christmas cards from Diana's brother?How?
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
You got Christmas cards from Diana's brother?How?
[/b][/quote]yeah!
i really totally surprise! my grandmother's family is Spence and Diana's last name is Spencer but its CLOSE! my family comes from Scotland that why!
but im wishes i would become Royal Family one day im wishes!
Sara Boyce
Iain
Courtier
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 595
Before Diana,royals were more personal and private.They never showed emotion.They never touched an ill or seriously sick person,and they never really were as loving as Diana was about kids.There's a lot of difference in engagement too.Diana always got the biggest crowds out to see here.No one really felt the same way about royalty after Diana.They got more interested.Especially in Britsh royals. [/b][/quote]
I don't agree at all. It may be true that British royals never showed emotion or touched people but that can't be said about the other royals in Europe who were always more approachable and down to earth even before Diana. And I'm sorry, but Diana was an actress who really only played to the audience. Any time she went to a "secret" visit to a hospital the press always received an "anonymous" phone call to tell them she was there. Any journalist will tell you that, and they will also tell you that the call came from Diana herself.
Chatleen
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 322
I agree with you. I've been looking online for pictures of the late Queen Ingrid, when she as a Crown Princess in the 1930's were helping out in the most southern part of Jutland in Denmark (where both Graasten and Schackenborg is situated). By then, this area was really, really poor. I know, that I have seen pictures of her giving out clothes etc., really participating in the practical work.
Diana set a new standard for princesses being in the media etc. But she didn't set any standard on how to do the job as a princess.
mgrant
Courtier
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 714
- City
- Charleston
- Country
- United States
I don't agree at all. It may be true that British royals never showed emotion or touched people but that can't be said about the other royals in Europe who were always more approachable and down to earth even before Diana. And I'm sorry, but Diana was an actress who really only played to the audience. Any time she went to a "secret" visit to a hospital the press always received an "anonymous" phone call to tell them she was there. Any journalist will tell you that, and they will also tell you that the call came from Diana herself. [/b][/quote]
Well if Diana was an actress playing to an audience, I was a willing listener.
I agree that there are many other European royals who were just as personable and down to earth, but I did not hear about them, only Diana. That does not make her any less than the others.
As far as the British monarchy was concerned, she was a breath of fresh air and that was sorely needed. She opened them up and exposed them for all the world to see, warts and all.
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
I don't agree at all. It may be true that British royals never showed emotion or touched people but that can't be said about the other royals in Europe who were always more approachable and down to earth even before Diana. And I'm sorry, but Diana was an actress who really only played to the audience. Any time she went to a "secret" visit to a hospital the press always received an "anonymous" phone call to tell them she was there. Any journalist will tell you that, and they will also tell you that the call came from Diana herself. [/b][/quote]
Diana called the press because she was trying to promote her cause.She knew that if there were photographers,people will see how the patients she were seeing were suffering,and she didn't do it all the time.Only for certain reasons.Diana also used to call the press to tell them where she'll be,which were lies.That way,she can secretly visit a hospital without the press hounding her,while the press were at the false location Diana was at.
.
Chatleen
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 322
So you can say the worst things about the living, if you only keep quiet on the dead. In my household we call that hypocritical
I agree. Diana turned royalty into celebrity, and that's traditionally been considered quite a dangerous place for royalty to go, for good reason. Celebrities are at the mercy of the latest fashion and whim of publicists; royals don't need to become celebrities because celebrities already exist. If that's the main reason for royalty, I can't see it lasting.
And in my household, we realize that people who are dead can't defend themselves and it's a little disrespectful of the man upstairs to speak ill of those who've passed. You may call it hypocrisy, but I call it respect. People who are alive can speak for themselves, people who are dead can't, and, aside from that, we Greeks and many other religous people consider it dishonorable, disrespectful, futile, and down-right deceitful to disrespect the dead, who should be allowed to rest in peace. That means not rehashing, smearing, or disrespecting those who are dead and are therefore part of the past. I can see no greater instance of rehashing and disrespecting the dead that with Diana. Look how people have painted her over the past decade since she died. She's been the whore, the unfit mother, the unstable person, the plotter, the one who gave nothing. The fact is that we should remember her as a woman who did her best. Who tried to make a contribution and did in many sectors. We should leave it at that out of respect for her and her family, who, no doubt, are abhorred by the lack of respect for her memory. So just cut the trashing her, it doesn't do any good, it just makes you look like a bitter person with no respect for anyone.
Princess Haya
Commoner
- Joined
- May 13, 2004
- Messages
- 25
I agree grecka but it also works two ways. We don't need to see Diana (or anyone else) held up to us as a goddess, a saint, etc. :flower:
Nobody "turned" royalty into celebrity. That is nothing but a total falsehood. Other princesses do exactly what they want as far as defining their public roles nowadays.
And as far as the talk about hypocritical here by some, I think it's very hypocritical myself for some people to be saying "very nice speech" when the Queen makes comments at a fountain ceremony but then make the exact opposite comments days later when they're back in regular mode.
And as far as the talk about hypocritical here by some, I think it's very hypocritical myself for some people to be saying "very nice speech" when the Queen makes comments at a fountain ceremony but then make the exact opposite comments days later when they're back in regular mode.
No, it isn't a total falsehood. Diana went to great lengths, including lying to her own and the Queen's staff, to manipulate press attention and coverage in order to promote the image she wanted to promote and to damage other people in the process. She also made quite a habit of publicising her private life if she thought it would help her image. Largely as a result of her influence, people seem to be focussed on the entertainment value of the private lives of the royal family these days as opposed to their public life.
I'm sure Princess Masako would have something to say about that. I gather Princess Mette-Marit has been complaining about the constraints that go along with her position. Who are these princesses who do exactly what they want?
wymanda
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,558
- City
- Perth
- Country
- Australia
I beg to differ there. How often do we see magazine headlines reading "Is ........ the new Diana"? It has been said about Mary, Maxima, Letizia and about public figures like Jemima Khan & Caroline Kennedy. There doesn't seem to be any way these young women can be themselves and put their own stamp on being a Crown Princess - They must mould themselves into a Diana clone.
Yes it is a falsehood. Just because in your "opinion" some people confuse royalty with celebrity certainly doesn't mean royalty has become celebrity, nor even that most people don't understand the difference.
Diana went to great lengths to protect her image and reputation and I for one am glad she did. Every human being has that right, especially considering to what "great lengths" some haters on this board go to excoriate her on a daily basis. Sorry, she's not a saint but she's certainly not responsible for the ills of the monarchy whatever those are in Britain much less everywhere else in the world. As to anyone lying, the Queen's staff lied then, lied since and her husband lied as well, going to great lengths to damage her however he could manage it.
The only people who have "damaged" or caused problems for the monarchy are those still in it along with royal staff and supposed supporters who have ill advised them. The monarchy was changing from the Sixties from the time of the royal documentary which they now regret. If they wanted to keep the monarchy mysterirous and above the crowd, then perhaps they should also not have instituted royal walkabouts and other such populist gimmicks. All this of course, long before Diana. Even Princess Anne recounts how she disliked being thrust intoc crowds at walkabout at 17, what a mess that documentary was.
Would she be unique in doing so if that had been the case? Actually, she never did anyway, since it was when her marriage was long since dead anyway and both she and her husband were looking for ways out of it that she ever began speaking up in her own defense. Aside from the fact that this is all such ancient water under the bridge people like you seem to go on being fixated on, I would just conclude by saying that people need to take responsibility for their own lives in the present. Also, powerful institutions are responsible for the mess they make of their own choice. The fact that the Prince of Wales has made nothing of his life except disrepute, indifference or contempt even 10 years after his divorce is his own affair. Just because a laughable minority think he's on some sort of pedestal above the possibility of failure or criticism go on deluding themselves doesn't represent how most in the real world would assess who lied about what, who profited by it, who goes on profiting by it and who goes on lying about it. That is seen by most for what it is.
As to Masako or Mette-Marit, their problems only prove the point that some princesses go on making the exact wrong choice of thinking that conforming to royal convention will make them acceptable to those traditionalists who ultimately go on controlling everything behind the scenes. The source of their misery is also their own responsibility in failing to find an identity and distinct style. If acting like the second-class wife and breeding children while remaining silent and "invisible" isn't doing it for them, that perhaps should tell a lot about what's wrong with your own notions of what royal women should be in the 21st century.
I didn't say royalty had become celebrity. Diana behaved like a celebrity with her constant publicising of her personal life for her own advantage. The press responded in kind, and an ultimately destructive feedback loop developed. Some elements of the press have continued to behave as though the private life of the royal family was a matter for public exposure; other royals haven't tended to play along.
She never did anyway because she only did it after her marriage broke down? If she did it at all, "never" isn't applicable. I didn't say she behaved like a celebrity from the very start; the fact that she started the manipulations after her marriage ran into deep trouble doesn't mean she never did it. Other members of the royal family managed to handle bad marriages without running to the press.
I'm not fixated; I'm just participating in a thread about her effect on current royalty, as are you.
Yep, they do. However, as long as there's a perceived market for Diana stuff, the publishing industry will be glad to oblige and make itself a tidy profit in the process.
I think it's an opinion rather than a fact. I don't have a lot of respect for him, but I don't think he's made nothing of his life.
You're assuming they have that choice. It seems that in the Japanese case the IHA has such a tight grip on the imperial purse strings that if they say "no" to something, there may not be anything much she can do about it. In the Norwegian case, the king and the household have more influence than the crown princess; quite apart from which, if she took it in her head to ignore her responsibilities and just be a full-time mother or socialite or whatever, public opinion against the monarchy would probably increase and might eventually become a problem for the future of the monarchy itself. The position of crown princess comes with a bunch of responsibilities as well as privileges, and the person in that position has to realise that.
What do you think Masako should have done in the last ten years, then? When she wanted to travel with her husband the IHA told her "no," and they're the ones with the money. It sounds as though that family are just puppets of the IHA - Michiko was driven to a couple of nervous breakdowns too. The crown prince finally spoke out about it, and the next thing we hear is how badly he upset his parents. When you're dealing with a bunch of powerful bureaucrats who have the ability to cut off your funding unless you toe their line, how many choices do you really have?
She has no effect on current royalty except in the eyes of the beholder, i.e., your impression or opinion.
Masako, Mette-Merit or anyone else make their own decisions, they make their bed and they have to sleep in it. They both seem to be every bit if not much mores "damaged" goods as the person you go on shifting the blame for their failures to. Blaming the dead for the actions of the living is ludicrous. (Yes, "my" opinion, and I'll go on stating it too).
Perhaps if you read what I wrote, it'd help a bit. I didn't say that Masako and Mette-Marit were affected by Diana. I mentioned them in response to one of your claims. You said that princesses did exactly what they wanted, and I said that according to reports, that isn't the case for those two. Nothing whatever to do with Diana.
Ulik, I definitely agree with you regarding "all this interest" in Royals stemming from Diana, Princess of Wales. When she and Charles became engaged, a certain "fever" began to rise over "royalty". The more I read about her and her heritage, I realized the "interconnections" of nearly all of the European Royal Houses were, more than less, related to one another in some fashion or form. "This" caused me to yearn for knowledge of other royal families ... and, I'm really glad about that because I've learned so much about the others.
Once you get into "genealogical charts", you can seen how Queen Victoria carefully placed her offspring in other European Ruling Houses. The more I read about the "other royals", I became more interested in their activities and what they were all about. I really don't think I would have traveled down that path (to seek more information) if it hadn't been for "Diana, Princess of Wales".
She just opened "a huge door" for me in which I traveled into other European Royal Families. And, I've seen where she has had a tremendous effect on the fashion industry. Some might think this is sort of "trivial" ... but, for an example, someone should just look into my closet. Also, this includes "movies". I certainly think "some movies" wouldn't have been made if it weren't for her when she came on the scene.
I miss her so very much as I know that others also do. I'll never forget her as long as I live.
Elizajane
wymanda
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,558
- City
- Perth
- Country
- Australia
I second that!
I said that princesses do exactly what they wanted, and I still stand by that too. Your supposed examples are just your interpretations of their words and actions, nothing more. If they're nothing whatsoever to do with Diana then perhaps you shouldn't have initially made comparisons between her much overstated influences and other living princesses. It's not me you need to be telling they have nothing whatsoever to do with Diana as I'm not the one making mendacious claims about them being Diana "clones" [sic].
And I didn't say you did say so.
I thought you said she didn't always do this, so where does the so-called "constant' come into play, precisely? Perhaps when she became aware that her husband, his friends and his courtiers were likely to do the same to her but in more underhanded and backstabbing fashion, as is their usual style? Or perhaps when she became aware that her husband was about to do an interview with one of his favourite "writer" toadies David Dimbleby? Or perhaps when she became tired of her husband's mistress giving tittle tattle interviews to tabs for years on end, and decided others could play the same game?
The press responds in kind because other royals have taken the initiative to defend their interests publicly as they see fit. Mette-Marit, Maria Teresa, CP Naruhito, have all spoken to the press. The first two did all sorts of melodramatics for the press, the latter castigated his parents' courtiers. If they choose to discuss aspects of their private lives to the media then that this is their god-given human right to present their case as they see fit. I don't see any so-called "destructive" feedback loop. Supposedly the monarchy in Britain and elsewhere is stronger nowadays, so I don't think any destructive effect was made by any of these royals being frank, quite the contrary. Most people thank God admire openness and honesty rather than deceit, backstabbing, and destructive control games by little grey men and establishment types.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-- Latest: PrincessofEurope
-
Queen Camilla's Fashion and Style Part 3: June 2024 -
- Latest: PrincessofEurope
-
Royal Ladies of Luxembourg Fashion and Style Part 5: June 2023 -
- Latest: PrincessofEurope
-
Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie's Fashion & Style Part 12: June 2023 -
- Latest: PrincessofEurope
