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

[Mermaid1962]

My understanding is that Royal correspondence is kept secret for an extended period of time in any case. Diana was still to be considered a member of the Royal Family even after her divorce, and so my question is, "Why did people ever expect these to be made public so soon?"

Can't see why it's such a big deal to keep these letters secret but okay.

 

[Skydragon]

My understanding is that Royal correspondence is kept secret for an extended period of time in any case. Diana was still to be considered a member of the Royal Family even after her divorce, and so my question is, "Why did people ever expect these to be made public so soon?"

As she wasn't exactly a royal at the time of her death (no HRH), under the Freedom of Information Act, I expect they wanted to know what had been 'going on' between Diana and various Prime Ministers. Did Diana try to influence a change in the monarchy etc, etc???????

 

[Iluvbertie]

As she wasn't exactly a royal at the time of her death (no HRH), under the Freedom of Information Act, I expect they wanted to know what had been 'going on' between Diana and various Prime Ministers. Did Diana try to influence a change in the monarchy etc, etc???????

She mightn't have had the HRH but the Queen did make it clear at the time of the divorce that she was still regarded as a member of the RF and would be treated as such. See the Press Release issued on behalf of The Queen at the time of the divorce.

DIVORCE: STATUS AND ROLE OF THE PRINCESS OF WALES

This is the opening statement:

The Princess of Wales, as the mother of Prince William, will be regarded by The Queen and The Prince of Wales as being a member of the Royal Family.


and there are a number of occasions within this statement where it is made clear that The Queen, POW and government regarded her as a member of the RF after the divorce so these letters are being treated as per the law regarding the RF.

 

[MARG]

As she wasn't exactly a royal at the time of her death (no HRH), under the Freedom of Information Act, I expect they wanted to know what had been 'going on' between Diana and various Prime Ministers. Did Diana try to influence a change in the monarchy etc, etc???????

And for that very reason alone the fact that she was the mother of the 2nd in line to the throne and as such "royal", any and all correspondence probably got an extra 10 - 20 years "D" notice slapped on them.

 

[Skydragon]

She mightn't have had the HRH but the Queen did make it clear at the time of the divorce that she was still regarded as a member of the RF and would be treated as such. See the Press Release issued on behalf of The Queen at the time of the divorce.

I am fully aware of the Queens decision and the various press releases, but legally she was not a member of the royal family and this was, IMO, why the application was considered under the FoIA. The application was turned down, not because Diana was a former member of the royal family but because they 'were deemed too private to be published under the Freedom of Information Act'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am fully aware of the Queens decision and the various press releases, but legally she was not a member of the royal family and this was, IMO, why the application was considered under the FoIA. The application was turned down, not because Diana was a former member of the royal family but because they 'were deemed too private to be published under the Freedom of Information Act'.

Had you quoted the next paragraph you would see that the decision reflects her position as a member of the Royal Family.

"Members of the Royal Family are exempt from the Freedom of Information legislation but individual cases can be challenged on public interest grounds. The Office of the Information Commissioner said the letters were of a "personal nature" and not related to government policy."


This paragraph follows the section you quoted in which it clearly says that 'individual cases can be challenged on public interest grounds'. These grounds were not found to exist in this case and the request was denied.

So even though the Royal Family is exempt from Freedom of Information legislation that can be challenged and even upheld, presumably. In this case there was no public interest and so the correspondence was treated as other correspondence relating to the Royal Family.

The final paragraph further explains why the decision was turned down.

"An internal review later upheld the decision, and stated that the public interest in keeping them secret "outweighed" the interest in making them public. In a statement the ICO said: "It is important to draw a clear distinction between matters of public interest and matters about which the public may be merely curious."

These letters were deemed no of 'public interest' and therefore like other correspondence from the Royal Family exempt under the FOI.

This article, along with the Press Release, make it clear that Diana was The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Government.

 

[Skydragon]

that Diana was The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Government.

I don't think so! As the article states, the letters were deemed too private to be published under the Freedom of Information Act, that was the official reason given. There is no mention of the following

These letters were deemed no of 'public interest' and therefore like other correspondence from the Royal Family exempt under the FOI

Just your interpretation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
that Diana was The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Government.

I don't think so! As the article states, the letters were deemed too private to be published under the Freedom of Information Act, that was the official reason given. There is no mention of the following Quote:
These letters were deemed no of 'public interest' and therefore like other correspondence from the Royal Family exempt under the FOI
Just your interpretation.

Yes that is my interpretation of the following quotes from the original article:

"Members of the Royal Family are exempt from the Freedom of Information legislation but individual cases can be challenged on public interest grounds. The Office of the Information Commissioner said the letters were of a "personal nature" and not related to government policy."

and

"An internal review later upheld the decision, and stated that the public interest in keeping them secret "outweighed" the interest in making them public. In a statement the ICO said: "It is important to draw a clear distinction between matters of public interest and matters about which the public may be merely curious."

As these two sections are also directly from the article that I have read I made an interpretation based on the entire article.

My interpretation based on the Queen's Press Release from 1996 that Diana was still a member of the Royal Family and that the Prince of Wales also regarded her that way and that a government agency has refused a request for correspondence to be made public under Freedom of Information because, like other members of the Royal Family they are exempt unless their is a public interest reason rather than a merely curious public desire to know reason for these to be make public.

The phrases in italics after 'my interpretation' are from the statement of the Commissioner who made the decision by the way.

It is based on these phrases and the rest of the wording of the article and especially the Commissioners quoted words that I said:

"These letters were deemed no of 'public interest' and therefore like other correspondence from the Royal Family exempt under the FOI."

 

[Skydragon]

Yes that is my interpretation ---snipped----

A letter from HM or Charles would not have been considered let alone gone to review, they are automatically exempt being members of the Royal family, which ever way, you choose to interpret the article.
------------------
Whoever made the original application probably thought that Diana was no longer a royal and should no longer be covered and they had good reason other than curiosity to pursue this matter and human nature being what it is, the decision has raised the question of what is being hidden now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

A letter from HM or Charles would not have been considered let alone gone to review, they are automatically exempt being members of the Royal family, which ever way, you choose to interpret the article.
------------------
Whoever made the original application probably thought that Diana was no longer a royal and should no longer be covered and they had good reason other than curiosity to pursue this matter and human nature being what it is, the decision has raised the question of what is being hidden now.

I assume that you have actually read this part of the article:

"Members of the Royal Family are exempt from the Freedom of Information legislation but individual cases can be challenged on public interest grounds. The Office of the Information Commissioner said the letters were of a "personal nature" and not related to government policy."


This clearly says that even members of the Royal Family's correspondence can be challenged. Therefore I make the interpretation that they are usually exempt but if it is in the public interest then a challenge to the ruling that they are exempt may be successful.

How else can I interpret that statement please?

It is on the basis of the comments in the original article such as this one that has lead to my interpretation.

Please tell me how the statement above can be interpreted to mean the the RF are always exempt when that statement does indicate that that can be challenged.

 

[Skydragon]

Your assumption is this time correct as I tend to read the articles before I post them and if I have one to hand, the full article in the paper concerned not just the shortened version available in the online edition.

 

[Warren]

OK, that's settled amicably. Let's move on now please.

 

[Skydragon]

'A Princess Diana from the wrong side of the tracks': Stephen Fry leads tributes to Jade Goody | Mail Online

 

[Incas]

'A Princess Diana from the wrong side of the tracks': Stephen Fry leads tributes to Jade Goody | Mail Online

Of all the Diana comparisons, this one seems most appropriate.

 

[Skydragon]

Negative or not, I hope Diana's legacy is better than that, to compare Diana and Jade is a step too far, even for me. This is one of the other articles today - JAN MOIR: Jade was a unique and very brave girl. But let's not pretend she was a saint | Mail Online - in the article it says

She did not have a talent, a marketable speciality or a gift. All she had to peddle was a peepshow, a window in her life that was sold to the highest bidder

 

[Incas]

The wordings were a bit crass. But in their stripped down version, the two women had more in common than both being British:
- neither were well educated, and quite proud of it
- both were quick at blaming unhappy childhoods for the choices they make as adults
- both had a sense of "my public", an audience they felt obliged to share the details/trivials of their lives, via photo or video documentaries
- neither had any qualms of using their sons to burnish their public image

Jade had the excuse of being younger at 27 and seems to be trying to make amends with the Indian Big Brother. Although how much was sincerity and how much was orchestrated remains debatable.

 

[sirhon11234]

'Gay icon' Princess Diana

 

[Skydragon]

sirhon, I am puzzled, why is she a 'Gay Icon'? I can understand her being nominated as someone who inspired and helped shape peoples lives, but not the title.

 

[sirhon11234]

sirhon, I am puzzled, why is she a 'Gay Icon'? I can understand her being nominated as someone who inspired and helped shape peoples lives, but not the title.

I don't get it either, she was very accepting of gay people but I would expect someone like Versace or Milk to be an icon not her.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Perhaps because of her support of AIDS patients? When she started visiting AIDS hospices in the 80s, it was still very much considered a "gay disease."

I don't get it either, she was very accepting of gay people but I would expect someone like Versace or Milk to be an icon not her.

 

[Grace Angel]

Yes, that's likely why. I don't think that makes her a gay icon though.

 

[Incas]

I assume when people referring to gay community, it includes both gay (men) and lesbian (women). The articl didn't specify the criteria in choosing the candidates: whether they have made any contribution to the gay-lesbian community, or simply being the target of some of their members' fancy.

I did get a laugh out of the part: "Because the portraits in the show had to be photographs, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great were ruled out." That's got to be the wierdest logic ever.

 

[Incas]

From princess to comic book hero: Now Diana gets her own comic cover | Mail Online

 

[Mermaid1962]

I really like that cover!

From princess to comic book hero: Now Diana gets her own comic cover | Mail Online

 

[Grace Angel]

The cover really shows the blue of her eyes, and I like the evening dress that she wears, which highlights the blue of her eyes.

 

[sirhon11234]

Perhaps because of her support of AIDS patients? When she started visiting AIDS hospices in the 80s, it was still very much considered a "gay disease."

AAH I didn't think of that your right Mermaid.

I am so going to buy that comic book. Its so great she's going to be honoured this way.

 

[gracerainier]

why were this women very bi**hy? diana , grace kelly? grace kelly was dead about men

 

[sirhon11234]

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Skydragon]

Britain's Princess Diana is second only to Jesus Christ as the dead person people would most like to meet

Princess Diana second only to Jesus - Monsters and Critics
​

 

[sirhon11234]

That was a very funny article! And Freddie Mercury is on the list.