The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 6: June-September 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Avalon

Heir Apparent
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
5,902
City
Yerevan
Country
Armenia
10878so.png

Arms of Diana, Princess of Wales

Welcome to the Late Diana, Princess of Wales
News Thread, Part 6

Commencing June 2007

The previous thread can be found here

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.

***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watched the programme. Nothing majorly scandalous - just a rehash of old rumours with a few grainy pics thrown in. Clearly the fuss was fabricated by Channel 4 to attract viewers.
 
So what is the exact schedule of events for the 10th year memorial? There has been no press about this int the US. Will it be televised internationally do we know?
 
There's a commercial on Vh1 for the concert.
 
scooter said:
So what is the exact schedule of events for the 10th year memorial? There has been no press about this int the US. Will it be televised internationally do we know?

I'll be surprised if it isn't.
 
scooter said:
Will it be televised internationally do we know?

Might be although French Televison didn't talk once about this concert. In France we only have 5 free channels so I doubt I'll be able to see it ...:sad:
 
Last edited:
I finally managed to watch the Ch4 programme this morning and the only reason you knew it was Diana, was because you were told it was Diana. The parts of the photo's that had not been blocked out, were clear.

On the whole the photographers were puzzled by D & D's behavior that evening. They said that the entire holiday D&D had been happy to pose and now they were hiding. They commented on the fact that Henri Paul kept coming out of the Ritz that evening to tell them the couple would be leaving at such and such a time and then 10 minutes later coming out again - they said, for head of security, he was less than discreet.

What did shock me was the jubilation exibited by Agency managers and the Editors of the Sun & News of the World. They were all excited and celebrating when they were told that there had been an accident - that Dodi and the driver were dead and the photographers had pictures of an injured Diana. :eek:

They were wired some of the pictures and 'they were sensational, they showed Diana with a trickle of blood on her forehead and some bruising, we had to have them at all costs!' When the news came through that she might have died, they were all hoping that she would hang on, not for love of the woman, but because the pictures could still be used as long as she was alive!
They complained that they had this great commodity and it would be unusable, they would not be able to profit.

Why any of the royals give interviews or photo ops now is beyond me!
 
Where are all these angry TV viewers? The news three days ago was, "Channel 4 will show a documentary on Diana". The news two days ago was, "Channel 4 will still show a documentary on Diana". The news yesterday was, "Channel 4 will show a documentary on Diana tonight". The news today is "The documentary on Diana was shown last night on Channel 4". Most people were very bored of the exhaustive news coverage and are glad it's over so we can hear some real news. Most of the people who are supposedly are angry about it are total Mary Whitehouses and haven't even watched the programme.
 
I suppose that the people thought that the statement of the princes would have changed the decision of broadcasting the photos. It's more like a disapointement, it shows that the media always win ...
 
Why any of the royals give interviews or photo ops now is beyond me!

Maybe it goes some way to explaining Charles's "bloody people!" outburst. I mean, I think it had already come out in previous programmes that the tabloids were salivating to use those photos, but because Diana had died and at least early on people were blaming the press, they realised there would be a disastrous backlash, so Charles must have been aware of the real motivations behind the press taking the high road over these photos.
 
It's more like a disapointement, it shows that the media always win ...
No, it shows that we live in a democracy where things like freedom of speech are valued. Whether we agree with what it said or not, it has a right to be said - that is what freedom is all about and if we begin to censor things because they offend a few fan clubs, then we're in serious trouble.
 
Are you considering William and Harry like : 'a few fan clubs' ?
 
No and they're the only ones who have a right to call for it be removed. But in a democratic country, you can't have members of the Royal Family demanding the removal of TV programmes. I'm sure that Charles and Camilla would have liked the character assassination Channel 4 pulled on them not to be shown but they were anyway. It comes down to the age old advice - if you don't like it, don't watch it.
 
BeatrixFan said:
No and they're the only ones who have a right to call for it be removed. But in a democratic country, you can't have members of the Royal Family demanding the removal of TV programmes. I'm sure that Charles and Camilla would have liked the character assassination Channel 4 pulled on them not to be shown but they were anyway. It comes down to the age old advice - if you don't like it, don't watch it.

Yes, of course I agree on that point. It seems that Channel 4 has a tendency to broadcast some offensive things on Royals ? Am I right ?
 
Well, they're a leftist TV channel, indeed, their mandate for broadcasting was to be controversial and slightly left-wing. Naturally, about 99.9% of the coverage they put out about the Royals will be against them. It was Channel 4 who did the documentary "outting" the late Duke of Kent - was any consideration shown to Princess Alexandra and her brothers who certainly couldn't have enjoyed hearing their father ripped to pieces as a drug addict and bisexual but they remained silent on the issue. Channel 4 comes across as very anti-Royal but then you've got the BBC who are pro-Royal and their programmes never contain the content a programme on Channel 4 would.
 
Okay. It's good to have 2 different point of view. I think I would prefer watching BBC documentaries on the Royals than Channel 4 's. I like royalty (if I didn't I wouldn't be on that forum anyway ...) Thank you for answering :flowers: .
 
BeatrixFan said:
No and they're the only ones who have a right to call for it be removed. But in a democratic country, you can't have members of the Royal Family demanding the removal of TV programmes. I'm sure that Charles and Camilla would have liked the character assassination Channel 4 pulled on them not to be shown but they were anyway. It comes down to the age old advice - if you don't like it, don't watch it.
William and Harry didn't "demand the removal of (a) television programme". They asked Channel 4 not to include pictures of their dying mother in the documentary. It was a simple request, not a demand.
 
It was a request to edit a part of a TV programme and that is censorship which no democratic society can accept.
 
I must say that it could be hurtful to see a photo of their dying mother but BeatrixFan has the right to say that it would be censorship if every request was respected. It wouldn't be a free country. If the Queen had asked to remove the photos maybe it would have been different ... Still I believe that it could be hard for friends and parents of hers but they were not forced to watch the program so the best is to ignore offensive things even if it's tough sometimes.
 
Diana film leaves viewers cold

London - A television documentary showing graphic details of the Paris car crash which killed Princess Diana nearly 10 years ago attracted an audience of 3,8 million but failed to spark the predicted outcry on Thursday.

IOL: Diana film leaves viewers cold

Only 2020 people complained, that is 100% less than normal!
 
Elspeth said:
Maybe it goes some way to explaining Charles's "bloody people!" outburst. I mean, I think it had already come out in previous programmes that the tabloids were salivating to use those photos, but because Diana had died and at least early on people were blaming the press, they realised there would be a disastrous backlash, so Charles must have been aware of the real motivations behind the press taking the high road over these photos.
Yes I think it helps to explain Charles' attitude towards the 'press'.

Some of the photographers were complaining that, not only did they lose their scoop and the big money they were going to make, but the public blamed them for a while. I'm torn as to whether it was necessary to show the Diana pictures. On the one hand it did show that only 2 of the photographers were there within 5 minutes of the crash (some pictures were taken by tourists), it dispelled the myth that anyone climbed on the car or impeded the emergency services. It also showed the police were in full control within 8-10 minutes. The first chap there Ramwald(?) Rat had a diploma in first aid and his first thoughts were to help, not take pictures.

I am still shocked by the editors callous attitude to 2 dead men and a fatally injured woman.
 
BeatrixFan said:
It was a request to edit a part of a TV programme and that is censorship which no democratic society can accept.
That's right...it was a request. Not, as you originally stated, a demand to remove the entire programme from the air, but to edit a few pictures out. The Princes had the right to make the request, and the broadcasters had the option of refusing. Which they did, so censorship doesn't apply. :rolleyes:
 
Request, demand - it's still the Royal Family trying to censor programmes and in a democratic society, that cannot be allowed to happen. If you don't like it, you don't watch it - simple.
 
Last edited:
In a democratic society, persons must be proteged by ugly images. And don't start to sing the old song: " Who are you to say what is ugly and what not?". The simplist solution "If you don't like, you don't watch" is a little candid to say the least. There is people who doesn't know what will he/she see when she/he sits in front of TV. I saw extremely disgusting shows whithot knowing they were disgusting. Sure. I turned off TV when I understood how these shows will be...But who would avoid that I keep in my mind the awful images I was not ready to see and that I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE?? And what about little children if they are alone in a house for their parents works ? They are not mature enough to see certain things they shows.

I think that in a "democratic" society, people must be respected, and not abused and treated as a bulimic consummist viewer. If Princes Harry and William would have exiged the channel not to show these pics they are in their ABOLUTE RIGHT, not as Princes, but as SONS of the deceased Lady Diana Spencer. Any childrens of a person who died in an accident whose pics as a corpse are showed have the right of avoiding a channel to show them. Human Rights are this too.

Vanesa.
 
I have regarded the death of Diana, Princess of Wales as a hisotorical event rather than a personal thing. It takes two long-time consuming project to investigate her death and have to ask the royal family to hold a public feneral under public pressure. It is certainly a public matter and a public interest rather than a private matter and a private interest. I think everyone who are intersted in this historical event has a right to seek the whole truth in every detail with available resources. The death of Diana, princess of Wales is a public interest and we acknowlegde that. If they had a private funeral ten years ago and no official investigation about her death during these years, I shall condamne anyone for making such a documentary and film because it has been regarded as a private matter. The feneral is public and the investigation is public and I cannot see why we cannot have these information from the journalists if they felt able to release. You can always ingore.

The film will not change the affections of those love Diana during her lifetime. The film probably hurt them but it offers others to learn the truth about the event and its consequences. Of course some people have the right to ignore. Since they have the investiagations about Diana's death and they are some arugments about the role of photographers in her death and I don't see why they don't have a right to defend themselves. The documentary may backfire but they had their right to take action. It just helps the third party to find the truth and what we need is the truth of the history.
 
Last edited:
love_cc said:
I have regarded the death of Diana, Princess of Wales as a hisotorical event rather than a personal thing.......
.....It just helps the third party to find the truth and what we need is the truth of the history.(shortened post, forgive me :flowers: )
I think you make a lot of sense in what you say. I came away from it with a different view. The photographers acted like any pack animal and got carried away with their efforts to make a kill.

The real culprits that night, the ones who should be ashamed of their attitude, were the editors and ultimely the public who were forever clamouring for yet another picture in their magazine or paper and of course an over zealous, full of it, head of security!
 
Skydragon said:
On the whole the photographers were puzzled by D & D's behavior that evening. They said that the entire holiday D&D had been happy to pose and now they were hiding. They commented on the fact that Henri Paul kept coming out of the Ritz that evening to tell them the couple would be leaving at such and such a time and then 10 minutes later coming out again - they said, for head of security, he was less than discreet.

Sounds, actually, like a good programme. I don't think they broadcast it here, but if they ever do, I'll watch it.

I wonder why they changed their behavior? Dodi's decision? Diana's?

All those witnesses prior to this who protested that Paul didn't appear to have been drinking-but now these paparazzi describe a man with a bit of a buzz on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom