|
goldenearring
|
 |
« on: November 16, 2001, 11:35:39 pm » |
|
Does *every*body in the U.K. really adore her? Why is she still in the news four years after her death?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
superninjaadmin
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2001, 03:00:24 am » |
|
I know this question was posed to those in the UK, but I'd like to throw my own .02 in, too.
Simply put, Diana was charismatic and dynamic - a person who led an interesting and private life. People are drawn to and interested in that. She had what it took to draw attention to herself. Plus, she was the mother of the future King of England.
It's a shame that Dodie Fayad decided to trot her around Paris like a prize poodle that fatefull night. If they would have just stayed in that Ritz Hotel that night, this would have never happend. But, no... Back and forth and back and forth between hotels and cars and hotels again - dodging press was more important. I wish she would have stayed put.
I wish Diana wasn't used like that. I think she was used by Dodie for attention. (Just my humble opinion) If Dodie really cared about her, he would have kept her in one place, not running all over the place! If that were the case, that car accident would have never happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bethalize
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2001, 05:05:53 pm » |
|
Lady Diana Spencer was a silly little Sloane when she hooked up with Prince Charles. Too young to realise what she was getting into with the Establishment. Twenty years ago we were more than ready to believe the fairytale and the values it perpetuated. Thank God for a healthy dose of scepticism for the general public.
Not everyone here adored her. Some of us respected her for the good things she did - her tireless work, her love for her children - but we shook our heads at the media antics and wished she could find peace - and that the people who devoured the tabloid stories would find some higher meaning in life. Some of us have interesting lives of our own and don't feel a need to scrutinise the lives of others and wish we could be them.
She's probably still in the news because people will buy newspapers with her in it. If everyone refused to buy a paper that had her picture in, the editors would stop printing those photos.
Bethalize
Deskdemon Forum Board Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
goldenearring
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2001, 10:23:14 pm » |
|
I think I watched a tv interview, a looooong time ago, where she said that she understood or discovered the Camilla-thing just before the wedding, and that it was too close to it to pull out then. I thought that was kind of a bogus excuse, because maybe she reasoned that it would be better to be Queen of England some day rather than married to someone who loved her. Guess it doesn't much matter now, and it's just one of those things that maybe we will/maybe we won't find out "some day." What is a "Sloane"?
Why is the monarchy such a big deal still when they don't appear, to me at least, to do much except acquire increasingly greater finances and investments? I know just from "here and there" reading that it's not got the prestige that it once did. If Charles ever were to become King of England, what would that mean and, without meaning to sound flippant, who would care?
Come to think of it, I really shouldn't be so surprised to see her face in the news, still, given that "The King" the U.S. adored, Elvis Presley, can still sell an issue or two of The Enquirer, and other rags, himself. I have to admit that they make the time spent in the hair salon a lot more entertaining, but I am amazed that they actually have a large, individual subscriber base. Do whatever for the money must their credo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superninjaadmin
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2001, 10:57:29 pm » |
|
I believe that Diana truly loved Prince Charles when they married. She thought the Camilla fling would die on the vine after their marriage - to her dismay, it did not. She was young and had lots of dreams. I, myself, am all for those who have dreams that want them fulfilled - me included! I sincerely think Diana wanted that marriage to work, but like us, she is only human and lots of things happened in life that she had to deal with.
That being said, I as an American (my ancestors are all from England and Ireland) completely adore and I'm facinated by the British monarchy! Actually, Queen Elizabeth has made many changes for the better to bring the monarchy's relationship with England and the world to modern times.
Just my humble opinion, but as I said in another post, I love and embrace different traditions and cultures. I would love to see the British monarchy continue on, even making changes and adjustments with the times is perfectly OK. It's part of our past history and our future and, well...I think it's wonderful.
Goldenearring, it's interesting to study human nature and learn about what sells newspapers and magazines and rags like the Enquirer. It's pure entertainment. Show business is fickle. Hollywood stars shine then fade and sometimes shine again. Most have a brief 15 minutes of fame and you never hear from them again. Sensationalized news is what interests people - it's just human nature. We are curious and busy bodies and want to stick our nose in everyone's business. It's just the part of our makeup.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
swhaley
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2001, 11:56:30 am » |
|
I am a Royalist I believe in the institution though not necessarily those who are in the structure if you know what I mean.
Personally I prefer Queen Elizabeth the Second as opposed to President Blair.
Strategic Alliances Manager,
Deskdemon.com
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raindance
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2001, 11:43:27 pm » |
|
I suppose that Princess Diana is still in the news because she was aristocratic, married into the Royal family, young and attractive and died so tragically. In many ways she had a sad life. In other ways she had an exceptionally privileged life. As for her marriage - there are only two people who ever really knew what went on in that marriage ... one of them is dead and the other is too gentlemanly to discuss it. I am sorry she died the way she did, and I am sorry for her children. May she rest in peace.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffenuff
Newbie
Posts: 6
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2001, 12:04:10 am » |
|
Just showing my patriotism since our Marines seem to be closing in on Kandahar! Wish them the best! I understand they've been given a flag that once flew at the World Trade Center.
Now to the subject of this thread, the late Princess Diana. I neither see her as all-angel or all-devil. She did her share of good works and she seems to have had an unfortunate petty side as well if you belive some biographies and memoirs. Her treatment of some friends and employees doesn't put her in a good light -- especially that nasty business with the nanny 'Tiggy'. And as for the evil paparazzi, Di and Dodi might well be alive today if they had simply consented to pose for a few photos at the Ritz. Everyone goes away happy and no 100 mph car chases through tunnels. Di was single and there were already photos of the couple kissing in their swimsuits for heaven's sake!
What intrigues me now as a great 'what-if' is what role Princess Di would have played in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Remember that she was dating and by some accounts engaged to an Egyptian, a Muslim. AND she also had that romance with the Pakistani heart surgeon who some say she loved more than Dodi Fayed. (Speaking of Dodi, you might think I'm nuts but I think he and that hijacker Mohammed Atta sort of resemble each other). Let's say she had married one of them. How in this current climate would she be regarded? Especially if she had converted to Islam. Would her reputation have taken a nosedive or could she have played a role as a go-between? Sort of an ambassador between the two cultures. I could imagine her visiting the Afghan refugee camps and victims of the terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bethalize
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2001, 01:42:17 am » |
|
You make a good point: if she had had a child by Dodi, then the King of England would have had a Muslim half-brother.
That probably gave the Establishment the shivers, especially as William will be the Head of the Church of England one day.
Bethalize
Deskdemon Forum Board Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
blufire21
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2001, 05:22:27 pm » |
|
I think that Princess Diana would have had a very positive effect on the way we are currently viewing Muslim People right now. The very fact that in your post you use Muslim instead of Islamic militants shows how little the population REALLY knows about what is going on, who is responsible, and such. I think that the first thing she would have done was to set the record straight that it is not Muslims who did this but Islamic militants . I think it would have changed some of the feelings we currently have towards those who follow that particular religion.
While we are on the subject. Just to clear things up a bit, here is the deal on who did this. 1. It was not Muslims. The Muslim people have said that the beleifs of the hijackers, Bin Laden, and Al-Qa'ida are not theirs.
2. They also are NOT Islamic Fundalmentalists (and I may be wrong on the Fundalmentalsist, so if I am, please feel free to correct me). Fundalmentalist are people who are very strict in following their religious practices, and do not drink or do drugs (I'm sure there are more differences, but they escape me at the moment.)
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not chastizing anyone or any thing like that, but I've already had a couple of my Muslim friends physically hurt due ignorace, and I'm just doing my part.
Ellen in TX
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bethalize
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2001, 06:43:50 pm » |
|
I think that perhaps you have misunderstood me. My use of Establishment with a capital E deliberate in that I was refering to the what the Cambridge dictionary calls "is the important and powerful people who control a country or an organization, esp. those who support the existing situation." The Establishment here in the UK is known for being parochial. My use of the word Muslim was correct.
fundamentalism
noun
the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true
Bethalize
Deskdemon Forum Board Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
blufire21
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2001, 07:57:37 pm » |
|
Bethalize,
My post was in respose to Tuffenuff's post. I totally get what your are saying about the Establishment. Under the circumstances, I guess I'd be shake'n in my boots also. I thought both posts were interesting points. I meant no offense or hostility towards anyone in my post, and by no means was I upset or offended by anything that has been written here.
Both of my friends where beaten within an inch of their live because they were seen leaving their Mausk (sp?). When their assailents where caught, they said that their reasons were because they heard the "Muslims were behind it". I just don't want someone else to be hurt because of that they read. Some people tend to jump to conclusions w/o verifying that the information is correct. Again, I'm sorry if I wrote anything that was taken the wrong way.
Ellen (Ok, I'll shut up now) in TX
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
