Final photo of the late Princess Diana published

[Janet]

I was on Perezhilton. com and they showed the pic. Why I looked, I don't know. It's very small and I quickly left. I didn't realize it was a picture of her...probably dead!! I thought it was a final pic...not THE final picture.

I guess it's been around but I haven't seen it. There is a huge outrage in the UK regarding this. God, how sad.

When she passed in 1997-I really thought it was a joke at first. I didn't think she could ever die. I turned on the news ( it must have been 1 or 2 AM??) but it was true. I cried a lot that week. It was just so terribly sad that she died. I don't know why it affected me so, but it did.

And now, seeing just a glimpse of that pic...wow. Horrible. I can only imagine how her sons feel...all that's being said and shown of their "mummy"...

I feel sick right now. Just really, really sad.

[foxyluva]

I will be happy the day that this woman finally gets to rest in peace....

[strandinthewind]

I am such not a huge Diana fan. While I agree that a post mortem photo is tacky, the woman lived her life in the press and willingly used the press to her advantage. So, when you live by the sword . . . . :shrug:

[jannieC]

I am such not a huge Diana fan. While I agree that a post mortem photo is tacky, the woman lived her life in the press and willingly used the press to her advantage. So, when you live by the sword . . . . :shrug:
I was a bartender around the time she died. A couple of guys from England came into the bar and we started talking about Diana and I was shocked to learn that they hated her! I've always been a "fan" of hers- I thought she was elegant and lovely, but strand, you're right- whether by her own design 100% or not, she lived her life in the limelight. Sick that people are showing a picture of her DEAD- Jesus, is nothing sacred?

[strandinthewind]

I think Diana was manipulative and conniving, esp. in the end. I get that the powers to be tried to use her, but she behaved poorly as well. I mean giving those interviews slamming her husband and talking about affairs when she had those young kids was just in bad taste IMO.

I do recognize, however, that she was a very kind and charitable woman even though she received public sympathy for that and that reception could have had a little to do with it.

[Sahara]

I will be happy the day that this woman finally gets to rest in peace....

Will it ever happen, do you think? She just captured the public imagination so much, perhaps her own doing, but we just seem to want more and more of her.
I can foresee a similar future ahead of William. He looks so much like her...

[bretonbanquet]

I can foresee a similar future ahead of William. He looks so much like her...

Funny how his brother doesn't share the uh, family resemblance, but let's not go there... :rolleyes:

Printing the pic is a low blow - all the press here always had access to the photo but agreed between themselves not to print it. I was never a big Diana fan for various reasons, but she didn't deserve this kind of thing, and her children certainly don't.

She was apparently still alive when the photo was taken, if that matters.

[irishgrl]

I think Diana was manipulative and conniving, esp. in the end. I get that the powers to be tried to use her, but she behaved poorly as well. I mean giving those interviews slamming her husband and talking about affairs when she had those young kids was just in bad taste IMO.

I do recognize, however, that she was a very kind and charitable woman even though she received public sympathy for that and that reception could have had a little to do with it.

see, I dont see it that way...I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to. And since she spoke up in the 90's (which is a FAR cry from the 1900's or 1950's) we really cant be calling foul on her....What Charles did was WRONG. Diana deserved better as the mother of the future heir, not to mention future Queen...she got treated badly from the word "go" because she was considered "common" even tho she had blue blood on both sides...

btw: Diana didnt cross any lines where her kids were concerned, those kids knew that their mother was being replaced, you can be sure of that. Kids arent dumb.

[Serrart]

I was on Perezhilton. com and they showed the pic. Why I looked, I don't know. It's very small and I quickly left. I didn't realize it was a picture of her...probably dead!! I thought it was a final pic...not THE final picture.

I guess it's been around but I haven't seen it. There is a huge outrage in the UK regarding this. God, how sad.

When she passed in 1997-I really thought it was a joke at first. I didn't think she could ever die. I turned on the news ( it must have been 1 or 2 AM??) but it was true. I cried a lot that week. It was just so terribly sad that she died. I don't know why it affected me so, but it did.

And now, seeing just a glimpse of that pic...wow. Horrible. I can only imagine how her sons feel...all that's being said and shown of their "mummy"...

I feel sick right now. Just really, really sad.

The night of her death was very long for me too, the first image of the car out of the gallery is still very vivid in my memory.

About the photos they shouldn't have become public: I'm also angry because among the magazines that published them there's an Italian gossip magazine. It's a shame.

Romy

[bretonbanquet]

see, I dont see it that way...I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to. And since she spoke up in the 90's (which is a FAR cry from the 1900's or 1950's) we really cant be calling foul on her....What Charles did was WRONG. Diana deserved better as the mother of the future heir, not to mention future Queen...she got treated badly from the word "go" because she was considered "common" even tho she had blue blood on both sides...

btw: Diana didnt cross any lines where her kids were concerned, those kids knew that their mother was being replaced, you can be sure of that. Kids arent dumb.

You must know it's not as one-sided as that. Charles wasn't allowed to marry the woman he wanted to marry. He did not have the choices in life that the rest of us have, and it's not something 90% of us would ever have put up with. It was a shame that the marriage didn't work out, but let's not pretend that there wasn't fault with both sides, and Diana admitted to affairs as well. There is plenty of speculation about the father of Prince Harry, and without wishing to sound crude, he looks nothing like Charles and a lot like James Hewitt. According to Diana, the affair between herself and Hewitt began in 1987, but Hewitt reckons it was '81 or '82. It all depends who you choose to believe!

I disagree that she got treated badly from the start - there's no evidence for that as far as I can see, and it's not a commonly held view here. And she was never going to be the Queen - just the King's wife - not the same thing!

Also kids aren't dumb, for sure, but I'm also sure that they didn't really want their parents' private lives exposed on the TV for the world's attention. They are also extremely attached to their father.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

LOL - Mary is ALWAYS gonna blame the man - don't you know that :laugh:

[bretonbanquet]

^^^^

LOL - Mary is ALWAYS gonna blame the man - don't you know that :laugh:

So many people always do - I have it personally ingrained to defend the man in such cases :o

[David]

Funny how his brother doesn't share the uh, family resemblance, but let's not go there... :rolleyes:
But you just did!
:]

[David]

Sick that people are showing a picture of her DEAD- Jesus, is nothing sacred?Not any more. Last night on TV, during the DINNER HOUR, the news was broadcasting graphic video of bodies of homeless under a bridge. The explanation is that this is "news" & that the "public has a right to know."

At the dinner hour, it isn't my rights I'm concerned about. It's my stomach!

Broadcast news continually tests my gag reflex to the very limits of my endurance. I wish they'd knock it off.

[tommer]

i can't even remember the first time i saw this pic, it's been circulating all over the net since forever.
it's so 1995 that only once it's printed, it becomes an issue all of a sudden.:shrug:

[bretonbanquet]

i can't even remember the first time i saw this pic, it's been circulating all over the net since forever.
it's so 1995 that only once it's printed, it becomes an issue all of a sudden.:shrug:

The issue is that there was an agreement not to print it. If it's on the net you have to go and look for it. If it's on the front page of your newspaper it's in your face - the vast majority of people don't want to see it, and it's in really bad taste. That's the issue. I for one have never seen it.

[catinthedark]

Not any more. Last night on TV, during the DINNER HOUR, the news was broadcasting graphic video of bodies of homeless under a bridge. The explanation is that this is "news" & that the "public has a right to know."

At the dinner hour, it isn't my rights I'm concerned about. It's my stomach!

Broadcast news continually tests my gag reflex to the very limits of my endurance. I wish they'd knock it off.

i work for a national tv newscast. and you raise an interesting point of discussion. you have no idea how much debate and consideration we go through everytime we are faced with pictures that some might find disturbing. when we do air footage of, say, bodies of civilians killed in iraq, or gaza, or lebanon, or israel, the usual reason we have decided to do so is because as a news organization, it is our job to report the news and reflect reality. it is not our job to whitewash, and help people deny to themselves that there are atrocities happening around the world. if one chooses to watch news, one has made a choice (i believe) to see the world as it is.

a few weeks ago, however, one of our producers cut a story that was talking about a bombing in iraq. several young children and babies were killed, along with adults. the producer included footage of the dead children laid out. our senior producer freaked out - and made her take them out. so, dead adults were okay to show. dead children were not. it sparked great debate at our desk. and it is a continuing debate that we will continue to have. each incident is decided on an individual basis.

another incident we faced: last year, someone with a gun took a woman hostage in the middle of morning rush hour in downtown toronto. all the networks were live on the shot of the man holding her, and the police all around... when one of the cops got a clear shot - and killed the man. on live tv, in front of hundreds of people on the street.

did we run the footage of the man being shot later that night? no.

just thought i'd let you know that, at least where i work, showing pictures that may disturb is not a decision that is made lightly and without thought and consideration.

i actually find it more disturbing and heartwrenching to see pictures of families wailing and agonizing over the loss of a child (or the loss of any loved one). but we never hesitate to run those pictures. i wonder why that is. the suffering is just as brutal.

btw, our air times are 9pm and 10pm, but in parts of the country, because of time zones, we are on at 6pm. and we did not, and will not, show the photo of diana dying.

[David]

just thought i'd let you know that, at least where i work, showing pictures that may disturb is not a decision that is made lightly and without thought and consideration.I worked in the newspaper biz for ten years in California & I participated in many a budget meeting at 4 in the afternoon over whether to run gruesome photos because they were "news." I'm not sympathetic to the Romper Room views of the whitewashers--I don't believe some adults should be deciding for other adults what to see or hear. But the media simplify the stance, reducing it to "reporting the news & reflecting reality." Here's my view: The media don't "report the news." They report life (& death). What they report becomes the news--they package it & sell it. When questioned as to why the newscasts are filled with almost nothing but violence, the media even admit that "pictures of kids with bunnies ain't news." In other words, the understanding--the definition--of news is that it is the violent stuff, the death & the crime. And it is packaged & sold, although I don't mean to imply that we all consume it in a state of titillated bliss. As I said, in my case, the "news" continually tests my gag reflex.

[irishgrl]

It was a shame that the marriage didn't work out, but let's not pretend that there wasn't fault with both sides, and Diana admitted to affairs as well. There is plenty of speculation about the father of Prince Harry, and without wishing to sound crude, he looks nothing like Charles and a lot like James Hewitt. According to Diana, the affair between herself and Hewitt began in 1987, but Hewitt reckons it was '81 or '82. It all depends who you choose to believe!

I disagree that she got treated badly from the start - there's no evidence for that as far as I can see, and it's not a commonly held view here. And she was never going to be the Queen - just the King's wife - not the same thing!

Also kids aren't dumb, for sure, but I'm also sure that they didn't really want their parents' private lives exposed on the TV for the world's attention. They are also extremely attached to their father.


Diana's affairs were only after Charles began seeing Camilla again. Harry does resemble Hewitt, which is unfortunate...I only hope he isnt having issues about his parentage..

I misspoke about Diana being Queen, my mistake. But she still didnt merit being treated that way and from everything Ive read, Diana believed she was only tolerated by Elizabeth and Phillip. Not a happy circumstance Im sure.

As for the children not wanting their parent's private lives exposed on TV, from what I've seen, Diana was very sensitive to her children's feelings and I highly doubt she'd take such a public step without first discussing it with them :shrug:

[irishgrl]

So many people always do - I have it personally ingrained to defend the man in such cases :o
Jason missed the point, as he usually does. I wasnt blaming the man, I was defending Diana.

[catinthedark]

I worked in the newspaper biz for ten years in California & I participated in many a budget meeting at 4 in the afternoon over whether to run gruesome photos because they were "news." I'm not sympathetic to the Romper Room views of the whitewashers--I don't believe some adults should be deciding for other adults what to see or hear. But the media simplify the stance, reducing it to "reporting the news & reflecting reality." Here's my view: The media don't "report the news." They report life (& death). What they report becomes the news--they package it & sell it. When questioned as to why the newscasts are filled with almost nothing but violence, the media even admit that "pictures of kids with bunnies ain't news." In other words, the understanding--the definition--of news is that it is the violent stuff, the death & the crime. And it is packaged & sold, although I don't mean to imply that we all consume it in a state of titillated bliss. As I said, in my case, the "news" continually tests my gag reflex.

i would argue that "kids with bunnies ain't news" because there is nothing new or noteworthy about them, and nor do they have an effect on the world at large. news, by definition, is new information of any kind, or information about recent events or happenings. and yes, it IS my job as a news producer to tell the viewers of my newscast about that information or event. i do wonder if i see news differently from you because i am producing news in canada and you were producing it in the states, and if there are different prioroties? i don't know the answer to that, having not worked in news in the states. i have only seen american news coverage. our newscast, sadly these days, certainly does contain many stories of violence and death. but we would be remiss if we did not report the situation in israel and lebanon, the bombings in mumbai, the shooting deaths of on duty 2 RCMP officers. however, our newscast does nightly also contain stories that are not about violent acts or deaths. we are very conscious of creating a balance. and it's not just us. baby pandas born in china? you know every single newscast in the world plays those pictures. why? because they're soft and cuddly and people love 'em. and we, as news producers, are constantly aware that our viewers don't ONLY want to see death and destruction. i think the people have a perception that it is "all we show" because there is just too damned much of it in the world these days, and it is what people remember.

but as my colleague said to me the day of the mumbai bombings, he'll be much sadder the day bombs spread through a city's transit system killing 160+ people AREN'T considered news. i would have to agree.

[SuzeQuze]

So many people always do - I have it personally ingrained to defend the man in such cases :o

Okay but in this case Diana was a "regular" person and Charles a prince. He held ALL of the power in the relationship. That isn't to say Diana shares no blame, but given the power dynamic, Charles is more responsible than she IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Jason missed the point, as he usually does. I wasnt blaming the man, I was defending Diana.

BS and you know it - you specifically referred to royal men as the actors in your post when you said:

I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to

So, do not backtrack dear. You laid the card - now play it.

Your original post did not note that the Queen of England herself allegedly subjected Diana to worse than Charles. Only later did you kind of note that. You just blamed the man - thus my comment :shrug:

In the end, I think Diana did a tremendous amount of good for the world. I just think she also used the press to her advantage and as a tool for revenge, which IMO makes her no different than those who used her. Yet, people seemingly want to ignore her faults and only note that she was some sort of victim, which I assert was not really the case except for maybe in the beginning, but certainly not in the end. And - even in the beginning, what modern day woman who grew up around royalty her whole life would be so clueless as the traditions therein.

[irishgrl]

BS and you know it - you specifically referred to royal men as the actors in your post when you said:

I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to

So, do not backtrack dear. You laid the card - now play it.

Your original post did not note that the Queen of England herself allegedly subjected Diana to worse than Charles. Only later did you kind of note that. You just blamed the man - thus my comment :shrug:

In the end, I think Diana did a tremendous amount of good for the world. I just think she also used the press to her advantage and as a tool for revenge, which IMO makes her no different than those who used her. Yet, people seemingly want to ignore her faults and only note that she was some sort of victim, which I assert was not really the case except for maybe in the beginning, but certainly not in the end. And - even in the beginning, what modern day woman who grew up around royalty her whole life would be so clueless as the traditions therein.

Not backtracking my friend, only stating my point, that I was defending Diana's actions as I saw them. I didnt specifically blame any one man, and no amount of "quoting" will turn up any such tidbit.
My original post didnt contain any specifics in fact, rather I was going on my memories of a book written posthumously by Andrew Morton regarding Diana's experiences with the Royals. As I recall, according to the book, she felt like an outsider from the beginning. Also, I think the Queens own actions about not restoring Diana's royal title after death points out just how low the Royals regarded Diana.

[strandinthewind]

Not backtracking my friend, only stating my point, that I was defending Diana's actions as I saw them. I didnt specifically blame any one man, and no amount of "quoting" will turn up any such tidbit.

No, you blamed all royal men - which proves my point :wavey:

. . . Also, I think the Queens own actions about not restoring Diana's royal title after death points out just how low the Royals regarded Diana.

Why would the Queen of England be under any obligation to restore the HRH to Diana, a commoner. Diana certainly did nothing to achieve that nor did she indicate in any way that she missed it or wanted it back. I mean she divorced the Royal family, which is why she was no longer Royal. Why would Diana want to be something she left - indeed, restoring such could almost be considered an insult :shrug:

[DavidMn]

Sounds a bit morbid to me.

[irishgrl]

No, you blamed all royal men - which proves my point :wavey:



Why would the Queen of England be under any obligation to restore the HRH to Diana, a commoner. Diana certainly did nothing to achieve that nor did she indicate in any way that she missed it or wanted it back. I mean she divorced the Royal family, which is why she was no longer Royal. Why would Diana want to be something she left - indeed, restoring such could almost be considered an insult :shrug:

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say? At any rate, Im perplexed how you figure it would be an insult to restore the HRH to Diana? I understand she divorced Charles and thus the Royal family, but she continued to conduct herself as a member of the Royal family anyway what with her continued charities/goodwill ambassadorship/etc...And I think it would have scored points with the people who by and large still considered Diana a Princess.
And, she wasnt a "commoner" with a pretty blue lineage of her own!!

[strandinthewind]

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say? At any rate, Im perplexed how you figure it would be an insult to restore the HRH to Diana? I understand she divorced Charles and thus the Royal family, but she continued to conduct herself as a member of the Royal family anyway what with her continued charities/goodwill ambassadorship/etc...And I think it would have scored points with the people who by and large still considered Diana a Princess.

There are many people who do those same things who are not royal and I assume Diana did them not in an attempt to be royal.

In the end, she willingly gave up the HRH and it would be rather an insult for the Queen of England to bestow it upon her after her death.

Also, she died Diana - Princess of Wales http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/

So, she did not lose that title and to datre, no one has taken that title after her :shrug:



And, she wasnt a "commoner" with a pretty blue lineage of her own!!

I think all non-royalty are commoners :shrug: But, I could be wrong in my use of that word in that context.

[bretonbanquet]

Diana's affairs were only after Charles began seeing Camilla again.

Ah, but you don't know that any more than the rest of us - and the facts are definitely not clear in any way, rest assured.

As for the children not wanting their parent's private lives exposed on TV, from what I've seen, Diana was very sensitive to her children's feelings and I highly doubt she'd take such a public step without first discussing it with them :shrug:

They were quite young at the time, particularly Harry.

Okay but in this case Diana was a "regular" person and Charles a prince. He held ALL of the power in the relationship. That isn't to say Diana shares no blame, but given the power dynamic, Charles is more responsible than she IMO.

Not so regular. She wasn't royal, but she was Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage, so not exactly like you and me. She was definitely aristocracy. And believe me, Charles held less power within his marriage than his mother did... the Queen sticks rigidly to royal protocol and makes sure that her children do as far as she can. It was the fault of royal protocol that Charles wasn't allowed to be with the woman he wanted to be with in the first place. He was almost as much a pawn as Diana was - that can't be underestimated - I wouldn't be royal for all the tea in China.

[bretonbanquet]

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say?

Not so many in this country! Out of the Queen's four children, there has been only one successful first marriage - Edward and the Countess of Wessex. Andrew is still single, but Anne and Charles have both remarried and so far both marriages are working out, but it hasn't been wedded bliss fairyland for any of the three elder children.

I think continental European royal marriages have a better record :nod:

Also, she died Diana - Princess of Wales http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/

So, she did not lose that title and to datre, no one has taken that title after her.

Camilla is Princess of Wales. She has to be because she's married to the Prince of Wales. It was deemed safer to style her Duchess of Cornwall so as not to appear to be replacing Diana. The wife of the Prince of Wales has several titles - Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall.

It should be noted that not one of these suckers is either Welsh or Cornish, which shows what a farce the whole thing really is :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Camilla is Princess of Wales. She has to be because she's married to the Prince of Wales. It was deemed safer to style her Duchess of Cornwall so as not to appear to be replacing Diana. The wife of the Prince of Wales has several titles - Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall.

It should be noted that not one of these suckers is either Welsh or Cornish, which shows what a farce the whole thing really is :rolleyes:

AHHHHHHH -- thanks for clearing that up. I wondered if the Princess of Wales title automatically went now that Diana is dead. if she had lived, would the Queen have had to strip her of it? Or could there have been two.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, here is a cool article on Morganatic marriage.

[bretonbanquet]

AHHHHHHH -- thanks for clearing that up. I wondered if the Princess of Wales title automatically went now that Diana is dead. if she had lived, would the Queen have had to strip her of it? Or could there have been two.

That is something I'm sure they're glad they don't have to worry about :laugh:

Had Diana remarried she would definitely have lost the title of Princess of Wales, and become plain old Mrs Whoever. Had she stayed single and Charles remarried, I really don't know what they would have done. There can't be two, so there'd have been a catfight, I guess :woohoo:

Whilst she was married to Charles, Diana was titled Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland. That's what you get for marrying the Queen's eldest son... but when you divorce, you lose the lot. It was extremely unusual for her to keep any titles.

She might have regained a title once William became King, since she would have been the mother of the monarch, and you definitely get titles for that. But it's all by the by now.

[strandinthewind]

Here is a cool article on it.

Diana, Princess of Wales
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Diana, Princess of Wales

Born 1 July 1961
Sandringham, Norfolk, England
Died 31 August 1997
Paris, France
"Diana Spencer" redirects here. For other uses, see Diana Spencer (disambiguation).
The Lady Diana Frances Spencer (Diana Frances Mountbatten-Windsor, née Spencer) (July 1, 1961–August 31, 1997) was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales. Her children, Prince William and Prince Harry, are second and third in line to the British throne respectively.

From her marriage in 1981 to her divorce in 1996, she was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales. After her divorce from the Prince of Wales in 1996, Diana ceased to be The Princess of Wales and lost the resulting Royal Highness style.[1] She received the title normally used by the ex-wives of peers, Diana, Princess of Wales under Letters Patent issued by Queen Elizabeth II at the time of the divorce.

An iconic presence on the world stage, Diana, Princess of Wales was noted for her high-profile charity work. Yet her philanthropic endeavours were overshadowed by her scandal-plagued marriage to Prince Charles. Her bitter claims, via friends and biographers, of adultery, mental cruelty, and emotional distress visited upon her by her husband and the royal family in general, and her own admissions of adultery and numerous love affairs riveted the world for much of the 1990s, spawning books, tabloid newspaper and magazine articles, and television movies.

From the time of her engagement to the Prince of Wales in 1981 until her death in a car accident in 1997, the Princess was arguably the most famous woman in the world, the pre-eminent female celebrity of her generation: a fashion icon, an image of feminine beauty, admired and emulated for her involvement in AIDS issues, and the international campaign against landmines. During her lifetime, she was often described as the most-photographed person in the world. To her admirers, the Princess of Wales was a role model - after her death, there were even calls for her to be nominated for sainthood - while her detractors considered her to have been mentally ill (possibly with Borderline Personality Disorder) long before her marriage and regarded her life as a cautionary tale of how untreated emotional problems and an obsession with publicity can ultimately destroy human beings.

As of 2006, the inquiry into her death by British police continues. A report is expected to be issued in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales

[strandinthewind]

Also - from the same source:

The style "Princess Diana" was always incorrect, though often used by the public and the media. With rare exceptions, as in the case of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, only women born to the title (such as Princess Anne) may use it before their given names. After her divorce in 1996, Diana was officially titled "Diana, Princess of Wales", based on a provision in the divorce settlement signed by the Queen, although she could not be called "Her Royal Highness." Even the style "Princess of Wales" would have lapsed had Diana remarried. Had she lived, Diana might have had her royal status restored to her by her son, Prince William, upon his accession to the throne.

During her marriage to Charles, her full title was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland

[bretonbanquet]

^^^^

Wikipedia is actually a pretty good source on the Royal Family, as far as I can see :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

I agree - though it can be incorrect on other things.

Interestingly, that the Queen of England let Diana keep the post divorce Princess of Wales title was a grand gesture on her part. Granted, the mother of the furture king(s) of England and their progeny should have a title.

[irishgrl]

All I know is, I miss her and I am sorry she's gone :distress: I cant think of anyone whose death affected me so deeply.........not even John Lennon, although he was close...........

[strandinthewind]

All I know is, I miss her and I am sorry she's gone :distress: I cant think of anyone whose death affected me so deeply.........not even John Lennon, although he was close...........

I miss her too. I thought she did a tremendous amount of good in the world despite how I think she acted in her divorce.

[irishgrl]

I miss her too. I thought she did a tremendous amount of good in the world despite how I think she acted in her divorce.

Oh Strandmeier, do I hear a song waiting to burst forth????

[gypsysoul]

Two of my friends knew Diana intimately and some other people I know had regular dealings with her.
Most of these people were not fazed by her royal position and so were able to see her for herself.

They say that like most of us, she had her good and bad points. She had an endearing childlike quality about her and yet could also be a right bitch when she wanted to be. Her life was extraordinary and it was inevitable that she became 'street smart' especially when it came to manipulating the media.

I wasn't a particular fan of the public Diana but I have to say the more I heard about the private woman, the more likeable she seemed. She apparently had a good sense of humour, could laugh at herself and genuinely did not differentiate between 'classes' of people.

I was especially touched by the stories I heard of her charity work behind the scenes. Although she did get a lot of publicity for it, apparently she was not someone who only performed for the cameras.

A senior charity worker told me one story of a girl who had such a terrible disease that disfigured her that even doctors found it difficult to deal with her, not least because of the terrible smell that emanated from her.
Diana visited the centre where the girl was and instinctively made a beeline for her. She spent time with the girl and cuddled her in a way noone else had been able to bring themselves to do.

She wasn't the saint some would like to believe she was but nor was she as awful as others make her out to be.

[goldustsongbird]

I am such not a huge Diana fan. While I agree that a post mortem photo is tacky, the woman lived her life in the press and willingly used the press to her advantage. So, when you live by the sword . . . . :shrug:


Mmmhm, I agree.

[JazmenFlowers]

All I know is, I miss her and I am sorry she's gone :distress: I cant think of anyone whose death affected me so deeply.........not even John Lennon, although he was close...........
just curious what it is that affected you so deeply?

[irishgrl]

just curious what it is that affected you so deeply?

not sure really, I just loved her. Somehow, watching her go from being an ordinary person to a Royal seemed like a real life fairy tale...

I watched her as she acquired grace and discovered her affinity for public service. I appreciated the fact that she was unafraid of risks (holding an AIDS patient's hand, hugging that gruesome girl in the story above) and took a stand on things she felt strongly about (eradication of mines, the foul stink of the paparazzi (sp?) ) And, I sympathized with her as her marriage disintegrated.

I grew to love the person she became, not just the fairy tale princess, and when she died, I truly felt the world had lost someone very special.

[David]

not sure really, I just loved her. Somehow, watching her go from being an ordinary person to a Royal seemed like a real life fairy tale...

I watched her as she acquired grace and discovered her affinity for public service. I appreciated the fact that she was unafraid of risks (holding an AIDS patient's hand, hugging that gruesome girl in the story above) and took a stand on things she felt strongly about (eradication of mines, the foul stink of the paparazzi (sp?) ) And, I sympathized with her as her marriage disintegrated.

I grew to love the person she became, not just the fairy tale princess, and when she died, I truly felt the world had lost someone very special.
In other words, what you felt (or still feel) about Diana is exactly what thousands of people feel about Stevie Nicks.

It's kind of odd to hear some rabid Stevie fans express surprise or even disbelief that one could love Diana.

[David]

Two of my friends knew Diana intimately and some other people I know had regular dealings with her.
Most of these people were not fazed by her royal position and so were able to see her for herself.

They say that like most of us, she had her good and bad points. She had an endearing childlike quality about her and yet could also be a right bitch when she wanted to be. Her life was extraordinary and it was inevitable that she became 'street smart' especially when it came to manipulating the media.

I wasn't a particular fan of the public Diana but I have to say the more I heard about the private woman, the more likeable she seemed. She apparently had a good sense of humour, could laugh at herself and genuinely did not differentiate between 'classes' of people.

I was especially touched by the stories I heard of her charity work behind the scenes. Although she did get a lot of publicity for it, apparently she was not someone who only performed for the cameras.

A senior charity worker told me one story of a girl who had such a terrible disease that disfigured her that even doctors found it difficult to deal with her, not least because of the terrible smell that emanated from her.
Diana visited the centre where the girl was and instinctively made a beeline for her. She spent time with the girl and cuddled her in a way noone else had been able to bring themselves to do.

She wasn't the saint some would like to believe she was but nor was she as awful as others make her out to be.Great post! I read it back & inserted "Stevie" in place of "Diana" & it virtually all still made sense.

[JazmenFlowers]

In other words, what you felt (or still feel) about Diana is exactly what thousands of people feel about Stevie Nicks.

It's kind of odd to hear some rabid Stevie fans express surprise or even disbelief that one could love Diana.
well, um, it's not exactly the same...though I can see the similarities

[David]

well, um, it's not exactly the same...though I can see the similaritiesI hope so.

Fans of Stevie say about her:
1. good & bad points
2. endearing childlike quality
3. bitchy on occasion
4. extraordinary life
5. uses the media to her advantage
6. sense of humor
7. behind the scenes still a lot like her public persona
8. terrifically charitable
9. kind
10. neither a saint nor a devil--just a great woman
11. breathtakingly beautiful
12. heartfelt & honest

Fans of Diana say about her:
1. good & bad points
2. endearing childlike quality
3. bitchy on occasion
4. extraordinary life
5. used the media to her advantage
6. sense of humor
7. behind the scenes still a lot like her public persona
8. terrifically charitable
9. kind
10. neither a saint nor a devil--just a great woman
11. breathtakingly beautiful
12. heartfelt & honest

[JazmenFlowers]

I hope so.
good point.

[gypsysoul]

David, thanks for your kind comment about my post.

As for similarities; here's one:
After her long, protracted and bitter break up with her first and true love Charles, something died in Diana (her innocence?).

She embarked on a series of disastrous, shortlived affairs with men who cared little for her as a person but were drawn to her image.
Although it always looked as if she was trying to upstage Charles, in truth pretty much everything Diana did after the split was an attempt conscious or unconscious,to gain Charles' attention and or approval.
Many people say, despite everything, al she ever really wanted was for Charles to call her 'home.' The public too would have loved a fairytale ending but in the end, all the prayers in the world could not save them.

[irishgrl]

David, thanks for your kind comment about my post.

As for similarities; here's one:
After her long, protracted and bitter break up with her first and true love Charles, something died in Diana (her innocence?).
She embarked on a series of disastrous affairs with men who cared little for her as a person but were drawn to her image.
Although it always looked as if she was trying to upstage Charles, in truth pretty much everything Diana did after the split was an attempt conscious or unconscious,to gain Charles' attention and or approval.

oHO! nicely done :thumbsup:

edit: Thank you David for an insightful set of posts.

[carrie721]

Mmmhm, I agree.

Heartless biotch!! :p :xoxo:

[goldustsongbird]

Heartless biotch!! :p :xoxo:

Okay, y'know what... :p Bring it, girl!