Lady Diana, 20 years later

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Stephen Pointing — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:31:55 GMT

I didn't intend watching the programme but came across it by accident and actually found it rather interesting. Certainly came away from it feeling much more sympathetically disposed towards Diana who actually came across as a much brighter, more intelligent person than I had previously thought her to be. It certainly did not portray Charles or the rest of the royal family in a very good light - but I'm always amazed at how the royal family is perceived when you consider its history of murder, madness, greed, dishonesty, manipulation, intolerance, ignorance etc etc. With forebears like those is it any wonder that Charles isn't an entirely normal guy?

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Clive Ansell — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:59:13 GMT

No, not really.

I am not being derogatory at all. I have no interest or time for lady Diana or any of the royal family, but I wish them no harm either.

To me Diana is just another person; it could have been a neighbour, a woman at 101 in the street or a woman beamed down from the starship enterprise that has died - makes not a jot of difference to me.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:35:37 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Personally why I'm wondering why someone who claims not to give a damn either way, or indeed not to give something rather nastier, should so claim when patently they do give a damn, and not in a good way, or they would not bother to post derogatory comments.[/quote]This reads a bit ambiguously but I think I got the drift. Basically I don't give a damn about Diana or the Royals, I was just commenting on the reaction of the public. I probably don't give a damn about that either other than the hypocrisy of it all irritates me, so I guess that's a bit of a damn!

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

bob lehner — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:23:10 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I rather think that he was wondering why Clive and Bob Lehner and Atko had such strong feelings.[/quote]

Odd comment - I just answered the original question - 'Did you watch the TV program, and if so what did you make of it?'

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 21:43:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?[/quote]

I guess you'd have to do a YouGov poll to find the answer to that one

[/quote]

I think, maybe, it was a J.G.Wray post.

I rather think that he was wondering why Clive and Bob Lehner and Atko had such strong feelings.

[/quote]

I'm sure that's right (hence tongue-in-cheek thing in my post)

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 21:13:54 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?[/quote]

I guess you'd have to do a YouGov poll to find the answer to that one

[/quote]

I think, maybe, it was a J.G.Wray post.

I rather think that he was wondering why Clive and Bob Lehner and Atko had such strong feelings.

(These explanations, while apparently necessary, are beginning to look like a Punch cartoon from the middle of the nineteenth century).

Personally why I'm wondering why someone who claims not to give a damn either way, or indeed not to give something rather nastier, should so claim when patently they do give a damn, and not in a good way, or they would not bother to post derogatory comments. (Yes, in my world, referring to a lady with a name as "the woman" is derogatory.)

FFS, as you might say, Diana is dead. Leave her in peace with a de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Your unpleasant picking and poking and semi-informed commenting (like those proletarians you so despise, you only know what the meeja have told you) differs only in articulacy from that of the untermensch.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:10:14 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]While you people of course are serious historians and much too intelligent to be just pursuing a prurient, prying partiality.[/quote]Don't know about the historian bit but otherwise sounds about right, thanks.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:02:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What was shameful about the public?[/quote]

The totally disproportionate media induced mass hysteria, weeping and wailing, and leaving of flowers by lemmings everywhere surrounding her death. Ludicrous.

[/quote]

"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?

[/quote]

The general public - who knows? I certainly can't explain the mass hysteria that arose from her death.

As for my feelings - I couldn't give a damn about the woman one way or the other, but I would not have wished her any ill.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:58:05 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Collective guilt from the tabloid reading/Jeremy Kyle watching classes whose voyeurism was the catalyst her death.[/quote]

While you people of course are serious historians and much too intelligent to be just pursuing a prurient, prying partiality.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

I asked that question to members of staff. The majority think that

a) Yes, she was murdered

[/quote]

Indeed, many people would rather have a conspiracy theory than mundane truth.

Senor Gomez, you know GCHQ are watching you through your computer, don't you.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:51:42 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?

[/quote]Do you mean why did the public have such strong feelings? Perhaps you should ask them but basically collective guilt and Jeremy Kyle mentality. If not, Clive has described them exactly as they were. My feelings were I couldn't give a sh1t either way about Diana or the Royals. Wills and Harry may just have saved them from extinction by emerging as almost normal human beings.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:41:52 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?[/quote]

I guess you'd have to do a YouGov poll to find the answer to that one

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

J G Wray — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:36:30 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What was shameful about the public?[/quote]

The totally disproportionate media induced mass hysteria, weeping and wailing, and leaving of flowers by lemmings everywhere surrounding her death. Ludicrous.

[/quote]

"mass hysteria", "weeping and wailing", "lemmings", "Ludicrous"

Why such strong feelings?

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:51:30 GMT

I didn't see this programme but did see the one with Princes Harry and William. Whatever your thoughts were on Diana, I think Wills and Harry are great and have been very dignified in the trauma of losing their mother at such a young age. I think Diana did use her position for good - eg with AIDS patients and the landmine campaigning.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:08:14 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]She might have been murdered then. [/quote]

I remain convinced that it was an Interflora-sponsored hit.

[/quote]

It was never my intention to interfere with the potential prosecution of Interflora assassins hence I why I didn't mention them.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:58:58 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]She might have been murdered then. [/quote]

I remain convinced that it was an Interflora-sponsored hit.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:00:43 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]She was a very dim.........She knew very well what she was getting herself into and exploited it massively. [/quote]Bit of an oxymoron there David!

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Bob Russell — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:19:05 GMT

Not seen it nor particularly want to but is this not just what happens if you enter a loveless marriage with a strong and spoiled older man.

The family of a spouse with a troubled marriage is going to support their son/daughter especially where the history is of stiff upper lip and keep quiet.

Not sure what stage of the marriage this was recorded but she clearly felt wronged (rightly or wrongly) and had some mental health issues.

The Royal family clearly seem to have been unsympathetic and certainly come over as dry and unemotional.

Not a fan of any of them really and suspect they are a nightmare to get involved with.

Not particularly sympathetic towards Diana but know just how much impact losing a mother at the age the sons did can have on them.

If these were 'therapy' recordings there is little reason for them to ever become public IMo>

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:13:46 GMT

When I read a little about this... the death of Mannakee, her confessions to Charles's mum, Trevor Rees-Jones' convenient amnesia, etc.. , I suddenly thought.. Oh! She might have been murdered then.

I asked that question to members of staff. The majority think that

a) Yes, she was murdered

b) They still love the royal family.

I was a bit uncomfortable at first of the thought that people were OK with this. I rationalise it by thinking that the royal family would not play a part in an undercover murder, they'd just have to suffer it.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

bob lehner — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:11:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]rumours abounded even then about Charlie's homosexuality),[/quote]

Blimey - they do say Camilla mildly resembles an equine in appearance - but surely she's not a man ...???

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

David Mills — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:49:44 GMT

Diana ushered in the celebrity-obsessed era of British culture.

She was a very dim (failed her O levels twice despite private schooling, her greatest achievement at school was winning a prize for, er, looking after her guinea pig), moderately attractive woman who played the red top media for all it was worth. The outpouring of "grief" was one of the earliest examples of virtue signalling Britain - the "people's princess" makes me cringe.

I have no sympathy. She knew very well what she was getting herself into (rumours abounded even then about Charlie's homosexuality), and exploited it massively. The continued obsession with her is just weird. She must be chuckling away.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:14:06 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What was shameful about the public?[/quote]

The totally disproportionate media induced mass hysteria, weeping and wailing, and leaving of flowers by lemmings everywhere surrounding her death. Ludicrous.

[/quote]Wot he said. Collective guilt from the tabloid reading/Jeremy Kyle watching classes whose voyeurism was the catalyst her death.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 08:33:22 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]Total hatchet job on Charles and Camilla who came out of it really badly - tho' obviously the programme was very one sided. [/quote]

Yes, but it's hard to imagine another side that could possibly have balanced it! I mean 'Look dear, you have your children'; what possible other side to the story could justify that one?

Part of the reason I thought it fascinating was watching through the lens of 2017, so to speak, and the huge strides in our attitudes towards sexism, mental health, class. Hard to imagine that it would have all played out that way in today's world. A good thing.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]The totally disproportionate media induced mass hysteria, weeping and wailing, and leaving of flowers by lemmings everywhere surrounding her death. Ludicrous.[/quote] Agree that was an odd phenomenon. But shameful? I dunno, I tend to reserve that word for people who hurt others. I think it's interesting to question why people felt so sad about the death of someone they'd never met, but I wouldn't call it shameful.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Clive Ansell — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 21:21:24 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What was shameful about the public?[/quote]

The totally disproportionate media induced mass hysteria, weeping and wailing, and leaving of flowers by lemmings everywhere surrounding her death. Ludicrous.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

bob lehner — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:59:46 GMT

Well - I did watch it, being a bit of a Diana-fan at heart.

Total hatchet job on Charles and Camilla who came out of it really badly - tho' obviously the programme was very one sided.

Basically a totally unsuited and incompatible couple who should never have got married. A naive, gullible and possibly slightly dim and dippy teenager and a ruthlessly cynical older man who clearly didn't love her in the slightest, but needed a suitably upper-class and virginal brood mare to carry on the line ('Whatever love means!'). All made much worse, at least for her, by being constantly in the media spotlight.

A tragedy all round.

RE: Lady Diana, 20 years later

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:15:36 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I didn't and I wouldn't want to be reminded of a shameful period both in the history of the royal family and a large section of the British public.[/quote]

I suppose before watching the documentary, I tended to think there was probably fault on both sides. After the documentary, and despite still being a sort of monarchist-lite, I was left thinking the royal family really did behave truly atrociously. Even allowing for the different world we lived in at the time. So much so that I wonder if Prince Charles could now become King (still less Queen Camilla).

What was shameful about the public?