1
   

Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?

 
 
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05:33 am
Why do we commemorate such a thing?

I don't see the reason for worldwide attention.

Celebrating the 10 year mark of a joyous event makes sense, but this onslaught of films, specials and the like are just way too much.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,175 • Replies: 119
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:08 am
Well, obviously people want to read and watch such ... misterious, nobility, glamour, divorce ...


Surprisingly, in London itself there's less fuss about it than I thought:

http://i3.tinypic.com/2qjkcaw.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:20 am
Quote:
Why do we commemorate such a thing?

I don't see the reason for worldwide attention.
. Obviously you have no connections in the entertainment industry. We recently celebrated the 5th anniversary of the " batter dipped and deep fried twinkie". Understand, this was not about any princess Diane, but it was a subject of interest to many AMericans who love fried fods loaded with artery clogging ingredients.


"On the Sixth DAy, the Lord created the Twinkie". This is an actual tee shirt that some coneheads wear to celebrate the event.


BAck on tpoic, I think, as William, her oldest larvum, fully pupates, he will be the recipient of the full complement of public blandishments that are still bestowed on Diana. course , what do I know, I dig up redbeets and eatem raw.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:35 am
Walter - yeah I suspected it's an American thing. Rolling Eyes

farmerman - William seems to have learned a thing or two about handling the media. I think he's far stronger than this mother.

You eat red beets raw? ewwww! Get yer butt down below the Mason-Dixon and eat some crabs!
:wink:
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:40 am
Wait until next year. I understand the 11th anniversary of Di's death is going to be quite the shindig.
0 Replies
 
mismi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:00 am
Well - Wasn't Diana a kind soul that helped where she could? I thought she used her fame to help children and so many different charities. And maybe it is American to be an avid royal watcher. But the idea of Diana, Princess of Wales was what I grew up with. She was better than a movie star ever thought of being. And it was intriguing - the mystery around her death...at least what others made out to be a mystery- it made me want to know what really happened. Once you started hearing that there were conspiracy theories - it was hard not to want to learn more. Oh well...so be it.

There are other things like this that are also commemorated...Elvis' death, 911, these things have to do with the death of people that were well loved by the public or tragedies that happened that we feel should not have. I don't ever get to see the shows or specials that have to deal with them but I think it is kind of understandable why people mark the date...it is hard to believe it has been 10 years since her death. Doesn't seem that long ago to me!
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:20 am
People still waffle on and teach kids about Henry VIII nad Viguals(SP) are still held for the likes of John Lennon on a daily basis.

I saw a bit of the memorial and it was nice to see the boys say something in speeches about their mum.
Im glad Camilla stayed away.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:30 am
I remember the fuss that went on for decades after James Dean's death. There are some people, for whatever reason, who capture the public's imagination. If they die, especially prematurely, they are often mourned after others are long forgotten.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:41 am
I admired her for being herself and not what other people expected her to be. She seemed like a very kind and caring person who had values. That is why I liked her.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 08:40 am
Never estimate the power of an archtype.

August, 2007, is also a 30th anniversary for Elvis, The King.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 08:44 am
Noddy24 wrote:

August, 2007, is also a 30th anniversary for Elvis, The King.


But he's alive. .... No? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 09:06 am
Walter--

Do you have him tucked away in your camera case?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 09:45 am
I thought Princess Di was not aristocracy, per se; a rich family, but not aristocracy. So, wouldn't the British commoners feel extra kindly towards her and want to make a big event over her anniversary?

Plus, all the hoopla might just have something to do with giving those two sons of hers a feeling, that their mother was loved, by the whole country. I feel sorry for them, since it's hard enough to be a boy growing up as a Prince, let alone without a mother.

In The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain, initially the Prince wanted to experience the things regular boys experience. I don't envy the whole family. Anyway, aren't castles drafty?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 09:56 am
Foofie wrote:
I thought Princess Di was not aristocracy, per se; a rich family, but not aristocracy.


Just the other way around: her family wasn't thaaat rich, but certainly aristocracy.
Quote:
Earls Spencer
John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer (1734-1783), a grandson of the 3rd Earl of Sunderland through his youngest son
George John Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer (1758-1834), politician
John Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl Spencer (1782-1845), better known as Lord Althorp, politician
Frederick Spencer, 4th Earl Spencer (1798-1857)
John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), politician
Charles Robert Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer (1857-1922)
Albert Edward John Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer (1892-1975)
(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992), father of Diana, Princess of Wales
Charles Edward Maurice Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer (b.1964), brother of Diana, Princess of Wales
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 10:06 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foofie wrote:
I thought Princess Di was not aristocracy, per se; a rich family, but not aristocracy.


Just the other way around: her family wasn't thaaat rich, but certainly aristocracy.
Quote:
Earls Spencer
John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer (1734-1783), a grandson of the 3rd Earl of Sunderland through his youngest son
George John Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer (1758-1834), politician
John Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl Spencer (1782-1845), better known as Lord Althorp, politician
Frederick Spencer, 4th Earl Spencer (1798-1857)
John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), politician
Charles Robert Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer (1857-1922)
Albert Edward John Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer (1892-1975)
(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992), father of Diana, Princess of Wales
Charles Edward Maurice Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer (b.1964), brother of Diana, Princess of Wales


I thought I heard/read when they first got married, she wasn't aristocracy? Why would that have been promulagated? To make Americans like her??? Who knows?
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 10:09 am
I suppose she was what we have been brought up to consider a princess to be,pretty, kind, lovely clothes etc
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 10:13 am
Foofie wrote:
I thought I heard/read when they first got married, she wasn't aristocracy? Why would that have been promulagated? To make Americans like her??? Who knows?


Perhaps you misheard that.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 11:04 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foofie wrote:
I thought I heard/read when they first got married, she wasn't aristocracy? Why would that have been promulagated? To make Americans like her??? Who knows?


Perhaps you misheard that.


Who knows; her marriage was a fairly long time ago. Who did she marry?
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 03:13 pm
Foofie wrote:
I thought I heard/read when they first got married, she wasn't aristocracy? Why would that have been promulagated? To make Americans like her??? Who knows?
As far as I know she had to be or Prince Charles would have had to give up the throne of ever being King.

Queen Elizabeth's father became the King because his brother, who was the King, gave up the throne to marry a commoner.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:48 pm
TTH wrote:
Foofie wrote:
I thought I heard/read when they first got married, she wasn't aristocracy? Why would that have been promulagated? To make Americans like her??? Who knows?
As far as I know she had to be or Prince Charles would have had to give up the throne of ever being King.

Queen Elizabeth's father became the King because his brother, who was the King, gave up the throne to marry a commoner.


Yep, a commoner from Baltimore!

I just love the story of Edward VIII and Wallis Warfield Simpson. It's a true love story.
Smile
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 04:39:05