Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?

Here's my take on this one decade after thing; most don't have a life of their own, and their interests are limited. It's interesting, considering the fact that we have our own family members and friends who have passed away less than ten years ago, and we don't spend all that much of our time expressing our grief or whatever...

I really don't have any idea what you are talking about. What do I spread around?

I read the book "White Mischief" by James Fox some years ago. It is an account about a murder in Kenya, and is filled with a lot of data from trial transcripts, etc.
The first part of the book describes the melieu for the murder situation, in the nineteen thirties. Read this amazon review for the gist of it.
(I actually found the book boring, and can't remember if I finished it to the last page. Maybe.)

I bring this up since Edward and Wallis were described as part of that melieu.

White Mischief

The voice of wisdom is correct again.

------

Two sons wanted to openly commemorate their mother who unfortunately was a victim in life and death. Had her then husband, Prince Charles, shown more character and guts, he would have married his only true love, Camilla right from the start. Instead he married Diana for the sole purpose of producing the next king. Charles never loved Diana, and she was hardly welcome at the Queens palace. Diana, a
victim of circumstances.

Well, marrying Diana over Camilla, who would have been a divorcee to start with -- and is she even aristocracy?? -- would never have done... he wanted to be King, so he would have had to abdicate. I'm not sure if their sons would have been allowed to rule given a commoner mother.

He was still very much the puppet in those days.

As for Diana herself, Noddy had it right. she was a silly little girl wearing rose-coloured glasses, too, if she thought it would be a love match. However, I don't think either of them really thought about love. He wanted to rule and he wanted heirs. She wanted the position, prestige, fame and money. It was your typical arranged marriage.

But her later exploits (her affairs, her tv appearances, her phone calls, her confession) were not due to youth, but to bad judgement. By that time, she should have known better.

She wasn't welcomed with open arms, but that's not a reason to behave like a silly schoolgirl. She could have earned their respect, or said, To hell with you, and carved out her own niche, which she later did.

Whatever. I don't idolize anybody, particularly people who are screwed up.

Re: Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?


Ratings and revenues.

Re: Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?


ya got that right

Princess Di? Who's Princess Die?

why do we commemorate such a thing?

because she was famous and pretty and she posed an existential threat to the house of windsor


and was killed



accidentally of couse, in a car crash

Shoud we not repent?
Should we not repent for
Mother Theresa
Nelson Mandela
Mahathma gandhi
Martin luther King?
The whole system is rotten to the core

CJ--

Thanks for the kind words.

Mame--

Camilla is part of the aristocracy--unfortunately she was also Not A Virgin--hence, not a suitable royal bride.

Thanks for the info, Noddy. I'll be sure to insert that information somewhere

Mame--

Camillla came of age in the swinging' sixties and enjoyed herself thoroughly. I approve of Camilla. Charles needs a down-to-earth woman, not an unhappy child-bride.

The only thing I have agin her is marrying Charles Although if she's happy... that's a good thing.

re the whole love, marriage, abdication, affairs, etc.

There's always much more than meets the eye. On the surface it looks "sweet" a man gave up the throne for his love. Lezzles story was very very interesting, but, doesn't say to me they were any less in love. They may not have been sweet and innocent, they may have een into S&M or swinging or God knows what...that didin't mean they didn't have the right to be with each other.

As far as Camilla; she and Charles are happy together.

If these were all day to day people we meet, no one would care

Edward had to leave the family business because his family didn't approve of his girlfriend, future wife.

Charles married Diana because it was expected of him. She put up with his past and present, just as many wives do. She died, he married the person he should have in the first place.

Things like this happen every day, and it's no more interesting to me just because the players are well known.

All of us here have a past, that's what makes life interesting.

In the Fawlty Towers episode where John Cleese tells the dining room employees, "Don't mention the war" (German tourists were in the dining room), and then the moose head falls onto John Cleese's head leaving him dizzy to the point of goose stepping around the dining room, is an example of what I think makes the British humor unique. Or, every episode of Keeping Up Appearances. This is what I would think the British gave to the world. Great humor. The monarchy is great humor too, in my opinion. Perhaps greater humor, since no one is trying to be humorous. Sorry, if this is offensive, but truth in the service of humor.

Princess Di's death was just sad. Too sad for a media event, in my opinion.

Chai, Good post; I agree with your observation.

Re: Shoud we not repent?


I hate to break it to you, but Nelson Mandela is still alive.

I remember a joke that went around when I was in high school.

In an English literature class the teacher was pontificating on steps to being a successful writer.

'There are four sure-fire winners in writing. If you can bring these themes into your stories you cannot fail. And today I want you to write an essay that does include these topics. They are - Religion, Royalty, Sex and Crime Mysteries. Now take up your pens and start working.'

The students put their heads down and busily started on their essays. One pupil however, wrote for only a few seconds, then put her pen down.

The teacher raised an eyebrow and said - 'Annabelle, don't tell me you've finished already!'

'Yes, Miss,' was the reply.

The teacher, unconvinced, said 'Very well. Perhaps you'd like to read what you have written to the rest of the class.'

Annabelle stood up and read -

'My God!' cried the Duchess, 'I've been raped! Who done it?'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oooOooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Royalty sells! Sex sells! Religion sells! Crime Mystery sells! It's all there in the Duke and Duchess of Windsor story and in the Diana chronicles.

Whether it's for love or money, all these people lived on the privy purse (at the taxpayer's expense) and so they owed the taxpayers one thing - to make sure they got their money's worth.

A few points about previous comments (I have done a wee bit of research) -

Had Charles been permitted to marry her when he wanted to, Camilla would not have been a divorcee (it was the 'virgin' thing that cruelled it)

Diana knew the set up before she married Charles.

Her job was to provide an heir and a spare.

Hypocritical as it may be, it's okay for the king (or the heir apparent) to have a mistress; for the wife of the king or heir to have a lover is to commit high treason. Not so long ago that would have automatically meant "off with her head!"

The Royal Family IS a business and the above was part of the terms and conditions of the job.

They are not gods, they are just people, subject to lust and greed just like the rest of us. If they are mature and smart they can live very contented, productive lives. If they choose to buck the system they will be the subject of debate and argument.

Maturity is a terrific thing to achieve. And it doesn't necessarily depend on age

Among other things you learn that love does not always win out. Often love means letting go. I know if I loved a man whose situation was such that in order to be with me he would have to turn his back on everyone else he loved and who loved him I would have to walk away.

It also means that one can argue without becoming argumentative.

It also means that you don't kick someone when they're down.

Good grief! It's 5.33 am here. I have sat here all night. I'm off to get some sleep.

Oh, one more thought. I noticed a few snide digs at the British and their attitude towards the Royals. I am not a great fan of the Windsors, nor of the British in general (though there are many Poms I do like), but when I read Americans having digs at the Brits, I cannot help but wonder if I only imagine there is a place called Hollywood, with all its scandals and weird folk and also whether the big Elvis' 30th anniversary really took place......

lezzles -
I love the english lit joke.

Yes it's true and we all know that all Diana was 'contracted' to do was produce the heir and spare, but the public came to adore her quickly and that's where the plan went awry. Everyone wanted them to actually be that fairytale couple. Camilla's looks didn't help much....she was perceived as that evil witch seducer of the Prince.