Royal Gossip
December 13, 2018, 01:44:51 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 [34] 35 36   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Diana's Death and Memories ~ 20th Anniversary  (Read 79386 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4615



« Reply #660 on: September 01, 2017, 12:19:27 am »

Twenty years to the day... the flowers, cards and tears flow all over again: ROBERT HARDMAN on the curious crowds of mourners who gathered outside Kensington Palace to remember Princess Diana

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4842084/Princess-Diana-mourners-gather-outside-Kensington-Palace.html

--

The Winds look like a barrel of laughs. Tbh I find Liz's resting b*tch face funny.

It's always hard to really know which icons will be remembered down the line, but I think Diana has a very good chance to retain the icon status for a very long time and outshine them all long after the other players will be gone. Charles was jealous when Diana outshone him in life and he must be spitting that she's still outshining him and his lovely wife, and likely will for a very long time.

I can't remember a public reaction to anyone's death like people did world wide when she died. It is one of the events that have stayed quite well in my memory too.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9754


« Reply #661 on: September 01, 2017, 01:44:31 am »

A few of the Charlotte looks just like the Queen are on the thread. So in other words a little toddler looks like a sour faced 91 year old Queen? I don't get it.
Logged
dianab
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #662 on: September 01, 2017, 02:31:29 am »

In the first 3 photos, if they were given n a pop band, they'd be called 'The Glums'.

They obviously wish we'd rather forget about PD, but folks will still be talking about her for years to come. The British people lost a mega star that night.
True thumbsup
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4615



« Reply #663 on: September 01, 2017, 11:11:43 am »

Diana's wedding dress designer David Emanuel slams her former butler Paul Burrell for selling her private secrets and says 'I never met him in hundreds of visits to her home'

    The designer described the butler as on the 'periphery' at Kensington Palace
    It comes after Paul spoke about Diana's 'soft warm corpse' on a Channel 5 show
    He was paid 10,000 for the interview with a psychologist on In Therapy
    But David says in hundreds of visits he 'never met this guy called Paul Burrell'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4842668/David-Emanuel-slams-Paul-Burrell-Diana-secrets.html
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38025



WWW
« Reply #664 on: September 01, 2017, 03:25:48 pm »

I find it intriguing how so many of her servants overstepped the bounds; her former bodyguard mouths off regularly and her butler is clearly someone who is insane. She never did learn the value of keeping staff in their place. So many of these people thought they were more than just the hired help. I do understand now why Charles and others kept their distance and I do think that this is another reason the old rules are there for a reason.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4615



« Reply #665 on: September 01, 2017, 04:06:03 pm »

I think most of her former staff is respectful in what they share (speaking strictly on the current bonanza, watched Diana 7 Days or what it was called last night and staff was respectful and Sarah was in it!), the cook shared quite a bit but nothing crass (I think! - I saw on TV recently how he recreated a dish he used to make for Di & the boys, classic potatoes with meat, but hers was a lowfat version and the boys' a normal one, he showed how she wanted to eat healthy but when with the boys for the food to look the same; it was brief but interesting); but Burrell takes the cake. Imo the only problem is Burrell and he may have been a great friend to Di, but is completely oversharing. The corpse comment was  ick and frankly I doubt she was warm. He could have felt her warmth only if he was creeping right under the bridge, anything past that, nope. And sorry to go into the morbid stuff, it is just so deranged. I bet he is the one who made the most money out of Diana and I bet that's what his entire income these days is based on. It's also not like he brings anything new to the story, just retelling the same thing everyone and their dog knows already.

From another perspective: The way we know about historical figures past & present is because someone always blabbed and because letters and journals survived (of the person themselves and of family, friends, aquaintances & staff). No one calls it intrusive when reading Anne Boleyn's & Henry's love letters, or Marie Antoinette's correspondence with her mother, or all that's followed since Cleopatra died, or George Washington, to name but a few.
It's a double edged sword: It borders on betrayal and disrespect, on the other hand it satisfies people's curiosity/ desire for knowledge and bears a historical testament as well as aids the creation of myth & legend.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9754


« Reply #666 on: September 01, 2017, 04:52:59 pm »

I find it intriguing how so many of her servants overstepped the bounds; her former bodyguard mouths off regularly and her butler is clearly someone who is insane. She never did learn the value of keeping staff in their place. So many of these people thought they were more than just the hired help. I do understand now why Charles and others kept their distance and I do think that this is another reason the old rules are there for a reason.

PRince Charles has his aide Fawcett around. I think he knows where all the bodies are buried so to speak. I don't think CHarles keeps distance from him and relies on him for advice and he even plans events for C and C. I think he knows a lot more than Burrell will ever dream of knowing. I doubt he will "tell: though.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38025



WWW
« Reply #667 on: September 01, 2017, 05:01:04 pm »

I think Fawcett is as much of a confidante as a servant can be, but Charles has surely asserted boundaries from time to time. A lot of staff have been known to be used to never forgetting that Charles is the Master of the House and they are still his servants, the hired help.

I think most of her former staff is respectful in what they share (speaking strictly on the current bonanza, watched Diana 7 Days or what it was called last night and staff was respectful and Sarah was in it!), the cook shared quite a bit but nothing crass (I think! - I saw on TV recently how he recreated a dish he used to make for Di & the boys, classic potatoes with meat, but hers was a lowfat version and the boys' a normal one, he showed how she wanted to eat healthy but when with the boys for the food to look the same; it was brief but interesting); but Burrell takes the cake. Imo the only problem is Burrell and he may have been a great friend to Di, but is completely oversharing. The corpse comment was  ick and frankly I doubt she was warm. He could have felt her warmth only if he was creeping right under the bridge, anything past that, nope. And sorry to go into the morbid stuff, it is just so deranged. I bet he is the one who made the most money out of Diana and I bet that's what his entire income these days is based on. It's also not like he brings anything new to the story, just retelling the same thing everyone and their dog knows already.

From another perspective: The way we know about historical figures past & present is because someone always blabbed and because letters and journals survived (of the person themselves and of family, friends, aquaintances & staff). No one calls it intrusive when reading Anne Boleyn's & Henry's love letters, or Marie Antoinette's correspondence with her mother, or all that's followed since Cleopatra died, or George Washington, to name but a few.
It's a double edged sword: It borders on betrayal and disrespect, on the other hand it satisfies people's curiosity/ desire for knowledge and bears a historical testament as well as aids the creation of myth & legend.



The difference is, staff at the time of the situation knew the boundaries and I do think that there is too much authoritativeness on the part of ex-servants. I do think the main mistake Diana made is that she confided in them way too much, thinking they were her friends, thinking that they truly cared about her. She never realized that they did not see her as one of them and that she was (to them) first an aristocratic lady from one of England's finest families and then Princess of Wales, the consort of their future king. She was blind as to how so many of them saw her and that is how she ended up getting used all the time. She regrettably saw herself as a victim and she didn't see that others saw her as privileged and thought they might as well make a buck off of her since she was giving them so much info.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9754


« Reply #668 on: September 01, 2017, 05:13:42 pm »

I do think Charles confides in him more than the average servant. He's been working for Charles many many years now.  Charles also was a little too friendly with Tiggy Legge Bourke who worked for him and turned Camilla off so much that she was instrumental in having her sacked. Bourke also indiscreetly talked to the media about "her boys" and how she was better at "mothering" than Diana. That makes Crawfie's book look even more harmless. I think Charles lets his guard down and forgets about barriers from time to time. He does like people flattering him and those who don't get the cold shoulder. ANd Charles had an Elizabeth Buckanan working for him and they got friendly so much so Camilla said Elizabeth must go.

But with any celebrities and famous people after they die there are people who will come out of the woodwork and make money off them. Jackie Kennedy for example had many of those sorts of people writing about her after she died.
Logged
LadyLaura
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1246



« Reply #669 on: September 01, 2017, 06:05:02 pm »

"soft warm corpse"??

seriously what is wrong with that man!!
Logged
Fernanda Nunes
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #670 on: September 02, 2017, 09:26:14 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xNQMBGHpSA
wow hide work
Logged

Motto for the year 2017: "Saying with a loud voice, Have fear of God and give him glory; because the hour of his judging is come; and give worship to him who made heaven and earth and the sea and the fountains of water." (AP 14:7).
http://icmaranata.pt/index.php - Portugal www.igrejacristamaranata.org.br, www.icm.org.br, http://radiomaanaim.com.br/v1/ - Brazil
dianab
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #671 on: September 03, 2017, 04:31:06 am »

The Unseen Diana
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__dBz4Z9zoA

She was truly the people's princess bye
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4615



« Reply #672 on: September 03, 2017, 11:13:19 am »

PETER HITCHENS: Diana's greatest legacy is the destruction of our monarchy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4847680/PETER-HITCHENS-Diana-s-greatest-legacy.html
Logged
india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6723


« Reply #673 on: September 04, 2017, 02:55:43 pm »

Well, her two spawn along with the Middleton Vat of Oozing Slime are carrying the monarchy right over the finish line of destruction.
Logged
marion
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2957



« Reply #674 on: September 04, 2017, 03:27:13 pm »

True - that old biddy doesn't give a flying ****for anyone other than herself
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9754


« Reply #675 on: September 04, 2017, 03:55:33 pm »

They are not letting comments in
Logged
dianab
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #676 on: September 04, 2017, 06:26:50 pm »

PETER HITCHENS: Diana's greatest legacy is the destruction of our monarchy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4847680/PETER-HITCHENS-Diana-s-greatest-legacy.html
i agree with the headline in itself...

i also agree with this part of article:
We are already living in a republic. We just don’t know it yet. Diana Spencer, perhaps the most brilliant politician of our age, destroyed the British monarchy 20 years ago.
The current Queen continues to occupy the throne solely because she has been transformed by skilled public relations into the nation’s favourite grandmother
. Her survival is personal, not political.
She goes through the motions of being the Sovereign, but is well aware that one false step could bring the weeping mobs out again, not weeping but snarling, and who knows how that would end?

but disagree with that:

The Prince himself can do nothing about this. No matter how hard he has tried to fill the gap in his sons’ lives left by the death of their mother, no matter how thoughtful he is and no matter how seriously he takes his task, the gossip never ends.

and agree with that again:
What this means is monarchy based on opinion poll, not on lawful right
. And that’s the end of monarchy. Let’s speculate further into the future. Charles abdicates to please the crowds. William takes the Crown. But he who rules by permission of the polls also falls on the whim of the polls. And when those polls turn on a once-popular William, as they will, he too will be gone, and Buckingham Palace will be a museum. I wouldn’t give it that long.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4847680/PETER-HITCHENS-Diana-s-greatest-legacy.html#ixzz4rjRhxnTx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 06:28:48 pm by dianab » Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4615



« Reply #677 on: September 04, 2017, 07:45:11 pm »

^ Same here, agree with you;
agreed very much with some parts and not so much with others.
Hitchens says it's basically over, and that's my feeling too.

I think this is bollocks though:
"Does it matter? Yes. First because, by having a non-political monarch we can respect, we are freed to be properly disrespectful towards politicians, while remaining loyal to our country. Without a monarch, loyalty can demand political submission.

Also, the British monarch is like the king on a chessboard. He cannot attack. But by occupying his square he prevents others from doing so – politicians who long for the supremacy that monarchs have, who yearn to be escorted by booted cavalry and greeted with trumpets, and who want us to respect them even when they don’t deserve it. Especially when they don’t deserve it.

It’s not an accident that most of the longest-lasting free, law-governed countries in the world are constitutional monarchies. Yet we seem keen to throw this advantage away, because we no longer know who we are or how we came to be so free and happy."

What tf has Liz done to protect? Basically what parliament/ politicians want, they get. Monarchs never step in, unless to line their own coffers.

I also find it ridiculous that Diana gets blamed for the downfall of the monarchy. She helped elevate them into the modern age and did wonders for their PR profile. They should maybe look at Chuck, Camz and docile Liz and the fact that people are not subjects and sth as antiquated as a monarchy has no place in this world.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38025



WWW
« Reply #678 on: September 04, 2017, 07:55:29 pm »

I sometimes think that the main reason HM and others would refuse to hear her name in their presence is because of this fact. Diana quite stupidly turned the succession into a political position where the candidate has to be likeable instead of the rightful heir. This is why I dislike Diana being so deified so much.                  
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
dianab
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #679 on: September 04, 2017, 08:22:21 pm »

Diana was the wrong person for the Windsors. She wasnt the typical aristo who was happy to settle for a sham of a marriage. THe Queen/Charles should have given a divorce to her in late 1980s. Then they wouldnt have deal with Morton book and Panorama interview - which I agree were instrumental to 'DOWNFALL/destruction' of the monarchy... but then that was the perfect karmic payback the Windsors deserve(d)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 [34] 35 36   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!