2007-09-06 10:28:36 · 17 answers · asked by ocean 7 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I remember when Diana took to centre stage - both she and Fergie flaunting their wealth, spending many £thousands on themselves just in one afteroon's shopping - all very frivolous. Diana and Fergie were both receiving bad press for that - there were rumours about how they were risking the future of the monarchy because the public, who were suffering Thatcherism, disapproved so strongly. And the anarchial element were producing comical mock-ups taking the fun out of Diana, Charles, Fergie, Prince Phillip and the Queen which were shocking but hilarious.
There were 2 definite camps then - the staunch conservative Royalty supporters (who disapproved of Diana and Fergie) and the Bring-on-a-Republic camp...
Perhaps I shouldn't say this because I don't believe in speaking ill of the dead, but for historical accuracy... I don't know why but the midst of all the controversy, I wrote to Princess Diana - sending her a little note to remind her about the fairy-tale Princess who left the palace when evening came to secretly tend the poor. I can't remember what the story is called now. I suggested to her that she should be like that princess to gain popularity.
I don't know if she read my note or not.
But I was pleased she did change. Instead of getting press coverage for being caught speeding in her latest soopah-doopah free motor, she started visiting hospitals... Not secretly cos somehow... the press were always told... and she was clever - she attached herself to some good charities and helped raise their profile... so she came good in the end, didn't she, and that's what really matters.
Towards the end of her life, you could see the deep sadness in her... Her premature death was shocking - and very convenient for some people (I don't mean the Queen).
Since her death the press, continuing to make money out of her, have given her almost saint-like status.
I agree with the previous respondent, the real saint amongst us wasn't really Diana - but the lady who worked not for PR but out of the goodness in her heart unerringly to help the poor starving souls in the gutter.
2007-09-07 05:50:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Diana had her problems, just like everybody else. She wasn't all the problem, Prince Charles and the Queen also were fuel for the fire. Everybody complains about her relationship with Dodi Al-Fyed but my understanding of it is that her marriage was already over when that happened (anybody confirm me right or wrong?) and thus able to pursue a new relationship without hypocrisy from various circles just due to her royalty status.
The biggest issue of the whole thing was the Mother Teresa issue. She died 6 days after Diana on September 5th 1997 (Thats my birthday btw :) ) however received no such recognition. She did much to help, with altruism being much of her motivation for the deeds she did.
2007-09-06 17:40:30 · answer #2 · answered by Chris W 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Don't think Diana was an angel - and she never professed to be either. But if your man was blatantly having an affair with his "one love" would you not do the revenge bit, just to show you could? She also stood up for herself against the "grey men" as she called the courtiers at the palace - and if that made her a little devil, good on her! Maybe she wasn't all she seemed to be - but getting that treatment would drive me mental. God bless, Di!
CHRIS W: Her marriage to Charles was WELL over before her affair with Dodi began - which is more than you can say for Charles and his "bidey-in"!
BELATED HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHRIS!
2007-09-06 19:48:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would not class her as an angel, she played with the the press, and MAYBE became the victim of this, but she was a human being, a loving mum and someone who tried to put some good work in during her brief life time.
I would not have swopped my life with her for a kings ransome.
2007-09-07 07:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by SUPER-GLITCH 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think she was the real thing. Her naivety was her undoing, however as royal marriages are never about love and/or fidelity but are instead designed solely to produce royal heirs. Crown Prince Charles’ true love was known before she ever married him but she somehow thought he would just forget the love of his life when she took on the job of being in the royal family.
2007-09-06 18:37:09 · answer #5 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dont any1 kick off for what im going to say its my opinion.........
I think that the media have loads to do with the way the public come to a opinion on some1, if the press like that person then as a rule you dont hear the bad bits.
Bottom line she did loads for charity and nobody can knock her for that!
I agree with chris
2007-09-06 17:52:29 · answer #6 · answered by Mia K 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, she was spoilt and hysterical, but she was also badly used by the Royal Family - just required for breeding purposes.
How would any 18 year old feel if the man she loved and was marrying turned out to be having an affair with an ugly horse-faced bint with a name from a Mills & Boon novel?
She was trapped! It was too much for her to handle. The Royal Family are NOT people to be messed with and she was on the receiving end it! Not nice.
No wonder it drove her nuts!
2007-09-06 17:41:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Yes she was an angel but angels sometimes have dirty faces
2007-09-06 17:48:41 · answer #8 · answered by nanny chris w 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think she was a really kind hearted person a real gem in todays society. After all she didn't have to do all that she did for charity. Such a loss for us all
2007-09-06 17:37:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I never thought she was. By the same token though, as much as I personally disliked her and thought she manipulated the media, the bottom line is she is dead. Let her rest, and lets gone on with our lives.
2007-09-06 17:35:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋