I like inventing words. It beats paying money for relics of the class system to swan around in pretty dresses.
What are you, a Vulcan?
When Diana and Charles got married, there was a girl from Ireland spending the summer with my neighbors. She stayed up all night to watch the wedding, and it’s all she talked about for weeks before and afterwards.
Lady Diana was, at least on the surface, a fairy tale. Pretty girl working at a nursery marries the prince. She get the dress, the carriage, the wedding. She get to live in a palace and she’s a princess!!
My guess is, the continuing interest in her is in large part based on memories of that fairytale princess in the dream wedding dress
I hear that Paris got religion the short time she was in prison. There’s that. (it is very hard to type that without falling out of my chair laughing).
Diana was not like Paris, IMO. Ok, so she’s no intellectual-and why would the world need another one of those? She was caring and compasionate. She did a great deal to calm the hysteria over AIDS and even leprosy by being a figurehead, by being unafraid to touch “diseased” people. I admire and respect her charity work-Audrey Hepburn did similar work, as does Angelina Whatshername now. Diana’s role was not to scrub the floors of the hospitals, but to help raise cold, hard cash to keep the hospitals open (or the problem of land mines in the public eye).
I think she worked plenty hard–teaching pre-school is no walk in the park.
I also think she had a manipulative side-the emotionally needy, “let me dance for my husband and make a public spectacle out of myself and embarass an entire country plus all who are viewing” side. No excuses there. I think she had a great deal to put up with: Camilla for a start. The Queen Mum (who, from what I can tell, was a right royal bitch) and dear Prince Phillip, not to mention Charles. And somehow it was ok for Charles to fuck around, but for Diana to do so was shocking and dismaying etc. :rolleyes:
So, she’s a mixed bag. Who among us could live in the fishbowl that became her life and come out looking halfway normal? I think none. I think her memory is being horrible exploited by her oh so loving brother. I pity her sons–but unlike most royalty, they at least had a warm relationship with their mother, by all accounts.
I cannot explain the fascination so long after her death. I wish they would leave her alone. Apparently her image still sells mags, though. We will need someone who replaces her to stop the Dianamaniacs–perhaps William’s bride, god help her.
Worry doesn’t take any time. One can worry while one is dishing out soup. I just don’t understand the connection you’re making between wealth and charitable goodness. In fact, you’re stating sort of the opposite of what I always heard in the threads on libertarianism. The wealthy living in luxury are the mean people, I’m told. They don’t lift a finger to help anyone because they don’t have to. Next time a thread crops up, I’d appreciate your stopping by to give your point of view. 
Is worrying about paying for kids somehow more noble than not having to? I thought parenting meant worry, no matter the circumstances (if you’re a parent who gives a damn about their kids).
IMO, Diana more than paid for her place in the world–in a particularly nasty way. I am no fan of the Earl of Spencer, but he got right when he said she was hounded to death. None of us could survive that intense scrutiny without going a bit batshit ourselves. It’s one thing to be born into it–but even Charles (and William and Harry) did not get the massive media attention that Diana did. No one has-not since perhaps Elvis or the Beatles.
I’m not sure what some here would have had her do? Throw it all away and live in an ashram? She was the mother of the future King of England–why would she live in a double-wide? UK cannot afford to throw away its royalty–in tourism alone (never mind history etc), the royals more than pay their way. Given her background, I think it’s laudable that she did work in childcare and early childhood education–she could have spent her time at spas and ski/sun resorts like a lot of Euro trash.
Well put. There aren’t many parents who have to worry about hoards of nefarious agents of all kinds from photographers to reporters to God knows what snooping around every nook and cranny of their family’s activities. I never had to worry much about my daughter being kidnapped for ransom or framed in the crosshairs of an assassin’s rifle.
I agree fully. I don’t understand the “Diana Hayte”, which seems especially disproportionate relative to the innumerable dregs of society, leeches, parasite, and out and out criminals that get splashed on the front pages of newspapers and news sites daily.
I cried when she died. I don’t hold her up as a heroine or person who changed the world, but I liked her.
If you really did not understand what I meant, it was that some people have less time than others to do charitable work. If you have the ability to not have to work for a living, you have more time available to do such work.
I don’t think rich people are any more or less charitably inclined than poor people. I think there is a responsibility to do as much as one feels one can. I certainly don’t feel I have reached that level, and I am trying to rectify that. I give more than I used to because I can afford to. I do less outside of work in the giving time area because I have less time to give.
As I said, Diana did a large amount of charity work. She was able to because the the system allowed her to live without the need to work. And it is a system I think is reprehensible.
Well, I don’t know what Diana thought about the system you are referring to, at least at the end of her life. But I do know that she bought into it at an extremely young age. How many of us make decisions at age 19 that have kinds of repercussions that her decision did? Maybe it was a bad, ill-informed decision, but she lived with it and made the best of it, at least, I said, in her public life. I give her credit for working when she didn’t have to, especially doing charitable works.
Lib, I could name a TON of royals who did a hell of a lot more than Diana ever did. How about all of the queens, empresses, duchesses, princesses, etc, who became actual nurses during WWI. I’m not talking about just visiting hospitals and smiling. I’m talking about aiding in amputations, changing rotting and smelly dressings, cleaning bedpans, etc.
Refresh our memories, then. Who are this “ton” of empresses who were working in battlefield or second-line surgeries in WW1? Or to make it easier, can you give me just two or three examples of each of the above types of royals? I’m having trouble thinking of a single one. I’m not saying there was no one, since I’m not a history major, but I find it hard to envision a whole flock, pod, plethora, or skein of royals converging on WW1 hospitals to help saw through gangrened limbs.
This sets aside the fact that Diana wasn’t a Princess who was around in any wars where she could have actually helped by being a nurses’ aide. And it’s somewhat ludicrous to think of her just walking down to a triage in a London casualty, rolling up her sleeves, and saying “what first?” This isn’t the 19-teens, and untrained people can seriously get in the way of professionals doing their jobs, whether it be medicine, fire, ambulance/EMT services, or even DIY. Example from personal experience - Habitat for Humanity needs some untrained folks to help lift and tote, but you can’t build a decent house if half the people on the lot have never held a hammer. Good intentions can sometimes seriously get in the way of getting shit done, and I think Diana knew her limitations and what she could accomplish.
Somehow I can’t see Diana leading a charge onto the Falklands. There were no UK wars when Diana was alive (please correct me if wrong). I believe the Queen Mum (or was it the Queen) drove an ambulance in London during the Blitz or something. Can’t think of any who were nurses–even Florence Nightingale directed other people–she did NOT do the actual nursing.
She filled a role that a lot of referentially powerful women fill. Nancy Reagan raised awareness of Alzeimer’s; Betty Ford for addiction. Diana did it for land mine injuries, leprosy and AIDS, IMS. I see nothing more inherently worthy in the actions of an actual nurse (speaking as a nurse) treating an AIDS pt than I do of a celebrity figure drawing attention (and money and changing public opinion) to the same disease. Lots of women stay home and take care of their kids–Diana was unusual for her class and status that she involved herself so much in the boys upbringing. For that, she is to be commended. Again, what else was she supposed to do with her time and resources? She did more good being a figurehead than an actual worker bee, IMO.
I just don’t get why people dislike her so much. Dislike the relentless coverage and microanalysis of her past and her persona–sure.
One that comes to mind is Empress Alexandra of Russia. She and her daughters nursed wounded Russian soldiers during WWI. I don’t know how “hands-on” their nursing was though.
What about them? Just because I love my daughter doesn’t mean I have no love to spare for my wife. Anybody who lifts up others is doing good work. To praise Diana is not to disparage Elizabeth and her work during WWII. Diana used the gifts given her, one of which was to lift the spirits of people. It’s nice to have a bedpan changed, and God bless anyone who does that. But if the bedpan is clean while the patient is still lonely and depressed, there’s more to do. People are more than just biology.
As the member of the royal family who got the most media time, she used to bore the shit out of me when alive. Now she’s dead, the industry that’s sprung up to cash in on her memory is even more annoying.
As for Greer, she’s got a fair point. Diana was an idiot (look at her school results and taste in music) and either her or her advisors were devious (someone out there got good results in manipulating the public opinion to her advantage over just who was the guilty party in a marriage of convenience where both sides screwed around)
Not to answer the question or anything, but Princess Anne is a truly fucking diamond of a person. She’ll turn up at the least glamorous opening of a community centre, business park or local arts project or whatever, and there is little publicity beyond the local newspapers. She visited an old folks home near me when they were adding a new wing to the complex, and spent seven hours (7 hours!!!) chatting to the residents and staff. If we didn’t have a perfectly decent Queen with Brenda, then Anne would likely win a popular vote.
And she supports Scotland at the rugby, and I must admit that I find it amusing that the Princess Royal sings along to Flower of Scotland. I’m sure the irony isn’t lost on her.
Of course, it can be tricky explaining to people from other countries that we have a hereditary Head of State, but I reckon that given a few centuries of easy democracy a place will eventually evolve into a state that reflects the mood of the people who live there. It helps that we’ve had good Queens but I do wonder about Charles. William will be fine.
Quoted for truth. I’m not really sure about you Liberal, but sometimes you really nail it. Having said that, I’d still like to see the results of the survey you did, and am intrigued by the idea of a libertarian monarchy. Tell me more!
No excuses, just one simple reason, People sells more copies when Diana is on the cover.
You must have missed the General Questions thread. It turns out that I hopelessly ruined the survey by the way I designed it. Search GQ for my name as thread starter, and you’ll find it. I might try it again though, taking into consideration the things I was told there. A libertarian monarchy is a society of people voluntarily governed by a monarch.