Princess Diana : The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

The inactivity of her board demonstrates just how meaningless titles, "royalty", wealth, beauty, power and fame are at the end of the day.

You're the "toast of the town" for a nanosecond -- but when you die, you're all but completely forgotten.

There's a lesson to be learned here, I think, for any thinking person...





Room for one more, honey.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

You are mistaken that President Kennedy was (or has been) forgotten after his death. For forty-nine years, his glorious image has been rammed down our throats continually through books, news reports, documentaries, made for t.v. movies, and controversial feature films, most notably Oliver Stone's JFK, and countless women coming out the woodworks to proclaim that he loved them more than Jackie. Liberal reporters have constantly sung his praises year after year, and when someone like the Pulitzer prize-winning Seymour Hersch publishes a trashy tell-all about the beloved President, (as he did in 1997 a few months after the Princess died) a ton of bricks will cascade down upon the author.

How fortunate that John Kennedy never had to suffer the public abuse that poor Prince Charles did for cheating on his wife because she made him unhappy. I still marvel in amazement at the liberal media's complete approval of JFK's humping with everything in sight, as they did for the sleazy, totally classless Bill Clinton, who never had to show contrition or remorse, as Charles did in his 1994 Dimbleby interview when he said that he had wished that it hadn't happened and that he knew the Princess would agree since they had both tried so hard to have a good marriage for the public's benefit.

I guess it's perfectly all right to cheat on Hillary (who, like the press, only minded that Bill got caught) rather than the gorgeous Diana, who like charismatic JFK, could sleep with whomever she wanted. Ironically, unlike Kennedy and his most famous, alledged amour Marilyn Monroe, it is precisely Diana's promiscuity which has cheapened her image and lessened her popular impact, although, in fact, she achieved more on the political, racial, and cultural fronts than those two put together, excluding JFK's feat of preventing WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which he had a lot of help via his brother the Attorney General and Premier Krushchev).

Marilyn passed away on August 4, 1962, several months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and two months before that, she sang Happy Birthday to the President at Madison Square Garden, wearing a sequined dress that was so tight, it appeared to be sewn on. Within a decade of Diana's demise, that dress sold for more than a million dollars. When you consider that seventy-nine of the Princess's dresses sold for merely three million dollars at the June 1997 auction just two months before her death, it appears that although Diana was more famous in life than Marilyn ever was, Monroe has become and remained more famous than the Princess in death.

Ironically, Marilyn Monroe and Diana both died at almost exactly the same age, with Monroe dying at 36 years two months and four days old, while the Princess died not quite two months after her thirty-sixth birthday. Elton John memorialized Candle in the Wind as a tribute to MM in 1972. Twenty-five years later, he sang it at Diana's funeral with more appropriate lyrics before the largest television audience of the twentieth century.

As it has happened, Diana has been largely forgotten since she died due to the fact that virtually everything about her was made public during her lifetime. The legacies of Marilyn Monroe and Jack Kennedy have endured largely due to the mysteries surrounding their tragic deaths, and the sensationalism of their private lives. This is fifty years on. Diana will barely be a footnote 111c thirty-five years from now when the fiftieth anniversary of her death arrives. Of course, demographics have played a part in all of this. White males still control the media, as they did in 1962, which will not be the case in 2047.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

I would like to know your opinions about the double standard that allows men like President Clinton to remain in office while more honorable men like Prince Charles and General David Patraeus must suffer ridicule and condemnation. This is why I want Charles to be King (at least for eight years; the exact same time as the Clinton Presidency) before William takes the crown.

I do not like hypocrisy and double standards. If it is all right for Clinton to cheat on Hillary, why shouldn't Charlie and the General have the benefit of our doubts?

It is always very convenient for you to ignore facts you do not want to confront. I have not forgotten anything about Diana because I've read virtually everything on her, and since even British members of the media were not present at Kensington Palace and Highgrove when the Prince and Princess's marriage broke down, we have only Diana's side of the story about what really happened, not Charles's.

And whenever someone close to the Prince called the tabloids with the real facts, they would publish a view slanted in favor of the Princess anyway. No wonder the Palace didn't trust her. She would have been Lady Diana Nobody (her own words from Ralph G. Martin's 1985 Charles and Diana) if the Prince had married someone else. She may be dead now, but she is a historical figure thanks to the family she married into.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

Be careful who you read, every author has his or her own agenda; especially those who may wish to curry favor with the next king.

I must admit to not having read everything about them (life is too short to waste), but from what I have seen, most books on the subject are anti-Charles. (And why "curry favour" its not as if he can have 'antis' put in the Tower).

Haven’t these authors offered Charles’s side of the story?

Very few. Most 'journalists' (hagiographers, more like) tend to go for the pretty, soppy, lachrymose 'princess of hearts' over the stuffy, emotionally stunted prince with the unfortunate ears.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

Re: The inactivity of her board demonstrates…

Thank you. Finally, the voice of reason. Although I think the media has done Diana a terrible disservice since her death by putting Oprah and Hillary Clinton on pedestals that they haven't earned (mainly above the beautiful, dead princess who can no longer defend herself), we must also face the painful fact that it was she who invited the press, the tabloids, the photographers (if not the paparazzi) into her private life to spite the Royal Family.

I wonder what the late Princess would think now if she could see all the media and social networks being focused on Marilyn Monroe, who died fifty years ago. Diana would be very unhappy that basically she has been put on the back burner in favor of MM, Hillary Clinton, who has not aged gracefully, and her post-humous daughter-in-law Kate, who although gracious (and utterly as thrilled to be a royal princess as Diana ever was), can never replace her dead mother-in-law in people's affections even if she remains totally loyal to the disgraced Monarchy.

Fleet Street must be miserable with the prospect of happily-ever-after for Kate and Wills. Totally BORING. This means less money for them, unless, of course, the wild Harry runs off with someone totally unsuited for royal life like his unfortunate aunt Fergie. Then that avaricious scum will be off and running again.
Top