What is the Attraction?

[factsuall]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][COLOR=Purple]


What is the attraction?

Please excuse this is just a question of curiosity and nothing more. But I am fascinated by the Amercan fascination for Diana. I am British yet she means nothing to me yet a nation who historically went to war for its own destiny from the British rule seems to surround itself with images it casted away for its own identity.

I have found that to be somewhat of a contradiction: to reject a kingdom and majectic head and constitution to create your own to have the greatest following of this woman especially before she died.

I often heard others say that she was such generous person but she had done nothing that is not required of her. I was personally saddened that in the same week MOTHER THERESA died yet she got back page while Diana got front.

If there was a crime then I hope those guilty are brought to justice for she would be a victim and her son's deserve to know...but can you please explain to me why Americans have such a fascination for the English monarchy they rejected hundreds of years ago?

[Sunny Lincoln]

I think Diana came at a time when people needed a fairy tale. The fact that the majority overlooked Charles's less than enthusiastic response of "Whatever love is."to the question "Are you in love?" is the first sign of the mass hypnosis.

Diana was young, tall, graceful and media savvy. I saw what was happening and was amazed by it. My aunt has piles of "Royalty" magazine in her falling down house on a mostly commercial main street. What a juxtaposition, the emancipated peasant SPENDING her pension on magazines, so she can read about crowned heads in other countries.

What boggles my mind is that she knows more about their lives than she does about the lives of her own flesh and blood.

I think the overwhelming response to the "royal wedding #1" was pre-conditioned by years of Disney movies. Isn't Sleeping Beauty's castle one of the highlights of a trip to the mouse?

[Nandee]

Yes it was only a fairy tale... One we need to stop feeding to our daughters.... (I had sons LOL)

[factsuall]

I think Diana came at a time when people needed a fairy tale. The fact that the majority overlooked Charles's less than enthusiastic response of "Whatever love is."to the question "Are you in love?" is the first sign of the mass hypnosis.

Diana was young, tall, graceful and media savvy. I saw what was happening and was amazed by it. My aunt has piles of "Royalty" magazine in her falling down house on a mostly commercial main street. What a juxtaposition, the emancipated peasant SPENDING her pension on magazines, so she can read about crowned heads in other countries.

What boggles my mind is that she knows more about their lives than she does about the lives of her own flesh and blood.

I think the overwhelming response to the "royal wedding #1" was pre-conditioned by years of Disney movies. Isn't Sleeping Beauty's castle one of the highlights of a trip to the mouse?WOW thank you SL that is sober.

Your story reminded me of a story I was refraining from posting but now I will.There IS something that magnetizes people and it maybe be for various reason perhaps even unknown to them.The idea of someone on a very tight budget buying the royal mags is exactly the 'fascination' that amazes me. In my city both D and C came to visit.I did not come out to see them.It is not my thing and being Scottish I am well versed in my own peoples history in other words we know what they did and to whom.

Well when they came for a visit she had been with one child and the flocks of blind misguided followers came out in droves with toys of her child.I as a child welfare worker was sickened at this fake generousity. For people to be so ignorant to assume the princess would take all these toys home should have been embarrassing but what appalled me is that we have several orphanages, group homes, fosterhomes etc and no one ever thinks to do this for them, their OWN community.

Diana DID donate all toys locally and she got the credit which looked good on the masses who sought to be unique in a crowd.

It is appalling what some will do for these monarchy types or celebrities in general that only visit out of duty. I hope eveyone who brought a toy felt STUPID when she did not take them and humbled when she donated them as they should have done in the first place.

.
For shame for shame

[factsuall]

Yes it was only a fairy tale... One we need to stop feeding to our daughters.... (I had sons LOL)
Absolutely Nandee!

We need to stop telling our daughters they need to be rescued by a man and we need to start telling our sons to start acting as princes instead of the court jester.

[InsanitysAngel]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][COLOR=Purple]


What is the attraction?

Please excuse this is just a question of curiosity and nothing more. But I am fascinated by the Amercan fascination for Diana. I am British yet she means nothing to me yet a nation who historically went to war for its own destiny from the British rule seems to surround itself with images it casted away for its own identity.

I have found that to be somewhat of a contradiction: to reject a kingdom and majectic head and constitution to create your own to have the greatest following of this woman especially before she died.







I didn't participate in the revolution way back when, so I don't think that train of thought applies to this adoration phenomenon at all.

I think, as was stated, she represented a fairy tale, both in her meeting and marrying the Prince, as well as coming into her own right and winning her freedom from what was apparently less than an ideal marriage.

People live vicariously through such things in the media is all.

I was working graveyards the night of the accident, and I was deeply saddened to know that this vibrant woman was gone from this earth.

[factsuall]

I didn't participate in the revolution way back when, so I don't think that train of thought applies to this adoration phenomenon at all.

I think, as was stated, she represented a fairy tale, both in her meeting and marrying the Prince, as well as coming into her own right and winning her freedom from what was apparently less than an ideal marriage.

People live vicariously through such things in the media is all.

I was working graveyards the night of the accident, and I was deeply saddened to know that this vibrant woman was gone from this earth.
IA your noting that you were not there during the revolution is an intereting one. Where I come from our poltics are taught throughout our lives and we act today because of things from yesteryear it is who shaped us for what and who we are tomorrow.

I am from the old country and it is clear to me that we still live our lives in that way, it seems North America is the only ones who romantizes events that take human lives. The Revolution was a statement of freedom for emancipating reasons.Maybe only history buffs can understand the contradiction but regardless of reason it is fascinating to me.

I read here that few believe in the princess dynamic yet I do not.Odd how that is perhaps it is because I am not from here that I am not caught up in the romantism of majectic oppressors? As for vibrant I assume that must be a matter of opinion. Did people find Mother Theresa vibrant? Perhaps if she was more consumed by photos ops and media she would have been?

I choose to honour those who are outsanding examples of human beings and I found it to be a sad global commentary that Diana was deemed more imporntant on her death than Mother Theresa on hers. Maybe it is the work I do that makes me feel so biased.

But you are right people live vicariously through others.How sad!

[InsanitysAngel]

IA your noting that you were not there during the revolution is an intereting one. Where I come from our poltics are taught throughout our lives and we act today because of things from yesteryear it is who shaped us for what and who we are tomorrow.

Interesting, I never got that from history classes, so it seemed a foreign concept to me, yes. But then, math and english were my favorites.

[factsuall]

Interesting, I never got that from history classes, so it seemed a foreign concept to me, yes. But then, math and english were my favorites.
In all fairness to you IA America and Canada are still babies with very little history.Yes it has developed into a strong nation but it not that old, only a few hundred of years. In the old country we still have walls,land and laws that are a matter of feuds because of the English.Just a few years ago we obtained our crown back from their possession.Ireland is STILL rebelling from the English so although it is old or history to some it is still going on for others. Please excuse my oversimplification of British history.

Alot of people are not history buffs.

[SpareOOM]

I always loved Princess Diana. WHen I was a kid, we got up at 4 am so that we could watch her wedding that was broadcast from the UK. It was a fairytale thing; something I think all young people think and dream about.

Later in life, I came to admire her for sticking up for herself, and for people that could not help themselves. She didn't have to do as much as she did; the Royal Family would have been quite happy if she participated soley in their approved charities, and sat around cranking out royal babes. But she didn'. She did what she felt was right and in my opinion lived a very humble and loving life.

I think people should talk about her often, because she is a fine example of someone who disregarded what she knew was arrogant, unethical, and greediness.

I think the difference with Mother Theresa is that latter was a Catholic nun, misionary, and humanitarian; so her piety and peace aimed work was expected of her whereas a only glitz and glamour is expected of a royal princess. :wave:

[factsuall]

I always loved Princess Diana. WHen I was a kid, we got up at 4 am so that we could watch her wedding that was broadcast from the UK. It was a fairytale thing; something I think all young people think and dream about.

Later in life, I came to admire her for sticking up for herself, and for people that could not help themselves. She didn't have to do as much as she did; the Royal Family would have been quite happy if she participated soley in their approved charities, and sat around cranking out royal babes. But she didn'. She did what she felt was right and in my opinion lived a very humble and loving life.

I think people should talk about her often, because she is a fine example of someone who disregarded what she knew was arrogant, unethical, and greediness.

I think the difference with Mother Theresa is that latter was a Catholic nun, misionary, and humanitarian; so her piety and peace aimed work was expected of her whereas a only glitz and glamour is expected of a royal princess. :wave:
Spare..thank you for your thoughtful response.

I just do not ses it that way.She did want is expected of her traditionally. Over the years royalty had forgotten that it is their duty to perform for charities and such.If she is to be given credit for reminding them fo failing to do just that then I can see that. But I have great difficulty giving credit to those who are doing what they are supposed to be doing.The Family did get lazy over the years.

But I am not put out by giving credit to those doing a great job at what they are supposed to be doing. I know she worked on various charities but if there is one thing as a mother I will give her credit for is that she challenged the notion that royal mothers were not to raise their own children. It is my understanding that many a fight was had as she didnot want nannies raising her sons and for that I do commend her.

I think people did relate to her lack of arrogance as she shared her miserable marriage and eating disorer publicly.I think people felt that she was more approachable. I do admit that I am biased for I know so many dedicated volunteers throughout many organizations that do wonderful work and cannot help that had they been a princesses they would be adored for it as well.

I just think it undermines those who do not have the glitz but get the work done.

Interesting take on the piety of Mother Theresa. Again I do not see it that way.Yes it is again an expected part of christian devotion yet why was she the only one who is noted for her life long contributions to that degree when such devotion is built right into the doctrines of the church.

Both are expected to do as such and only one got the fanfair. Of course it is not the princesses fault that the media waits at the door and that MT has no door. This is not even about Diana it is about how the public priorizes who is deemed worthy of front pages and who is not. I would argue that PD had the resources where MT did not..so who gave more?

But at the end of the day we still have someone whose death is questionable and that must be resolved.

The issue of PD and MT is parallelled to that of the ongoing media contention we have here in America....right now it is the whiteness of Natalee on front pages and the blackness of others on the back pages...again who deems who worthy of more attention IS the point.

This is not about any victim it is about the public chosing the value of life and based on what?

[SpareOOM]

Spare..thank you for your thoughtful response.

I just do not ses it that way.She did want is expected of her traditionally. Over the years royalty had forgotten that it is their duty to perform for charities and such.If she is to be given credit for reminding them fo failing to do just that then I can see that. But I have great difficulty giving credit to those who are doing what they are supposed to be doing.The Family did get lazy over the years.

But I am not put out by giving credit to those doing a great job at what they are supposed to be doing. I know she worked on various charities but if there is one thing as a mother I will give her credit for is that she challenged the notion that royal mothers were not to raise their own children. It is my understanding that many a fight was had as she didnot want nannies raising her sons and for that I do commend her.



Well, that's just it; the Royal Family wanted Diana to be involved in the charities that THEY selected for her. She was reprimanded, scolded, and shunned by them for the charity work that she chose to particiapte in that was not 'approved' by the RF. She took a lot of heat from the RF for having the audacity to form her own charitable groups--such as the land mind org.
That royal peeved the RF. Their interpretation was: "who does she think she is going against what we have already set up for her...."

The RF also never encouraged her going into the fields and actually wiping blood from people's wounds. IN fact, when pictures and video surfaced of Diana cleaning people, the RF was outraged and disgusted! Can you imagine?

I would have poisioned the RF--put rat posion in the scones (at least Charles and Mommy dearest) if they treated me like that all in the name of the monarch. Ick! :angel:

[NicoMoon]

I liked Diana too, despite me being an Irish Republican from a long line of revolutionaries.

Like you, SpareOom, I admired the fact that she fought so hard to be her own person against an immense force of influence and power. I think that might be the subtle key to her appeal for so many.

I realize that the Royalty mania is pretty bizarre and IMO, destructive to the cause of human independence. No matter how benign and glittery a face anyone tries to put on it, the concept of a Monarchy is still the antithesis of freedom and human rights. And that's exactly why the Royal family spends millions on PR consultants and handlers to constantly promote the idea that they are kindly and only concerned for the well-being of the people. Bollocks, as the Brits would say. They're a mammoth business enterprise is what they are. How their complete and utter contempt for the people is missed I'll never know. They're a sneering down their nose lot, for sure!

But Diana was born as one of only a handful of young women in England who "qualified" to be Charles's wife, and everyone in that circle of "approved meat" damned well knew it. We can be sure that all of these little girls were raised with visions of sugar plums, and fairy princesses dancing in their heads. That's an overwhelming kind of influence for a child, and I strongly suspect that Diana fell for it. But what's significant is that she didn't sell her soul for it, once the truly harsh reality of the situation became apparent to her.

In her own delicate and charming way, Diana was quite the rebel.

It doesn't hurt her cause that she had that kind of archetypal beauty that most of us find so compelling. I think it's fair to suspect that that's precisely why she was selected from the little stable of qualified candidates, all PR and strategy, and not a wee dram of humanity in the whole gross mess. It nearly drove her mad, and understandably so. I guess while preparing her mentally for princesshood, her mostly absent and neglectful parents forgot to drain the soul out of her, clearly a pre-requisite for a place in the Royal House of Windsor.

All that leads me to feel at least suspicious about the circumstances of Diana's death. She had become a true menace to the Royals because of her immense popularity and compelling attractiveness. I believe that she could have taken them down quite a few pegs, if not completely, and I'm quite sure they knew it and feared her once she was out of their sphere of control and influence.

I'm also quite sure that we'll never know the facts of the matter. It's like the JFK assassination, there's a "party line" that will be repeated through history, irregardless of all the inconsistancies and inaccuracies in the official stance on both stories.

I think that Diana gave it her human best, but in the end, the force and might of the whole stinkin' Royal machine did her in. Whether by direct assassination or just by right of the overwhelming pressure they were able to inflict on her, is something we'll never know, IMO.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:KaCtwd5kZc88yM:www.thatsweird.net/Pictures/prince_charles.jpg

Creep Alert!


""Bloody people. I can't bear them" ......Prince Charles

[Tersi]

How'd ya like to see that roll over and give you a come hither look at 2 am? BLECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I do so humbly apologize for my snarky remark...forgive me?
:worthy:

[NicoMoon]

How'd ya like to see that roll over and give you a come hither look at 2 am? BLECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I do so humbly apologize for my snarky remark...forgive me?
:worthy:

He's a public figure, get as snarky with him as you like. I just called him a creep! He'll probably get over it! :violin:

[SpareOOM]

I see Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana's relationship in much the same way as I see the current Tom Crusie and Katie Holmes union.

Both women were seen as pure and innocent baby making figures and that's it. Interject Protestant guidelines with Scientology....

I really thought Katie was smarter than that (I mean really, who wants a man who has a pattern of dumping women as soon as they hit the 35 year mark).

Diana just didn't have a clear picture of what the future held (not many of us do, but between a life of royalty & the life most of us have, we'd likely go with the royal one) and I don't think she ever thought she'd be given the shaft as badly as she did.

:sad4:

[vervilledeb1]

How'd ya like to see that roll over and give you a come hither look at 2 am? BLECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I do so humbly apologize for my snarky remark...forgive me?
:worthy:

I have to say when I look at the guy I say the same thing. I busted out laughing when I read the post.

I remember watching this wedding and it was the first "royal wedding" I had ever seen. Of course the visions were in my head of the prince marrying the princess fairy tale thing. Sad how it all turned out. But, a good lesson for our girls I suppose. Reality bites! :sad11:

[SpareOOM]

Sad how it all turned out. But, a good lesson for our girls I suppose

Teach them to be strong thinking women. That's the best thing we can pass along!

[LyricB]

I never really paid attention to Princess Diana or the Royal Family for that matter. I don't live in England, though, so maybe it would be different if I lived there.

[r8rpwr]

I have always wondered why people in the U.S. were so fascinated with Diana, and indeed, the royal family as a whole. People magazine can't put out an issue without an update on one of them.

And I'm an American at that. While it somewhat interests me, I can't see the obsession. I think those who say that she stretched some guidelines by raising her own children and by being open and public about her difficulties have a good point. I do think she got a lot of respect for that.