to think the common idea that Diana was murdered is absurd

[makkapacca]

Heard a journalist on the radio the other day speculating it was not an accident and heard others saying the same. AIBU to think people like this are complete idiots?

@Monopolyiscrap

Kate Middleton does not have the same level of public interest as Diana. She doesn't sell media in the same way. Instead it is notable that lots of articles about Kate that are clearly only about her, shoehorn in Harry and Meghan, as the media know the public are interested in that story.

That's mostly because she doesn't court the press in the way that Diana did. She gets more respect as a result.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@IcedPurple after her divorce she dropped 94 patronages, not over 100. Many of these were the great and good charities that are common Royal patronages. It was directly linked to her divorce and no longer being a member of the Royal Family.
Harry and Meghan did the same. I am not sure why you would expect an ex-member of the Royal Family to pretend they are still one?[/quote]
The point is that this is the other side of the coin to all of the stuff about how supportive to good causes she was.

@DePfeffoff My point about the dresses is that people were prepared to pay a lot for one of Diana's dresses.

Well, yes, They were gorgeous dresses and were famous ones having been plastered over the papers. It says nothing about her being popular with most of the population as suggested.

I won’t reveal my sources, but I heard from someone who you could describe as ‘very senior’ in the UK government that she was indeed murdered.

By Keir Starmer.

@DePfeffoff they sold for the prices they did because they had been worn by Diana.
I dont know why you are so determined to deny her popularity.

@Monopolyiscrap, simply repeating that she was popular with "most people" doesn't make it true. She was popular with a section of the public, but the reality is that, as time went on, she simply didn't impinge on most people's lives beyond maybe spending the occasional minute or two looking at the occasional news report about her.

@DePfeffoff Yes, it is true that many/most? people don't care about celebrities or the Royal Family. Look at the people on MN who had no idea that Prince Philip was the Queen's husband.

During the week before her funeral, which was going to take place on the last shopping Saturday before most children went back to school, I asked many, many people in the ordinary suburb I was living in what they thought about it all. Not a single one of them was in the least interested in her as a person, none thought she had been deliberately killed, none grieved her much ("It's a shame she died so young" was common, but "her poor boys" was far more a concern) and almost all were exasperated about the timing, which was monstrously inconvenient for them: buying last-minute things for their children's new term had been made extremely difficult because the shops were all going to be shut. And the shopkeepers, most of whom I knew well, didn't feel the slightest respect for her; they planned to close on that day because they were afraid people would think they weren't being respectful after someone had delivered a leaflet about it all along the street. Some of them thought that if they were open they might get a brick though the window from a nutter. All knew that they would lose the money for that day because of her and were not bet pleased by that.

One of the people I talked with described the whole press furore as "they want the whole county to come down with DI-arroeah and dribble about her all over the street".

I did know one person who cancelled a weekend in Paris, but when I asked her why, she didn't really know: it wasn't because she had liked Diana (she was clear on that) but a sort of incoherent fear that They might have it in for Brits in some way and it would all be rather awkward. Or bad luck, or something.

The jokes about her death had begun to circulate on the internet within a very few hours of the news being announced; my favourite was the Australian site which had "Latest news about Diana" on the front page, and when you clicked on it the page you were sent to simply said "Yup, still dead." Most of the others were cruel and taking the piss of both her and Dodi. Not a lot of love there! And I was sent them by people all over the country.

I would say that she was certainly well-known, possibly even notorious, but I am not at all convinced she was popular; more a focus for people's catharsis. Many now have no idea why they felt anything at all about her after the immediate shock, or why they went to put flowers outside the house she'd lived in to rot and smell vile for streets in all directions.

"not beSt pleased"

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime As I said most people don't care about the Royal Family. The BBC got a record number of complaints about the level of their coverage after Prince Philip died.
It is a small section of the population who pay any attention to the Royal Family. But amongst them Diana was popular.
And her funeral was watched by a record audience. The Elton John song rewritten for her funeral was Number 1 best selling record in the charts. And newspapers and magazines full of stories about her in - remembering her life special editions - sold in large numbers. And books of condolences were in Town Halls around the country with people queuing for hours to sign them.
Lots of people didn't care about Diana dying. Just as they wouldn't care about any member of the Royal Family or ex-member dying. But there seems to be an attempt to rewrite history about those that do care.
Also very patronising to declare without any evidence that those who laid flowers or were upset now dont know why.
It was always popular to sneer at those upset by Diana's death amongst a certain type of person who saw themselves as superior and viewed the public response as unBritish.
Jokes about Diana's death prove nothing except that some people will joke about anything. There were jokes about 9-11 online within hours. While most people were shocked and still watching TV footage about the mass tragedy.

I don;t think you can have that one both ways: Diana was popular among the small section of the population who pay attention to the royal family as you say here, or as you said in a previous post, "with the general public she was very popular." One or the other; not both.

I wrote of what I know. "Many now have no idea why they felt anything at all about her after the immediate shock, or why they went to put flowers outside the house she'd lived in to rot and smell vile for streets in all directions." had become a fact within a year; it's possible they were unable to say why they had done it because they were ashamed that the general hoohah, and the press frenzy intended to whip up general hysteria and distract everyone from the behaviour of the press with regard to her, had caused them to behave in a way they now perceived as irrational, but more of the ones I asked seemed simply to be a bit bewildered rather than anything else. They certainly were no longer of the opinion that a woman they had never met was of such paramount importance to them that they needed to weep and rend their garments and for all I know put ash in their hair.

I do wish people had retained the sense to take the cellophane off the flowers, though. If they had, the stench would have been far less.

I do wish people had retained the sense to take the cellophane off the flowers, though. If they had, the stench would have been far less.

This! I thought that it was a real shame that all those beautiful flowers were essentially hidden, and all you could see really was a sea of white. Plus, if they'd taken the cellophane off, at least they could have begun to compost down.

Yes, that way they'd have been some use. And also not had to be removed by people wearing protective suits and gas-masks.

And of course all the children's toys had to be thrown out as well, because they'd got mixed in with the rot. Such a waste all round. Far better if everyone who bought them had given the cost of the flowers to one of the charities she was still interested in, or Save the Children, or somewhere it would do some good.

Members of the Royal Family can be popular, without most of the public taking much notice of them. Kate gets high poll approval ratings, but I suspect most people don't follow what she does or know much about her.

And a good thing too: think how you would hate it if you were the object of such intense scrutiny and everyone and his cat started to think he owned you because he read about you in the Daily Mail. I am glad for Kate that she is able to stay a little more private.

Anyone who had never met her and thought they knew anything much about Diana apart from simple facts such as where she had been and what she had done in public while she was there was the more deceived; they really didn't.

I doubt very much indeed that the actual person was in the least like the projected persona to be seen in the pages of the popular press; the media made that persona up (with her active cooperation), and then she thought that she could control them, and ultimately they were complicit in her death.

I don't know whether anyone you do know well has ever been on the front page of a national newspaper, but I do know that on occasions I have happened to be there when something newsworthy happened, and every single "story" bore very little relation to what I had witnessed. In one case I was pretty-much aware exactly what was actually going on and what the newspaper in question's motive was, too, and it was not at all creditable. I really wouldn't take anything I see in the media as gospel.

Of course, no one knows the Royal Family members on the basis of the media. Kate could really be wild and a diva, we haven't really got a clue.

the Royals weren't overly bothered about her antics

She has been left twiddling her thumbs every single Christmas since her divorce.

And even if the rest of them weren't bothered it's come back to bite them on the arse now her dingy links with Epstein are in the spotlight shared by her ex-husband.

Anyone who had never met her and thought they knew anything much about Diana apart from simple facts such as where she had been and what she had done in public while she was there was the more deceived; they really didn't

true but people thought they knew cheryl cole and she was a saint yet this was at odds as the woman who attacked a black toilet attendant over a couple of sweets.

Of course, no one knows the Royal Family members on the basis of the media. Kate could really be wild and a diva, we haven't really got a clue

yea but the problem is that people think they know celebrities.

I remember the wife of one of the men Diana targeted saying how Diana used to just turn up unannounced and would sit there in silence until the wife took the hint and buggered off, whereupon she could hear Diana spring into life and start chatting, laughing and flirting.

I must say, if she'd done that to me I'd have just settled down with a good book and refused to move.

I remember the wife of one of the men Diana targeted saying how Diana used to just turn up unannounced and would sit there in silence until the wife took the hint and buggered off, whereupon she could hear Diana spring into life and start chatting, laughing and flirting

which baffles me how charles gets so roasted for his affairs/behaviour.

Sillybud I think Diana was so obviously vulnerable when they got together, he was 13 years older than her, and she was a teenager. It still beggars belief that anyone including him thought it was a good idea for them to marry. The old fashioned idea of marriage is that the woman remains in a childlike state and is therefore less responsible for her actions. Part of first wave feminism was and is about women being fully responsible for what they do.

I think Diana was so obviously vulnerable when they got together

yes but the idea that she was 'vulnerable victim' up to her death sort of stuck which was nonsense as by then she was 36 and a full adult.

Not sure I believe that story about Diana. You would have to be a pretty wet blanket as a wife to leave and do nothing.