Royals encouraged press attacks on Diana, tried to block charity work,etc.

[antelopevalley]

I know this article is an opinion piece, but I found it interesting. I recently rewatched a film about Princess Diana's death that used a lot of contemporary footage, and I was amazed at how many details I had forgotten.
I do think there is an attempt to rewrite history and erase what happened.

It was extraordinary how unpopular the Royal Family briefly became. It is also interesting that Diana said the Royal Family tried to block the charitable work she carried on doing after her divorce. I do remember her work with land mines that were killing and maiming children was criticised by some sections of the press as being too political. She ignored that criticism.

"However, 31 August has also become a day that the institution of the monarchy has often come to dread. Though Diana’s humanitarian work and public service are universally celebrated, it is her personal life that some within the palace still want to forget; an annual reminder of the institution’s indifference and out-of-touch practices during the most difficult and tortured days of her life.

As Diana claimed after her separation from Prince Charles, it was members of the same Royal Household that attempted to curtail the very role we celebrate today. She claimed charitable visits abroad were blocked, private letters intercepted and cruel attacks in the press encouraged. She was the Royal Family’s biggest threat – one that needed to be muzzled."

uk.news.yahoo.com/dianas-treatment-stain-royals-matter-hard-they-try-erase-134131768.html

It’s by Meghan’s mouthpiece.

I think the royal machine was in a sticky place at the time. There was no mechanism in place with any idea how to manage the situation.
She was given those opportunities because she was royal. It's not unimaginable that they felt she should no longer represent the royals and do royal stuff after the divorce.

The last royal to stop being royal left the country.

It was unprecedented and they got it wrong. At least, the advisors who made the decisions did.

You again?

This.

@picklemewalnuts The advisers do not make the decisions. They advise the Royals who make the decisions.
The Queen has been a big fan of sticking to protocol, unless it personally benefits her. Philip recognised more that they had to move with the times and adapt.

She was getting into tricky and complicated political involvement.

www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/26/monarchy.freedomofinformation

Right, but bad advice = bad decisions.

I can't get worked up about the handling of an unprecedented situation, in a conservative organisation, 25 years ago. Bears little Relation to now.

You again?

I guessed it would be. I only opened the thread to see if I was right.

I always thought Diana wasn't authentic - after spending 25 years with a covert/vulnerable narcissist myself I see the traits in her. Completely obsessed with always looking good (not just physically), everything is a performance - knows exactly how to play the public and is extremely convincing, no boundaries, self harm, everything is for show, nothing is her fault or responsibility always someone else to blame, a martyr, very low self esteem and in need of constant praise and admiration - but a large ego, emotions all over the place - there's such a long list.

Interesting article here on a book written about her which also says she consulted a psychiatrist who said she exhibited narcissistic tendencies:
www.macleans.ca/society/life/dianas-damage/

Of course it was political. And the article says the Foreign Office supported a ban.

I read a comment years ago about the Charles and Diana marriage - that it was like giving a starving woman a Ryvita. He was emotionally stunted and constipated and she was deeply needy thanks to her parents divorce - nothing would have filled that need for love in her, Charles least of all.

And a lot of people would have seen that as the mother of the future king straying into the political arena and a deeply contentious one at that. Hence the concern.

Ditto

The Government of the day were not happy about her meddling in politics .
Even though she was divorced , she was a future King’s mother.
OP you scoff at people who quote the DM yet you are quoting Scobie ???

Agree! For someone who is so anti the RF, the majority of posts about them are by op!

The relevant bit says

Junor said she could have gone further. A psychologist she consulted said Diana exhibited narcissistic tendencies. “That’s exactly what she was, but I thought the word [narcissist] would be so inflammatory. God, what would the Daily Mail have done with that?”

This actually reads to me that Penny Junor spoke to the psychiatrist, who said Diana exhibited narcissistic tendencies. Presumably this psychiatrist had never actually met Diana, so it is hardly a valid diagnosis. That is my reading of that, anyway, further tempered by the fact Penny Junor has a reputation as very pro Charles.

Good heavens, I'm shocked but not surprised. Will they/she stop at nothing to discredit the RF? Throw enough mud and it will stick. MM isn't a Diana figure however much she tries to dictate the narrative.

Ditto.

Poster is obsessed.

I recently rewatched a film about Princess Diana's death that used a lot of contemporary footage, and I was amazed at how many details I had forgotten.

I watched this too (HBO’s “The Princess”) and agree it’s excellent, but on this point it is very clear that her work on land mines was very much a political issue. Diana’s actions were viewed very dimly by John Major’s Tory government (she also contributed to this - she gave an interview in which she said his government was hopeless on this issue, but later said she’d been misunderstood). By contrast, banning landmines was a Labour manifesto commitment.

Tony Blair came in as PM on 2 May 1997, and what to do about Diana was one of the early issues he had to grapple with. She met with him for lunch at Chequers on 6 July and he offered her an informal government role as an ambassador for Britain, which she said she’d consider. He was very much in favour of her work on land mines and publicly backed her work, also sending Claire Short along to one of the speeches she gave on banning them.

Diana herself was very keen to press the point that her campaigning was humanitarian, rather than political, bit she knew very well that that it was a political issue in the UK.

It was the Tory politicians who criticised her over the landmines. They were coming into an election and felt she was highlighting something negative about them. Nothing to do with the RF.
And Diana had a history of claiming a lot of things that turned out to be wrong.

Lately it seems like there are more organized efforts to associate Diana with PH and MM and demonize the rest of the RF.

This article is just a predictable part of that effort. It’s sick though to use her this way. And it really won’t help their cause.

Can you not find a proper journalist to link too. He has the credibility of a mushy pea

Yep, me too!

For Chrissakes just leave it already.

She's dead.

They disabled comments on the article.

BTW, your daily mail is my Yahoo.