Talks about reconciliation 2

[bluegreygreen]

I've never started a thread here before, but I thought some people might be interested in this take on the story by a PR podcast I listened to yesterday (started listening to this podcast as I know very little about PR!).

It would be good to know if any of the resident PR people agree.

When It Hits The Fan: A Right Royal Whodunnit

Her son is saying she was a saint, as is his wife who hugs her grave and gets beyond the grave guidance from her during yoga sessions. THAT is the point!

I imagine the charity asked him to do what would attract the most money and publicity to the cause?

@Randy, I hadn’t seen your excellent post when I posted.

Sources please?

I don’t think it’s deliberately negative- it’s more a matter of balancing the Saint Diana narrative of recent years. As I said above, it’s about looking objectively at historical events and the evidence for public opinion at the time. I don’t think anyone here needs to feel personally affronted by attempts to see Diana clearly, as she actually was, rather than as a plaster saint. It’s interesting to look back and see how opinion changed and why.

The walking in the minefields was always a stunt. They aren't live. No risk assessment in the world would allow a celebrity to walk in a live minefield. Robert Jobson was covering the original Diana walk and confirmed the journalists had her circle back and repeat the walk so that the photographers could get the right angles. The British press know this full well, which is no doubt one of the reasons why they have been excluded from coverage. It spoils the illusion.

The real questions are why The HALO Trust and African Parks are so closely connected with the US State Department interests in the region (according to their records); and why, 20 years after the war ended, and when there is drone and robot technology available to deactivate mines, they send women into minefields to do the job.

Spare. Go read it.

I remember myself thinking’What is she playing at with that sleazy man?’ when the press was full of photos of her with Dodi in the Med.

It was well known that Mohamed al Fayed was dodgy as f... and had an anti-Establishment agenda. There were red flags flying all over her association with the Fayeds.

I agree, that would be absolutely fine if it was a balanced debate.

But friends close to the crown shall we say have been driving the “mad, sad and bad” narrative home quite recently. And I find that quite interesting that they still find it necessary.

Really? Where have you seen that ?

Which friends are those?

According to one of Diana’s friends ( can’t remember which one) she was trying to make Haznat Khan jealous .

What's your evidence for this?

According to one of Diana’s friends ( can’t remember which one) she was trying to make Haznat Khan jealous .

But she was the one who ended the relationship! What was she doing, playing teenage games?

I haven’t seen any evidence of that at all. And I’d know if it had because it would hurt.

Ooh “friends close to the crown”, how mysterious, you sound really in the know 😮🤫

What a load of old bollocks.

Another 'useful idiot' being groomed / exploited.

As far as I can recall from stories around that time , Diana described Haznat as Mr Wonderful and wanted to marry him but he was reluctant to commit because of his career .So , yes , I think she was playing games which turned out so disastrously.

Sources please?

It’s a matter of historical record. You can’t censor evidence just because you personally don’t like it.

And absolutely one is sanctifying her on this thread.

You decrying the discussion of the historical record because you think it is “nasty” and criticising posters for doing so, along with your other posts on the topic, suggest you certainly are.

Yes, I remember reading that too. But she had poor judgment because Hasnat Khan was already very put off by the press and media intrusion he suspected would happen if he and Diana hooked up, so demonstrating exactly how awful it would be by going on holiday with Dodi in the glare of publicity surely wouldn’t have helped!

Indeed.

To go further, until the point of her death she (unwittingly) was playing a pivotal role in the rehabilitation of Camilla.

As stories broke about her personal life (and especially the Carling saga - Julia was a very popular TV personality at the time) for the first time more members of the public became (if not forgiving) willing to understand why Charles had sought solace elsewhere.

Ive always been incredulous at stories/theories that the RF were involved in her death because at that point in time it would have been(and was) utterly counterproductive.

In fact it set back the acceptance of Camilla by over a decade as the Diana myth took hold and people/the press felt it inappropriate to reflect on behaviours that questioned this quasi saintly narrative.

Not to mention his blaming the paparazzi for her death when she chose to dismiss her security team and get into a car with a drunk driver.
He’s now exploiting her memories for $$$$
There was absolutely no need for him to highlight his work with Halo by reconstructing his mother’s walk from years ago.

It’s easy to forget how young Diana was, because she looked poised and self assured and had the world at her feet. But she was, and she made the sort of mistakes young women do.

Harry really needs to move on from memorialising her, it isn’t helpful to him or to her memory.

I have my reservations about the Diana Foundation too, I think it will be a burden to her two sons in its current form.

But friends close to the crown shall we say have been driving the “mad, sad and bad” narrative home quite recently.

Really? Where have you seen that ?

Which friends are those?

What's your evidence for this?

Sources please?