1 Comment August 31st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
A decade ago, a woman was killed in a car crash in Paris. This caused extreme outpourings of “grief” from people who had never even met the woman, let alone actually had any sort of relationship with her. And this has led to what Cranmer has referred to as to the “Dianaification” of society:
Dianification: the seeking of a shared and public grief at any given opportunity; the idea that a method of mourning is driven more by selfishness and secularism than by sincerity of emotion; corporate emoting; cumulative and protracted obsession with feelings and intuition.
I don’t like the absurd lengths to which it seems necessary to go with the demonstration of grief at any public - or just publicised - death. They are just people, and people die every day in every way. Unless you actually knew the individual, there is really no excuse for such overt demonstrations. It’s fine to feel sorrow at the loss of a life - we all do - but there is a line, which has been passed at seemingly every single opportunity since that event a decade ago today.
When she died in that car crash, I was 12. I remember mainly being annoyed at the way that the death of just one woman had completely taken over the airwaves, obliterating everything else than had been planned to be shown. And neither was it just for one day. I remember it went on for the best part of a week!
Diana the woman was not as saintly as he has been made out to be in the decade since her death. I know that it is the natural response - to erase the natural faults of a person in order to idolise them better, “never speak ill of the dead” as the saying goes. But the sanctification of Diana has come with the demonisation of Charles and Camilla, primarily along the whole “they committed adultery” line. But Diana did too. Maybe not until after Charles had, but she still did it. She is by no means a completely innocent partner in their break-up.
I hope that after the memorial service today that the ghost of Diana will finally be put to rest. Let it be over, for everyone’s sake, not least that of her sons. She is dead, and has been dead for an entire decade.
2 Comments August 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Camilla shouldn’t have been pretty much forced not to go to the memorial service for Diana.
Camilla had faced mounting criticism after accepting an invitation to the event on Friday - 10 years after the princess died in a Paris car crash - including a call from Diana’s best friend, Rosa Monckton, that she stay away.
Yesterday the duchess announced she would not be attending, saying she did not want to “divert attention” from the princess.
The change came following an impassioned plea from Miss Monckton, who said that the princess would have been “astonished” that Camilla - who the princess famously described as the “third person” in her marriage - was one of the “Guests of Honour” at the service. (The Telegraph)
Camilla was invited by Princes William and Harry. They asked her to go to the memorial service. What possible business is it of one of Diana’s friends if her sons want their father’s wife to go? Since they don’t blame her the break-up of their parent’s marriage, on what grounds does anyone else have the right to? They are the ones it affected more than anyone else.
Since Camilla was invited and asked to go by William, Harry and Charles, she should go. Ignore those “friends of Diana”, who basically claim that Camilla is evil incarnate, and do it. It wouldn’t “overshadow” the memorial service in reality - unless certain people came out to condemn for doing what her stepsons want her to.
Source: The Telegraph - article 1, article 2
Add a comment May 25th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Were the Princes in the Tower really murdered by Richard III? David Baldwin, a historian at the University of Leicester, claims not in his book The Lost Prince
. In fact, he claims that Richard, the younger Prince, lived in Colchester and worked as a bricklayer.
The entire conjecture, however, is based on circumstantial evidence, which he admits, such as:
“The elder prince, Edward, was receiving regular visits from his doctor, and the treatments prescribed by medieval doctors, like blood-letting, were pretty awful. It’s quite likely they would have finished him off.
Then there is evidence to suggest that the younger prince, Richard, was secreted in Colchester.
First of all, Frances Viscount Lovel was one of Richard III’s closest friends, and after the Battle of Bosworth he rode straight to Colchester Abbey for no obvious reason.
Philip Knighton was sent to Colchester by Henry VII carrying secret papers is 1486, so it appears that there was some kind of secret there.
And when Henry VII became king, he visited Colchester no less than four times during his reign, which he didn’t do for other regions.
The impression is that there was something going on there behind the scenes.”
It is a very interesting idea. However, as convincing as the circumstantial evidence seems, it is just that - circumstantial. The man who called himself Richard Plantagenet, was able to read Latin (unusual for a bricklayer) and claimed to be an illegitimate son of Richard III could well have been just that, and not Richard of York, one of the Princes in the Tower.
However, it intrigues me, so I think I shall now have to buy the book and read it cover to cover rather than just picking quotes from news reports!
Sources: The Telegraph, Life Style Extra, Daily Mail
Add a comment May 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Should Camilla be Queen? Apparently Charles
wants her to take that title rather than Princess Consort when he becomes King:
“[A] television documentary is to claim that the Prince of Wales is… determined to make his wife queen when he accedes to the throne. It is understood that he is intent on gaining public support so that by the time of his coronation, both will be crowned at Westminster Abbey.
The programme’s claims will infuriate critics of the couple who still feel that because of the once-adulterous nature of the relationship, the duchess should never become queen.” (The Telegraph)
Since an Act of Parliament would be required to prevent her from becoming Queen, as she would automatically, the question should rather be: Why shouldn’t Camilla be Queen? After all, she is Charles’ wife and thus legally entitled to it. Diana died over a decade ago. People need to move on from it.
As far as I can see, there is no reason why Camilla should not become Queen when Charles becomes King.
