[the_chosen_one]

Originally posted by spacebandit
You may not have met anyone who sick of the sight of her on TV - and her endless media expolitation.

You say the media manipulated her - well that was two way street.

No, rose tinted spectacles are never accurate - except in hindsight to those too young to have experienced life at the time as an adult, and who have grown being fed by the media creation and exploitation of the new consumer friendly image.

The very media manipulation you attempt to condemn has created the image of a person you now seek to excuse and the truth you seek to revise.

The media didn't make Charles treat her like garbage, he did that all by himself

The media didn't make her s**g other men before she was divorced - she did that all be herself.

You use a haggard quote by James Hewitt to explain away her adultery, that only proves you havent been paying too much attention to the media manipulation you seek to condemn, as Hewitt was quite happy to flog his story off to the highest bidder, and the very quote you use came from out of one of his money grubbing exercises. Seems you are happy to use the same "media manipulation" of Diana to further your own ends

Every one of her charity "works" were accompanied by the camera crews, now you may say that is how thise things get publicity, and that is true - yet anyone old enough to remember the times is quite aware that the charity shindigs more often than not co-incided with an event by Charles, as they played on-upmanship with each other in the press and on TV.

You say she had a "suspicious" death - well thats a wacky theory.

She was killed when the drunk french chauffer, employed by the father of her then latest in a string of boyfriends, crashed the limo - nothing suspicious, just a drivers skills impaired by drink driving.

Suspicious death ? don't make me laugh - oops too late, a wacky theory indeed.

You refer to yourself as a "commoner" in reference to the royal family - well I don't regard myself as any more or less than their equal, except in monetary terms, and the one difference between me and them is that I work for mine.

As for being on a "holiday" with Dodi Fayed - the relationship with Dodi Fayed raises all sorts of questions, which anyone who was an adult at the time and kept abreast of the news will tell you was yet another example of media manipulation on her part. Among other things, at the time it was being reported that Harrods - Dodi's fathers flagship shop, was going to lose its Royal Seal [it has since] - there were stories about it for months, then - oops, she just happens to start sh*****g Fayeds son - yes that made big copy in the press, media manipulation courtesy of Diana herself, or a "happy" co-incidence that just happened to make copy ?. No doubt you will claim "spin"

That was of course just one of many stories of the day - but instead you look through the rose tinted spectacles of hindsight, I would suspect, borne of someone not an adult at the time , and take in the created image of the woman and not the actual reality - then attempt to quantify both into a fictitious image to suit your own purpose. My my my, and ain't that just what manipulation is all about ?

Thats what I call bitter and cynical - , to twist the truth to make someone what they were not, and so by implication lay all blame onto others still alive is spiteful revisionism at its finest.

Incidentally - the label "Queen Of Hearts" - came after her death, and after Charles stated that is how he would her to be remembered, and then taken as the title for a book by Marc Cerasini - surely you knew that - certain parts of your post have striking similarites to parts of the jacket synposis of that book, so I will assume you do.

Another poster agreed with my earlier points in this thread, I wonder if you will post specially and label them as "bitter and cynical", post about their "spin" - or do you keep your rose tinted views only for little old me ?, I suspect so.

Many indeed loved her when she was alive, but nowhere near as many as when she was dead.

You’ve basically reiterated your first post, just with more mistakes. Not to mention assumptions and lies.

How ironic that you’d use this “”. Possibly, the only thing which might appear to win you this argument, by the looks of things.

So first off the bat, you lay your hope in the fact that I’m too young to know what happened in the detailed affair of Charles and Diana. Well, I don’t even need to back it up, seeing as the assumption alone puts a huge black mark over your typically flawed argument, right from the get-go.

Then you claim I “say the media manipulated her”. Well, no I didn’t. I said the media hounded her in early life, then tried to disparage her image in later life. There’s a difference. This seems to be the basis of your argument that Diana manipulated the media herself, therefore, people didn’t actually like her in her lifetime? Or maybe you’re using this argument to try and prove what a despicable person you think she is? Well, as I pointed out in my first post, from the age of 20 the media latched onto Diana and there’s nothing she could do about it. She learnt to live with it and learned wisely how to use the media to help people and make a difference. It was perfectly natural that she’d continue to use it to tell her side of the story when the divorce got bitter.

You start wittering about some “truth I seek to revise”. Well, no, I speak from a point of view which is truthful and deals in facts, few of which you’ve been able to counter, TRUTHFULLY, so it’s blatant that the only revisionist is yourself, by your continuous mistakes.

Again, you resort to spinning her affairs into something seedy and disgusting, because it’s the only real thing you’ve got on her. “The media didn't make her s**g other men before she was divorced” or “she just happens to start sh*****g Fayeds son”. The obnoxious wording is there to suit an agenda, nothing more. I suppose with it being your only true ammunition against the woman, you need to garnish it to it’s most devastating effect?

You claim my quote of her “suspicious death”, a “WACKY THEORY”!!!!

What the good god is so wacky about one of the most suspicious high profile deaths in decades? What a ridiculous comment.

Wow, this is getting boring.

You say the “Queen of Hearts” thing came after her death, but again you’re talking rubbish, because she herself coined the phrase when she predicted she’d never be Queen, but would prefer to be known as “the Queen of people’s hearts”.

So in one of your final and most feeble attempts to discredit my argument, you allude to the fact my post was “strikingly similar” to the jacket synopsis of Marc Cerasini’s book (something I’ve never read) , despite the fact my post succinctly and comprehensively counters every point you attempted to make in that dreadful opening post. I suppose Marc Cerasini knew you were going to make that post, so he wrote his jacket synopsis, specially, eh?

Dear oh dear. How ironic this “” is becoming.

Originally posted by spacebandit
Another poster agreed with my earlier points in this thread

It looks to me like they avoided the bull**** in your post and tried to appear agreeable, where possible, maybe so as not to leave you looking completely foolish. However, the fact you’ve tried to use it as part of your argument, just makes you look completely foolish, in my opinion.

There’s other points I could take apart, but I just can’t be bothered.