Remember Diana

This is for your own works!!!
User avatar
Byron
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:01 pm
Location: Mad House, Eating Tablets, Cereals, Jam, Marmalade and HONEY, with Albert

Remember Diana

Post by Byron » Tue Apr 01, 2003 1:29 pm

Remember Diana,
‘Arms’ for the children
More ‘Seeds’ on the land are
‘Scattered’ once more

Armour and plastic
Shielded her beauty
An image that lingers
‘Mine’s’ from a war

Stepping out bravely
She took us to places
Where limbs left their owners
Emotions raw

They’re doing it now
Bringing them freedom
For their hearts and their minds
Mines for a war.
Last edited by Byron on Tue Apr 08, 2003 12:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
John the Shorts
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:22 pm
Location: Wales

Post by John the Shorts » Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:06 pm

Sorry Byron but on this one you've lost me.

Diana was simply a publicity seeker fortunate enough to marry into a family that needed a positive image. She embraced good causes simply because it meant more publicity, and a positive slant on the publicity.

She was siply a name that wanted itself attached to the latest "good cause"

JTS
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:57 am

JTS,
I agree with your assessment of the late Diana Spencer, divorcee to the "Prince of Wales" (is he? by title, no doubt, but...).
By seeking publicity from "good causes" she brought publicity to some causes that deserved more public recognition.
If I take her but as the paid "ad girl" for the causes (paid by positively slanted publicity), Byron's image still is valid, to my mind.

Tom
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:58 am

I'm interested in the way that John and Tom view Diana. I took her to be very genuine and living out her heart's desires, with her children and her causes, neither of which I saw as being contrived. She seemed to me to be the one member [albeit through marriage], along with Fergie, who had spontaneity and had not long since locked their emotional selves away in some dark dungeon. What has given rise to your impressions of her? Is that how she was portrayed in particular presses? Or did you see her somewhere and find her behaviour feigned, thereby undermining what you perceived her intent to be?
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Fri Apr 04, 2003 3:24 pm

I had no time at all for Diana or Fergie. I think Princess Anne is the one who stands out for me. It is a shame she cannot be Queen
George.Wright
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 3:37 pm
Location: Bangor, N.Ireland

Post by George.Wright » Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:08 pm

The Royals are all wasters................who needs any of them!!!!
Georges
I am a right bad ass, dankish prince and I love my Violet to bits.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:21 pm

Oh yes, I certainly did not mean to dismiss Princess Anne in the process. However, I will allow for my perspectives being "Stateside" vs. "homeland," which we've already seen can make a difference with regard to some's perceptions of the U.S. government, not being from here themselves. I can only state what my opinions of those two women [and now three] have been.
User avatar
margaret
Posts: 1855
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:21 am
Location: UK

Post by margaret » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:38 am

I think some of us may have have missed the point Byron was making in this poem. The celebrities mentioned and particularly the late Diana, who may well have been a naive publicity seeker in her later years, did manage to draw public attention to the very long- term remnants of war such as the unexploded mines etc which, years later are still lying around and maiming innocent civilians, usually children who find and play with these small bomblets or cluster bombs left behind when the conflict is over and armies leave. Coalition forces are now using these types of weapons again. How realistic is it to believe that they will return to areas bombed to clear up the unexploded ones?
User avatar
Kush
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:21 am
Location: USA

Post by Kush » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:41 am

I have a Brit friend here who dismissively refers to Diana and Fergie as 'Sloanies'.
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:50 am

They were/are Sloanies (Sloane Rangers) I should have included the Princess Diana lookalike Prince Edward married She is another waste of space.

Heather McCartney (Paul missis) is now spearheading the mines programe I believe.

I think Bono and Sting are also jumping on the bandwaggon it seems to be self promotion more and more.

I do take Byron's point about mines I think an allied soldier died yesterday and another was seriously injured stepping on a land mine and they won't go back and clear the area
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:09 am

For me, separating the cause from the celebrity to the disadvantage of the celebrity is a tricky issue. I've seen it discussed that their motives are questioned in the light of "self-interest," yet it seems to me that Bono, for example, has always been a politically-aware and politically-conscious and conscientious person; likewise with Lennon; etc. ~ and unlike some celebrities who bring attention to themselves through negative means [fights/displays of temper/arrogance/crime/whatever ~ and apparently are not so concerned with their "responsibility" to the public/the young to at least try to model appropriate behaviour ~ it seems that these people are aware how their celebrity status will bring focus to the cause, and then utilize that very thing to bring focus to the cause[s] in which they most believe and want to work toward accomplishing. It seems, on the contrary to what's being suggested here, that it's very socially-responsible behaviour on their part.

~ Elizabeth
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:10 am

This is just to clarify my comments about celebs jumping on bandwagons and the social responsible behaviour on their part.

Sting was a teacher and he is now a famous singer who does what he can to save the rain forest - very laudable.

Bono I think was a gravedigger - I could be wrong and he is now a famous singer who is trying to get rid of the third world debt - very laudable.

John Lennon was an art student before he became famous and his anti war work is well documented - very laudable.

And in their youth I don't think the above mentioned were all angels of mercy so there is hope for Eninem yet.

There are celebrities for almost every cause going war on want elephants red nose causes whales save the children war child etc etc and they all have celebs as mouthpieces very very laudable and they all back these causes because they believe in them excellent.

And I am cynical - sorry
User avatar
linmag
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:10 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK
Contact:

Post by linmag » Sat Apr 05, 2003 3:52 am

Paula, I'm confused :? Are you saying that achieving celebrity status should preclude a person from good works? Or that charities should not seek the free publicity to be gained from association with a well-known person?

Many people routinely pass on old clothes and other possessions to charity shops, or make donations in the street. If such a person then becomes famous, why should their motivation suddenly become suspect if they decide to use their celebrity status to do far more for the charity of their choice than they have previously been able to do.

The royal family are in a particularly invidious position. Given their constitutional position, and the way the media hound them, there is very little other than charity work that they can usefully do. (Whether their constitutional position needs changing is another question entirely.)
Linda

1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:48 pm

Hi Linmag - I am not saying celebrity status should preclude good works I just question the motives of some of the "pass their sell by but still desperate to be in the limelight" celebs who give their names to causes for the commercial value and not the core of the cause itself.

I have tremendous respect for John Lennon Bob Geldof Bob Marley and others I just feel uneasy about Sting and Bono and people like the Spice Girls.

And do not discount the up and coming celebs who jump on the bandwagons Ms Dynamite - so solid - leonard di caprio to some it is just part of the PR in the business they are in to others it is heartfelt.

John Lennon Bob Marley Jane Fonda were all dedicated to their beliefs. I do not dismiss out of hands the good they do but you as well as I are well aware of the publicity attached to high profile causes which can do no harm to the celebs career
User avatar
linmag
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:10 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK
Contact:

Post by linmag » Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:08 pm

The thing is, Paula, it does no harm to the cause either, unless they get a real no-hoper celeb jumping on their bandwagon. Lets face it, there are plenty of bandwaggons out there, most of them crying out to be jumped on. The motives are not always something easy for us to judge, and if the end result is publicity for a worthy cause, does it really matter if some celeb also gets their face in the news as a bye-product?
Linda

1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
Post Reply

Return to “Writing, Music and Art by the Forum members”