Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

^ done not down

[Anonymous]

I like it overall, but I think some of the children having no shoes on is a bit odd when everyone is fairly formally clothed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any of you realize that the statue is meant to have great sightlines from close-up and far away. The designer seems to have a brilliant use of spatial recognition - you can see how easy it would be from crowds to gather from both the side and the front at different angles to get great pictures.

Yeah I get it. It is still crap. Compare it to the George Floyd statue. Down with nuance and feeling. This is a monstrosity!

Diana looks unnecessarily stern and like she’s about to land a punch on someone. They could have chosen a softer pose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any of you realize that the statue is meant to have great sightlines from close-up and far away. The designer seems to have a brilliant use of spatial recognition - you can see how easy it would be from crowds to gather from both the side and the front at different angles to get great pictures.

I'm from the former USSR and she looks just like one of the many statues of young communist leaders leading troops to battle. Nothing feminine or nurturing or appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any of you realize that the statue is meant to have great sightlines from close-up and far away. The designer seems to have a brilliant use of spatial recognition - you can see how easy it would be from crowds to gather from both the side and the front at different angles to get great pictures.

Yeah I get it. It is still crap. Compare it to the George Floyd statue. Down with nuance and feeling. This is a monstrosity!

Diana looks unnecessarily stern and like she’s about to land a punch on someone. They could have chosen a softer pose.

I disagree. The 'boys' landed on this pose and stance for a reason. I mean its the recreation of her 1993 Christmas photo. The first official family photo of her after the monumental decision to separate from the Prince of Wales. The first photo without her husband as an adult and just her sons.

19 when married - 32 when separated. I think the sons are saying what she did and what she had to do - essentially stand on her own while a cheating husband stood with his mistress - was be strong. So this is the Diana post-separation with her children as her support but also her as a protector.

The fact that it has 'Diana, Princess of Wales' at the base while standing in the gardens of Kensington Palace also echoes old promises from William to Diana.

[Anonymous]

It's fine, but there's no warmth. Doesn't make me feel anything.

[Anonymous]

It actually reminds me of the Fearless girl statue of Wallstreet. I love that and I'm very very surprised that this is what the future King of U.K. chose.

It depicts a woman who is strong, steady in her course, proud, and defiant. Very American. Not quiet and British.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's been dead for 24 years. This maudlin continuing grief about a woman who had everything but threw it away with both hands is beyond annoying. I used to feel sorry for her but now I understand why Prince Charles wanted to divorce her. Iam also sick of Harry and [b]hidvgrirf.[b]

Did you have a stroke near the end? Are you OK? Get back to us, we're concerned.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the statue, I only take exception to her mouth. I think the creases are too harsh. I wish it had been a smile because she was always so welcoming. Otherwise, I think it’s beautiful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It actually reminds me of the Fearless girl statue of Wallstreet. I love that and I'm very very surprised that this is what the future King of U.K. chose.

It depicts a woman who is strong, steady in her course, proud, and defiant. Very American. Not quiet and British.

Same here, although I understand the poster from the former USSR. This depiction of her is sterner/stronger/harsher than what I would have expected but I can appreciate it. She was passionate about her causes, particularly those with vulnerable populations, and I have to say this depiction has grown on me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's been dead for 24 years. This maudlin continuing grief about a woman who had everything but threw it away with both hands is beyond annoying. I used to feel sorry for her but now I understand why Prince Charles wanted to divorce her. Iam also sick of Harry and [b]hidvgrirf.[b]

Did you have a stroke near the end? Are you OK? Get back to us, we're concerned.

Thank you for your concern. So rare on DCUM. It should treat"..sick of Harry and his never ending grief and his self pity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's been dead for 24 years. This maudlin continuing grief about a woman who had everything but threw it away with both hands is beyond annoying. I used to feel sorry for her but now I understand why Prince Charles wanted to divorce her. Iam also sick of Harry and [b]hidvgrirf.[b]

Did you have a stroke near the end? Are you OK? Get back to us, we're concerned.

Thank you for your concern. So rare on DCUM. It should treat"..sick of Harry and his never ending grief and his self pity."

Read not treat.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I'm still astonished at this statue - it seems to go against everything the BRF has challenged in the last few years. Its inclusive, strong, and dedicated to a woman with love when someone called her crazy just a few weeks ago.

Even the epitaph at Diana's feet:

“These are the units to measure the worth
Of this woman as a woman regardless of birth.
Not what was her station?
But had she a heart?
How did she play her God-given part?”

This after a paraphrased palace statement 'only royals can serve'. I'd like to think this is the start of a palace change but I don't know...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. The 'boys' landed on this pose and stance for a reason. I mean its the recreation of her 1993 Christmas photo. The first official family photo of her after the monumental decision to separate from the Prince of Wales. The first photo without her husband as an adult and just her sons.

19 when married - 32 when separated. I think the sons are saying what she did and what she had to do - essentially stand on her own while a cheating husband stood with his mistress - was be strong. So this is the Diana post-separation with her children as her support but also her as a protector.

The fact that it has 'Diana, Princess of Wales' at the base while standing in the gardens of Kensington Palace also echoes old promises from William to Diana.

Whatever the reason you want to worship Diana, her romantic choices have been very questionable. I mean yes, Charles was wrong to cheat on her but they were just fundamentally wrong for each other. The only man who genuinely loved her declined to enter what he saw her life has become. Everyone else was either a hanger-on, married, or just good-for-nothing with nice toys daddy paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. The 'boys' landed on this pose and stance for a reason. I mean its the recreation of her 1993 Christmas photo. The first official family photo of her after the monumental decision to separate from the Prince of Wales. The first photo without her husband as an adult and just her sons.

19 when married - 32 when separated. I think the sons are saying what she did and what she had to do - essentially stand on her own while a cheating husband stood with his mistress - was be strong. So this is the Diana post-separation with her children as her support but also her as a protector.

The fact that it has 'Diana, Princess of Wales' at the base while standing in the gardens of Kensington Palace also echoes old promises from William to Diana.

Whatever the reason you want to worship Diana, her romantic choices have been very questionable. I mean yes, Charles was wrong to cheat on her but they were just fundamentally wrong for each other. The only man who genuinely loved her declined to enter what he saw her life has become. Everyone else was either a hanger-on, married, or just good-for-nothing with nice toys daddy paid for.

Sure - they were wrong for each other. But Diana having married into that family at 19 and essentially embodied the role of Princess of Wales as she matured - had nowhere else to go and no other skills in life. She didn't want to leave Kensington Palace and I certainly don't think she thought Charles would replace his 'Queen Consort'.

Add the strife of separation in a marriage onto the fact that her current husband was basically not only the 'breadmaker' (all Duchy of Cornwall funds flow from him) but also he had total control of the household and their children - yes, I think 'being strong' is a good characterization.

The entire British establishment hated Diana in the 90s - either out of jealousy for overshadowing monarch+heir - or because they were 'siding' with a cheating future King.

She was a wonderful person with faults, but as we'll see in just 4 short years, Charles' revenge cost her everything. And her sons knew it.