Withering verdict of LORD BELL, Lady Thatcher’s favourite ad man

[Limabeany]

Not even Diana's thigh-high skirt made up for her being such an airhead: Withering verdict of LORD BELL, Lady Thatcher's favourite ad man  | Daily

the time I met Diana, Princess of Wales in 1993, she'd already built herself a career as a tragic figure, working at it with public relations people and sharp lawyers.

My friend Gordon Reece, one of Margaret Thatcher's closest advisers, was completely infatuated with her — she turned him into a puppy dog — and wanted to become her publicist. But I never had much time for Diana myself.

The problem was that she fancied the privileges of being the Princess of Wales, but not the sacrifices and responsibilities.

Substitute Princess of Wales for Duchess of Cambridge, in the part in bold, and you have a great argument.

[wannable]

The Duchess of Cambridge isn't the Princess of Wales yet, she doesn't have the privilege that entails that title and position.

She's under the dispensation of what Charles approves (and the Queen via SG), the actual POW, handler of the Dutchy of C.

[Limabeany]

She has all the privileges of a future Queen, which doesn't she have? What she doesn't have is the ability/capacity/desire (take your pick) to work. All members of the brf are under the "dispensation" of the Queen. No difference, except in her nearly permanent state of idleness.

[cinrit]

The article was about Diana when I read it. :hmm:

Cindy

[Canuck]

Very interesting, he certainly wasn't a fan:

The four of us waited downstairs for Diana's car to arrive. Then she made her entrance from above, in big heels and a short skirt. The gentlemen tried to be polite and not look upwards as she tottered down the stairs.

She was very tall — with very long legs — and very vain. I thought she looked like a horse.

As Diana was sitting down, she took one of the cushions from the sofa and held it on her lap, feigning coyness, pretending that she didn't want a Sharon Stone moment. But then, why oh why had she dressed like that in the first place?

That was her way: a kind of provocative false modesty, which I found rather unattractive because it was so choreographed — like the way she tilted her head and looked up through her eyelashes.

I barely spoke all night, which I think she found disagreeable, in the way that women who are almost invariably fawned over react badly when they find it's not happening.

Frankly, I couldn't make myself interested in her banal air-headedness. Most of the evening she just talked about herself and her clothes and things that had little relevance to any of us there.

[Limabeany]

The article was about Diana when I read it. :hmm:

Cindy

http://sarcasm.link/en/s/879b78.png

[cinrit]

:P

Cindy

[sandy]

Well maybe those who put out scathing things about the dead princess should be instructed to "move on."

[TLLK]

The Duchess of Cambridge isn't the Princess of Wales yet, she doesn't have the privilege that entails that title and position.

She's under the dispensation of what Charles approves (and the Queen via SG), the actual POW, handler of the Dutchy of C.

:goodpost:

[Limabeany]

The Duchess of Cambridge isn't even a grown up yet, judging by her speeches and work history. She shouldn't be only under the dispensation of Charles and the Queen, her husband has money of his own and should pay for her upkeep.

[sandy]

Very interesting, he certainly wasn't a fan:

The four of us waited downstairs for Diana's car to arrive. Then she made her entrance from above, in big heels and a short skirt. The gentlemen tried to be polite and not look upwards as she tottered down the stairs.

She was very tall — with very long legs — and very vain. I thought she looked like a horse.

As Diana was sitting down, she took one of the cushions from the sofa and held it on her lap, feigning coyness, pretending that she didn't want a Sharon Stone moment. But then, why oh why had she dressed like that in the first place?

That was her way: a kind of provocative false modesty, which I found rather unattractive because it was so choreographed — like the way she tilted her head and looked up through her eyelashes.

I barely spoke all night, which I think she found disagreeable, in the way that women who are almost invariably fawned over react badly when they find it's not happening.

Frankly, I couldn't make myself interested in her banal air-headedness. Most of the evening she just talked about herself and her clothes and things that had little relevance to any of us there.

Imagine if he is married. I pity the wife. He sounds very sexist. What a pompous prat.

And how cowardly to take on a dead woman. A real gentleman. Not.

Kate's unweighted skirts  makes Diana's fashions look positively Victorian.

[TLLK]

^^^Money that he's likely been advised to invest and save for a rainy day or advent of the second republic.

If the senior royals have determined that it is best for the Duchy to pay for the expenses of the PoW, DoC, Cambridges and Prince Harry then that has to be a much better alternative than the tax payers having to increase the Sovereign's Grant. Until someone other than the Duchess of Kent chooses to retire from full time royal duties there will be a substantial number of royals to fund so they can undertake their engagements on HM's behalf.

[TLLK]

Diana has been and will likely continue to be a topic of discussion among historians for years to come. Even Queen Victoria still receives press such as new theories about a marriage to John Brown.

[sandy]

Well making cutting remarks about a dead woman whose sons are still very much alive is really tacky. I don't know why it is defended.  I guess maybe he's hoping for honours from Charles and Camilla.

The John Brown stories came much much later. After Victoria's children were long dead and buried.

Why is this old fossil  being defended for making nasty comments about a dead woman? I don't get it. He sounds very sexist at the very least.

I wonder about the DM. It seems every other week it's Let's Bash Diana Day.

[Canuck]

I don't think every negative comment about Diana every random person makes is somehow aimed at getting honours from Charles.   :orchid:

Lord Bell worked for politicians, not the Royal family.  The piece discusses his opinions of a lot of famous people he knew at the time, not just Diana.  Frankly, he doesn't sound like a particularly nice man, but that's neither here nor there.  It's still interesting to read what government officials thought of different people back then -- obviously it's just their opinions, not gospel truth, but interesting all the same.

[sandy]

I do think that getting honors from Charles as a hope cannot be eliminated as a possibility other than he is a bitter old man who dislikes women.

[Canuck]

Or maybe he just didn't like Diana.  Not everyone who met her did.

[HistoryGirl]

Sounds like a man actually. They rarely like to hear about clothes and the stuff girls talk about. That's why all girls need good girlfriends lol

[sandy]

Or maybe he just didn't like Diana.  Not everyone who met her did.

Well it sells more books to trash a dead famous person than trashing someone who was not famous. I think not everybody likes Bell either.

[Canuck]

I'm sure many people don't like Bell.  I'm not much of a fan myself.  But he has his opinions, just like everyone else.

[TLLK]

Sounds like a man actually. They rarely like to hear about clothes and the stuff girls talk about. That's why all girls need good girlfriends lol

:hug: :banana: :goodpost:
Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 07:41:58 PM

I don't think every negative comment about Diana every random person makes is somehow aimed at getting honours from Charles.   :orchid:

Lord Bell worked for politicians, not the Royal family.  The piece discusses his opinions of a lot of famous people he knew at the time, not just Diana.  Frankly, he doesn't sound like a particularly nice man, but that's neither here nor there.  It's still interesting to read what government officials thought of different people back then -- obviously it's just their opinions, not gospel truth, but interesting all the same.

It's one of the first opinion pieces from someone that wasn't working for the BRF but had the opportunity to observe them from his position working for the PM.

[sandy]

Would he dare criticize Charles? No way It's only people who can't defend themselves, are dead, or in no positions of power. Bell is a fake.

[Canuck]

Well his very first piece in this series for the Daily Mail a few days ago involved scathing criticism of David Cameron and Ed Miliband, among others.  Both of whom are very obviously not dead, powerless, or unable to defend themselves.  And he goes after Charles Saatchi in today's piece. 

I'm not saying he's right in any of his criticism of any of these people.  But I think it's pretty clearly just him speaking his mind on a whole range of people.  He just didn't like Diana, no conspiracy needed.

[Curryong]

Yes, his piece on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Carey, wasn't exactly flattering!

[sandy]

Well he does not go after Prince Charles.

Cameron probably does not pay any attention to the old fool.

Nice for Charles that he didn't like Diana. Camilla must be just delighted.