25 years after Diana,Princess of Wales died

[Curryong]

YouTube ?historians?, whether accredited historians with degrees or not, also have POVs and agendas of their own that they wish to put forward and therefore there is a great deal of cherry-picking among the ?evidence of bios etc. Also of finding a new angle or hook to hang a theory of theirs going on. Not everyone on YouTube is scrupulously fair. And history professors are also likely to have their own agendas. As I found out with one of my minors ?Modern European History,? years ago.

[wannable]

Of course - the highest level - PHD. 

I see no problem Historians decide to open their own youtube channel and social media, they make it more legitimate the methodology of showing the books, reading the passages, showing the passages. where/what/who/how. Most if not all are unbiased, stating ''what do you think', leave your comment''. Matter of fact, they are being highly praised for doing this. Before nobody had this access of seeing all the Diana books lined up and sectioned by a passage, quote, dialog compared and contrasted in one go. Nobody thought of making before Social Media existed (10 years ago) an excel sheet sectioning this methodology.  They deserve all the hundreds of thousands of views and extra income, believe me, it's a lot of bacon.

They, as any other profession are just adding or entering into modernizing their career and income.

In reference to cherry picking, each to their own. I've seen fellow members cherry pick here, especially in Diana's thread.

[Curryong]

Of course - the highest level - PHD. 

I see no problem Historians decide to open their own youtube channel and social media, they make it more legitimate the methodology of showing the books, reading the passages, showing the passages. where/what/who/how. Most if not all are unbiased, stating ''what do you think', leave your comment''. Matter of fact, they are being highly praised for doing this. Before nobody had this access of seeing all the Diana books lined up and sectioned by a passage, quote, dialog compared and contrasted in one go. Nobody thought of making before Social Media existed (10 years ago) an excel sheet sectioning this methodology.  They deserve all the hundreds of thousands of views and extra income, believe me, it's a lot of bacon.

They, as any other profession are just adding or entering into modernizing their career and income.

In reference to cherry picking, each to their own. I've seen fellow members cherry pick here, especially in Diana's thread.

I do look at genuine historians who examine the medieval and Tudor period on YouTube in fair, balanced and interesting ways, involving documents of the time and that doesn?t involve picking bits and pieces out of 20th century bios that in the case of modern royals often involves sources that report royal gossip.

And if that last sentence in your post was a dig at me, I?d just like to state that I have read many Diana books coming from different stances and POV and that has enabled me to make my own mind up about them without the assistance of others, whether they are historians or not.

I also remember Diana from the time that she was first considered a serious girlfriend to Charles, in other words from when she was a teenager in 1980 until her tragic death in Paris as a divorced woman in her thirties.

I also saw her several times in real life in both Australia and Britain, (once in a restaurant in Kensington) and her charisma showed through in all her public appearances. I was also in England, staying with friends in Windsor actually, when she was killed, and I viewed the floral tributes and the funeral procession on that sad and historic day. So I don?t need historians to tell me how to think of her, thanks.

And my opinion of Diana and of Camilla is shared by a majority of Britons. There have been several quite recent polls that show that.

25 years after her death, Princess Diana is more popular than King Charles, and the monarchy | YouGov

[wannable]

From Alluding 'youtuber historians' cherry picking to feeling a dig of cherry picking. I wasn't, but favorite authors have been stated in many threads, especially Diana's thread.

From PHD Historians that have a youtube channel (to enter modern times, keep up with their livelihood) to ''genuine historians''?

A question,  a genuine historian shouldn't follow technology and world advancement and live out of whatever old pre social media only? and very likely get retired/retirement because it can't accept new ways of media communication in the world?

NOTE: I ONLY mentioned new modern ways - social media, which wasn't available 10 years ago.  It is not my fault that you dislike it or are angry about it. Technology has brought social media to everyone, all sorts of professionals use it, their bio is in their profile - easy to search to see if they are genuine or fraudulent.   

[Curryong]

From Alluding 'youtuber historians' cherry picking to feeling a dig of cherry picking. I wasn't, but favorite authors have been stated in many threads, especially Diana's thread.

From PHD Historians that have a youtube channel (to enter modern times, keep up with their livelihood) to ''genuine historians''?

A question,  a genuine historian shouldn't follow technology and world advancement and live out of whatever old pre social media only? and very likely get retired/retirement because it can't accept new ways of media communication in the world?

NOTE: I ONLY mentioned new modern ways - social media, which wasn't available 10 years ago.  It is not my fault that you dislike it or are angry about it. Technology has brought social media to everyone, all sorts of professionals use it, their bio is in their profile - easy to search to see if they are genuine or fraudulent.

I?m not angry about SM at all. I use it, as on here and other forums. I just don?t believe what a great many people say on Tic Toc and Twitter about different subjects.

As for these academics, many of these bios on Diana used sources that were overly sympathetic to the point of idolatry (especially in the earlier 1980s) or cast aspersions on her (as with Penny Junor as author, always and forever a Charles supporter) from Charles?s friends and Courtiers.

I?ve read a great many of both and have also read more balanced authors such as Tina Brown. I thought her bio on Diana was terrific. I?ve been a voracious reader all my life and have quite a few books in my library on Diana, on Charles, on William and Kate, Harry, on Prss Margaret, Fergie, Andrew and many other modern royals, including one ancient one on Diana by Lady CC you will be surprised to learn, I suppose. And books on the Spencers.

I would rather read those books, and others from trusted authors over the years (those that don?t exaggerate, are biased or lie) than sit there in front of a screen watching supposed experts (and being an historian and having a PHD doesn?t necessarily make you an expert on the BRF or on Diana,) pointing out snippets of bios that may or may not have come from sources these people say they come from.

Unless there are credited historical sources (and I include amongst these, bios of Queen Mary and Queen Victoria and King Edward?s? VII and VIII I?ve enjoyed) that show research undertaken in the Royal Library at Windsor for example, then they will always be untrustworthy to a certain extent. And that includes quotes in these biographies of Diana  from the woman herself AND from others around her.

[wannable]

So it's about me?  I only mentioned youtube. Anyway I will move on, I do not mind.

^ I want to also point out the methodology of that YouGov survey of November 2022 is based on the series The Crown by Netflix. The Crown is not based on facts, their finding of the poll are 50 years and older who knew Diana unfavorable, younger generation 14 to 25 years old favourable because of the victimhood depicted in The Crown by Netflix.

[Curryong]

It?s not about you. At all.
And those 50 plus and older aren?t ardently anti-Diana. Those who married in the early 1980s and had children in the early 1980s like herself, remember her fondly to this day. There are still lots of them. And young people don?t alll get their impressions of Diana and Charles from The Crown.

Under thirties years of age Britons would have heard their parents and grandparents speaking of Diana and about her, especially if they saw her on public engagements and had memories. And Diana?s funeral was watched by many millions of Brits (as well as those around the world) and that funeral and its aftermath was talked about for years.

At least part of Charles?s and Camilla?s relative unpopularity with Britons of all ages in polls over the last two decades has to do with what happened to his first wife and his first marriage, and that?s a fact. Camilla is still not up in the polls where most European consorts are and neither is Charles as monarch compared to most others. And that is due to the Diana effect, (at least in part) , and pollsters and the Press acknowledge that, though the Press,  working with the Palace,  try to puff Camilla up as much as they possibly can.

[Nightowl]

The main point is that neither Charles nor Diana knew each other well enough to marry, it was all about a royal family trying to create a fairytale which failed big time.  Both of these immature child adults made mistake that destroyed the marriage and still decades later people are blaming them for their mistakes.....time to move on and let the subject close for good as life has moved way past them. We shouldn't blame the dead or living for what happened decades ago.....

[wannable]

^^ Sounds rosy, but I just repeated the methodology explained in the yougov  link (I mean I do read links people post in the RIF) - it doesn't mean yougov sucks, it only means they are factually honest in stating that the survey is based on Netflix The Crown. 

The Crown series has declined - they will be doing Diana content because she's dead, this has been confirmed - the new episodes will be based on Diana.  Netflix can't do loose facts (reckless and deceitful stuff) on the POW's or Princess Anne as shown in the yougov link as #123 because they would be sued. They would need reliable facts, which very likely translates to nothing fascinating for the viewer.

[wannable]

Oct 20, 2022 - The creators and cast of The Crown have rejected criticism that the series is ''exploitative'' of Britain's royal family/The Guardian

Google search ''The Crown series declined'', 20 pages of headlines similar to the above, all dated October 2022 previous to the Yougov survy of November 2022.  The Crown series stopped Season 5 to respect the Queen's death, but after a period they put it back only to get worse headlines, which ensued  a slump in viewership - they showed Prince Phillip having an affair, all touchy feely - actors touching and feeling/having an ''intimate'' affair with Penny Knatchbull.  It's easy to be reckless with dead people.  Now imagine if they did this to live people, i.e. like the ones who were polled as #123.

****
Neil Sean said a few weeks ago, Netflix will base Diana's affairs 'loosely' - hopefully people around the world will shame Netflix.  We will have to wait and see if Neil is correct about his inside source.