It made a very sad reading for me to know that Diana’s letters written to her boy friend Dodi are being made public in a court of law.
A person who is no more in this world deserves to rest in peace, to be treated with dignity, irrespective of his/her character and deeds. What rights do we mortals have to disclose all their personal matters to public, that too with a vengeance to wash dirty linen in public! The intimacies that are exchanged between two persons are their most treasured very personal moments that no third person need to pry upon like hungry wolf, that too when the two are no more present here to give possible explanation to the world. These people who publicize the personal issues have absolutely no sensitivity to the sentiments of the bereaved families’ members. What repercussions would it have upon the surviving members? Who are we to sit in judgement and ignominize somebody else’s emotions and actions that too when they are no more in this world to defend their actions or the circumstances that could have lead to their relationship.
The whole act of voyeuristic prying and revelation is disgusting! Fie on them!
well, these are things which we cant stop and i too
yes, we may not be able to stop, but we certainly need not accept it silently. we need to express our protest so that some atleast may change their perspective.
yeah ,,, well it seems to be nice idea ..but would if fetch us anything..they are doing that in the name of the law ,i guess so,
Law has it own rules ..they really dont know what sentiments , feelings and privacy means…
yes, law can not understand human sentiments, but lawyers certainly can! can they not use discretion when confidentiality has to be exercized and when things can be made public? even as counsellors we all have a repertoire of our clients most intimate secrets. tomorrow if they need to be disclosed in the court of law for any reason, we have every right to demand protection of confidentiality for our clients that sensitive details can be disclosed only to the judge in a sealed cover. and the facts would be revealed only to those concerned with law and not to every tom, dick and harry! can they not use the same discretion in diana’s case also?
they are all after sensationalizing every bit of info that they gather about celebrities so that they can make huge money.
and the public shamelessly lap it all up and are ready to pelt another stone at the victim! Total insensitivity of all………
hmmmm. yeah you are right that lawyers can understand human emotions…
but lets be practical once money comes to the frame there’s no emotions no sentiments…people nowadays do their profession for earning and they want to do everything that may be profitable to them..
yes , it could be just be showed to the judge with in the four walls of the room . but when the case is being keenly followed by the whole world then their is no privacy… even the media persons have their sources every where to take any kind of information..
what you are trying to mention here is agreeable but i just cant find it plausible…
“The intimacies that are exchanged between two persons are their most treasured very personal moments that no third person need to pry upon like hungry wolf, that too when the two are no more present here to give possible explanation to the world”.
I think you misunderstood the reason behind leaking of the above letter. When Mr Fayad the owner of that magnificient stores Harrods claimed that the Queen’s husband , the Duke arranged to murder his son and his lover (?), an outrageous suggestionindeed ( given Mr Fayad’s past and his secretive wealth, where he got it from nobody knows, his failure to get British Citizenship etc… in summary a bitter man indeed), it has to be contested by a number of witnesses including a very close friend of Diana who said in the court that Diana had a mere ‘fling’ and was not serious about marriage to Dodi. To counter this, the ever vicious Mr Fayad released that letter in the court. Every one knows that Dodi was a playboy controlled by his father Mr Fayad, and the main reason for him to woo Diana is to force her into a marriage and thereby provide Mr Fayad an opportunity to win the British Citizenship as the grand step-father of Williams, the son of Diana who is sure to be the King some day in the future. For Mr Fayad, propriety, confidentiality and dececy do not matter. As for Diana was concerned she had ‘flings’ with many men as a way of punishing the Royal family. She wrote these types of letters to all of them. Dodi too as a play boy promised a few women that he would marry them! The confidentiality I understand according to Englisjh law applies when either party is alive. Such letters have been released for scrutiny historically speaking. The letters between Nehru and Mountbatten’s wife is an example.
Ram, I welcome you to my WP blog! I was really missing your enlightening comments here. Think of the professor and there he is!
I must admit that I was not following the case fully. I just read this bit of information in news paper and got upset and shot one post on my impression of this bit of news. I feel my action was too impulsive.
The bigger picture of the whole case that you have provided my readers is truly interesting! My sincere thanks to you.
Even if the case required production of such personal memorabilia, it still needed to be treated with due respect and sensitivity that it deserved.
Yes, as you have mentioned, when it is a court battle, and question of egos bigger than life size, all become fair in love n war!
If ego is involved, I can understand. But Mr Fayad has a running sore of venegeance. Successive governments refused him British citizenship. When he challenged the decision in the high court in England, the court after a lengthy hearing dismissed his case saying that the main reason was ‘Mr Fayad’s character’ and did not give details. The suspicion is that coming from a shanty street in Cairo, without running business of any importance, he suddenly bid a billion pounds (a thousand million pounds) and acquired the store Harrods. It is suspected that successive governments knew where the funds came to him and would not public say. This started his battle with all establishments, and motivated him to force Dodi to approach Diana who was to crudely put it looking for a ‘rich suitor’ to support her. It was said she was particularly impressed with the Jet Stream business plane owned by Mr Fayad, and which Dodi said would be at her disposal. Little did she know that Dodi a play boy who was forced rto woo her by his father. Diana’s step mother and father came unde the ingluence of Mr Fayad who made the step-mother a director of Harrods so that she could too force Diana to marry Dodi. But Diana was a loose cannon having had relationship with many men and had psychological problems associated with bulimia and anorexia nervosa. Mr FDayad has still a Egyptian passport and the government could without much difficulty deport him to Egypt for what he is saying about the Royal family murdering his son, but the sense of fair trial is the reason why he is allowed to have this challenge in the court.
The case of Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten ( wife of Mountbatten) and the letters is slightly different. For very long there were whispers about them and because of Nehru’s stature not much was echoed publicly in India. The Mountbattens also kept quiet for a long time. It was left to Pamela Mountbatten the daighter of Mountbattens to come out in the open a few years ago and say that there were indeed lovers albeit she said it was platonic kind. If the parties are dead , to me the letters become historical piece of evidence that can throw light of one kind or another. Very few in India knew that Nehru when visited Britain to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in those days stayed with Mountbattens and was busy in renewing his ‘platonic’relationship with Edwina Mountbatten.
Mr. fayad is verily fighting the case ‘royally’!
yes, even i have read a lot about Nehru and Edwina. well, i am a person who would let a sleeping dog lie asleep……..
thanks a bunch, mr. ram, for all the interesting tit bits about the case.