Open Post: Diana Statue Unveiling Skip to main content

Open Post: Diana Statue Unveiling

What kind of hijinks can we expect from the Sussexes at Diana's Statue unveiling? Let's see...

Comments

Button said…
Ginge acting and dressed like a complete twat, William looking very distinguished and polished. Not really keen on the statue. Perhaps marble or a different materiel could have been used?
lizzie said…
I understand why some might have preferred to see Diana depicted with her own children. But I think it would have been super-weird for W&H to to ask the public to pay for that if that had been what they wanted.

I'm not all that impressed but I didn't expect to be. As others have said, statues of people we "know" often seem off.
Enbrethiliel said…
@Christine
But yeah otherwise he appears to be laughing at a joke that's only in his head the whole time.

And isn't that exactly what his wife does? I recall an old discussion thread in which we pointed our how many times she has done this in old photos -- grinned widely from ear to ear or even burst out laughing, while everyone else around her had perfectly neutral looks on their faces. The consensus was that narcissists don't feel true happiness, but they do try to ape it.

Perhaps Harry himself doesn't feel much happiness any longer, though he apparently can take direction from his wife about how to act in front of the cameras. It's just too bad (for them) that she's a worse director than she is an actress.

If they were hoping that people would look at the contrast between the brothers and see Harry as the happy one and Prince William as the dour, sour one, well, they really missed the mark. One of them looks like a dignified future king -- and no, I don't mean the Marquess of Montecito.
Hikari said…
@embre, Rebecca, Wild Boar and everyone else I have quoted here . .

It looks like a propaganda piece to me. Yes, Diana viewed herself/was viewed as a humanitarian who cared deeply for disadvantaged children, but the fact remains that she spent 99% of her life living in the lap of luxury surrounded by her social peers. I think it would have been far more effective and moving had likenesses of W and H been by her side—there in her favorite garden/oasis at the palace where she lived with her sons.

I think it is a propaganda piece, too, though I don't mean that in a negative way. This is her sons' final statement (well, one son's final statement) about how they would like their mother to be remembered. And it seems they want us to see her as more than just their mother.

Also, I imagine they weren't too eager to have their young selves depicted in statue form. They're also more than just her sons. But this is mostly personal conjecture. Would any of us regular Joes and Janes, if we had a really famous parent, be happy to have a statue of ourselves as a supporting actor to him or her for many years to come?

@Wild Boar Battle-maid
Is the background thought `Diana as Mary, the Mother of Mercy' - spreading her mantle over all the tiny poor people of the world?

I think every statue of a motherly woman with children is going to be compared to Mary. I think the artist did a decent job offsetting any ethereal Marian elements with a more modern edge.


My very first thought on seeing what I must call a travesty is, "It looks exactly like a piece of Soviet propaganda." This is my opinion, which must not reflect William and Harry's as presumably they have been shown the work in progress over the last four years and were solicited for their ideas/wishes at the design stage . . But--

Are they REALLY happy with this? Does this reflect their wish and memory of their mother?

I hate it. Diana looks glowering and very masculine, blocky, thick. Her friends that expressed doubt that she could be effectively rendered in such a hard, unyielding medium were correct. I can recognize her hairstyle and her outfit, which have more clear detail than any of her face. Including a nod to her charity causes by including the children was well-intentioned, but I do not feel the setting was appropriate. In a public park, sure.

This is a private family garden where William and his family live. The statue will be a good launchpad to tell the Cambridge children more about the grandmother they never got to meet, but imagine trying to walk, meditate or otherwise enjoy the sunken garden and pond with that gargoyle looming over one and its eyes booring into you. The gaze is very direct, right atcha, but without any softer elements to give it warmth, it feels so unsettling to me. Cold and off-putting. It may represent the subject, but it does not embody her. More care was given to the figures of the children in my eyes. Why are 2 of the 2 barefoot? Such a distant, random collection of figures, three of them 'fictional' though I suppose real child models were used is a very bizarre choice for a family garden.

I never thought a statue was the best memorial idea for Diana. Imagine instead how nice a small inscribed monument/stone with one or two of the boys' favorite pictures of her inlaid, or an engraved plaque with her face and dates. And, yes, a bench next to it for sitting in remembrance as the viewer looked out over the pool.

I predict that William's children might be afraid of this thing, and that it's going to end up repelling people from lingering long at that end of the garden--surely the opposite of the intent.
LavenderLady said…
@Enbre,
I think the artist did a decent job offsetting any ethereal Marian elements with a more modern edge.
----
Thank you for your kind words!

This! Just what I was trying to say. The classical representation of the Goddess (including Mary) with a bit of an edge. Classical in spirit but not so much in fashion trends.

I like how the sculptor chose to use clothing from Diana's era. What would an artist's rendering of Queen Victoria be without her fashion choice of the day, is the question I would ask him if I could. It's these types of details that create dialogue and make art interesting.

I love the way we inspire and bounce ideas off one another. It makes the blog fun!
LavenderLady said…
@Christine,

Glad it's not just me. I'm crushing lol...
Hikari said…
@Christine,

At least the Village Idiot walked a few paces behind his brother when they went down the steps. But yeah otherwise he appears to be laughing at a joke that's only in his head the whole time.

Another trick he's picked up from The Wife.

How different this occasion might have been, had Harry never encountered that creature.

It was a long way to come for not much, because I'm pretty sure William would have said, "Well, that's done and dusted, finally. Do have a nice trip back to the airport. Don't call us; we'll call you."
LavenderLady said…
@Enbrethilel said,
As for what Prince William's sister-in-law may do in response . . . Well, we've already seen her do a slew of Marian poses. I guess she's going to copy the outfit (atrocious belt buckle included) in a future appearance. If she has more impulse control and can wait a few years, I also see her oh-so-casually recreating the pose with the actors she will cast as Archie and Lili.

____

So true. That candle pose with her arms crossing her chest. She's a joke.

In Lady C's latest she says quite emphatically, "They're PATHETIC"! I couldn't agree more.
Enbrethiliel said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid
Diana, white suit, wide belt, 1994

I like that one a lot more than the 1993 Christmas card outfit! (Her facial expression is also wonderful.) The lapels of the top crossing over (I hope I'm using the fashion terms correctly!) is a stronger look than the button-down top with the pleats. Yes, it will remain a dated fashion choice, but again, perhaps that was the point. Honor her, but let her rest in the past.

Switching back and forth between that new picture and the photo of the statue does highlight for me one flaw that others have been pointing out: The legs. Diana's legs gave her her famous statuesque (oh, how ironic!) look -- but the statue's legs look pretty dumpy. But as @LavenderLady has pointed out, it would be ridiculous for the statue of loving mother and great humanitarian to be HAWT.

I don't know about anyone else, but the statue is making me reflect on a lot of things! It has me thinking of the impressions we leave on others and how they will remember us. Diana liked to control her image in the press -- and for the most part, she succeeded in appearing both glamorous and compassionate. But she had no control over what her sons have chosen for her "final" image -- which I believe that at least one son (the kingly one) will propagate going forward. We may not like it, but we also have to remember that the images we measure it against were as curated as this one was. Diana had a great moment in the sun with the famous "revenge dress," but as the saying goes, "You can't take it with you." And I see that we who have survived her won't be taking it with us, either. Her sons have spoken. The case is closed.
Karla said…
My humble opinion:
barefoot child and hidden.
This took me straight to Africa and Diana's fight against landmines. Barefoot children, innocent victims and little heard by society.
LavenderLady said…
Quoting @Rebecca,
It looks like a propaganda piece to me. Yes, Diana viewed herself/was viewed as a humanitarian who cared deeply for disadvantaged children, but the fact remains that she spent 99% of her life living in the lap of luxury surrounded by her social peers.

___

True. But what would BP have done with yet another Princess Alice? If Diana had taken that path?

Rhetorical questions. She colored in the lines is how I see it.
Hikari said…
A really nice tribute to Diana from her long-time friend, confidante and sometime impromptu speechwriter, Dr. James Colthurst:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-friends-diana-113136690.html

-----------

No way of knowing what Dr. Colthurst thinks of the statue but it's hard to imagine that he wholeheartedly likes it as a representation of the woman he describes here.
Enbrethiliel said…
@LavenderLady
I love the way we inspire and bounce ideas off one another. It makes the blog fun!

This discussion is a great deal of fun! I know that we're all here to discuss the Harkles, but a change of topic can be refreshing. And what better topic than art? I may be disagreeing with a lot of people, but I really love getting everyone's opinions on the statue.
@Peridot

Your eyes aren't deceiving you.

W's height is given as 6'3"; H's as 6'1" - the 2" difference is clear in earlier photos where they are exactly side to side.

The shot where they're standing on the paving at the edge of the lawn, looking at the sculpture suggests they're the same height.

Which is it: H has has a leg extension? H has back-brushed his hair? W. has started to shrink? H is wearing high heels or has he been jacked up in some way?
Enbrethiliel said…
@Hikari
Are they REALLY happy with this? Does this reflect their wish and memory of their mother?

There's a reason the statue reminded me of Catherine's first official portrait from almost a decade ago. It was awful, in my opinion. Of course she said she loved it . . . but was there anything else she could have said?

As for the statue, I'm sure that a lot was lost between the initial sketches (which must have been beautiful) and the final execution. Perhaps the princes noticed this when they were monitoring the progress and made comments to that effect, and the artist made adjustments to the best of his understanding and ability, but we still ended up with this. Oh, well. Best to be philosophical about it. They wanted a "hard, unyielding medium" and they got it. Besides, an artist who can get everything "right" according to our subjective standards must be one in a billion. Let's focus on the positives and move on. I really think that's what Prince William is doing.

This is a private family garden where William and his family live.

I had wondered about the location. I had assumed that the garden was open to the public, even if you had to pay to get in. Apparently that's not the case? It's odd that anyone would ask the public to contribute money toward a statue that they won't even be allowed to see in person.

I predict that William's children might be afraid of this thing, and that it's going to end up repelling people from lingering long at that end of the garden--surely the opposite of the intent.

This made me laugh. Oh, dear. Poor statue!
Enbrethiliel said…
@Hikari

Now you have me thinking about the kinds of statues that are appropriate to have in gardens! Small, cute, non-threatening ones, obviously. No wonder garden gnomes are so popular!

As for "high" art that will be inviting (especially to children), well, the Peter Pan statue comes to mind immediately. Isn't it also in Kensington, though in a public area? How sad if the likeness of a woman who was so devoted to children will end up scaring children away!
Antonio Sciortino produced the bronze `Les Gavroches' inspired by the urchin of that name in `Le Miserables'. (in Valletta, Malta,( art museum -Muza), copy in U. Baracca Gardens.

Wikipedia entry, https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=les+gavroches&fr=yfp-t&ei=UTF-8&fp=1

It's a far more dynamic piece and the article says something interesting about the intention.
Christine said…
Well, hopefully Haz is on his way back to LA. I bet Wills might like a tall cold one after this event. Comments in the DM hilarious of course but also taking note of Harry the Idiot.

So basically the Queen, Charles and everyone else avoided Harry. I do NOT buy the lads lunch thing. PR put out by H&M. Now, I really feel that he's been set adrift. Times up! They'll have to sell a pic of Lilibet to People magazine at this rate.
Enbrethiliel said…
@Hikari

A final thought on whether Diana's sons are really happy with the statue:

It was their idea to have one in the first place -- and after they started soliciting funds, they were stuck having to deliver it. I'm sure that at some point in the last four years, they realized it was a mistake. Wrong medium, wrong artist, wrong design, wrong whatever. But what could they do, beyond returning everyone's money and hoping the embarrassment of giving up on the project didn't haunt the rest of their careers?

I'm imagining that Prince William is getting a lot of closure today. He's leaving his mother in the past and getting this artistic project off his agenda at last. Yes, he'll have to look at his folly every time he goes through the gardens. And if you're right that his children will hate it, well, that will be another sort of headache for him. But perhaps he hasn't factored in what it will be like to live with the statue yet. (Oh, dear. And now this has the feel of a sitcom episode.) But circling back to the idea of closure, if William is feeling it today, it may also be extended to his brother. Harry hasn't felt like his brother in some time and they won't be doing joint appearances as brothers for the foreseeable future. It may feel like goodbye.
LavenderLady said…
@Hikari,
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it! This stood out huge:

"I gave Diana a copy of Robert Graves’ classic book, I Claudius, as a manual for that time."

Ooof. Dark intentional work for a dark endeavor. No wonder the statue is less than jolly. Diana's fate as well as her legacy is perhaps reflected in the statue?

I would love to pick the sculptor's brain about his interpretation.
Mel said…
Watching how Harry tried to join the conversations that Will was having with people, watching his hand movements, his body language, it reminded me a lot of Mm's outing with the queen.

That one where she went into very vivid hand movements when she saw the camera on her while the queen just studiously looked straight ahead. Acknowledging her in no way.
LavenderLady said…
@WBBM,
Les Gavroches is heavenly. Amazing work! I couldn't open the link but I Googled images. I'm in awe.

Thanks for sharing!
lizzie said…
The statue is not in Will's private family garden. It is here:

https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/whats-on/the-palace-gardens/#gs.5aw9uh
Karla said…
That's right, Dan. William is king, Henry the Earl of Dumbarton...
...
"But, in reality, the gulf between William and Harry is now seismic and, according to senior royal sources, possibly insurmountable. At least while Meghan is on the scene.

If one picture best summed up the relationship between the pair today, it was the two brothers with their backs to each other, going about their business in very different ways.

Harry, ever the joker despite his deep anxiety over returning to London, was attempting to lighten the mood.

William, his body clenched with the awkwardness of his failure to hide the fury he feels towards his younger sibling, was dutiful and statesmanlike.

There were moments William seemed to grimace when Harry sidled up alongside him to join one of the conversations he was having with an official, just like he does on a daily basis in his role as the Duke of Cambridge"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9746685/DAN-WOOTTON-Watching-Dianas-two-sons-far-apart-heart-breaking.html
Enbrethiliel said…
@Christine
I do NOT buy the lads lunch thing.

I'm with you, though @xxxxx's fantasy (in the previous thread) of Harry's friends helping him feel the contrast between his wife and people who actually care for him is probably exactly what he needs to snap out of it.

A little before Prince Philip's funeral, another blog I sometimes read made a similar suggestion. The blogger had once been the victim of a narc. Extrapolating from his own experience, he said that Harry, despite being in total thrall to his narc wife, feels really good when he's not around her. If his family and friends can extend that time of feeling good by a couple of weeks, the mood change when he finally gets back to her will be so stark that he will be ready to extricate himself.

I know we're all upset with him, too, and kind of want That Bloody Woman to take him down with her. But look at it this way: Wouldn't losing him be the worst thing that could happen to her? No more royal connection! If he voluntarily gives up the royal dukedom in order to live as Prince Andrew, she'd lose the title, too. Then she'd be stuck merching through child actors for the rest of her life. There are already fewer and fewer cards she can play. Let's take away her favorite one! #FreeHarry, I say!
NeutralObserver said…
If I taught acting, I would tell my students trying to portray someone who has betrayed the group he belongs to, & is trying to convince them that he's done nothing wrong, to watch the video of Harry at the statue presentation. Harry's behavior is a textbook portrayal of craven nervousness.

William's behavior is a polite version of 'you're dead to me.'

I don't mind the statue. I sympathize with Diana's sons in not wanting their mother to be portrayed as a pinup.

Yes, Diana became a global icon because she was photogenic & glamorous, & yes, she milked that part of her image, but she was other things as well. She was warm-hearted, energetic, & luminous, but she was also insecure, impulsive, & sometimes malicious. I don't blame her sons for wanting to preserve the idea of her most positive traits.

As others have said, sculpture is a difficult medium, & as Swamp Woman said, much of Diana's beauty was in her coloring, & I would add the glow of good health she exuded in her thirties. That's hard to portray in metal or stone, & at 60 Diana may have lost some of those qualities in any case.

I'm also intrigued by the dog that didn't bark, ie Megsy. We were expecting a 'spectacular' to upstage the unveiling, but no. What's going on? First, Father's Day passed without any reference to either Harry or children, & only the book was promoted. Now, no big distraction to draw attention to the one person who is really important to #6w, herself.

One of the most interesting tidbits in the summary from an anon on the-cat-with-an-emerald-tiara that I posted was the mention that Sunshine Sachs insisted that #6w take Archie to South Africa because they saw how unpopular she had made herself. Are they reining her in now for the same reason? Who knows? The Archie thing could be complete a fabrication, but we haven't seen anything of 'Lilibet,' not even her feet.
LavenderLady said…
@Enbretheliel,
"How sad if the likeness of a woman who was so devoted to children will end up scaring children away"!

It's relative and depends on the children. I looked at very violent depictions of Christ regularly in Mass as a child. It is said the more violent the culture, the more violent that culture's religious iconography.
I live in a predominantly Latino/a community. The Latin experience is translated to it's Church's artwork.

Quoting Lady C again from her latest, Diana often asked her to "sanctify and sanitize" her image-for the biography that went to Andrew Morton when Lady C refused. Meaning, Diana's culture may be more benign, especially for the sake of the children.

Perhaps. Just my opinion. Hope I'm making sense.
Ziggy said…
Lol at this comment on River: “it looks like a school teacher stopping a playground dispute.” πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
Mel said…
I saw a theory that someone else had about the book.

Which was that mm was told that the statue was of Diana on a bench. And so, voila!, we have a book about the bench (instead of her dog, which is what she was supposed to write about).

Except that whoever told her that lied about it. Oops.

Probably too tin hat, but would be funny.

Hikari said…
Embre,

Now you have me thinking about the kinds of statues that are appropriate to have in gardens! Small, cute, non-threatening ones, obviously. No wonder garden gnomes are so popular!

As for "high" art that will be inviting (especially to children), well, the Peter Pan statue comes to mind immediately. Isn't it also in Kensington, though in a public area? How sad if the likeness of a woman who was so devoted to children will end up scaring children away!


My thoughts as to appropriateness of the design weren't for 'small and cute'--Diana was neither of these--but non-threatening, yeah. I doubt anyone wants to feel threatened at a commemorative memorial. The Windsors have already got the Victoria & Albert mausoleum for that purpose.

Art is deeply personal to the viewer, so everyone will take something varied away, but I personally find it lacks warmth and authenticity to represent the woman it is portraying. *Particularly* in the context of a family garden--where only those who knew Diana best, at least for as long as William lives there--will see it routinely, apart from very select public viewing occasions. As such, I find it quite remote, and chilly, and it feels like Diana is staring me down. I can understand William and Harry not wanting to be rendered forever as children in stone--but if they had been it surely would have been more appropriate in the private family garden at KP than some random 'constructs' of strange children? If this were the Princess Diana Memorial Children's Hospital or something, it would have been more appropriate. But this is essentially the back yard of what had been Diana's home with her children. Why is she posing with random fictitious children in her own garden, was my wonderment.

This does not feel particularly calming, comforting or contemplative to me . . it smacks of propaganda to burnish Diana's image to the masses. But it's the royal family and their select guests who will be living with this sculpture on the daily. Just an odd emphasis on Diana's very public persona in what is essentially a private family space. That is what I find odd. Besides its ugliness (to me) it does not seem to have been crafted with Diana's nearest bereaved in mind. Unless they are going to start charging the public tickets to enter the gardens and view it, and then it might turn into a nice little earner for charity.

I think the placement of the statue where it is has pretty well ensured that Charles will never again set foot in those sunken gardens. It's like the accusing spirit of his dead wife constantly hovering over that corner.

Unlike the statue of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, this feels like an au courant eyesore that is not going to stand the test of time. But I've got no dog in this fight. If William and Harry like it, that's what matters. Particularly William as he's going to have to be the one to look at it the most.
Enbrethiliel said…
@NeutralObserver
I'm also intrigued by the dog that didn't bark, ie Megsy.

You're not alone! Not that I'm complaining or anything! The absence of her in the news is very refreshing and I love that we're all talking about art today. It does make one wonder, though . . .

Perhaps her pickpocketing of "Lilibet" was the final straw and something was waved over her head to make sure she would be quiet today.
LavenderLady said…
Some last thoughts as I'm saying good day.

If anyone with any Royal say, meaning the reigning Monarch, finds that they hate the statue, it will over time, slowly go into storage...

Just as I wished So Hard TBW would fall down the stairs on the day of her wedding, I wished Wills could have gave 6 the Tour De France Pelaton swipe and send him into that pond.

I did give him the Apache Curse/Sicilian malocchio though. Double Whammy... ha!
LavenderLady said…
@Mel,
Lol! Someone punked TBW bad. Ha ha!

Good day Nutties! It been fun :)
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Blogger Ziggy said...
Lol at this comment on River: “it looks like a school teacher stopping a playground dispute.”
_____

I saw this one on LSA:

"It looks like some lady in a store bringing lost children to the customer service counter."
HappyDays said…
Hikari said…
@Christine,

At least the Village Idiot walked a few paces behind his brother when they went down the steps. But yeah otherwise he appears to be laughing at a joke that's only in his head the whole time.

Another trick he's picked up from The Wife.

@Hikari and Christine:

I think Harry seemed like he was higher than a kite.

Perhaps he brought some of Meghan’s famous hand-rolled “party favors” with him to get through the unveiling. It’s not as if he’d be checked coming through customs, and even if he was checked and they noticed a bag if weed, the UK customs officials likely would “overlook” it and just send him on his way.
Mel said…
Hmmm...and mm thought H got the shoulder at PP's funeral.

PW: Hold my beer.
Pantsface said…
Perhaps W & H chose their favourite picture of their mother to model the statue on? I don't know, statues don't do it for me, it is so difficult for any sculptor to capture a life form in such a rigid medium. It's better than I expected but not great in my opinion, I guess if they (the sons) are happy with it, then let it be .
Enbrethiliel said…
@LavenderLady
I looked at very violent depictions of Christ regularly in Mass as a child.

So did I! And for some reason, the red paint my parish used for the blood on the crucifix would fade over time. It would always be startling to walk in on the Sunday after they touched it up and see all that red! (Hilariously, it was a non-violent depiction of Christ that I saw scare the living daylights into a child. When one of my cousins was a toddler, he was terrified of the smiling, pastel-colored 20-foot statue of Christ the King, arms outstretched in welcome, behind the altar of our then-parish.)

But I see what @Hikari means about the coldness of this statue. Others have made the connection to Soviet "art." Perhaps it's the material used that is so forbidding. But I can totally imagine a less refined nanny saying to the Cambridge children, "You'd better behave or Granny Diana will come in the night and get you!" and being able to scare them into submission!

Every person is different and everyone's reaction to art is down to the individual; but the popularity of some art over many cultures and over a lot of time means that there are also shared reactions. Given all the things children generally find scary, it's reasonable (and well, kind of funny) to think that the Cambridge children won't at all enjoy visiting the sunken garden in the future.
HappyDays said…
Sorry to write this, but Diana was very slender, especially in her 30s. Her body in the statue looks like a defensive lineman in the NFL.
Princess Mrs. B said…
@Hikari, both the gardens and the statue will be open to the public to view during regular KP visiting hours. I agree that art is deeply personal and I, for one, am just not sure how I feel about this depiction of Diana. I was hoping (although admittedly not expecting) her in something she would have worn to the State Opening of Parliament alongside the Queen, including the Lover's Knot Tiara. In other words, something depicting her time as a Royal, not as a humanitarian. I certainly wasn't expecting her posed alongside unknown children. That's just the royal watcher in me, though.
Enbrethiliel said…
@LavenderLady
If anyone with any Royal say, meaning the reigning Monarch, finds that they hate the statue, it will over time, slowly go into storage...

Do you mean Prince Charles? I think that the topic would be too hot for him to touch, even after all this time. And when Prince William is king, well, he won't live at KP any longer. So he can at least distance himself from the statue in that way. It would also be a little weird for him to store away the statue he himself unveiled.

So now I'm chuckling at the idea that it will be Prince George, who, as monarch, will decide it's time to hide the statue of his nightmares away forever! They'll probably say they're moving it to preserve it, because, due to some fluke, the material is actually deteriorating out in the open. And then we won't hear about it or see it ever again.
LavenderLady said…
@Enbre,

I agree the material and color is rather cold. It can't capture Diana's radiance. Marble would have been too costly I assume.

@Mel,
PW: Hold my beer.

___

:dead:
loooooooools!
LavenderLady said…
@Enbre,
George would be the one. Ha! :D

Speaking of George, when I saw his Great Uncle Charles Spencer, I thought he looks so much like him. Maybe it's just me.

G'Nite :)
LavenderLady said…
@Enbre,

And that very Germanic looking Handsome Christ where the eyes look like they are following you.

Ok. G'nite...
NeutralObserver said…
@Hikari, I agree, the statue doesn't convey Diana's charm or warmth, but Michelangelos only come around every few millennia.

I love the beauty of art, but it rarely moves me, as music, drama and literature do. I've cried before a work of art twice, once before Van Gogh's Starry Night at MOMA, & once before Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.. Both of those works just seemed to embody beauty & human suffering to me.
xxxxx said…
'Statesmanlike' Prince William took on the 'older brother role' while Prince Harry was 'flamboyant but tense' as they reunited for unveiling of Princess Diana statue, body language expert reveals
Prince Harry, 36, and Prince William, 39, reunited for first time in months today at Kensington Palace
Brothers barely spoke for the past 18 months but came together this afternoon to unveil statue of Diana
Body language experts told FEMAIL the Duke of Cambridge and Sussex took on different roles at event
Robin Kermode said 'strong and confident' William was 'statesman-like', while Harry was 'flamboyant'
Added Prince Harry showed some 'tension' and was 'more nervous' at the the event in London today
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9745697/Prince-Harry-Prince-William-xxxx-Princess-Diana-statue-body-language-expert-reveals.html
LavenderLady said…
Nutties,
:dead:= LSA speak for you died laughing.

Just in case...
Rebecca said…

@HappyDays

Sorry to write this, but Diana was very slender, especially in her 30s. Her body in the statue looks like a defensive lineman in the NFL.

Ha! I wonder if her sexuality was intentionally played down to convey a more “serious” message? Somehow I don’t think Diana would feel complemented by her masculinization.
Michelangelo was another who was great with male figures but less successful with female - `monumental' is frequently applied to his women.
Hikari said…
@Neutral,

@Hikari, I agree, the statue doesn't convey Diana's charm or warmth, but Michelangelos only come around every few millennia.

I assume the sculptor was one of the persons in the ceremony that William was talking to. Too lazy to Google the sculptor's picture at present. There was a patrician white haired gent in a suit with glasses and a more casually dressed gentleman of Asian extraction seen speaking to William. I had thought the suited gentleman might be an equerry of some sort.

I am not really blaming the sculptor. After one utterly disastrous foray into clay sculpting a human figure in the 8th grade, I have no ground to stand on in criticizing anybody's artistic ability. And unlike a painting, it is nearly impossible to reimagine/fix a statue in progress. One is committed from the beginning when working in this material. I'm just not much of a fan of statues, even when they are done better than this.

I doubt that Diana would have chosen or appreciated this particular form of memorial to herself, if she'd had a say. How much better to take the money raised and endow a scholarship for landmine victims or AIDS orphans in her name. What is a piece of statuary but a hunk of rock that is going to be abused by the elements and the pigeons of Kensington and eventually be tarnished and forgotten? Whenever I see an aged and crumbling statue created by human hands, I can't help thinking of Shelley's 'Ozymandias'. That's how all such statues end up . .notwithstanding that that horrid piece will be standing long after I am bones--Unless King George VII quietly has it disappeared to a storage room. I won't be here to know anything about it.

============

Speaking of the ginger twat, after watching him today, it seems that he is the very definition of a hollow suit. There is nothing there at all but a collection of tics. No wonder William looked so grave. It was a rather solemn occasion but I think we'd have had a couple of smiles if he and his brother had still been on good terms. What a load he has to carry now, as, how I think of him, the sole surviving son of his parents' marriage. Hapless is literally nowhere, nothing . . what a pointless excuse for a human being.
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
xxxxx said…
Semi-funny photo of Scoobie reporting outside The Palace for (of all people) the BBC.......
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5M_j9XXIAA1EGg?format=jpg&name=small

Live Outside Kensington Palace a Head of The Princess Diana Statue Unveiling - with Scoobie and two women I don't know. Shot informally on a phone. Not the BBC.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp-cmwduiCY
Karla said…
CookieSharkπŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

*PW has said almost nothing in return. This isn't a war at all!"
Exactly! Well said.

...
"No speeches, no heart to heart and precious little time for bubbly: Warring Princes Harry and William reunite briefly to unveil mother Diana's statue before relieved-looking Duke of Sussex leaves 20 minutes later after one polite drink."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9747369/Warring-Princes-Harry-William-reunite-briefly-unveil-mother-Dianas-statue.html
YankeeDoodle said…
I think that the statue of Diana looks identical to Prince Philip. Prince Philip wearing a Scottish kilt. The face of Diana is identical to an old picture of Prince Philip, when he was about twenty years old. IDENTICAL.
DogsMatter said…
I don't like the statue at all. I think another kind of memorial other than that monstrosity would have been much nicer. I am Diana's exact age & watched her wedding very early in the morning (from US) in awe that someone our age was actually marrying into the RF. I also wondered how in the world she could marry him! (I guess a few tiaras, $$, and fame help!! lol) She fascinated me & I was devastated when I heard the news of her death. Loved William's wedding & seeing his children grow. Was very happy for Harry when he got married & actually liked him a lot. But after the engagement interview & her ridiculous wedding, I came to places like to to see if I was the only one who could not stand that bloody woman!!
Maneki Neko said…
Late to the party as we were out all day.

I am very disappointed, I don't know what I expected but the statue doesn't really reflect Diana's appeal and beauty, neither does is capture her radiance, as @LavenderLady said. Something's missing: her grace, poise, vitality and her lovely smile. I don't think the statue does Diana justice. Personally, I don't care much form the sunken garden either, it doesn't look a happy place but you really need to see it in real life. I'd like to know what H & W think of the statue.

@Hikari

You were not sure which one was the sculptor, here he is. Scroll down and there is a section on Ian Rank-Broadley. I did google him and there is a selection of his work which looks much better than the Diana statue.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9746237/Statue-finally-takes-root-Dianas-beloved-sunken-garden.html


@Nope said

The boy appears to be black and he's wearing a hoodie.
--------
Yes, he does (look black) but he is not wearing a hoodie. That's just his curly hair.
JerseyGirl said…
@Rebecca said...

Yes, Diana viewed herself/was viewed as a humanitarian who cared deeply for disadvantaged children, but the fact remains that she spent 99% of her life living in the lap of luxury surrounded by her social peers.

-------------

She was born into privilege, she married into privilege BUT she dedicated her life to the service of other's not only using her compassion, also used her god given charms to get other's to also use their own resources to give. She was able to define her service to other's by using her particular star power.

She'd show up to an event and people took out their checkbooks. In her last months alive she auctioned off her gowns all given to charity, not a penny in her pockets.


Given her ability to attract attention as the most photographed woman in the world, she used that to assist in helping point a glaring light on the causes most dear to her heart. By doing all the above, she did most of her work during her time living in the lap of luxury.

Maybe your not old enough to even remember all her good works, but that's how she operated and it worked. Even in death the foundations that pulled in multi millions of dollars to help those in most need went on for years after her death.

She achieved a lot in her short time on this earth, imagine if she had lived?
nope said…
Maneki Neco said

Yes, he does (look black) but he is not wearing a hoodie. That's just his curly hair.

I was not referring to a hood pulled up on his head and clearly see that is his closely cropped hair.

Please look closely at the garment he is wearing. There are strings hanging that are used to cinch a hood. Look at the shoulders where there is fabric that folds over to accommodate a hood. There are also the telltale kangaroo style pockets in the front that are found on hoodies.
SwampWoman said…
@xxxxx, Harry was 'flamboyant'? Is there a new definition of flamboyant of which I am unaware?
snarkyatherbest said…
I would be ok with most of it but i still think she needed a serene smile, given a sense of warmth. I am ok with the children, as i said before i really like the positioning of the young girl turning in to hug the arm around her. that conveys a lot to me.

as for the mister - was he high? a little something to take off the stress? was there an earpiece in - stand infront of you brother when talking to the man with the tan suit coat; remember to laugh and smile to get attention on yourself. stand up straight, dont slouch. maybe he needed a little something because that garden was big trigger, it was where the engagement photos were. Big regret time? hmmmm i may be onto something ;-)

finally, the queen was a the royal windsor horse show which was definitely not in scotland. Hmmm still couldnt find time to see her grandson or didnt want to find the time.
NeutralObserver said…
@Hikari, I don't know about you, but I've been disappointed enough times by attempts at memorials, public art, etc., to not be surprised when a memorial work of art is disappointing. During all the statue toppling this summer in the USA, an artistic/designer friend asked me what I thought about it all, & I told her, to be honest, I rarely pay attention to statues in public places, & many have little artistic merit. (I'm not a fan of public disorder, however.) As you say, it's just something for the pigeons. I don't find the sunken garden that appealing s well, too geometric, & the UK is the home of the most beautiful gardens & the best gardeners in the world. Hopefully, Diana will get an appropriate memorial some day. The event has passed without disaster, & things can move forward.
Karla said…
Oh, poor statue! Suffering Virtual Bullying. Statue, are you OK?
JerseyGirl said…
A couple of things come to mind about H's appearance.

1. Maybe he read this blog about afternoon tea and went to Ritz and had too many cups of it.

2. He had taken too much of prescription medications (think Xanax) and it had the opposite effect on him.

3. He is doing illegal drugs because he acted like he had sniffed a lot coke.

4. All his hand gestures are because that super glue that MM pours on his fingers to keep him attached to her came loose and he didn't know what to with his fingers and hands...
xxxxx said…
SwampWoman said...
@xxxxx, Harry was 'flamboyant'? Is there a new definition of flamboyant of which I am unaware?
It must have other connotations in England. Haps had on some classy, well shined brown shoes. My guess is this was M's doing. Prince Williams shoes were the common black, well shined.
JerseyGirl said…
My last comment on this topic, onward and forward.

I don't think this was the right material for this statue, it's gloomy, ugly, and a lot said here already doesn't really represent the Diana we all knew in real life.
Girl with a Hat said…
a comment from CDAN about Harry's wife's book:

Amazon took away ALL my reviewing privileges (rarely review, maybe a book or movie now or then) because I upvoted some of the bad reviews on Amazon about the First Wife’s crap children’s book. I did not write a review without having bought the book. I UPVOTED reviews. And the case can be made that the whole book was in the media since they published the dumb poem as well as the illustrations. Meanwhile she has bots writing fake favorable reviews. What does that say?
lucy said…
If that statue was any closer to the water ..Swamp Thing comes to mind. I wasn't going to post as I have nothing kind to say . Sh*t scares me 😳. Lookslike Diana in drag. How come the children are barefoot??? Figured out why that child is "hidden" this angle shows he is half-human
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article24439814.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Dianas-60th-birthday.jpg

That man hand caressing 40year old girl face (shudder)
Would a smile have mattered? Looks like they are all covered in ash, perhaps witnessing landmine rescue. See that is terrible. I honestly have nothing nice to say πŸ™

Looking forward to reading this thread
SirStinxAlot said…

Blogger Karla said...
Oh, poor statue! Suffering Virtual Bullying. Statue, are you OK?

July 2, 2021 at 2:13 AM


You are so wrong for that.😜 The Montecito Monster is going to be so jealous. Hope they replaced the broken dishes with Corelle.
Karla said…
SirStink Sorry, but I was just thinking about the poor statue.😊 About MM... I'm sure she wasn't invited. And I think Prince Wiliam reduced the event and limited the media to take the candy out of MM's mouth. She I'm sure isn't Ok!
Hikari said…
@Lucy

Re. “Covered in ash”

exactly! Thank you. Now that I think about it, it reminds me exactly of some figures I saw in Pompeii during one of my virtual tours. What even is that material? It’s such a dark gray color, it doesn’t even look like a natural stone. I had expected something in either marble or bronze.

The statue is tall, highlighting Diana‘s mile long stems in a relatively short skirt. If an iconic pose of Diana with children is what they were after, why not a seated figure Holding the little African girl with AIDS? or one of the many pictures we have of her with children affected by land mines? When Diana interacted with children, it was always one on one, and down at their level. This was her signature. For all that the figure is so blocky, Something about his feels also unstable, that tall figure teetering on a rather narrow looking base. It’s not organic, and I think the composition would’ve had a more classical form if Diana had been seated and wearing something a bit more flowy. To be honest, it looks like she was frozen in ash in the midst of taking three random children to school. And two of the children have forgotten their shoes.

I didn’t have a mental picture exactly of what I expected, but I suppose my expectation was for the solo figure of the princess, rendered more delicately and smiling her signature smile. And definitely in some lIghter material, We cannot even see the facial features hardly at all. And the extremely contemporary short outfit with Bare knees is jarring iib this format.

my verdict is that the statue is not going to wear well. In contrast to other figures of memorial sculpture, this one has an extremely contemporary feel that place is it firmly and Diana‘s time of the late 20th century. I don’t get the sense of something that is going to be Federated by future generations, as it might have been if she had been depicted with a touch more royalty, and less like a soccer mom circa 1997. They should have done a photo exhibition To mark her 60th birthday instead of this. I think Diana herself would have much preferred a commemorative bench, and a plaque.
just sayin' said…
My impression was that Haz was giddy with excitement because he finally got a new pair of shoes! Lol
SirStinxAlot said…
After reading the publics feedback, I bet H wishes he could dump this whole statue on William. After all the demands and fuss about a statue of woman thats been dead since August 1997. Now the unveiling and its a huge flop. Everything H$M touch is a flop.


Blogger Lt. Nyota Uhura said...

Per Nutty Flavor's question/headline, what hijinks can we expect from H at the statue unveiling --

H will say:

1) The family is out to get me
2) The press is out to get me
3) (If the statue is poorly received) It was all William's fault
4) (If the statue is well received) It was all my doing
UKfan said…
Diana the statue looks like a 1950's Barbie without a smile. :(
punkinseed said…
H will say the statue is out to get him too.
punkinseed said…
I am an artist and this is why I do not paint anything for commision. It is seldom what client expects.
punkinseed said…
It is very hard for an artist to capture the soul and spark of subject that pleases the clint. In this case, I can tell he had far too many people advising him, including that bloody woman.I can't imagine H approving anything in this without getting input from her. If I was William I would be furious on that alone.
DesignDoctor said…
I envisioned a statue in light colored marble. It would have been prettier IMO. This is dark and moody. I don’t think the woman captures Diana’s femininity or her graceful beautiful figure. I do not like the heavy belt or her clothes. Diana was always impeccably dressed. Similar to other comments, I would have liked a more Royal figure. I think it would stand the test of time.

I loved the comments of 6 as court jester.That idiotic smile was so inappropriate for the occasion. Wills did look like a statesman in comparison. Appropriate demeanor and affect.
I have to admit I am relieved she was not seated on a bench.
jessica said…
The comment about Harry’s ‘lads lunch’ being M&H propaganda: exactly! The key here is ‘lad’s lunch’ without identities. M is thinking Harry’s old friends who’ve been discarded will get in touch with them again, because he was with the ‘other lads’, it also puts an air of superiority and elitism- Royal life 2.0 for them. Half in half out. ‘They still want to be out with us and care.’ Yeah. Right. The Beckham’s are the epitome of social climbing. If they aren’t hanging out with you anymore, not many others are either.

I find it fascinating they are continually walking back and asking for 2nd chances.
SwampWoman said…
Hikari said: my verdict is that the statue is not going to wear well. In contrast to other figures of memorial sculpture, this one has an extremely contemporary feel that place is it firmly and Diana‘s time of the late 20th century. I don’t get the sense of something that is going to be Federated by future generations, as it might have been if she had been depicted with a touch more royalty, and less like a soccer mom circa 1997. They should have done a photo exhibition To mark her 60th birthday instead of this. I think Diana herself would have much preferred a commemorative bench, and a plaque.

It could be worse. It could be 70's era bell bottoms, hot pants, or polyester pantsuits. In a hundred years, a 1997 soccer mom might be considered quite charming, much like we look at the 1920s fashions of Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, Mary Pickford, and, of course, those delicious Downton Abbey dresses.
SwampWoman said…
punkinseed said...
It is very hard for an artist to capture the soul and spark of subject that pleases the clint. In this case, I can tell he had far too many people advising him, including that bloody woman.I can't imagine H approving anything in this without getting input from her. If I was William I would be furious on that alone.


Hmm. I never considered that TBW may have wished to sabotage the statue!
lizzie said…
Honestly, the more I look at picturex of the statue, the less I like it.

I didn't expect to like it because of the difficulty in capturing a person one "knows" in a sculpture. And I'm not really sure what I was expecting. Definitely not "middle-aged school marm Teresa May" Diana with random politically correct children.

I think I would have liked it better with Diana seated on a bench (!!!) in a casual pose with a slight smile. While I understand her sons' wanting her to look like a "warrior" for causes, I'd have preferred to see her portrayed as happy as she supposedly was in that garden.

I don't know that I see M's influence on the artist directly. It was reported years ago W&H had many disagreements about the design. Those could involve M's input as well as Kate's, albeit not in the form of direct feedback to the sculptor.
SwampWoman said…
So, is Harry back in California yet? Or is he up to more "secret" surprise visits?
Karla said…
Jessica Said...

"Beckham’s are the epitome of social climbing. If they aren’t hanging out with you anymore, not many others are either".
Well said! Remembering that David Beckham was seen with Prince Wiliam And Prince George at Wembley in England's victory. And their photos appeared in almost every newspaper.
DesignDoctor said…
Wonder what Catherine thinks of the statue with her education in Art History? I would love to hear her impressions! She has such a good eye and ability to “see.” Her photographs are always so well composed.
xxxxx said…
DM--- These are at the top or near the top currently of the best rated comments for ---->> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9747369/Warring-Princes-Harry-William-reunite-briefly-unveil-mother-Dianas-statue.html#comments

.................

weegielass, Home, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
What the hell is that fool Harry grinning about all the time? Very inappropriate and just over-acting.
...............

An American in London, London, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
William looked suitably subdued but 'Haz' was constantly grinning like an idiot, which is also suitable, being as he is one.

--------------

Lydia80, Surrey, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
Why was Harry grinning the whole time? It looked completely inappropriate.

.................

Anna, Maldon UK, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
William was statesmanlike, Harry was nervous and awkward. William acted appropriately and put people at their ease, Harry horsed around and interrupted people's conversations because he felt out of place. It's all very sad, but Harry is just not man enough to support his brother in his lonely and serious future burden as King.

.................


Lazy Kate, chelmsford, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago
Harry looked overly animated & inappropriate with hands on hips & in his pockets. William looked like a statesman. Harry does not belong here anymore. Go home to California. Don't come for the jubilee next year. The damage is irreparable.
Fifi LaRue said…
IMO the statue is not artistic, and has no artistic value. It is a sorry piece of work. I would have preferred something abstract, or a plaque, or a memorial rose garden. Something other than this weird grouping of people. No, it won't stand the test of time.
It would have been better to depict Diana crouching down at another person's level, or holding a child, something other than that gargantuan woman in a dated, bad suit.

Harry was so goofy at the unveiling. My natural assumption was that he was high on something. His behavior was inappropriate, and not fitting for the occasion. Laughing? That speaks of him ingesting weed just before he arrived. He must have some kind of diplomatic immunity so that he can bring in edibles, cocaine, whatever his choice of drug is, and not be stopped at Customs.
xxxxx said…
SwampWoman said...
So, is Harry back in California yet? Or is he up to more "secret" surprise visits?

His lad's lunch had to be changed to a lad's brunch on Friday. With H's favorite, smoked kippers and poached eggs served. H does not know that he will be deprogrammed there. H's bloody marys will be spiked with something that helps this along. Ayahuasca.
SwampWoman said…
DesignDoctor, I doubt that Catherine would say anything negative about it because it was her husband's project.
Miz Malaprop said…
Twitchy, smiley H seemed under the influence of Adderall, or a double dose perhaps to deal with the "trauma" of being in London. Too much cocaine is a very different vibe.

As for his height change, H has gone Hollywood. He's wearing "lifts", well known to short actors like Tom Cruise and Michael J Fox for red carpets. They're worn inside the shoe to give an extra inch or two in height. He probably wore the brown shoes because the lifts wouldn't work in a different (more appropriate) pair. How petty and competitive is he?

I think he was trying to portray California casual, fun and happy vibe, but much like his wife, he has no talent for acting.
Foose said…
The statue is just meh. Nothing of grace, beauty, charm; in many ways Diana was a silly vapid woman but she had charisma and the statue conveys nothing except current sentimental received ideas about the role of women to be champions of children. The dowdy figure might as well be carrying a file of bureaucratic paperwork to ensure the proper regulations are observed. It would have been better aesthetically - and captured far more of her effect on her contemporaries - to hire a competent sculptor to create a marble statue of the Roman goddess Diana (or Greek Artemis) posed with a drawn bow, perhaps in profile. It would have looked lovely reflected in the pool and framed in the archway. Diana/Artemis was the beautiful but tough protector of young girls and animals, which resonates with Princess Diana's causes, and in the Roman tradition was the triple goddess associated with Luna and Hecate/Persephone, referencing her power of enchantment over others and her untimely descent to the underworld. Perhaps this traditional type of sculpture is too old-fashioned for today's yelping woke Twitter crowd, but it would have charmed children and adults alike for years to come.
just sayin' said…
Having watched the video, heard someone off camera say something to the effect of “Stay on William,” and observed Haz’s OTT/manic behavior...

I’m finding validity in the belief that Haz was under the influence of drink or drugs and...

I wonder if the “Stay on William” direction was given to avoid filming the inebriated state of Haz? Perhaps he was acting even more inappropriately off camera? (hard to imagine, but we’re talking about Haz - anything’s possible!)

That would certainly explain a lot about the reactions of William, the Spencer kin and others.
Sadly, I think they chose the wrong sculptor; perhaps they were misled,as I was, by his other work which is superb.

see https://www.ianrank-broadley.co.uk/

There's a huge gulf between Diana and his male figures. Did something go wrong between the maquette & the final cast?

The placement is unfortunate too - its scale, its position & plinth and context make the figure too dominating. It looks down on everyone (both literally and metaphorically, making it very political- `undemocratic' - says everything about rank and class); the scale seems wrong to me - more appropriately seen from a distance? A garden seems too intimate a space for it.

Think of all those large portraits of aristocrats that are to be seen in our historic houses - how they `look down their noses at us', or folk on horses who can't help but look down on pedestrians - there's an agenda behind this kind of art and I'm surprised that nobody was aware of it. I do sound very left-wing here!

Should it perhaps be dubbed `The Apotheosis of Princess Diana'? Has she been given divine status in the eyes of `her boys'? I can help thinking that the `bench' idea might have been more successful - more approachable.

I wonder what Catherine thinks it it? This sort of analysis is the bread-and-butter of Art History.

On the plus side, it is metal and can be melted down. There are relatively few bronzes from antiquity - most were remade into other figures or even cannons- the Riace Warriors survived because they went down in a shipwreck and weren't discovered until 1972. It's the stone sculptures that have survived.
Rebecca said…
From The Telegraph:

Kitsch and archaic, the Princess Diana statue is a people-pleasing dud
Ian Rank-Broadley's effigy of the late Princess of Wales is neither great art nor a good likeness. But for die-hard fans, it will suffice
ALASTAIR SOOKE
CHIEF ART CRITIC

Warmth. Elegance. Energy. These, according to Kensington Palace, are the attributes of the new statue of Diana, Princess of Wales, by the sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley, unveiled on Thursday in the Sunken Garden.

Warmth? Pull the other one. Broad-shouldered, thin-hipped, eyes narrowed, shirt defiantly unbuttoned, his Diana is combative and confrontational, not maternal. No doe-eyed ingΓ©nue, this. Sure, she’s portrayed as a latter-day saint, offering protection to three children (though spare a thought for the poor kid relegated to the back), but she isn’t a sweet Madonna: there’s something distinctly masculine about that stance, squaring up to the viewer.

Here is a virago, an empowered humanitarian warrior wearing a belt so big it wouldn’t look amiss on He-Man, capable of making the House of Windsor cower.

The decision to appoint Rank-Broadley, an establishment artist whose portrait of the Queen still graces our coinage, always struck me as timid, unimaginative, and conventional. Surely, Diana, that sparky outsider who despised fussy officialdom, would have wanted to be immortalised by someone less out of touch with contemporary art?

Still, I have some sympathy for him, given the impossible nature of the commission. Every creative choice was likely to elicit criticism. Stick her in a satin ball gown, and she’d become dressy, ornamental. (And he’d be accused of sexism.) But present her in, say, a visor and flak jacket, as though she were traversing a minefield, and people would say it was absurd.

Given that Rank-Broadley is steeped in the classical tradition (his back catalogue involves a lot of muscly male nudes), I was expecting an allusion to Diana’s mythological namesake, the goddess of the hunt. That would have turned the tables: hounded in real life, but resurrected, in art, as all-powerful.

Yet, instead of dogs or deer scampering about at her feet, she has three sprogs – rendering the ensemble, at a stroke, as pure kitsch. There’s a slightly Soviet vibe to the group, too. Mothers of the world, unite!

I guess we should be thankful that Rank-Broadley’s Diana doesn’t have the Disneyfied, Frozen-princess look which he sometimes bestows upon his female subjects. That, though, is a small mercy. As a work of art, his sculpture of Diana has negligible credibility.
Rebecca said…
The Telegraph (continued)

Its visual language (ie, classical bronze statuary) feels hopelessly archaic, given that it’s meant to be a symbol of modern womanhood. The transition of scale from children to grown-up is a touch awkward, too, since it turns Diana into Gulliver towering over the inhabitants of Lilliput.

For all the ripples and folds in her clothes, there’s a sheath-like stiffness to that skirt, which resembles a pharaoh’s kilt in an ancient Egyptian wall painting. Frankly, I’m not even sure the face is a convincing likeness.

Does any of that matter? After all, Diana, who had a preternatural ability to connect with ordinary citizens, was the people’s princess – and, to the uninitiated, this statue reads, instantly, as “Art”. In a sense, then, it’s democratic. A lot of well-wishers and diehard fans simply wanted a good old-fashioned statue of their heroine. And that’s exactly what they’ve got.
Rebecca said…
Another from The Telegraph:

The poetry on this statue is an embarrassment to Princess Diana’s memory
The verse engraved on Kensington Palace’s new statue of the late Princess of Wales is a mangled version of a poor poem. She deserved better
TRISTRAM FANE SAUNDERS

Opinion is divided over the statue to Princess Diana unveiled today at Kensington Palace, but everyone can surely agree on one thing: it’s better than the accompanying poem.

Featured at a memorial service in 2007, and now engraved on a paving-slab in front of the statue, here are the five lines of doggerel:

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?

There’s a reason the rhythm is so awkward and irregular, which I’ll get to in a moment. But first: who wrote it? A draft press release from the Palace (subsequently corrected) wrongly attributed it to the German philosopher Albert Schweitzer. Various books and websites credit our old friend Anon.

I’ve found what appears to be the first appearance of it – or rather, a version of it – in print, in the Kansas City Times for November 5, 1923: “The Measure of a Man” by Wallace Gallaher (probably a misprint for Gallagher).

It was widely reprinted through the 1920s, but Galla(g)her’s fame did not last. When a Republican politician recited it at the House of Representatives in 1944, he called it the work of "a poet whose name has been lost in anonymity although his words have attained immortality".

The poem so loved by Congressmen and Kansans was rather different to the version now within kicking-distance of Diana’s feet. It was more than twice the length, but the relevant lines read as follows:

These are the units
To measure the worth
Of a man as a man,
Regardless of birth!
Not—
“What was his station?”
But—
“Had he a heart?”
And—
“How did he play
His God-given part?”

A poem that was already mediocre has been made worse. Its two-beat lines had a roughly dactylic (DUM-da-da) rhythm that trips off the tongue. By turning “To measure the worth/ Of a man as a man” into “to measure the worth/ Of this woman as a woman”, that rhythm is lost.
Rebecca said…
The Telegraph (continued)

Here’s the golden rule about choosing an appropriate poem: if you have to re-write it to make it appropriate, you’ve chosen the wrong poem. The memorial committee might as well have taken Kipling’s “You’ll be a man, my son!” and turned it into “You’ll be a People’s Princess, my daughter!”

A better idea would have been a new piece by the Poet Laureate. Simon Armitage’s elegy for the late Duke of Edinburgh was popular with the public and critics alike (even famously hard-to-impress journal PN Review called it “genuinely poetic”), and he’s previously written a clutch of poems specifically to be engraved on stones like this one (his “Stanza Stones”, dotted across Yorkshire).

But there’s no need for something new. The short, chantlike elegy for the Princess of Wales written by Ted Hughes in 1997, when the then-Laureate knew he was dying of cancer, would have been a far better choice for the memorial than Gallagher’s mangled lines.

“Holy Tragedy and Loss/ Make the many One,” he wrote, capturing with admirable concision the idea of a nation brought together by grief. “Love is broken on the Cross./ The Flower on the Gun.”
Rebecca said…
A third from The Telegraph:

8 things you definitely thought when you saw the Diana statue

Is it Ken Barlow? Why is the belt the size of the child's head? And, wait, who are those children?

By Guy Kelly

Well, it could have been a lot worse. Remember melted Ronaldo? Or tiny, shiny, naked Mary Wollstonecraft standing on top of her kebab? You can forgive sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley for playing it relatively safe with his long-awaited statue of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace.

On Thursday afternoon, the date that would have been Diana’s 60th birthday, a few chosen guests gathered in the redesigned Sunken Garden at the Palace. Rank-Broadley was there. Garden designer Pip Morrison was there. Diana’s siblings were there. And her adored sons, Princes William and Harry, were there. The statue, meanwhile, stood dormant under a green cloth.

And then, with little ceremony, off came the cloth, and there before us she was: Diana, Princess of Wales, captured in bronze for eternity. Only she wasn’t alone. And looked a little odd. And… to be honest, it took a moment or two to fully understand the scene. Here’s a few things that may have crossed your mind in the meantime.

At last, a Simon Le Bon statue where it was needed most

Other people you could be forgiven for assuming it was, if you weren’t to know: Corrie’s Ken Barlow, Judy Murray, Barry Manilow, that bloke who runs Pimlico Plumbers, Fiona Bruce, hairdresser to the stars Nicky Clarke, EastEnders’ Shirley Carter, Germany manager Joachim LΓΆw, Theresa May, David Bowie during his 2002 appearance on Jools Holland, Clare Balding, a late-Nineties Kris Jenner, Owen Wilson in any era, Rod Stewart just after he left Faces, and eventually Princess Diana.

Who’s that little girl meant to be, then?

How have I never known that Harry and William have a big sister? You’d think this would be written about a lot, and be on Wikipedia at least. I’ve never seen it on there, and I’m on there a lot.

Wouldn’t she be in The Crown, at least? Maybe she declined. Maybe it’s like how the other daughter refused to be in The Osbornes and thus ceased to exist entirely.

Oh right, wait, it’s just some random girl. So that’s not William on the left, either? I was going to say. Maybe they need a plaque or something to make that clear, otherwise future generations might have a tough time? I don’t know, it’s just an idea. Or is it Anne, but, like, the scale is off? No? I’ll stop.

So is that another child behind the girl?

Or does the girl have three arms? Is that why she was hidden from the public, all the extra limbs? Oh right, sorry, it’s a third child, I’ve seen another angle now. Well, how many are there? Do we need to check under her shoes and inside the other children for yet more hidden children? Are they Russian dolls? Someone needs to keep a 24/7 watch or more children will sprout.
Rebecca said…
The Telegraph (continued)

Why does she look so, well, hard?

By and large, Princess Diana was renowned for her kindness, generosity and compassion. She was not, as far as I know (but then, I didn’t know about her daughter), much of a fighter.

And yet look at that face. The determined, hardened stare. She looks like she’s physically restraining the children from going and knocking out each and every passer by in the Sunken Garden. If the intention is to scare every tourist to the other side of Hyde Park, 10/10.

Why is she wearing a wrestling belt?

Not sure how we’ve made it this far without mentioning the belt, which doesn’t so much follow you around the room as block the exit. Did she have a meet-and-greet with the children at 2pm, and World’s Strongest Man competition at 4pm? Is the person she’s eyeballing Geoff Capes, on the other side of the Atlas stones? Her shoulders do look strong and, as we’ve established, she’s spoiling for a fight.

The belt, which you’ll notice is about the size of her daughter’s the girl’s head, is in fact based on a real one Diana wore in a Christmas card in 1993, as is the low-cut blouse. Christmas may explain it: I’m sure I remember Tim Allen wearing a similar one in The Santa Clause.

You know those collection boxes you used to get outside charity shops, that were shaped like children? Pop the coin in the head?

Not dissimilar, is it?

Couldn’t they have bothered painting it?

I never understand why they don’t paint more statues, like people do Warhammer figurines. But that’s possibly besides the point.

It’ll grow on us... hopefully

Not literally, I can’t imagine how terrifying this would look 50ft tall. But these are just initial impressions. We will get used to Rank-Broadley’s statue, perhaps even come to love it. The colour will change, the features will soften, and above all, Harry and William like it, which is the main thing.

(As for what their sister thinks, well, we have attempted to reach her representatives for comment.)
The `boys' clearly don't read the Guardian!

This article may be 4 years old but they really should have heeded it:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2017/jan/30/diana-princess-of-wales-statue

I've also seen stinging criticism of the `poetry'elsewhare.
Is the 3rd child non-binary?
Rebecca said…
From The Times:

Princess Diana statue review: Laura Ashley monument is little better than the usual tat

Rachel Campbell-Johnston

★★☆☆☆
She stands, arms outspread in the pose of a traditional religious Madonna. But instead of flowing veil and falling robes she is wearing a somewhat frumpy 1980s outfit.

Sweep your eyes upwards from the flat court shoes, past the sedate just-brushing-the-knee pencil skirt and the pleated cotton blouse (could it be that Laura Ashley has made it on to a public monument) to end with that signature side-swept hairstyle, and you will find that you can forget all the usual conventions of royal statuary.

There are no formal uniforms, elaborate hats or prancing horses. There is no jewellery, bar a pair of discreet ear studs. A lone ermine-trimmed robe isn’t needed to hide those long shapely legs. This is casual Diana: less the venerated Madonna than the practical mother. She draws the figures of three young children about her.

The sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley has sought to distil an everyday moment. Instead of lofty hauteur he has conjured simple warmth. Instead of a self-conscious pose, he presents what feels more like a private moment. The princess does not even offer her typical upwards glance through her floppy flick. She keeps her eyes down in a statue which, picking out a composition which might have come from one of the myriad photo shoots through which we most usually met Princess Diana, translates it into a monument which draws on underlying memories of religious sculpture.

The new Diana statue has a devotional aura. Perhaps this is precisely what a wider public who all but worshipped the princess would want — which may in turn be precisely why this statue is, aesthetically speaking, so horrible. There is no sense of unique vision that a great artist can bring. Instead, the image feels calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It speaks of generic sentiment, not any more stirring emotion. And as such it is little better than much of the Diana tat — anything from a Royal Doulton statuette to a Swarovski figurine — that you can find.

A woman who, in her lifetime, did much to change the way that the world thought merits something far more striking. The chosen sculptor should certainly have been female.

The princess who wilfully aligned herself with the marginalised, who crossed barriers of convention to support previously unfashionable causes, should not have been commemorated by one of our nation’s most safely established middle-aged white male artists.

Now, her effigy looks set to play second fiddle to the flower garden in which it is set. Much like the other royal monuments that scatter our capital, it will become all but invisible to the passerby. Princess Diana deserved something much better.
DesignDoctor said…
@SwampWoman
I know Catherine would not publicly criticize the sculpture. She is too discreet. I was just saying given he education and demonstrated talent, ai would love to hear her analysis. Not that an honest analysis would b made public..:it would b great fun to have a chat and listen to her spill some tea on the statue and other events of the past few years.

Mirrored body language shows deep bonds between William and Harry, says expert

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/mirrored-body-language-shows-deep-173359917.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

Oh yeah?

Strange that this should be illustrated with a photo of them walking out of step.

I didn't see mirroring except insofar as it was controlled by the space they were in and (probably) a need not to block the view of the statue when contemplating it.
Nutties saying the statue has propaganda vibes about it? I got that immediate feeling too. As soon as I saw it I thought the they are trying to sell Diana as Mother Teresa/Mary, the Mother of Mercy. 😯

Diana had many special and great qualities and we shouldn’t forget that, but this is over the top and comes off in the wrong way. πŸ˜•
Propaganda vibes?

Stylistically, it does have the ghost of Socialist Realism about it but this sits badly with the traditional message `I am Superior, I look down on you.'

Perhaps M has had more to do with it than we might have wished?

BTW, I do recall reading a rumour that the boys do have an elder `sister', as a result of wrongdoing in a pre-marital fertility-testing facility back in 1980-1. I've even seen headlines that the boys have met her.

Goodness only knows if there's any truth in it but it's not impossible - today's reproductive technology has opened the door to all sorts of mischief-making, as we suspect in a more recent case.
Maneki Neko said…
@nope

My apologies, you're right, it is a hoodie and I didn't look carefully. In fact, I didn't pay any attention to the children's clothes.
Natalier said…
@WildBoar Battle Maid said:

...There's a huge gulf between Diana and his male figures. Did something go wrong between the maquette & the final cast?.....

I couldn't agree with you more. His previous works have been excellent. Could it be too many cooks spoiled the soup? It must have been a monumental amount of stress to recreate a famous woman in the world - known particualrly for her grace and beauty.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Well, I for one am glad the whole statue affair is over. We can chew over the fallout, criticize/praise the result, etc. but without the horrible buildup. Next on the agenda: Get the press to STOP with the endless "oh, do make up with each other, boys, there's a couple of good lads" BS. (As if they've been on equal footing all this time rift-wise. Ugh.)

My other observation is this: Her Majesty has shed 20 years, somehow. She looks, and behaves, as tho she's gotten a new lease on life. I hate like anything to say it, but she's almost ........ fey. I hope like anything I'm wrong. I want her around for a good chunk of years to come. Perhaps it's due to relief that Prince Philip is finally free of suffering, thus freeing HM of a heavy burden she's carried for a long time. Perhaps she realizes that *crossing over* is something that, at her age, is not to be feared but welcomed when the time comes. Whatever it is, she hasn't glowed like this in what feels like many long years.
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
* meant to add that I hope Diana can finally rest in peace.
xxxxx said…
So this black boy with the barely visible hoodie. Zero comments on twitter about the hoodie. It looks like this is a case of cultural appropriation by the sculptor, that the big time Royal commentators have missed. You heard it here first at NuttyVille. This boy lives in London? Africa? I don't think hoodies are the style in Africa where there would be a Statue connection to Diana's land mine clearing campaign.

LSA should be on the hoodie case! If not, why not?
xxxxx said…
An awkward, lifeless shrine': Art critics DON'T hold back their disdain for new Diana statue branded a 'spiritless hunk of nonsense' that looks 'GRUMPY' and 'doesn't capture her magic'
Critics panned it as an 'awkward, lifeless shrine' and 'spiritless hunk of nonsense'
Ian Rank-Broadley made her 'look grumpy' and work 'doesn't capture her magic'
But one welcomed the fact it looked like the late Princess of Wales in their review

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9748835/Art-critics-DONT-holddisdain-Diana-statue-branded-spiritless-hunk-nonsense.html

********** A roundup of what art-critics are saying
Enbrethiliel said…
I'm still fairly positive toward the statue. It may be a poor physical likeness, but then again, how many of us saw the "real" Diana? She controlled her image in the press almost as carefully as the Kardashians do theirs now, limited only by the lack of technology available to her back then. Even after her death, tabloids and tell-all biographies continued to use her photo.

This year, however, two very significant things happened. First was the BBC's apology for the Bashir interview. For decades, we had seen it as an accurate "portrait" of her from 1995. But her eldest son has finally, powerfully delegitimized it, and we're no longer allowed to see her like that. Then a few months after he had it struck off the record, the second thing happened. Yesterday, he gave us a "portrait" of his mother unlike any we have seen before. And he has made sure it is the very final one.

It may not be the one we wanted. Heck, @Hikari makes the excellent point that it may not be what Princes William and Harry themselves wanted. But if they approved it as the final image of she who was once the most photographed woman in the world, well, that speaks volumes.

And if the popular verdict is that it's awful and irredeemable, well . . . Let's just say that if this is Prince William's worst misstep, he'll be fine. Sadly, we already know that it's not Harry's worst misstep.
The third child behind the others... Is it just me or does it look a bit like Scobie?

I read a comment on an article yesterday (can't find it now to quote, sorry) that had as good a theory as I've seen yet for the children on the statue. They pointed out that the black boy is dressed very much like a child from Angola, and the girl looks like she could be Croatian, and that both countries have land mine issues. They said they couldn't see the third child but assumed it'll have some link to another of Diana's causes.

I'm really struggling with the statue. I wanted to like it, but now I see it I find I don't even dislike it, there's just an overall feeling of indifference. I like the concept, but I feel that the children are more of the natural focus than Diana, which gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand I can see the idea that we're supposed to think about Diana's legacy rather than what she looked like, but at the same time it's a little sad that I automatically find myself looking at everything else first and then at Diana almost as an afterthought. I don't think I've explained that very well, hopefully someone knows what I'm banging on about lol
SirStinxAlot said…
I realize most people do not like the statue in photos, but perhaps it is better appreciated in person. Many younger people say Dianas dress is hideous, but change their mind once they see it in person. Details are often overlook in photos due to narrowed lense, angles, lighting, etc. All of those things go into perception. Perhaps a few UK nutties can take a little visit if possible. Also, I read an article that says Charles wants to open the castles and gardens more to the public during his reign.Hope the September follow up of the unveiling gets canceled.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9583095/amp/Charles-open-palaces-public-king-report.html
My thought about #6W being involved is this - might she will see herself as not only as Diana no2 but as `Meghan Mother of Mercy'?

Could that be the reason why she just slings a coat across her shoulders? (except when she's in a bathrobe!)

I also wonder if the mutilation that produced the dodgy doggerel can be traced back to her? It's American in origin and she does consider herself a poet... I'm surprised it wasn't chiselled out in her `calligraphy'.

I wonder what the Sponsors think? Do they feel they've got their money's worth?

Husband says the colour and surface remind him of `living statues' - I think of 18thC garden ornaments in lead. It it meant to go green with age?

Shall we volunteer ourselves as art critics? I think we've done a pretty good job, in line with the professionals.

Plus, I agree that #6 looked as if he was `under the influence'.

All speculation
NeutralObserver said…
Apologies for barging in on all the art criticism, but I thought Nutties would be interested in the latest Lacey recap from https://the-cat-with-the-emerald-tiara-1.tumblr.com/

Part 1

inal update to Lacey’s new book, part 3
Okay, here are the last 5 chapters. Lacey says that Harry is Meghan’s rescue chicken. Yes, he literally says that. It’s obvious he cannot stand her.

The chapter “Recollections May Vary” reads like Tumblr. For example, it’s alleged Meghan didn’t want real psychiatric care from her OBY-GYN or from any of the UK experts on mental health. She allegedly wanted to go to a spa, possibly Deepak Chopra’s retreat in Arizona. He couches this in the form of questions so that he cannot be sued. She allegedly tried to get Samantha to book her a vacation under the guise of mental health care. He doesn’t know if it’s Samantha Cohen or Carruthers she went through. There are emails to a Samantha, but he doesn’t know which one. It sounds like it may be Carruthers because of her comment on Oprah about going to HR, and Carruthers headed HR. He says he tried to interview Carruthers, but she was tight lipped. Anyway, he asks if it’s possible that M went to Carruthers in an attempt to push back at Knauf going to Carruthers with a complaint about M. He says that is something a union, particularly an American union, might advise one employee to do if another employee lodged an HR complaint against them, sort of a tit for tat sort of thing. So he thinks M was trying to preempt the bullying complaints by claiming mental health issues and running of to a spa in AZ.

He infers M is a liar, and here’s how he does it: He lists example after example of something M has said (he quotes the claim) and then he uses facts to dispute it. There were so many examples of this that I finally stopped counting them. He hammers the point home so many times with facts that there is no other conclusion to be had. It’s clear she’s a liar. He really digs into her about her claim about Archie’s skin colour. He uses Oprah’s own questions and M’s own answers alongside Harry’s to prove she lied. It’s brilliant how he does it. He sounds like a lawyer!
NeutralObserver said…
Lacey, Part 2
He tried to talk to as many people as he could. He has quotes from Dan Wootton, who denies he works for Camp Sussex or gets info from them. He won’t give away his sources, but says they are far away from Sussex Squad. He has lots of quotes from Bradby, who comes across as a Chatty Cathy trying to defend himself. He has a quote from Diana’s good friend Simone Simmons, who says Meghan is giving orders to Harry like the army gave orders to Harry. Harry appears to be brainwashed. He actually uses the word “brainwashed”. Simone can’t stand her.

He says it’s Harry who loves to compare M to Diana.

He calls Gayle King the “gossipy Gayle”.

He brings out how the palace is protecting M even though her behaviour is egregious. He says they are still protecting her.

He says Prince William is the next Prince Philip.

One odd tidbit: He says Diana used to temporarily “kidnap” Princess Michael of Kent’s microchipped Burmese cats.

He begrudgingly admires and respects Prince William, but he still blames him for not doing more to help poor widdle Harry. He blames Charles for not doing more to help him, too. He blames M for brainwashing Harry. Everything is everyone else’s fault but poor Harry’s. That part had me rolling my eyes on more than one occasion.

If Lacey’s book is this damning, I can only imagine what Bower’s book will be like!
Mom Mobile said…
Not sure if this has been posted? Is The Express a sugar publication? WTF?! So we're racist misogynists if we question the sketchy behavior around MM's "pregnancy"? Congrats to all us Nutties. Apparently we are proud members of an online hate group.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1456253/meghan-markle-news-royal-baby-pregnancy-conspiracy-theory-duchess-sussex-spt
Diana's right hand - is she wearing a foundryman's glove?
LavenderLady said…
@IMO professional art critics are like film critics. What they say means nothing in reference to how an individual perceives a work of art or a film.

Many really good films are panned and many mediocre films are awarded. Some say abstract art looks like a toddler painted it some call it a masterpiece. It's all relative.

Some acclaim is pure connection of the artist as we have seen in the failed Academy Awards and some books are on the best seller list when they should be in the Dollar Tree bin.

The Diana statue is not something I would have in my garden and what I would have, someone else would hate my choice. Especially if they hate me. It's all down to personal choice. I lose zero sleep worrying about such nothingness...

Thank God I don't have to wake up every morning to a view of that statue. As a public memoriam, I can take it or leave it. As someone said statues are on their way out. I agree with that statement.
snarkyatherbest said…
Im waiting for the next zoom surprise call with the 1990s wide belt ;-)
@Neutral Observer -

That's a real eye-opener - thank you so much. I've been seeing Lacey as some sort of trick rider - one foot one each of two horses, shifting his weight from one to the other, as if unsure about committing himself.

I suppose that, if the Palace sees both the #6s as completely crazy and in need of in-patient care in a mental hospital, they feel obliged to protect them to some extent.

A great shame they can't say something like -

`Yes, they are deeply disturbed but, regrettably, we are unable to do anything about it.
The days when we could take family members out of circulation on account of their mental state are long over. We can't realistically force them into psychiatric treatment - it has to come from somebody else. Meghan is, after all, still a US citizen.'
SwampWoman said…

Blogger DesignDoctor said...
@SwampWoman
I know Catherine would not publicly criticize the sculpture. She is too discreet. I was just saying given he education and demonstrated talent, ai would love to hear her analysis. Not that an honest analysis would b made public..:it would b great fun to have a chat and listen to her spill some tea on the statue and other events of the past few years.


Sorry to be so literal last night! (Lots of things happening here including now hurricane preps and, at this point, I'm just ready for a tree to fall on the house and be done with it. Be done with the house, that is!) I'm way past being done with fidgety things that collect dust, weird-ass cabinets that hold nothing useful in the kitchen, and am ready to have a restaurant-style kitchen with open shelving and *NO* glass figurine fussy stuff that people have been giving me for YEARS that I can't get rid of because of guilt. If a tree falls on them, woohoo! (I mean, I'd be devastated.)

So, you'd love to have a lovely sit down with Catherine (and Camilla) and have a heart-to-heart about how TBW and 6 have been harassing the sculptor and PW and now the statue is ghastly which was probably their plan all along.

I would think, with Catherine's good eye for things artistic, that she would have been consulted. I wouldn't be surprised to find that she was consulted and that all of her (good) suggestions were completely rejected in screaming fits from California.

Perhaps, one day, it will be donated elsewhere to a deserving park and William will pay for a tribute himself so that he doesn't have to listen to 6.
SwampWoman said…

Blogger snarkyatherbest said...
Im waiting for the next zoom surprise call with the 1990s wide belt ;-)


OMG, that would look just TERRIBLE on Ms. SpongebobSquareWaist. (I can hardly wait. Pass the popcorn.)
SwampWoman said…
I find that much in the way of "art" has to have its soul removed in order not to offend the soulless. I find the statue to be "meh" but inoffensive which was probably the point.
xxxxx said…
@Lurking w Spoon
I did an image search for -- boy Angola hoodie ---Nothing!
I did an image search for -- boy Angola ------- found images but 80% of them had no shirts on! It is too hot there.

This was Bing image search

.................

For google image search it was the same. My conclusion is Royale Commenters saying this hoodie represents "typical" boy wear in Angola is nonsense and an invention after the fact. After the unveiling.

My bold (lol) conclusion is that the sculptor's model was a photo of a London/UK black boy. Wot a bloody farce! I hope Lady C and her minions read this and get on this case of cultural appropriation by a white sculptor. U too Harry Markle!
SwampWoman said…
And for those of you that are going to "shame" me (sorry, y'all, I have no shame) about waistism, let me tell you that I wore those wide 90s belts proudly. Post menopause, though, any fashion that requires a belted waist can kiss my grits.
LavenderLady said…
@Swampwoman said,
So, you'd love to have a lovely sit down with Catherine (and Camilla) and have a heart-to-heart about how TBW and 6 have been harassing the sculptor and PW and now the statue is ghastly which was probably their plan all along.

I would think, with Catherine's good eye for things artistic, that she would have been consulted. I wouldn't be surprised to find that she was consulted and that all of her (good) suggestions were completely rejected in screaming fits from California.

____

I am reading this as a tongue in cheek statement but just want to put this out for contemplation: why give TBW so much power? I personally believe she had diddly squat to do with the design of said statue.

One, she's on the outs, being iced as Lady C has reported (she and the DH both) and two, if she had that much power, Ms. Diana Statue would have had a ski slope nose, knarly toes, a Yak wig and peg legs. And the poem at the base would have been "chiseled in calligraphy" to quote @WBBM.

Rhetorical question.

Good day Nutties. I have a full day of fun planned. We are finally no Covid and I'm getting out and about today and no mask. Yee haw!
Humor Me said…
My two cents on the "the Statue" and I will then be quiet: this is what the boys wanted. The fashion on the statue is documented - Diana wore this. This is their remembrance. Let us keep this in mind.
xxxxx said…
Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
That's a real eye-opener - thank you so much. I've been seeing Lacey as some sort of trick rider - one foot one each of two horses, shifting his weight from one to the other, as if unsure about committing himself.

(in part said previously) At his age 75 (older?) Lacey has research staff. Young energetic Staff that sway him this way and that. This accounts for a large part of his dual approach to please both camps. The BRF and the downright dastardly duo. He must cultivate both camps to get leaks from both.

Lacey heads up a machine that writes his books.
LavenderLady said…
As Colombo would say "ah, one last thing",

I am not concerned with the minutiae of said statue. I was never one to give a fiddler's fart if Adam and Eve had belly buttons, and if said belly buttons contained lint, and if said lint was brown or green etc. etc. etc. etc...

Happy day :)
snarkyatherbest said…
SwampWoman - im with you - i even had the power shoulders for a while. what was i thinking ;-)

ok, i know we want to move on from the statue but i just cant, probably because 6s wife hasnt blown up the day with a pap walk. I finally saw a pic of the child in the back of diana - hmmmm face looks a little like george or louis probably isnt but if someone thinks it is, we can tease her out of hiding for a big pap pic so we can move onto that!
snarkyatherbest said…
WBBM - agreed - i think they care less about 6s wife's mental health but i think they worry about 6s in hopes of getting him back. Being in the us is far more difficult to get him away from her clutches, which may have been her intention. Also I am still of the belief that the boy(s) in the pics are not in their custody but what about Lilibuck$ - surrogate laws are way different in the US and there may be a real child out there with or without royal dna that complicates all that is going on. And the never explain part is definitely at play. Sadly the dynamic duo is being protected if there are serious concerns about mental health and they dont appreciate what is being done for them. airing the dirty laundry or the dirty wigs is something the brf wont do but boy there must be a heck of a lot that we havent even speculated that is probably going on.
Enbrethiliel said…
It's the day after the statue's unveiling and not a peep from Montecito.

Again, I'm not complaining! It's just highly unusual, isn't it? I had thought she would have tried to get credit for certain design features by now. And even if she has picked up on the critical reception of the design and put her lone brain cell to good use by choosing to stay quiet, she would have tried some other stunt.

Man, the swiping of "Lilibet" must have indeed been the final straw!
KnitWit said…
Greetings Nutties! Had to see what you thought of the statue.

Diana was so beautiful and graceful. She became more beautiful as she got older and more confident. Sometimes, people refer to the aristocracy as thoroughbreds. In Diana’s case the description fits. She was a champion- well, looked the part. Sculptors dream of rendering such beauty. Her statue could be a modern warrior goddess or mischievous garden sprite with her signature smile.

The statue looks like Prince Phillip in drag. PMS personified. Perhaps the statue is constipated. Diana has never looked this bulky. She is even retaining water in her ankles. Those are not her legs. Why are the children there- two barefoot storybook English siblings and a child of color wearing shoes. TPTB are going out of their way to not be racist, but failing as miserably as Charles version of an Afro American wedding.

Since this is a private garden, a sculptor of a loving Diana with her two young sons would be more appropriate. It would capture Diana at her most happy while conveying the loss both sons feel. The sculpture could have worked from a picture or series of pictures to capture a coherent moment in time.

At least it wasn’t a sculpture of Diana on Meghan’s plagiarized bench.


I have been away because I was in limbo for a while. I just moved into my new apartment in Delray Beach, FL. My furniture is still in storage in PA. Retrieving them are my next challenge. In the interim, I have a bed, a desk on the way, a kitchen, two bathrooms, a brand new Maytag washer and dryer ( woo hoo) and a patio for my plants. After everything I have been through, I am so happy and relieved.
Mel said…
I hate like anything to say it, but she's almost ........ fey. 
-------------

Yes. I've been thinking that ever since the first photos of her came out with that big happy smile. She's glowing. Whatever has/had weighed her down has been lifted.

She reminded me a lot of my mother during her last month.

So many people commented to me about my mom, that it seemed like the weight of the world had lifted off of her shoulders.

And I think that it had. That last month mom was really really happy and before that she had always been very stoic, much like the queen.

I wish that I had recognized for what it was. But I recognize it now, and the Queen has it.
SirStinxAlot said…

Enbrethiliel said...
It's the day after the statue's unveiling and not a peep from Montecito.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe H didn't know what the final design looked like. If he was actively involved in the design, he would have most likely told M what the statue looked like. Maybe he liked a different proposal that included a bench, but was later scrapped by the committee overseeing the project. Hothead could have easily thrown a tantrum and walked away. But now H$M need the royal connection to stay relevant so he needs to put out in the media that he was actively involved. The prepped PR for "M suggested X" and " H did Y" during the process would have been stopped before it hit the internet. Now M is scrambling with a new PR push for Sunday.
Or maybe H gave M an ultimatum, if she tries to pap walk or cause any dust up while he is in UK. There have been aalot of rumor circulating the internet lately about their fighting. We saw pictures several months ago(last year?) of them fighting in public. H allegedly was seen upset around the time Lili was born and asked to leave a private yard(or something of that sort). He may be at wits end with M and her shenanigans.

OR THEY ARE DEAD BROKE AND CANNOT AFFORD SQUAT.
KnitWit said…
Harry finally got a new dark suit like grown up men with jobs wear. He does not wear it well. He shouldn’t put his hands in his pockets playing with himself in public.

He got new shoes too. Unfortunately, they are still casual brown shoes. He should stop by Saville row while in England for his working wardrobe, but he will probably rush home to his handler.

Is he high? Or anxious? Or both? A blood test and psych eval could be in order. That may be one way for the royal family to help Harry- but there would be a California earthquake of bad press.

In addition to “acting” lessons, Harry is adopting Yacht Girl etiquette. Interrupting conversations and mugging for attention. How embarrassing.

No press antics from Cali. Could MM be busy searching for the next husband?
SwampWoman said…
snarkyatherbest said...
SwampWoman - im with you - i even had the power shoulders for a while. what was i thinking ;-)

ok, i know we want to move on from the statue but i just cant, probably because 6s wife hasnt blown up the day with a pap walk. I finally saw a pic of the child in the back of diana - hmmmm face looks a little like george or louis probably isnt but if someone thinks it is, we can tease her out of hiding for a big pap pic so we can move onto that!


OMG, I forgot those! Yes, it was impossible to buy a suit without them. With my shoulders (construction work, weight lifting), I would have looked like an NFL football player if I didn't remove them.
SwampWoman said…
KnitWit said: I have been away because I was in limbo for a while. I just moved into my new apartment in Delray Beach, FL. My furniture is still in storage in PA. Retrieving them are my next challenge. In the interim, I have a bed, a desk on the way, a kitchen, two bathrooms, a brand new Maytag washer and dryer ( woo hoo) and a patio for my plants. After everything I have been through, I am so happy and relieved.


So happy and relieved that you are back posting! Sad that you made it just in time for our first hurricane of the season (grin) but that's life in Florida.
SwampWoman said…
Enbrethiliel said...
It's the day after the statue's unveiling and not a peep from Montecito.

Again, I'm not complaining! It's just highly unusual, isn't it? I had thought she would have tried to get credit for certain design features by now. And even if she has picked up on the critical reception of the design and put her lone brain cell to good use by choosing to stay quiet, she would have tried some other stunt.

Man, the swiping of "Lilibet" must have indeed been the final straw!


I agree. It's almost worse when she is quiet because then we dread whatever is coming!

Maybe 6 hid her body before he left?
Hikari said…
Interesting article from the Telegraph, re. the inspiration for the statue, in photos:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anatomy-diana-statue-three-pictures-181459380.html

==================

In a brief digression, MM's fellow Narc Amber Heard has just released the news that she 'secretly' welcomed her first child, a girl, on April 8, 2021, 'on my own terms'.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/amber-heard-secretly-welcomed-baby-daughter-name-oonagh-212825583.html

Well, gee, for the last year, the ex-Mrs. Johnny Depp has been embroiled in a bitter court battle with her ex-husband. She's been so busy destroying his life, reputation and career--and oh, didn't she also star in 'Aquaman'?--one thinks, that's some trick then, keeping a pregnancy 'secret' from us all, innit. And if one is a notorious Hollywood starlet, it's super easy to keep giving birth a huge secret for months when you were never actually anywhere near a birthing suite at the time.

Surrogate. Has to be. The Hollywood Narcette's little helper. Taking yet another page out of Smeg's book, eh?
Karla said…
)17 Jun
Meghan Markle Reflects On The "Profound Effects" of 2020 In A Powerful open letter written.


b)The week began with TMZ obtaining a copy of a ‘certificate of live birth’ for the child with a stolen nickname.

c)30 Jul
Harry had made a word salad video for the Diana Award, which was nothing short of a party political broadcast for the Harkle Cult. It appeared to have been poorly recorded in the US, and Harry, as usual was animated with his hands, while his rehearsed speech sounded dry and lacked passion, and he had to name-drop TW as per orders, even though she has nothing to do with the Diana Award. Oprah had to report this speech from Harry on her IG account.

d) Everyone knew Harry would return for the unveiling of the Diana statue, so it wasn’t difficult to plan some kind of PR event where he could nip in and show his face for some photos. WellChild apparently organized the event around Harry’s availability.This meeting had the journalists from Hello magazine and the other redhead: Ed Sheeran.

d) O1 Jul - VF
Kate Middleton Has Reportedly “Been Reaching Out” to Meghan Markle “A Lot More” Since Lilibet’s Birth
The Duchess of Cambridge is trying “to build up a relationship” with her sister-in-law overseas.

It appears that the Harkles' attempts to get attention were unsuccessful.
...

"Are we nearing something big? The media's attitude towards the Sussexes is changing". I would like to respond that public interest in the Harkles' is waning.

Enbrethiliel, I wish that were true too.
"Man, the swiping of "Lilibet" must have indeed been the final straw!
...
Neutral Observer Thank you so much for posting this extract from Lacey's book

WBBM..."I've been seeing Lacey as some sort of trick rider - one foot one each of two horses, shifting his weight from one to the other, as if unsure about committing himself".But I'm guessing there must be some Harkless' problem with Netflix and that Lacey is a gentleman in the employ of her boss. (Netflix).
Girl with a Hat said…
@Hikari

the list of celebrities who are rumoured to have used surrogates includes:

- Beyonce for her first pregnancy
- Angelina Jolie for all of her pregnancies
- Amal Clooney

These women were rumoured to have used a surrogate because of incidents and their appearance during their "pregnancy".

along with the celebrities who have declared they used surrogates like:
- Naomi Campbell
snarkyatherbest said…
Hikari - did amber get 6s' wife's baby - now that would be narc move but alas i dont think either of them have crossed paths.

The reason for the silence:

the duo is broke and no pr,

6s wife is busy photo shopping herself outside KP or at royal windsor dog show with lilibuck$ and the queen to just scare the bejabbbers out of 6 (granny shes here help me!)

shes working on the big lillybuck$ reveal for Prince George's birthday

Shes having work done and the new face, nose reveal will be later

Shes trying to close the deal get husband number 3 or 4 and has cleaned out bank accounts et al and left a pile of bills. "Dear 6, im outta here. Doll is in cabinet - left middle drawer or and the surrogate is bringing lilibuck$s over today. she's yours, good luck, and well you and the palace PR can explain it to everyone; already taped my exclusive with O and G"
Enbrethiliel said…
@SwampWoman
Maybe 6 hid her body before he left?

OMG, SwampWoman! Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Portcitylass said…
Looks like some wokesters have toppled statues of the Queen and Victoria due to finding some indigenous children's graves in Canada. Good thing the Diana statue is on private property. Sometimes I wonder if the elite behind all of this mayhem should be worried that the Monarchy may point the finger back at them.

Enbrethiliel said…
@SirStinxAlot
he prepped PR for "M suggested X" and " H did Y" during the process would have been stopped before it hit the internet. Now M is scrambling with a new PR push for Sunday.

In that case, I look forward to Sunday! It's wrong, I know, to be so excited about a narcissist's machinations; but I think everyone whom she might have hurt is now out of blast range. (Well, except for poor Haz.) And although she herself is very boring, the BRF as an antagonist makes the conflict interesting. If she has indeed been crushed, I'm quite curious about the charred remains!

OR THEY ARE DEAD BROKE AND CANNOT AFFORD SQUAT.

Oh, what an awkward time to be out of money. I hope someone asks Harry's wife if she's okay! But seriously, they must have expected a windfall after Baby $2's birth. And there are still enough people who buy her story and think Prince William is evil incarnate for her to have received some offers, had there not been (in my opinion) significant behind-the-scenes intervention. She really did it to herself this time. No one will touch her with a barge pole. (Again, except for poor Haz.)
Lt. Nyota Uhura said…
Blogger Mel said...
I hate like anything to say it, but she's almost ........ fey.
-------------

Yes. I've been thinking that ever since the first photos of her came out with that big happy smile. She's glowing. Whatever has/had weighed her down has been lifted.

She reminded me a lot of my mother during her last month.

So many people commented to me about my mom, that it seemed like the weight of the world had lifted off of her shoulders.

And I think that it had. That last month mom was really really happy and before that she had always been very stoic, much like the queen.

I wish that I had recognized for what it was. But I recognize it now, and the Queen has it.
_____

@Mel I'm afraid so. I pray I'm wrong, with everything I've got. NO ONE will be happier than me to be wrong, and that she stays with us for a good bunch of years ahead. Last night I dreamed that HM was secretly suffering from some kind of horrible illness, and she looked as haggard and gray and frail as she has for so long. In waking hours, I looked at photos of her looking decades younger and happier than she has in ages, and I thought the worst.

Ah, well. No sense in borrowing trouble -- the price of interest is too high.

P.S. Pls accept sympathies for the loss of your dear mom. It's never easy, but we have our memories.
lizzie said…
@KnitWit wrote:

"Since this is a private garden, a sculptor of a loving Diana with her two young sons would be more appropriate. It would capture Diana at her most happy while conveying the loss both sons feel. The sculpture could have worked from a picture or series of pictures to capture a coherent moment in time."

The Sunken Garden where the statue was placed isn't a private family garden (although Will and Kate do have one of those at KP.) Thr Sunken Garden is open to the public most days. Tickets aren't required unless the person also wants to tour the public parts of the palace. (The gardens were closed yesterday for the unveiling.)

If W&H wanted a private tribute statue, it would have been better for them to pay for that privately IMO vs raise public money for a statue.

As several people have said, this sort of statue must be what W&H wanted. Maybe not this exact statue-- it may be a compromise that neither of them really likes-- but a "warrior for humanity" sculpture. I'd have liked a different approach though.
Knit Wit - so glad to hear you're doing well away from your narc.

I hope one day we'll be free of Number 6's wife!
JerseyGirl said…
@snarkyatherbest said...

surrogate laws are way different in the US and there may be a real child out there with or without royal dna that complicates all that is going on.

----------------

Hello snarky - surrogacy in the United States is not about a woman carrying a child and that birth mother hands over the child for adoption.

A carrier (birthing person) woman is not the child's parent in any sense of the word, only the carrier of the child of another couple. It requires a embryo and is inplanted into the surrogate, usually those parent's are the biological parents of that child.

In some cases of course one or both parents aren't able to produce the egg or the sperm and then and only then are they not the biological parents but are the parents because they provided the embryo to be implanted.

There is no adoption involved in either of these scenario's. IMO the infant produced that they named Archie is H's biological son, however I don't know if MM (at her age) produced eggs to create the embryo that was implanted. But I can safely say that at least H is the biological parent of both his children if surrogacy is the method they used.

If H & MM are the biological parents to both children, that child has royal DNA and they are mommy and daddy.

If by chance a surrogate was used for both birth's and all things being equal they are the bio parents no adoption would take place. The carrier hands the baby over, legal documents are signed preventing carrier from making any claim to that child and life goes on.
Natalier said…
I think Heard has suggested it is a surrogate. It is a beautiful baby. Too bad about the mother.
tatty said…
Hikari, Heard said a surrogate carried the pregnancy. It’s not a secret.
tatty said…
I just popped in so I’m not sure if you all discussed that Mm has launched a legal complaint against Valentine Low for two stories: 1) she walked out of Fiji engagement over feud with UN women and 2) William didn’t speak to Harry after PP funeral out of fear infor would be leaked
DesignDoctor said…
@Hikari

Thank you for the link to the Yahoo article with the images that inspired the statue. With that context, I understand the design more and like the final product better.
Puds said…
Megs is apparently mourning the loss of her uncle. I wonder if she will go to the funeral, if Tom or his other children will go. Tricky one for her.

*****

Megs apparently is claiming she wrote some spiel to do with the statue.

*****

It's funny how the DM are saying a van like the one that accompanied Harry when he arrived in the UK has left Frog Cott to take Harry to the airport. This will be the first time anyone has seen Harry or his protection leaving or arriving from Frog Cott.
It's probably a diversion vehicle and Harry is out on the tiles tonight with Chelsey!!!. Most papers are saying Harry left after 20 mins (his and Megs usual time they give to anything Royal, or to do with duty ) at a drinks thing after the statue unveiling to go the airport and is already in LA. Who cares so long as he is gone.

The one good thing about the statue not being well received if that there is no point having another bash in September where Harry and Megs were probably due to attend. Elton John and his partner had given a big donation to the statue fund, but I doubt they will want to be associated with it. So hopefully there is no reason for the Markles to return. I am sure Lili will be too young to travel to the UK for Christmas. Hopefully the Royal doors to Harry and Megs have been firmly shut again.
Miggy said…
New video from River. πŸ˜„

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViTt5sXnr30
Maneki Neko said…
Now the Crown won't cover recent events:
The Royal drama won't be covering Prince Harry's wild years and Megxit because recent events haven't had enough time to 'gain a proper perspective', an executive producer has confirmed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9750039/Peter-Morgan-end-Crown-season-six-plot-close-present-day.html

Harry has apparently already flown back to LA. Couldn't wait to get back! As for the statue, it's been unveiled, I've seen the pix and I've now lost interest. I might go and see it for myself to see if it's better than in photos but I'm in no hurry. Tomme it has fallen a bit flat.
Maneki Neko said…
Crikey! I've just seen photos of the Queen laughing heartily. I understand why some Nutties said she looked happy etc. And she was
driving her Range Rover. I've never seen her laughing like that.

https://tinyurl.com/ypxxh73r
https://tinyurl.com/ubvd7knw
KnitWit said…
Re the queen, we only see the photos that they release. They selected serious photos while PP was ill and during the funeral.

There is a shift in the royal PR. Since the garden pictures a couple weeks ago, the queen looks more content. The senior royals are out and about, doing their thing, doing better than ever without the spares. Hope Catherine has lots of opportunities to wear the royal jewels. The future queen gets the bling while you know who eats her heart out.
Henrietta said…
SirStinxAlot said..

There have been a lot of rumors circulating the internet lately about their fighting. We saw pictures several months ago (last year?) of them fighting in public.


How did I miss this? Other than the rumor that he wandered onto a neighbor's estate and was approached by a rental agent, I haven't heard anything about their fighting. Links?
Manaki Neko - Thank you for those lovely photos of HM - I'll see if DH can fix one as my desktop wallpaper - I need something to help me smile these days.

At one time, probably between the wars, it was still considered vulgar/common for an U-class lady to laugh out loud in public, I understand - or so a friend w who was brought up that way from the mid-19420s assured me. Perhaps that belief partly accounted for HM's serious expression in the past.

The Victorians wouldn't have dreamt of smiling for their photos - it wasn't just a case of having heads clamped in place. The most they could was to try and look pleasant and avoid the RBF.
SirStinxAlot said…
@Henrietta...
The first one that popped up in google search.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-on-verge-of-total-breakdown-after-huge-fights-with-meghan-markle/200494/%3famp

Magatha Mistie said…

Singalong 🎀
Apologies to Elvis
The Wonder of You

The Hunger of You

When all around here cannot stand you
The thirst with you is very strong
You give us cramps and indigestion
We cannot wait till you’re long gone
And you’re always there with grasping claw
plotting who to sue
That’s the Hunger, The Hunger of You

And when you smirk you’re truly frightening
You got scarfed by future King
Your sitting on your personal fortune
All achieved through Harry’s ring..
Don’t you know the reason why
we loathe you scheming shrew
It’s the Hunger, The Hunger of You



JennS said…
Stopping by to say that the Queen is always seen happy and laughing at the Scottish Highland Games!😁

Here are a few articles with photos of HerMaj quite delightfully laughing-out-loud. PC is seen hysterically laughing as well and this seems to be an event they particularly enjoy together.

The first one is my favorite and I've seen it on memes and b'day cards.


Lang may yer lum reek!


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2415021/The-Tartan-Queen-Her-Majesty-joins-Charles-healthy-looking-Philip-traditional-Highland-Games-near-Balmoral-retreat.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309064/The-Queen-Prince-Charles-share-touching-moment-watch-Highland-Games.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223484/The-Queen-cabers-Majesty-makes-annual-visit-Braemar-games.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746203/Queen-high-spirits-watching-traditional-Scottish-eventing-Braemar-Highland-Games-alongside-Princes-Philip-Charles.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6121737/Queen-giggles-teal-dress-attends-Highland-Games-Prince-Charles-Princess-Anne.html
SirStinxAlot said…
The article suggests what we all expected, H still wants to be royal and with the RF. M craves Hollywood but all the perk$$ of royalty. He is a devoted husband, frustrated about not bringing his kids back to UK. She ain't having it. Now he just reaps what he has sewn with their PR shenanigans, misleading/fictional interviews, and atrocious public behavior. He can't make her happy. She will never be happy, there is never enough.
abbyh said…

Got the message about your concern. Thank you.

In rereading the original post, what is not obvious is that that this was a UK not USA situation. Please check out UK + that term + beliefs. Then it will cast a different spin on the post.

Hope this helps.



Miggy said…
New HARRY MARKLE.

The Diana Statue Unveiling (finally)

https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/07/02/the-diana-statue-unveiling-finally/
Miggy said…
@Magatha,

The Hunger of You

Truly one of your best! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜…πŸ˜‚
Miggy said…
How the Prince of Piffle went from bloke to woke: He used to live for beer and naked billiards... now Harry's become a master of weird wokespeak. But never fear - JAN MOIR is here to translate.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9751151/How-Prince-Piffle-went-bloke-woke-JAN-MOIR-translate.html
SirStinxAlot said…

Blogger tatty said...
I just popped in so I’m not sure if you all discussed that Mm has launched a legal complaint against Valentine Low for two stories: 1) she walked out of Fiji engagement over feud with UN women and 2) William didn’t speak to Harry after PP funeral out of fear infor would be leaked

July 2, 2021 at 9:19 PM

I get why M might file a complaint about #1 since it involves her. But #2 is H issue. She wouldn't have a reason since she didn't attend the funeral and wasn't directly involved. When you say "legal complaint " is that the same as a lawsuit? If so the lawsuit would be a joint action of both H$M.
DesignDoctor said…
@Magatha
The Wonder of YOU!!!!
Perfect as always!
tatty said…
Sir stinx, as I understand it, the complaint is just that— a sort of take it back warning shot. It can turn into a lawsuit though. I Have not seen any documents, but there are now notes on both articles that they are the subject of a complaint by her.
DesignDoctor said…
Whoever posted the link to the Skippy pages thank you! That was some very interesting reading with a different spin on some events. For example, 6’s reluctance before the wedding—which I have always personally felt was visible on his wedding day.

The new River video is great! He does a wonderful impression of Diana and gets her just right! Very entertaining.
xxxxx said…
@DesignDoctor

From Skippy--- Here are all Skippy has from informant London Scoop. From 2018--- H/M analysis and material that has panned out. Start at the bottom of this page>>>

https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/search/%22LONDON%20SCOOP%22

London Scoop= The 2018 Inside poop
SwampWoman said…
@Design Doctor:The new River video is great! He does a wonderful impression of Diana and gets her just right! Very entertaining.

Is that the one where he has the copper eyeshadow? I didn't think that was a good look for him.
Emeraldeyes said…
I have a strong feeling there is going to be more missiles coming from # 6 and his Mrs. Their egos and resentment wont allow them to be quiet and lead a more authentic life .... whatever that means
Karla said…
"Anything Meghan and Harry don't agree with immediately they're sending furious lawyers letters"

Robert Lacey on THOSE Meghan bullying rumours!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1411082256932765696
DesignDoctor said…
@SwampWoman.
I think so—it is the YouTube vid he just posted. I am on my phone and away from my computer.
I agree I have seen other looks— he has sported with bigger crowns and tiaras that I like better. Anyway, in the vid he does an impression of Diana complete with blonde wig. I thought he was entertaining.
O/T? Or not?

Does it relate to what London Scoop said?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/ghislaine-maxwells-ties-to-clintons-could-be-revealed-with-release-of-financial-documents/BBMYA2D7DHMGXMEA2G5IB4QYPI/
Magatha Mistie said…

@Swampie

Aveigh Medea πŸ˜‰

@Miggy@DesignDoctor
Cheers, saluting the ‘King’
Magatha Mistie said…

I’m disappointed with the statue,
find it lacking.
Lacking in the warmth, spirit,
humour that was Diana.
Grim determination comes to mind.
Or, Gladys Aylward (Ingrid Bergman)
“Inn of the Sixth Happiness” film.

@Magatha -

Ingrid Bergman, yes. Gladys Aylward? No.

I was brought up with plucky female missionaries as sources of inspiration - when I had my hair cut for the first time, aged 13, I stared at my dead-straight, dark brown, bob in the mirror and thought `Oh no, I look just like Gladys Aylward'.

The best one I've heard so far is that Diana looks like Sean Bean!
Magatha Mistie said…

Hehehe WildBoar
I was alluding to Swampies reference
to inveighing!
Sean Bean, nah, brilliant in ‘Broken’
rather apt!
Looks more like Roger Moore to me?
Your basin bob, ah, I feel for you.
Magatha Mistie said…

The Queen looks in fine fettle
at the Royal Windsor Horse Show.

God Save the Queen.
SirStinxAlot said…

Blogger Karla said...
"Anything Meghan and Harry don't agree with immediately they're sending furious lawyers letters"

Robert Lacey on THOSE Meghan bullying rumours!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1411082256932765696

They are openly trying BULLY the free media into slavery. The only person who will win is the lawyers.
SwampWoman said…
DesignDoctor said...
@SwampWoman.
I think so—it is the YouTube vid he just posted. I am on my phone and away from my computer.
I agree I have seen other looks— he has sported with bigger crowns and tiaras that I like better. Anyway, in the vid he does an impression of Diana complete with blonde wig. I thought he was entertaining.


He's a *much* better actress than 6w!
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SirStinxAlot said…
@Swampwoman...they could easily cast River as Diana in the next Diana film. He should audition. It would give the production company ultimate woke credibility by casting a capable and talented male as Diana. Sort of like Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn. Heads would explode. But the fireworks would be great!!!
Sie Stinxalot -
Yes, River would be very convincing but how soon will be be before we're confronted with a black Diana? Heaven forfend! but I can see it happening.
LavenderLady said…
@Sir Stinx said,
they could easily cast River as Diana in the next Diana film

___

6's wet dream. A dood that looks like his mom.
Henrietta said…

SirStinxAlot
said...
@Henrietta...
The first one that popped up in google search.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-on-verge-of-total-breakdown-after-huge-fights-with-meghan-markle/200494/%3famp


SirStinksALot,

I personally don't really trust things that the GossipCop shoots down. Wht say you?

The next hit I got, Googling Harry, Meghan, and fight, was this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/micky.com.au/meghan-markle-pregnant-and-in-tears-during-epic-fight-with-harry-rumor/

But this one links back to an American tabloid called The Globe, which isn't terribly credible.



Henrietta said…
SirStinxAlot
I get why M might file a complaint about #1 since it involves her. But #2 is H issue. She wouldn't have a reason since she didn't attend the funeral and wasn't directly involved.


And (#2) could only be contested by Prince William himself. Looks like MM is testing the boundaries of the Queen's new willingness to fight back.
DesignDoctor said…
@SirStinx
River would certainly do a better job than the actress who played Diana in The Crown. Not convincing!
DesignDoctor said…
@SwampWoman

6w is a terrible actress. Almost anyone would have more talent than she does.
She could not even "act" the role of a royal!
Miggy said…
New Lady C video.

William: Harry UNFORGIVEN; his RAGE 2 disabled girl; Meghan's CROC tears 4 Uncle Mike; SICK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfqfFpKJJno
Karla said…
Sir Stink...Yes! I agree With you. Keep speaking Lacey. (Although I still don't understand his reasons)

...
LL...these comments from the DM.
" I think when the statue was revealed. Harry said: Wow! ... Croc-o-dile!! "
...
"l Loved that PW threw the rope at PH and left him to fold the green tarp .... I believe PW said:
Thank you! Bringing MM's dress was a great idea.
Almost a ‘scarf’ moment!

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylieer/status/1411186341694607361/photo/1
...
Miggy Thank you. I'm going to see Lady C's video. Her Petition has almost 75,000 signatures.
Maneki Neko said…
Quite a few amusing tweets from Duchess Mourning (used to be Moaning) Markle, scroll down to read about the statue, Lilibet etc. These should relieve the boredom generated by the 6s.


https://mobile.twitter.com/SparkleMeghan?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Popular posts from this blog

Are we nearing something big? The media's attitude towards the Sussexes is changing

 I've often asked myself why I first got interested in Sussex watching.  I think it was because it was so obvious to me that Meghan was a fraud and a fake, and I couldn't figure out why it wasn't obvious to everybody .  In particular, why did both the celebrity media and the legitimate press so loudly adore Meghan? Why did they applaud her shabby wedding with its ill-fitting gown and tumbledown cake? Why didn't they notice her changing bump sizes in their own photos? Over time, the celebrity media's reason for cooperation became understandable - they were being either pressured or paid by Sunshine Sachs, although it's still not clear to me who is funding Sunshine Sachs or why. And the legit press wanted to avoid being too harsh on the "first Black princess." Since the release of the "Lilibet Diana" name, however, things seem to be changing. Left-wing outlet loses patience " Meghan and Harry's baby name Lilibet, Queen Elizabeth's

Open Post: Meg's Christmas Card

Hello from vacation, where I've just noticed the Sussexes truly dreadful Christmas card as profiled in the New York Post. My immediate guess was that Meg used Photoshop's dry brush filter to hide any traces of photo manipulation and, perhaps, the insertion of a substitute Archie. What a mess. What was she thinking?  And how does it help the Sussexes build their brand?  They're supposed to be multi-million-dollar Netflix producers and Spotify podcasters, yet they're releasing something that looks like the very best product of a night school art class at a provincial community college. All the bases "The original photo of the family was taken at their home earlier this month by the Duchess's mother," according to a statement by Archewell. Not that Doria has ever been known as being a keen photographer before, particularly when it comes to what was clearly a posed shot. (All three family members plus two dogs in the same frame, all smiling? This must of been

"Please don't look me in the eye": Meghan's new official portrait

 It's a staple of gossip columns: celebrity divas (and divos, to include the men) who insist that the peons around them refrain from making eye contact. J-Lo, Neil Diamond, Nicole Kidman, Barbra Streisand and Bob Dylan are among the stars who insist on no eye contact, according to a long-running thread at DataLounge , and Ellen DeGeneres was also recently accused of refusing to make eye contact with her long-suffering staff. Which brings us to the latest official photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.  Photographed looking away from the viewer The new photo is being compared to the Sussex engagement photo, perhaps because Meghan's head is slightly south of Harry's in both photos. I find it more similar to one of the black and white wedding photos the couple chose to share.  In both the new photo and the wedding photo, Meghan is looking somewhere else, away from the viewer.  The wedding photo has her looking out of the frame (did she find somebody better? Maybe husband