I don't think Diana's death should have come top either, but to be honest, i'm just relieved it wasn't the bloomin' 1966 world cup!
(although obviously that was also english not british, so that's another good reason for it not to win)

---

by Smudge
I don't think Diana's death should have come top either, but to be honest, i'm just relieved it wasn't the bloomin' 1966 world cup!
(although obviously that was also english not british, so that's another good reason for it not to win)

---

Pah, football really isn't important to me in the slightest, but I'd have been much happier if that had come first. At least it's something that doesn't often happen (like someone dying...) and made a lot of people happy (they still haven't stopped going on about it!). Still, it would be just as silly, just wouldn't make me as angry.

---

by Eve
Things hold a different significance for different people anyway so we cant really say it shouldnt be number one because it could have been deeply significant for a lot of people. IMO there are more significant things but thats my opinion.

---

Depends on what you mean by significant. If you mean the emotional impact on the individual, then I feel sorry for anyone who voted for her. On a purely emotional level I can think of events that shook my world much more than the death of a wealthy and privileged stranger, I would hope everyone else has too.

However, if by significant we are talking about socio-economic impact, than by no means does her death have any significance. That's not a subjective opinion; it's clearly demonstrable.

So to say that anyone who voted for her unfortunate death as being THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN 100 YEARS OF BRITISH HISTORY is a complete numpty is quite valid. Whether you look at it on individualist emotional level or a socio-economic one, it's all tosh.

---

by Demona
Or one could argue that even turning points are the culmination of events determined by the tensions within a culture or between the cultures of the time and therefore only a reflection of cultural changes themselves.

Which would be silly, but anyway.

---

What, suggest that historical events are actually the culmination of socio-economic forces, rather than the catalyst for cultural change? That almost sounds marxist!

---

by Jayjay
So to say that anyone who voted for her unfortunate death as being THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN 100 YEARS OF BRITISH HISTORY is a complete numpty is quite valid

---

I think that is a rather sweeping statement. Just because you don't like her, or thought it wasn't significant, is no reason to say anyone who did simply doesn't know any better. You shouldn't say that because it is a statement that not everyone shares, you shouldn't say it because it hasn't been long enough to properly judge the true after-effects of her death and if for no other reason, you shouldn't say that because it makes you sound arrogant and pretentious.

I think her death IS significant, probably not number one, but still important. She died in a car crash. The first of many celebrities to go that way. It brought the people together in morning (maybe not a good thing, but none-the-less it did). All over the world she was morned by some, especialy in America. Lets not forget, her sons are destined to be our future Kings, so it effected them, which may, in many years effect us, though we can't see it now.

I think it's wrong of some of you to call her "that woman" as if it is some witty, clever phrase, which no-one else though of. Above all else it's disrespectful. There is a great saying in Latin, "speak only good of the dead". In my opinion that doesn't mean everyone who's dead is perfect, it means don't slag off the dead, cos it only makes you look bad.

Sorry for the rant, but I felt it need to be said.

---

by KieranFrost
I think that is a rather sweeping statement. Just because you don't like her, or thought it wasn't significant, is no reason to say anyone who did simply doesn't know any better.

---

The only argument I've seen for its significance is that it affected people on an emotional level - this is not a sound basis for historical judgment. Jayjay has made the statement that her death has no significance in terms of its socio-economic impact - if anyone would like to contest that, then they are welcome to, but if, as I suspect, it hasn't even occurred to them to think about it in those terms, then no, they really don't know any better.

---

You shouldn't say that because it is a statement that not everyone shares, you shouldn't say it because it hasn't been long enough to properly judge the true after-effects of her death

---

I'd say the after-effects of her death have been and gone, but even so, if we don't know what its significance was, isn't it rather foolish to proclaim it sas the most significant event of the century?

---

and if for no other reason, you shouldn't say that because it makes you sound arrogant and pretentious.

---

Arrogant? Undoubtedly. Pretentious? Huh?

---

I think her death IS significant, probably not number one, but still important. She died in a car crash. The first of many celebrities to go that way.

---

Say what? Lots of celebrities have died in car crashes.

---

It brought the people together in morning (maybe not a good thing, but none-the-less it did). All over the world she was morned by some, especialy in America.

---

A place where in life she held even less importance than she did here, and where since September 11th last year, they've probably forgotten all about it. Your point?

---

Lets not forget, her sons are destined to be our future Kings, so it effected them, which may, in many years effect us, though we can't see it now.

---

They're not destined to be anything. They are in line to inherit the throne. You're right that this may have an effect, but then the monarchys importance is diminishing all the time.

---

I think it's wrong of some of you to call her "that woman" as if it is some witty, clever phrase, which no-one else though of. Above all else it's disrespectful.

---

No, it's giving the same respect as for almost anyone else we don't know we hear has died. Several hundred people are killed in car accidents every year in this country - do you insist on knowing all their names, and mourning their passing?

---

by KieranFrost
(quotes)

I think it's wrong of some of you to call her "that woman" as if it is some witty, clever phrase, which no-one else though of. Above all else it's disrespectful. There is a great saying in Latin, "speak only good of the dead". In my opinion that doesn't mean everyone who's dead is perfect, it means don't slag off the dead, cos it only makes you look bad.

---

I don't use it as a witty clever phrase, I use it because I mean to be disrespectful. I had absolutely no respect for her in life, along with the majority of the rest of the monarchy, and somehow I don't feel like bringing myself to use her name. On a personal note, I almost had to cancel my wedding (which was on the same day as her funeral) because the florists and caterers were apparently so overcome with grief that they couldn't possibly do anything approaching going about their normal lives (until they were threatened with legal action, when miraculously their tears dried). I don't deny that she was some powerful that she could paralyse a whole nation like that, but that doesn't make her, her life or her death significant, and certainly not in the context of history.

And as for "don't speak ill of the dead"... death does not automatically turn people into saints, and I think that to not speak ill of someone purely because they're dead is actually pretty hypocritical. "I shall decry from the rooftops, until you snuff it, at which point I'll stop".

What I find interesting in all this is everyone has an opinon about "Diana, The Princess of Wales, That Woman" etc etc, but who of you actually knew her?
The only opinon you have formed surely is the one the media gave you being that a good one or a bad one. Just makes me wonder how we can have an opinon thats so strong either way on someone we didn't know personaly? or can we?

And back to the original question Nope I wouldn't agree that her death was in my personal top 10 most signicant things in Britsh History

Fair point, but then that's how our opinions are formed... does that mean you can't have an opinion about something unless you were there participating? I don't think it particularly matters whether you personally knew someone or not - having said that, the people who DID know her seem pretty divided on whether she was a living saint or an evil manipulator.

Agreed Vix ,I would say however , the fact that even now 5 years on people can discuss her with such strong opinons maybe does make her a significant piece of history?

lmao or perhaps just a significant piece of something else?


But you're quite correct, and I resolve not to waste any more of my time on her!

LOL

Vix - you may not have liked Diana BUT that doesn't mean her death wasn't significant. Your personal opinion on whether someone was a good gal or not doesn't effect their significance. If people didn't like Whiston Churchill, is he instantly insignificant? Not bringing yourself to type five letters of someone's name isn't something to be proud of either.

The florist and caterer was bad luck, but you can't blame Diana for being buried on that day. Also, if you read my post properly, I made it clear she shouldn't be called a saint, but there is a difference from thinking someone's perfect and not insulting them with all the bad words in your head.

I didn't know Diana, I never really took any interest in her, ever. But she is dead, it was a moment which some how effect everyone, be it sorrow, glee, annoyance. I think five years isn't any where near as long enough to PROPERLY see the results of her death.

---

by Vix
I resolve not to waste any more of my time on her!

---

Ummm.... you started the post, in all fairness, you have no-one else to blame but yourself.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

Depends on what you mean by significant. If you mean the emotional impact on the individual, then I feel sorry for anyone who voted for her. On a purely emotional level I can think of events that shook my world much more than the death of a wealthy and privileged stranger, I would hope everyone else has too.

However, if by significant we are talking about socio-economic impact, than by no means does her death have any significance. That's not a subjective opinion; it's clearly demonstrable.

So to say that anyone who voted for her unfortunate death as being THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN 100 YEARS OF BRITISH HISTORY is a complete numpty is quite valid. Whether you look at it on individualist emotional level or a socio-economic one, it's all tosh.

---

If you make something a survey where you are asking the public you're going to get their opinions, you are never going to find out what is infact THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN 100 YEARS OF BRITISH HISTORY because you'll get a few half decent opinions and you'll also get people with no real opinion of their own who will just go 'Er....princess Dianas death!'

If you wanted to get a half decent answer you would have to investigate the socio-economic effects of each major event and see that way which is the most significant.

Im ill and drugged on Benylin so hopefully that made somekind of sense

(Edited by Eve 30/08/2002 18:33)

My, we do have some opinions, don't we? For what it's worth, some of the things on my list which have made Britain the place it is (mostly for the better) today are:

Extension of the vote to everybody over 18

Legalisation of homosexuality

Joining the Common Market (as was)

Independence for Ireland and later devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Election of the first Labour government

Election of Mrs Thatcher in 1979

Victory in the Second World War

I'm sure I could think of more when I was on the loo five minutes ago. And I'm relieved that I'm not the only one to question the media-driven frenzy over Holly and Jessica. Although I live in a small town and can understand something of how this kind of thing can impact on people, everything happened at a time when there was no other news and nothing to put it into proportion. A little bit like Diana's death, in fact.

---

by Eve
Im ill and drugged on Benylin

---

Oh!

Such pro-drug use, I'm shocked

---

by KieranFrost
Vix - you may not have liked Diana BUT that doesn't mean her death wasn't significant. Your personal opinion on whether someone was a good gal or not doesn't effect their significance. If people didn't like Whiston Churchill, is he instantly insignificant? Not bringing yourself to type five letters of someone's name isn't something to be proud of either.

The florist and caterer was bad luck, but you can't blame Diana for being buried on that day. Also, if you read my post properly, I made it clear she shouldn't be called a saint, but there is a difference from thinking someone's perfect and not insulting them with all the bad words in your head.

I didn't know Diana, I never really took any interest in her, ever. But she is dead, it was a moment which some how effect everyone, be it sorrow, glee, annoyance. I think five years isn't any where near as long enough to PROPERLY see the results of her death.

(quotes)

Ummm.... you started the post, in all fairness, you have no-one else to blame but yourself.

---

The post wasn't started specifically about her, it was a general post which has become focussed on one person. And no, my personal opinion doesn't affect someone's significance to someone else, but I am still entitled to hold that opinion, as you are yours. I think she was an insignificant blob. You think differently. Vive la difference !

Oh gruddocks, more time wasted on her

---

by KieranFrost
(quotes)

Oh!

Such pro-drug use, I'm shocked

---

LOL

---

by KieranFrost
I think that is a rather sweeping statement.

---

Hello Mr Kettle. Are you familiar with my friend Ms Pot? I believe you have something in common.

---

by KieranFrost
Just because you don't like her

---

When did I say that?

---

by KieranFrost
You shouldn't say that because it is a statement that not everyone shares

---

That argument could be aimed at any opinion and would mean no one said anything.

---

by KieranFrost
because it hasn't been long enough to properly judge the true after-effects of her death

---

Which is another good reason why anyone who answered that the death in question was the most important event in 100 years of British history is a numpty.

---

by KieranFrost
and if for no other reason, you shouldn't say that because it makes you sound arrogant and pretentious.

---

Don't care how it makes me sound - it's my opinion and how people may react to it doesn't make it wrong. Arrogant is a trait I wouldn't be surprised someone who didn't really know me to accuse me of, because I believe in being honest about your opinions and standing by your convictions. And I can't see where pretentious comes into it. What exactly am I pretending to be?

I offered an opinion. You disagree. Fair enough. But by your own admission, if there is a major impact to our society from the unfortunate death of a pampered rich girl then it is too early to see it. So maybe voting for events with a clear cut impact would make more sense? Unless you have an argument to present about why this death should even be considered for the top 100 then I fail to see your point.

Oh, and she's hardly the first celebrity to die in a car crash. And even if it was, that would be novelty, not a major socio-economic impact. And it may have brought some people together in morning, but it also alienated a lot of people by being told they don't exist (nation in morning? am I not part of this nation?). And as Dan said, no one's destined to be anything.

---

by KieranFrost
I think it's wrong of some of you to call her "that woman" as if it is some witty, clever phrase, which no-one else though of. Above all else it's disrespectful. There is a great saying in Latin, "speak only good of the dead". In my opinion that doesn't mean everyone who's dead is perfect, it means don't slag off the dead, cos it only makes you look bad.

---

Where to start? Not saying ill of the dead is just hypocrisy dressed up in self-righteous clothing. Allow me some reductio ad absurdium:

Don't say bad things about Adolf Hitler, he is dead you know!

Besides, I have at no point said anything bad about her. Well, OK, I have used phrases like spoiled little rich girl, but it is your assumption that I do not like spoiled little rich girls.

For the record I don't hate the late Diana Hapsburg, I merely loathe the level of luxury she enjoyed without any meritocratic justification. I never met her and know of no confirmed actions or opinions that should cause me to hate her. I am indifferent. My quarrel is with monarchism and the cult of personality that has built around her. Look at your own posts, Kieran - Diana this, Diana that - who are you talking about? The ancient Roman goddess? Or Diana Thompson that lives on my road? Yet the cult of personality, the canonisation, of this woman is so great that my indifference is taken as a scathing attack, while it appears to her fans that there has only ever been one person called Diana.

She was rich, had a comfortable life, with the usual kicks in the groin that human interaction guarantees us all. She died horribly and tragically. But that was all. It was less significant to our culture or to our economy, than the death of John F Kennedy. Probably even than John Lennon or Mark Bolan. Wipe away the emotions and prejudices and see the event for what it was.

Interestingly enough this weekend was the 5th anniversary of Diana's death. Luckily I was at Alton Towers so didn't catch much of the media but I'm wondering...If that was the most important event in the last 100 years of British history what exactly was done to commemorate it at the weekend??

I know that a lot of people laid flowers at the gates of the palaces but was there a service of rememberance??, did the papers have 10 page pullouts talking about her life and death and the affect it's had on the country??, were there special programs on the tv documenting the event??

Somehow I have the feeling that there wasn't....funny that every year we have a day where we remember the 2nd World War which supposedley wasn't as important

Have to say I did see pictures of people laying flowers at the gates of one of the palace while they were crying....wonder how many of them have actual realatives that have died in the past 5 years and how many take flowers to their graves..For the most part I think a lot of the people that laid flowers were doing so hoping to get some of her fading celebrity rubbed onto them thanks to a photo in a paper or a picture on the news.

---

by Jayjay
Hello Mr Kettle. Are you familiar with my friend Ms Pot? I believe you have something in common.

---

We're both made out of porcelion?

---

by Jayjay
Unless you have an argument to present about why this death should even be considered for the top 100 then I fail to see your point.

---

Her death has effected her sons, it's effect they're lives, growing up without a mother around. In all likelyhood one of them will be king one day, it COULD effect how they govern, how they behave, act... etc. Her death also spawned a whole load of crappy products and items, possibly the first time since John Lennon's death that this has happened. One could even take the stand point, had she lived she could have continued to do errecable (spelling, sorry) damage to the monarchy, which, though extreme, might have added momento to a republician party to abolish the monarchy. If the UK was suddenly denied it's king or queen, would you could that as significant event?

---

by Jayjay
Oh, and she's hardly the first celebrity to die in a car crash.

---

Really? Wow, all these helpful informative things you say, where would we be without them? Kinda pointless point, wouldn't you agree with.

---

by Jayjay
Look at your own posts, Kieran

---

You know, I am. I'm paying perticular attention to the "I never cared for Diana" section. I think it clearly spells out my personal opinion of Diana. Just to re-iterate, I don't think Diana was great, not anywhere near. She used her publicity to help charities, but probably mostly to make herself look good doing it. Bad reason, but it did create good results. She was rich, so's a lot of people in this world and I won't hold that against them. Of course the monachy is pampered, that doesn't make someone eveil. Also, comparing Diana to Hitler, in fact comparing nearly anyone to Hitler is a tad unreasonable. Also notice how someone can form a unflattering opinion of someone, without being un-necessarily rude.

Thanks for listening