Because she was, she cared for young children, those dying of AIDS, those being maimed by landmines, the people that the government of united states didn't and still doesn't care about.
I think Princess felt compassion, and empathy, for the those, suffering (particularly children) and was able to communicate that, she was genuine, and that provided great comfort to people, because they knew they were not completely forgotten. The fact the princess would , visit children maimed by land mines ,and listen to their stories, and comfort them, would make a big difference. Often people who suffer need to know, that some one cares, its a big morale booster.
she cared for her sons a lot.she broke a lot of royal protocols so that they could lead a very normal life.she did not employ a nanny to look after them(as the other royals do)she took care of them.she even cared for her husband though he didn't.
She was different from the other royals,she would hug the people she met unlike the other royals who just shook hands.she would visit the AIDS patients and hug them and thus disposed the myth that AIDS spread by touch.She did a lot for the poor people and walked through a half cleared minefield just to show how dangerous it was and what happened to the people who were badly injured because of it.
i easily think of you will desire to be greater involved by why it upsets you plenty. Mankind does this manner of element each and every of the time....All people are equivalent...King, Queen, Pope, President, Sheik, Shah, Actors, highway urchin, mom Theresa. The media prints and shows what earns them the main funds, academic shows deserve the attention of the universal public, yet there is not any income it....i do no longer think of she will ever be "buried" for good.
She was a loving, caring parent who made certain her sons grew up knowing how ordinary people live. She was a patron for some causes that ordinarily, royals wouldn't get their hands dirty doing. She was not afraid to touch people with AIDS or lepers. In other words, she sort of turned royalty on its ear by being known as "The People's Princess".
Diana was, for me, a sham when it came to being a 'caring person'. Yes she cared for her children, no mistake but as for her charitable work - the time she said 'it's something to do'....... finished it, for me. Even her sons who heard that at the time, looked somewhat shocked.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Because she was, she cared for young children, those dying of AIDS, those being maimed by landmines, the people that the government of united states didn't and still doesn't care about.
I think Princess felt compassion, and empathy, for the those, suffering (particularly children) and was able to communicate that, she was genuine, and that provided great comfort to people, because they knew they were not completely forgotten. The fact the princess would , visit children maimed by land mines ,and listen to their stories, and comfort them, would make a big difference. Often people who suffer need to know, that some one cares, its a big morale booster.
She was very caring in front of cameras in Africa and in made sure to be there when an AIDS patient she chatted with breifly died.
Tossing herself down the stairs with the aire to the throne in her womb showed she wasn't a caring woman. She was selfish.
she cared for her sons a lot.she broke a lot of royal protocols so that they could lead a very normal life.she did not employ a nanny to look after them(as the other royals do)she took care of them.she even cared for her husband though he didn't.
She was different from the other royals,she would hug the people she met unlike the other royals who just shook hands.she would visit the AIDS patients and hug them and thus disposed the myth that AIDS spread by touch.She did a lot for the poor people and walked through a half cleared minefield just to show how dangerous it was and what happened to the people who were badly injured because of it.
i easily think of you will desire to be greater involved by why it upsets you plenty. Mankind does this manner of element each and every of the time....All people are equivalent...King, Queen, Pope, President, Sheik, Shah, Actors, highway urchin, mom Theresa. The media prints and shows what earns them the main funds, academic shows deserve the attention of the universal public, yet there is not any income it....i do no longer think of she will ever be "buried" for good.
She was a loving, caring parent who made certain her sons grew up knowing how ordinary people live. She was a patron for some causes that ordinarily, royals wouldn't get their hands dirty doing. She was not afraid to touch people with AIDS or lepers. In other words, she sort of turned royalty on its ear by being known as "The People's Princess".
Diana was, for me, a sham when it came to being a 'caring person'. Yes she cared for her children, no mistake but as for her charitable work - the time she said 'it's something to do'....... finished it, for me. Even her sons who heard that at the time, looked somewhat shocked.
The "Peoples Princess" is the best way to describe her. A heart of pure love and joy towards others.
I believe you should read about her charity work and decide by yourself.
seh caerd buot hrsllf evryting was 2 mek hre luk goood