Hi Ali,
I never cared much for “royalty” myself but Diana never acted like nor seemed to be a part of that snooty crowd. She was down to earth and was, very much, a people person.
Now, as far as having a “lifestyle on the fast side”, that aspect didn’t appear until after bonny Prince Charlie started fooling around with Camilla. Diana was a 16 year old virgin when they met and Charles was a known womanizer who saw something in her with which his Mom might think suitable to give birth to the next generation of royals. Charles’ attitude was an in-your-face philanderer and the only reason that wasn’t blown up in the press was because the press was reticent about pissing off the queen. However, the press and paparazzi had no qualms about inserting themselves in the day-to-day goings on of Diana. They hounded her constantly and, yes, she enjoyed a bit of the notoriety because it helped her in forwarding her causes such as poverty, removal of unexploded land-mines in old war zones, etc. Her “wild” attitude surfaced after she knew there was no solution to her marital problems. In this case, what was good for the gander was also good for the goose if for no other reason out of spite. I still think the queen had something to do with the wreck in Paris because Diana had become an embarrassment to the “crown”. Anyway, I still think the world lost a beautiful person both inside and outside but she had done her duty by giving birth to an heir and a spare and was no longer needed in that respect.
Now, for the poem itself, it is already considered to be a “Stretched Sonnet” which is one of about 50 varieties of Sonnets and in that respect is permissible. As I stated before, this was written about 20 years ago and if I cared to edit it into a standard tetrameter sonnet (another variety), your suggestion would be taken into consideration. Thanks for stopping by for a read and glad you enjoyed most of what I wanted to put forth.
Larry
·······  ·······
|