Diana's Legacy: What is left or what will be left?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Curryong said:
Chubb,


Th
If it was/is all so easy, according to some, why didn't the Queen or Duke tackle this cause? I've read that Charles said to someone a few years ago that when speaking to small children he gets down to their level, and told the person. "It was something Diana taught me you know." Only little things, but they make a difference.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think that the RF have become more informal and its not jsut the younger generation who would have become less formal anyway, just through the changes that a generation and 20 years makes..
After Di's death the Queen DID seem to be coming across more easy in her manner, trying to achieve soemthing of the more casual and friendly way that Diana had.. And I dont think it suited her. She had her own way, it might be a bit stiff but it suited HER.
But I think that in the wake of Di's death, they all tried to be more friendly and less stiff and "royal". With Charles I think he DID try and learn from Di - he came across as more warm and relaxed wth his boys, adn I think that his manner in public engagement has been less "up there" and rigid.
 
Denville said:
Thanks Curryone, yes it is quite true that Diana's "vindictive attacks" on the RF took place before her divorce. Even had she wished to, I suspect that the terms of the divorce would have stopped her from talking publicly about her marriage, afterwards. I think that by the end of hte marriage, She wasn't as bitter and angry, I think she was worn out and while she still was unhappy and resentful, I think in thte last year of her life, she was relatively quiet, not quite sure what to do with her new life
ANd I think it is rather unkind to say that the RF are better without her, given that she is dead. Perhaps, had she lived, and C married Cam and things settled down, yes it coudld be said that in spite of hte great good that she did, overall things were calmer and the RF was ticking over well enough, and reasonably busy and popular, now that she had gone from them. But given that she has died, Im sure that Will and Harry dont feel that it is better that she's now out of the RF..

With regard to your other post, Curryong, I think that it is wrong indeed to deprecate the work that Diana did. A lot even MOST of royal work is "easy looking" by the standards of those of us who have "normal jobs". Its turning up, making a speech that's been written by someone else, being photographed, shaking hands etc. So why is only Di's work being denigrated as "easy" and "Just having her photograph taken"?
Click to expand...

He couldn't marry Camilla if Diana was still alive. It would have been awkward. Two Princess of Wales, and the church might have had a problem, not to mention the queen. The divorce was one thing. Anne remarried, but there was, really no titles, etc. involved. And she was married in Scotland. Charles could not have married Camilla in a Presbyterian Church in Scotland. There work can be tiresome, but they don't do most of the work. Dina's job, was easy and all their jobs don't involve much of their doing anything until the end. They don't pack for a trip, unpack, write anything or lug any5thing. And unlike presidents, their is no responsibility. Prime Ministers too.
 
Royals don't do a nine to five job that requires huge physical and mental effort. That is quite true. However, what they do may look easy but--they have to turn up to perform public engagements, come wind, come rain, whether they are feeling on top of their game or not, for year after year until they die or become too old to operate.

As AdmirerUS said, Charles has been unveiling plaques all his adult life, even at times in his naval years. The Queen has been unveiling them on a regular basis for about 70 years. Imagine the tedium of it! And no retirement!

Yes, royalty lead enormously privileged lives, but for many weeks of the year they have to publicly show an interest in things they are probably not in the least interested in, (like fish packaging factories or new bridges) speak endlessly to all sorts of people they don't particularly want to speak to, and all the time be smiling and gracious making smalltalk, even when their feet hurt or they have a headache.

The fact that this happens ALL their adult lives always makes me unenvious of their Royal lot. They've also got to attract people to the causes and charities they represent, and crowds to observe their public engagements. It was this that Diana in particular was spectacularly good at, so good that she made it look easy. And it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Just a couple of points before I bow out of this conversation.

I think the adulation for the late Diana, Princess of Wales has diminished over the years, but it can still come out in force. Just look at the British Monarchy on Facebook. A single mention of the Duchess of Cornwall, and it's on for young and old; that bitch, trollop, slut, Rottweiler, cow, horse, homewrecker etc. etc. A single mention of the Duke of Cambridge or Prince Harry and it's all sickly sweet sentiment about their proud mother, an angel in heaven, a star shining bright, a teardrop on the cheek of time (that one's a doozy) etc. etc.

Don't speak ill of the dead. Why not? Death is part of life, it's going to happen to all of us one of these days. In the scheme of things, the Royal Family is better off without the late Diana, Princess of Wales. The media would never have let her fade away like Fergie almost has. It would have been endless years of endless scandals, either real or imagined.

The informality of the Royal Family. Again, where is the evidence that the Queen has been more informal and relaxed since the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales? Photos, videos or first hand accounts please. But no, all we get are generalisations.

Vindictive before or after the divorce. Quite frankly I don't care which way it went, the end result was still an appalling display of revenge.

I never called the late Diana, Princess of Wales a lightweight (so typical of this argument to misquote others). As I said above, she was a consummate professional at the manipulation of her own image. That takes brains and commitment. My denigration of the charitable works of the late Diana, Princess of Wales is based upon my observations that her motives were suspiciously self-serving. She was always in the photos, front and centre. She wanted to be Queen of Hearts, a desire that immediately sets of alarm bells as far as I'm concerned. I know an incredibly narcissistic priest. People love him, because he seems so empathetic. But his empathy is as shallow as a puddle; it is simply a behaviour that brings him the love and admiration of his audience. Like the late Diana, Princess of Wales, he polarises public opinion. Parishioners either love him or hate him.

I knew I shouldn't have peeped in at this thread. Normally I ignore anything about the late Diana, Princess of Wales, the children of the Princess of Hanover, and Downton Abbey (nothing more than EastEnders in period costume). Serves me right I suppose.
 
Last edited:
To say it was good she died is disgusting she left two sons as well as other family etc who still miss her. Hope you don't post on this thread again. The world doesn't need hate like yours


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
royal rob said:
To say it was good she died is disgusting
Click to expand...

When did I say it was "good" that the late Diana, Princess of Wales is dead? I choose my words carefully, and if that is what I meant to say, that is what I would have said. So cut out the histrionics and try approaching the subject with a bit of objectivity.

In 1997 the late Diana, Princess of Wales was still a liability to the stability of the monarchy, as shown by the ongoing publicity stunts and leaks to the media e.g. the photos on the boat with Mr Al-Fayed. It is simply a fact that the Royal Family is better off without scandal and instability. That scandal and instability was brought about by the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Therefore the Royal Family is better off without the late Diana, Princess of Wales. It's the logical conclusion. How that "better off without" occurred is not the point. It could have been by entering a cloistered convent, abduction by aliens, a loving reconciliation, the media and general public losing interest, or, as it was in 1997, death. There can be positive outcomes from death, and like it or not, the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales also ended the upheavals of the 1990s.

Whether or not her death was worth that positive consequence is another issue all together, one I feel no need to explore at this point.
 
Last edited:
Diana was a private citizen in 1997, albeit the ex wife of the Prince of Wales. She was also the much-loved mother of two boys who adored her and she them. That, IMO, cannot be separated from her role as Princess of Wales.

I wonder whether Diana's sons would agree with you that her death ensured everyone in the BRF was better off without her (and that includes them, remember) because it finished 'the upheavals of the 1990's'.

Your opinion of the late Princess of Wales is your own, and just that, an opinion, just like the rest of us who post. Your views on Diana have already been stated and we now know where you stand.

It's not an opinion I agree with, and, considering that only a few posts ago you were in full flight about 'vindictive campaigns' after Diana's divorce settlement, I'm sorry, but I don't consider you particularly well-informed on the subject.
 
Last edited:
It's only become fashionable to be cynical about Diana and her untimely death over the past two decades as in that time she's become a symbol of sentimentality in public life that makes both conservatives and some leftists uncomftable. Also one of the most overlooked factors is the fact that the whole Diana phenomenon was an overwhelmingly female and feminine (not feminist per Se) one - again most of the critics both now and in her own lifetime were men. Unlike a lot of other Royal women who got praise from (mostly male) commentators for suffering in silence and accepting their lot, in the eyes of many women Diana fought back against Charles poor treatment of her. Unlike a lot of his male contemparies he was held accountable for his actions and was forced to face public scrutiny. This is the real reason why the conspiracy rumours are still around - for many Diana was cheated out a second chance and Charles got off Scot free and the bad guys won.

Or at least that's what it looked like at the time - it was much more complex than that and Diana bears a lot of responsibility for her own downfall.

The circumstances of what happens with her and Charles were extraordinairy but the emotions weren't. This is why public reaction was so strong and why the thought of Charles and Camilla as king and queen still makes some people uneasy. It's because we either know someone who has had something like this happen to them or it has happened to ourselves, and those who caused the pain got away with their actions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
COUNTESS said:
He couldn't marry Camilla if Diana was still alive. It would have been awkward. Two Princess of Wales, and the church might have had a problem, not to mention the queen. The divorce was one thing. Anne remarried, but there was, really no titles, etc. involved. And she was married in Scotland. Charles could not have married Camilla in a Presbyterian Church in Scotland. There work can be tiresome, but they don't do most of the work. Dina's job, was easy and all their jobs don't involve much of their doing anything until the end. They don't pack for a trip, unpack, write anything or lug any5thing. And unlike presidents, their is no responsibility. Prime Ministers too.
Click to expand...
There would not have been a problem. The church was agreeing with the remarriage, as was proved when they blessed C's marriage to Cam. the queen would not have sanctioned the marriage if the church and the establishment and the public in general had not been all right and agreeable to it. She did not want her son's succession to be made difficult. It would have been the first time that there were 2 "princesses of Wales" but theres a first time for everything and it could have been dealt with. There is only ONE princess of Wales, anyway. Cam would be HRH the Princess of W and Diana would have ben Diana POW.
As for your point abt their work, you may feel that their work isn't that hard, but the point that I was making, is that if Diana's work was not considered difficult, if it was all "her just being photographed with a pretty smile" then none of the royals should be praised as they are doing much the same thing. Whereas some posters are putting down Di's work, with an indication that Charles or Anne do more...

WreathOfLaurels said:
It's only become fashionable to be cynical about Diana and her untimely death over the past two decades as in that time she's become a symbol of sentimentality in public life that makes both conservatives and some leftists uncomftable.
Or at least that's what it looked like at the time - it was much more complex than that and Diana bears a lot of responsibility for her own downfall.

The circumstances of what happens with her and Charles were extraordinairy but the emotions weren't. This is why public reaction was so strong and why the thought of Charles and Camilla as king and queen still makes some people uneasy. It's because we either know someone who has had something like this happen to them or it has happened to ourselves, and those who caused the pain got away with their actions.
Click to expand...

That's not really the case. There are and were in her lifetime plenty of female commentators who were hostile to Diana and some were quite nasty..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Curryong said:
I wonder whether Diana's sons would agree with you that her death ensured everyone in the BRF was better off without her (and that includes them, remember) because it finished 'the upheavals of the 1990's'.
Click to expand...

Again, my words are being deliberately twisted. It seems I am hateful, unwelcome, and ill-informed for having said things that I didn't actually say. Instead of considering the implications of what I actually wrote (not what you think I wrote), you hide safely behind a sentimental smokescreen of two motherless boys. If a critical discussion is not welcome, fine, change the forum into a memorial shrine for the late Diana, Princess of Wales and be done with any pretense to the contrary. Otherwise, it is a valid point to question what motivated her actions, and the consequences of her death, be they good, bad or indifferent.
 
:previous: Which many of us have been doing on this thread for 97 pages now, and on several other threads ie having interminable discussions about her life, marriage, motivations, life as a Princess of Wales, legacy etc etc.

However, as you have attacked Diana, so have several who disagree with your conclusions about her, replied to you, giving their point of view.

For instance you questioned her work as a charity Patron several posts back and I replied, pointing out that people in the organisations to do with AIDS and Landmines etc were grateful to her for bringing her causes to the fore and that they, (and Robin Cook, for example) lauded her efforts.

You have IMO been quite dismissive of people who disagree with your views on the late Princess of Wales, and seem to think we who can see her many good points as well as bad and defend her, are sentimentalists who can't think straight, (not quoting you directly here, just stating what I'm getting as a general impression.)

(You also seem to feel that those who like Diana are also great fans of sentimental soaps, looking at the past through some sort of romantic pink mist, otherwise why did you bring in a reference to TV series like Downton Abbey into your posts. I can tell you here and now that I watched two episodes of that entire series, and, as a history buff especially of the 19th and 20th centuries, never bothered again.)

By the way, a certain amount of 'scandal and instability' was brought to the British monarchy by the married Prince of Wales having an affair with an equally wedded woman, a woman he subsequently 'outed' on a TV programme widely shown within Britain and the Commonwealth. Or doesn't that count?
 
Last edited:
I get the point that you were trying to put across, Chubb, and I agree with it. Although the accidental death of Diana, Princess of Wales was a tragedy and the world lost a bright, shining star that was very human with positives and negatives aspects like we all have, her death forever more sealed shut any further things happening that reflected on either her or Charles or their marriage. The story was then written in stone in history.
 
Curryong said:
However, as you have attacked Diana, so have several who disagree with your conclusions about her, replied to you, giving their point of view.

For instance you questioned her work as a charity Patron several posts back and I replied, pointing out that people in the organisations to do with AIDS and Landmines etc were grateful to her for bringing her causes to the fore and that they, (and Robin Cook, for example) lauded her efforts.

You have IMO been quite dismissive of people who disagree with your views on the late Princess of Wales, and seem to think we who can see her many good points as well as bad and defend her, are sentimentalists who can't think straight, (not quoting you directly here, just stating what I'm getting as a general impression.)

(You also seem to feel that those who like Diana are also great fans of sentimental soaps, looking at the past through some sort of romantic pink mist, otherwise why did you bring in a reference to TV series like Downton Abbey into your posts. I can tell you here and now that I watched two episodes of that entire series, and, as a history buff especially of the 19th and 20th centuries, never bothered again.)

By the way, a certain amount of 'scandal and instability' was brought to the British monarchy by the married Prince of Wales having an affair with an equally wedded woman, a woman he subsequently 'outed' on a TV programme widely shown within Britain and the Commonwealth. Or doesn't that count?
Click to expand...

That's correct. A lot of the causes Diana was involved with were not fashionable or popular until she got involved. Her willingness to talk about eating disorders was hugely important as they still are very badly misunderstood in public discourse. Publicising the harm done by land mines, the problem of homelessness, domestic violence, counselling and psychotherapy, and her willingness to challenge the stigma around HIV/AIDS was enormously important and it's easy to forget just how groundbreaking her involvement was with these causes were at the time, in the same way a lot of Charles's causes were widely regarded as crankish esp his environmentalism and architecturul preservation are now mainstream.

Admittedly there was (and is) a lot of smush around Di esp after she was killed but a lot of this had to do with social changes that were larger than her - she was simply one of those people who are intuitively in touch with the Zeitgeist and a move towards greater emphasis on personal fulfilment and emotional intelligence was part of this. A lot of these changes were in some ways the flipside of the emphasis on economic individualism that was the hallmark of the thatcher years ie "there's no such thing as a society".

If Diana (and for that matter Charles) really was as shallow and vapid as she has been made out as being than we would probably not be here discussing her legacy as there would not have been one.

the Dimbleby interview was a very bad idea - that more than the Morton book was the real issue - if Charles had kept his mouth shut and his head down than public opinion would have gone against Diana as she would definitely have over played her hand but there would have been less to use against C in the public arena. C was the one who really dropped everyone in it with his open admission and naming Cam to boot... Ugh....:bang:
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
Diana's personal support on the issue of land mines is said to have brought untold publicity to the cause and to have been a significant factor in encouraging Britain and other countries to support the Ottowa Treaty. Diana wasn't just swanning around having her photo taken. She made speeches, read up on the question as she did with all her charities.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. This issue has been discussed at length in the thread: Diana's Legacy: What is left or what will be left. For those interested in facts, posts with timelines for the anti-landmine campaign are #1292, 1403, 1414, and 1466. Below is a link to a BBC article that proves the Labour party was in support of the landmine ban in September 1996, long before Diana's photo ops.

Diana and Charles were both worked for many charities, raised a lot of money, and made a real difference in the lives of many people.

Diana was very good at making people feel that she cared deeply about them. Diana's meeting with AIDS patients brought a lot of publicity. Some people who were uniformed about AIDS learned more about it. There are people on this board who have shared that she inspired some people to do volunteer work or devote their lives to health care and other causes. The international relief organization I worked for saw an increase in donations after her landmine photo ops. At the same time, we noticed some decline in donations for other types of victims.

Before Diana, Charles founded the Prince's Trust to help people who had been in trouble with the law or were at risk. That is much more controversial than either AIDS or landmines, which were pretty straightforward. His staff didn't want to arrange photo ops with the people he helped--but it didn't stop him. He expanded his charities to adopt initiatives to help people break out of the cycle of poverty such as business incubators and microlending. Some people still don't think it's a worthy cause but he has helped thousands of people, along with their families. No one will ever know how many crimes were prevented because he showed young people choose a different path.

And, to turn your argument around, if what Charles did was so easy, why didn't Diana do it? The answer is that she wasn't interested, which was fine. People should pursue their passions. That is where they do the most good.

BBC News | Landmines | What is Britain's landmine policy?
 
Chubb Fuddler said:
When did I say it was "good" that the late Diana, Princess of Wales is dead? I choose my words carefully, and if that is what I meant to say, that is what I would have said. So cut out the histrionics and try approaching the subject with a bit of objectivity.

In 1997 the late Diana, Princess of Wales was still a liability to the stability of the monarchy, as shown by the ongoing publicity stunts and leaks to the media e.g. the photos on the boat with Mr Al-Fayed. It is simply a fact that the Royal Family is better off without scandal and instability. That scandal and instability was brought about by the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Therefore the Royal Family is better off without the late Diana, Princess of Wales. It's the logical conclusion. How that "better off without" occurred is not the point. It could have been by entering a cloistered convent, abduction by aliens, a loving reconciliation, the media and general public losing interest, or, as it was in 1997, death. There can be positive outcomes from death, and like it or not, the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales also ended the upheavals of the 1990s.

Whether or not her death was worth that positive consequence is another issue all together, one I feel no need to explore at this point.
Click to expand...

You have succinctly summed up what many saw and have seen when reviewing the scandals of the 1990's. It's a very sad story, indeed. :neutral:

Diana was never going to be an easy presence, as the Fayed summer showed. Those preening poses for the camera, that she made sure showed up, are uncomfortable to watch if one knows anything about how easy it would have been for Diana to avoid all cameras and retire to a private life. (There is a significant element of myth concocted around Diana regarding her inability to avoid the press imo).

Thank you for posting, Chubb Fuddler. :flowers:
 
Diana Award ‏@DianaAward
The Diana Award presents 'The Inaugural Legacy Award' in memory of #PrincessDiana
https://twitter.com/DianaAward/status/819574850108923905

Diana Award ‏@DianaAward
This year we are launching the 'Inaugural Legacy Award' to mark the 20th Anniversary of Princess Diana's death
https://twitter.com/DianaAward/status/819575449043038208

Diana Award ‏@DianaAward
The award will be given to 20 exceptional young people who embody the late Princess’ qualities of compassion, kindness & service

Diana Award ‏@DianaAward
Our CEO @Ttall on the announcement of the Inaugural Legacy Award
https://twitter.com/DianaAward/status/819576134564270081
 
Fantastic :flowers: I have said it previously, instead of some memorial concert or event, they should do an award or scholarship to honor Diana. It is great to see some form of that. It is great it's open to people all over. And I am genuinely interested to see those who end up receiving it. :)
 
I think this is an excellent idea and I also am looking forward to seeing who the recipients are. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be associated with Diana's name and heaven knows, compassion, caring and kindness are needed in today's world more than ever.
 
This is very good news. Diana set a good example of kindness and compassion. :flowers:
 
I hoped there would be some events this year and I am very pleased to see this. It would be also fantastic to see an event with Kate, George and Charlotte :heart:
 
Fürstin Taxis said:
I hoped there would be some events this year and I am very pleased to see this. It would be also fantastic to see an event with Kate, George and Charlotte :heart:
Click to expand...

I think there might be. This award is just one event.
 
It has been reported that they ruled out any major event.

Honestly thank you. It's time to move on. Unless you are her family or friends, this need for public mourning decades later is bordering ridiculous. If her fans want to remember, put on clips of her, drink some wine and toast her life. Or better yet, make a donation to one of the causes she loved.

The awards are the perfect tribute. A way to continue her humanitarian work.


But her brother is said to be doing an exhibit and some kind of gala to raise money for the award.
 
Countessmeout said:
It has been reported that they ruled out any major event.

Honestly thank you. It's time to move on. Unless you are her family or friends, this need for public mourning decades later is bordering ridiculous. If her fans want to remember, put on clips of her, drink some wine and toast her life. Or better yet, make a donation to one of the causes she loved.

The awards are the perfect tribute. A way to continue her humanitarian work.


But her brother is said to be doing an exhibit and some kind of gala to raise money for the award.
Click to expand...

It's going to a number of events to celebrate her life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
30K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
499
Tatiana Maria
T
soapstar
Diana Princess of Wales Jewels 3: 2022 -
Replies
23
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom