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

[Elspeth]

Just a reminder to keep this thread away from the eternal Charles-Camilla-Diana eternal-triangle fight. If someone says they think Diana's legacy won't be all that impressive, it isn't relevant to say, "well it'll be LOADS better than Camilla's, so there!"

Nor is this the thread to dissect every little detail of the motivations for why Diana did things. People's legacies tend to be seen in broader perspective than whether this or that visit to a homeless shelter or this or that involvement in another charity had ulterior motives. And it ought to go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that it also isn't the appropriate thread to discuss details of William and Harry's lives and how much or little they're taking after Prince Charles.

The thread is being reopened after a bunch of deletions of these sorts of posts and the responses to them. Hopefully it'll stay on topic from now on.

Elspeth
for the British forum moderation team

 

[Skydragon]

Is her work and impact still really there in todays world for people to see? Would an average teenager in some part of the UK be able to look around them and say "this exists because of Diana" or "I have this opportunity because of Diana". The work that she did when alive will always be a credit to her and those who she came into contact with through that work will always remember her for it but as the years go by the average person forgets. There is no charity or organization in her name working today to create any sort of decent legacy, which should of been the purpose of the memorial fund.

I met a young woman today, (well I think 32 is young, ) who because of Diana decided to train as a nurse, specifically to work with Landmine victims. So perhaps the charities she publicised have inspired some to try to help.

 

[Amelia]

It is really wonderful to know people like that exist, it gives me some hope in this horrible world.

The thing is this lady would of been 21/22 when Diana died so she would remember her involvement with landminds, would have seen her walk through the mine fields, meet with the victims. The teenagers today would have been too young to remember that aspect of Diana and her work. With all the tell-all-books and murder plots that are cast around I can't imagine what Diana must represent to most of them. I just think about all the talk there was about continuing her work and it was just forgotten in the drama that followed. It just seems like such a waste to me.

 

[pinkie40]

I'm constantly amazed how Diana in a few short years on the world stage opened many forums of discussion regarding many issues including motherhood, mental health, volunteerism and style. I think toward the end she fully realized her own power and her own voice which in itself was sort of an amazing legacy as a role model for the modern woman.

Personally, imo, her greatest achievements other than being a beloved mother to William and Harry was that she was the very first global figure to touch a person with full blown AIDS. That took major courage back in the day on so many socio/political levels. She really had major influence in the paradigm shift on how people viewed the victims of this affliction.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I give Diana all the credit in the world for doing that, yes. She was a highly public figure doing something which even most private citizens would not have done. However, I think the true shift on how people viewed victims of AIDS came when Rock Hudson died. This was someone who was for many years, the symbol of macho masculinity. And he had AIDS. It changed the way heterosexuals viewed it, as they now realized it was something other than just a "gay disease". I would even extend that to when Elizabeth Glaser and her daughter Ariel died. Here was a straight woman who contracted it through a blood transfusion during delivery and it passed to her child.


I would say these events had more impact, and that is in no way discounting what Diana did.

 

[georgiea]

I met a young woman today, (well I think 32 is young, ) who because of Diana decided to train as a nurse, specifically to work with Landmine victims. So perhaps the charities she publicised have inspired some to try to help.

God works in strange ways! Yes, Diana, Princess of Wales did and still does inspire people.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

There is this old legend about Perceval, the nephew of the Grail king who comes to the Grail castle and meets his wounded and hurting uncle. Though he feels pity and really wants to help he recalls his training in politeness and ignores his uncle's pain - only to find out that if he had asked he would have haled his uncle and inherited his kingdom. But as he didn't react to the suffering he is banned from the castle.

The first written accounts of this story appeared in the 12. century but it's based on a much older legend.

The interesting point for me is that it tells that even though certain rules of behaviour have to be observed, they end when it comes to real suffering. One need to open up the eyes, look directly at the problem and address it in order to help, evn if this is not considered good behaviour.

And that's what Diana did - that's a major point in her favour when it comes to judging her. She saw the suffering, she went to the people concerned and she openly spoke about it, making others see the suffering. She ignored the unwritten rules of manners in order to help others. That IMHO was a very important thing to do.

 

[TheTruth]

It is really wonderful to know people like that exist, it gives me some hope in this horrible world.

The thing is this lady would of been 21/22 when Diana died so she would remember her involvement with landminds, would have seen her walk through the mine fields, meet with the victims. The teenagers today would have been too young to remember that aspect of Diana and her work. With all the tell-all-books and murder plots that are cast around I can't imagine what Diana must represent to most of them. I just think about all the talk there was about continuing her work and it was just forgotten in the drama that followed. It just seems like such a waste to me.

We are, I think, a few on this board who were 5-6 years old when Diana died and because she was still appearing on documentaries or newspapers, we got interested in her and in her work. Whereas the media had sometimes a negative aspect in her life, they fortunately helped her work to persist and let the following generation be aware of what she did for the needy. I believe last year was a total success in the sense that some younger people who didn't particularly knew what her work was about, probably looked it up and found out what she achieved. Her memory as her work will be fading with time ; that's inevitable. However, we can always hope that a few will still get interested in that woman and keep thinking about what she has accomplished. The drama part will always stay but maybe with time, it will become less important to the eyes of people.

 

[Amelia]

I do believe that her memory will always be surrounded with drama and I think at times it will overshadow the charity work that she did. There is just too much juicy gossip to talk about.

 

[Elspeth]

I think that's going to be true for a while, certainly as long as there are people around who knew her and who aren't shy about exploiting their knowledge in books and articles. But in the longer term, when the likes of James Hewitt and Simone Simmons are no longer available for TV interviews and tabloid articles, I hope her legacy as a caring person who was intent on relieving suffering and who would use her high profile to support controversial causes will prevail.

 

[jcbcode99]

I do think that Diana's touching and embracing patients with AIDS really sent a message out about its transmission and helped others to understand the human side of AIDS (the need for affection and understanding--not just judgement). I genuinely think that she felt a connection with those who suffer physically and for that I have always applauded what looked to me to be heartfelt sincerity. Unfortunantly, even for me at times, that has given way to her other, less admirable traits. But, we are all of us humans with many faults. One of my faults is a quick temper which sometimes causes me to act before I think something out. I imagine Diana had this trait as well, so I can sympathize with her at times.

 

[Roslyn]

In my assessment of Diana, the personal qualities I disliked in her tend to outweigh the qualities that she possessed that were admirable, and as well as that I get very angry that it took the image of Diana, whose immense popularity and influence I have never understood, holding an AIDS patient's hand to make people realise that they didn't have to shun AIDS sufferers. Many medical people had been working tirelessly for some time trying to get that message across and the pretty princess just had to smile and touch someone and everyone believed it. I'm afraid it still makes me angry. BUT, it worked, which is the important thing for all those poor people, including little children, who had been shunned by their family and friends and the community when they needed love and attention the most, and I think Diana knew it would and she used her popularity and her position to help. And I think she will be remembered for that. She was compassionate and did want to help people, and did an immense amount of good. It's just a shame that she had so many unattractive personal qualities because I am sure they will also be remembered.

 

[pinkie40]

In some sort of strange way, the more Diana tried to do good deeds, the more she was castigated. Yet she remained among these critics to live and to raise her sons in respect for their royal duties.

AIDS became a glamorous issue because of the likes of Diana and Elizabeth Taylor. Both who had friends (and in the case of Dame Elizabeth, a daughter in law) with the affliction which at that time was a certain death sentence.

There was a real bias (not so much around these days) about AIDS being a homosexual disease and considered tawdry among "polite people".

I believe HMTQ was livid that Diana "debase" herself with friends who were openly homosexual and had the disease. Diana did leave Balmoral to attend the death bed and the funeral of her friend Adrian. (I forget this gentleman's last names).

All in all Diana's need to help the suffering was complex. Her gloveless touch to the common person was magical from Day One onward.

 

[Monika_]

I agree completely. As for your statement, "In some sort of strange way, the more Diana tried to do good deeds, the more she was castigated"...I suspect she was too popular and too good at what she did and some people found that threatening. To this day, there are people who continue to try to undermine her legacy, for the same reasons, IMO.

 

[MARG]

In some sort of strange way, the more Diana tried to do good deeds, the more she was castigated. Yet she remained among these critics to live and to raise her sons in respect for their royal duties.

IMHO I don't believe her genuine good deeds were related to her being castigated either more or less.

I believe HMTQ was livid that Diana "debase" herself with friends who were openly homosexual and had the disease. . . . .

I would need some really credible evidence to support such a damning and inflammatory assertion.

Why is it that all of Diana's "good deeds" are perceived to have been done in direct opposition to HM express wishes? Does making the Queen appear to be cold-hearted, shallow and mean-spirited somehow elevate the "selflessness" of Princess Diana?

The BRF have a history of charity. It pre-dated Diana's marriage, and continues unabated. That does not negate any of Diana's charitable achievements, which were not insignificant.

 

[Skydragon]

In some sort of strange way, the more Diana tried to do good deeds, the more she was castigated. Yet she remained among these critics to live and to raise her sons in respect for their royal duties.

Where she lived at that time was purely a financial matter. As the boys were at school and they shared custody, I would question whether Diana had a great deal of input over the boys 'royal duty' at that time.

I believe HMTQ was livid that Diana "debase" herself with friends who were openly homosexual and had the disease. Diana did leave Balmoral to attend the death bed and the funeral of her friend Adrian. (I forget this gentleman's last names).

Is it possible that you could tell us where you read such a thing about HM or Diana going to a friends deathbed. As you know, the QM employed quite a few homosexuals, so I find it hard to believe that she was 'livid that Diana debase herself' with homosexuals. Many of the film industry, actors etc enjoyed friendship with the Prince of Wales and other members of the Royal Family, as I recall.

 

[Warren]

I believe HMTQ was livid that Diana "debase" herself with friends who were openly homosexual and had the disease.

As has been stated in other threads we really need to choose our words carefully at times and avoid making inflammatory (and/or patently absurd) statements.
Discussions based on fact are welcome; discussions based on warped fantasy should be conducted outside of these forums.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[Russophile]

I agree completely. As for your statement, "In some sort of strange way, the more Diana tried to do good deeds, the more she was castigated"...I suspect she was too popular and too good at what she did and some people found that threatening. To this day, there are people who continue to try to undermine her legacy, for the same reasons, IMO.

It's a shame they felt so. I have never been a Diana supporter, but I do believe that she genuinely cared and really wanted to make a difference. I think that drive of her wanting to make a difference of good in the world was her rather empty life and that she wanted it to be meaningful in some way. So I really believe she tried to do the best she could to change the world for the better.

 

[MARG]

..I suspect she was too popular and too good at what she did and some people found that threatening. To this day, there are people who continue to try to undermine her legacy, for the same reasons, IMO.

Well, since the press were all but beying for her blood in the months and days before her death, I don't think it was about how popular or how good she was that threatened others.

IMHO certain elements of the press felt aggrieved at being shut out by the lifestyle Diana embraced after the Panorama interview. All bets were off, and by the time of her unfortunate liaison with Dodi, the press were snarking about how shallow she had become. Even going so far as alleging that she and William had had a falling out over her relationship with Dodi.

With her death they regained control of the "property", the goose that laid the golden egg was now theirs alone to create whatever persona suits them, the headline and the bottom line.

In all this, it is hard to separate fact from fiction, truth from half-truth, or, unfortunately, outright lies. It suits them that she "Pioneered" touching those with Aids, but, when a cure is found, as I am sure that it will be, Diana's part will become a distant memory.

We need to look for the legacy that actually outlives the myth.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, since the press were all but beying for her blood in the months and days before her death, I don't think it was about how popular or how good she was that threatened others.

You are quite right and that is fact that people try to forget, IMO. The press that had built Diana up were now working to bring her down. Much the same game they are playing with Catherine. This from an American Author - and this 10 years on from The Telegraph - Diana divided the nation. even this small article shows there appeared to be a motive for everything

Sadly the good works she was involved in will be eclipsed by the divisions her name provokes.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, everyone desires some meaning in life. She couldn't find it in her marriage, and her children were growing up. Considering her lack of formal education and sophistication when she married, I believe that she did very well in the public sphere.

I think that drive of her wanting to make a difference of good in the world was her rather empty life and that she wanted it to be meaningful in some way. So I really believe she tried to do the best she could to change the world for the better.

 

[Russophile]

Yes, everyone desires some meaning in life. She couldn't find it in her marriage, and her children were growing up. Considering her lack of formal education and sophistication when she married, I believe that she did very well in the public sphere.

Whew! Glad you understood what I said! I looked back at it and wondered why Warren didn't edit it and make more sense of it!

I believe that that was a motivating factor in her life: To make a difference. Not to be just a brood mare for the "heir and the spare", but to truly make a difference.

 

[Russophile]

repeat

Camilla has never been intersted in taking Diana's place. Diana did a lot of good in the world and she will always be the Queen of People's Hearts.
Camilla will always be the love of Prince Charles' life and an incredible help-mate to HRH.

 

[jcbcode99]

Camilla has never been intersted in taking Diana's place. Diana did a lot of good in the world and she will always be the Queen of People's Hearts.
Camilla will always be the love of Prince Charles' life and an incredible help-mate to HRH.

I have to agree with Russo--but not with the the whole "Queen of People's Hearts" moniker. It's overplayed and I think it's just a trifle too much, personally--bordering on tacky almost. Let's just call her "Diana"; everyone knows who we're talking about. This Queen of People's Hearts nonsense is nauseating--for anyone. That applies not just to Diana, but to Mary, Mette-Marit, Letizia--any of those princesses who are slated to be a Queen. It reeks of "gooey-ness". Let's leave her a little dignity, please!

Camilla will always be known as the woman he loved who supported him--and as Queen!

 

[wbenson]

This Queen of People's Hearts nonsense is nauseating--for anyone.

As I said either in this thread or another a while ago, my heart is a republic if Diana is the queen of it.

 

[sirhon11234]

I have to agree with Russo--but not with the the whole "Queen of People's Hearts" moniker. It's overplayed and I think it's just a trifle too much, personally--bordering on tacky almost. Let's just call her "Diana"; everyone knows who we're talking about. This Queen of People's Hearts nonsense is nauseating--for anyone. That applies not just to Diana, but to Mary, Mette-Marit, Letizia--any of those princesses who are slated to be a Queen. It reeks of "gooey-ness". Let's leave her a little dignity, please!

Camilla will always be known as the woman he loved who supported him--and as Queen!

And she will also be known for being Charles' former mistress. Her legacy will not start the moment she becomes queen. What she did yesterday, today, and tomorrow will be part of her legacy.

And also Diana is a queen in my heart along with many other great women.

 

[jcbcode99]

And she will also be known for being Charles' former mistress. Her legacy will not start the moment she becomes queen. What she did yesterday, today, and tomorrow will be part of her legacy.

And also Diana is a queen in my heart along with many other great women.

That is true, Sirhon. You cannot escape your past. But, unlike many people, I think that Charles and Camilla are a great love story about fate and eventually ending up with who is best for you. They may not have always gone about it in the best way, or most discreet manner, but you can certainly tell there is no tension or drama between them. They may well be what some can call a "model marriage".

Also, I did not mean to imply or minimilize Diana's impact on persons by criticizing the whole "Queen of People's Hearts". I just think it's a little too precious in the phrasing--almost juvenile in a way. I prefer to remember her as "Diana" and the woman she became after her divorce. That whole, Queen of People's Hearts statement that she came up with was just the ploy of a desperate woman trying to manipulate the press and the public and destroy a future King. She grew up, matured, and found her own path after that interview before she died. Calling her the Queen of People's Hearts links her irrevocably to Charles and the Monarchy--and she had wanted her independence and freedom so she could just be "Diana". That is why I don't care for the "Queen of People's Hearts"--I don't think she came up with it and I think that if she were alive she would cringe whenever she heard it. It doesn't mean that she isn't a Queen in people's hearts--because that is a touching tribute--but I think we should just call her, simply, "Diana"

 

[Jo of Palatine]

That whole, Queen of People's Hearts statement that she came up with was just the ploy of a desperate woman trying to manipulate the press and the public and destroy a future King. She grew up, matured, and found her own path after that interview before she died. Calling her the Queen of People's Hearts links her irrevocably to Charles and the Monarchy--and she had wanted her independence and freedom so she could just be "Diana". That is why I don't care for the "Queen of People's Hearts"--I don't think she came up with it and I think that if she were alive she would cringe whenever she heard it.

I really like your opinion. Yes, I think as well that Diana had realised at the time of the Panorama-interview that Charles did not want her to be his queen anymore, so she coined the phrase of the "Queen of People's Heart" as opposed to "Charles' Queen" and did her best to see to it that Charles would never be king, so noone would be Charles' queen. I sometimes doubt she imagined that this could be read as an attack direct at the currently reigning queen.

But there we have it: once the phrase was out, it could never be stopped again, causing all kinds of misery.

 

[Marino01]

I think a quote from the Queen quickly sums this up, "Maybe you wont find it a luxury to bring home the mother of the future King of England in one of our planes."

I think the Queen acted as tradition dictated and I felt that was the wrong move IMO. Tony Blair knew this would be huge when she died. The media did also. Although they probably did "hype it up" there had to be something there to "hype up". It was an emotion of greif that was
unparallel in Britian. These people loved Princess Diana as I am sure some of them love the Queen. Yes, we did not know her, but we felt like we did. No one truly knows the British Royal Family. But that does not stop people for feeling for them.

I feel that Diana rose above celebrity. She became an icon. We know she made some bad decisions but so have all of us. In the end we lost a woman who... dare I say it... one of the best things that happen to the British Royal Family apart from the Queen.

 

[Incas]

What's the difference between celebrity and icon these days according to the accepted media?