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

[Mermaid1962]

Whenever I see a statement like this, I have to respond. Other than putting up a statue (which would be the only one for a deceased Princess of Wales, let alone one divorced from the family), how could "the royals" have better kept her memory alive? They have a memorial page for her on the Queen's website right along with the memorials for The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret. The Queen was present at the opening of the Diana Princess of Wales Hospital. Her Majesty wore purple (the colour of secondary mourning) at the opening of the Diana Princess of Wales Fountain. And I could go on and on.

Originally Posted by Monika_

However, I realize it isn’t in some of the royals’ best interest to keep her memory alive. (Onward, if not upward.)

[Monika_]

Mermaid, I believe there has been a calculated effort to diminish, if not erase, Diana’s place in history and I think there are two reasons for it. First, Diana’s popularity was a threat to some in the royal family. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is the Camilla factor. Diana’s memory keeps the whole triangle scenario very much alive and it eclipses Camilla as Charles’ second wife.

While I don’t dispute the efforts of the royal family that you mentioned, I think it’s the bare-bones minimum they could muster for the sake of the boys and to appease the masses. I visit London every two to three years and I’ve seen how quickly things changed after she died. I recognized that she was divorced from Charles when she died, but she was the mother of a future king. Nothing changes that. Even her portrait at the National Gallery had been removed at one point. I’ve also read that her portraits have been removed prior to official visits by other royals, supposedly not to offend them. Interesting. And there was the memorial service that was kept as small as possible and held in a location where even the outside of the building was not exactly accessible to the public. I too could go on…

[sirhon11234]

I did not know there was a hospital named in the Princess' honor that's wonderful.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Monika_

Mermaid, I believe there has been a calculated effort to diminish, if not erase, Diana’s place in history and I think there are two reasons for it. First, Diana’s popularity was a threat to some in the royal family. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is the Camilla factor. Diana’s memory keeps the whole triangle scenario very much alive and it eclipses Camilla as Charles’ second wife.

While I don’t dispute the efforts of the royal family that you mentioned, I think it’s the bare-bones minimum they could muster for the sake of the boys and to appease the masses. I visit London every two to three years and I’ve seen how quickly things changed after she died. I recognized that she was divorced from Charles when she died, but she was the mother of a future king. Nothing changes that. Even her portrait at the National Gallery had been removed at one point. I’ve also read that her portraits have been removed prior to official visits by other royals, supposedly not to offend them. Interesting. And there was the memorial service that was kept as small as possible and held in a location where even the outside of the building was not exactly accessible to the public. I too could go on…

But perhaps you forgot the people ? Queen of People's hearts ? Diana didn't care to be remembered as Princess of Wales or even as a British Royal. What was important to her was the work she did for charities, her sons and the people. If the masses remember her as they tremendously did last year, if her sons did that great concert, if the money was given to charities, I really don't know what more could be done to 'keep her memory alive' as what all she loved deeply was remembered for a decade after her death.

[Monika_]

True, and I don't disagree with you. I just think that, given her accomplishments, and as the mother of a future king, her place in history should be a bit more concrete. Future generations should understand her place in history.

[Mermaid1962]

I believe that future generations will understand her place in history. She will be in the history books as Prince William's/King William's mother and as the Prince of Wales first wife. Besides, there have been so many books written, and so much archived on the internet, I can't imagine a day when people won't remember her in some way.

[ghost_night554]

Until last year I knew nothing about Diana except that she was a princess and had been killed (Ya I know did you live under a rock? lol no I just never took any intrest on the royals in any way I'd flip the channel if there was a report about them on tv so I guess that's why I hardly knew anything about her plus I was 6 when she died)untill I watched the concert and when I went to research more about her I was astonished at how many old articles ,pictures etc you found on the internet I don't think she'll ever be erased from history we ended up talking about her in socials class and we never speak about any other royal family member except perhaps the Queen but the fact she was brought up in my socials class to me was a shock to me it shows that she's not forgotten. Anyways as TheTruth said as long as her charity work is remembered and the love she gave not only to her sons but to the public then that's all that needs to be known her unfortunate marriage and death to me shouldn't overshadow the more important things that she did as they seem to sometimes do.

[Skydragon]

As with anyone, after they have died, you talk about them less and less.

I don't see what else the BRF could do. It is out of their hands what memorials are erected. Diana's family and friends made it clear that they would be making decisions about any memorial, that is how we ended up with the drainage ditch!

Do we need a statue in a prominent place, I don't believe so. However popular she may have been, she was only a member of the RF for a short time and during some of that time, used her position to stab HM and various other members of the RF in the back. All apart from the most ardent fans will recognise that within history her contribution was short, even if it was eventful. She will be remembered, when William becomes King, as his mother, nothing more or less.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I don't see what else the BRF could do. It is out of their hands what memorials are erected. Diana's family and friends made it clear that they would be making decisions about any memorial, that is how we ended up with the drainage ditch!

I agree; this 'monument' was useless and not a brilliant idea.

Do we need a statue in a prominent place, I don't believe so. However popular she may have been, she was only a member of the RF for a short time and during some of that time, used her position to stab HM and various other members of the RF in the back. All apart from the most ardent fans will recognise that within history her contribution was short, even if it was eventful.

Of course, as you imagine, I'll slightly disagree on the backstabbing, even if I accord you that the relationship wasn't tender whatsoever.
Certainly her contribution was short, but I believe we'll rarely see someone who touched so many people when he/she died at 36.

She will be remembered, when William becomes King, as his mother, nothing more or less.

I agree with that, but only to some extent. In her royal position, it's clearly how she'll be remembered. However, there are many other domains where today, she is mentioned. The fashion world frequently comes back on Diana's style and how she inspired creators, etc. When you evoke the press and the photographers, you can hardly avoid the Princess Di example.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Do we need a statue in a prominent place, I don't believe so. However popular she may have been, she was only a member of the RF for a short time and during some of that time, used her position to stab HM and various other members of the RF in the back. All apart from the most ardent fans will recognise that within history her contribution was short, even if it was eventful. She will be remembered, when William becomes King, as his mother, nothing more or less.

Is there a statue of Sophie Dorothea of Brunswick-Luneburg somewhere in London? And if you ask now why there should be one: Sophie Dorothea was married to George I. while he was not yet king. They divorced because they didn't like each other and preferred their lovers. None-the-less Sophie Dorothea's children were considered legitimate and her son George became George II. after his father's death. Rather similar to Diana but who remembers George II.'s mother so long after her and her son's death? I dare say we'll see the same with William's mother once he is dead and gone (not that I will live to see that).

[georgiea]

I am sorry to disagree that Diana, Princess of Wales will not be remembered in BRF history after a few centuries. Her life story was a very interesting time in British Royal history. I think it is as interesting as Henry VIII's and Elizabeth I's regins.

Princess Diana will be remembered as a rebel and the people's princess who lived and died tragically.

Also, I believe Prince Charles' and Prince William's regins will show that Princess Diana played a major role in each.

There is a pond in her honor. Is it still in use or closed down? I wish they could improve on that. I thought because she loved water and a Cancer that it honor her.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Of course, as you imagine, I'll slightly disagree on the backstabbing, even if I accord you that the relationship wasn't tender whatsoever.

I was refering to the Morton book and the Panorama interview. To me both were conducted with the utmost deception on Diana's part and both were, IMO, a stab in the back for HM.

Originally Posted by georgiea

I am sorry to disagree that Diana, Princess of Wales will not be remembered in BRF history after a few centuries. Her life story was a very interesting time in British Royal history.

Many youngsters today have no idea who Diana was, apart from 'she was' William or Harry's mother, (depending on who they like). I wasn't suggesting that she won't be remembered, just that for many, time blurs the edges.

Princess Diana will be remembered as a rebel and the people's princess who lived and died tragically.

Not so much a rebel, but by many as someone who caused the BRF a great deal of harm, who died when she got in to a car with a drunk driver. The inquest that Fayed fought for did her no favours and tarnished her memory for some IMO.

Also, I believe Prince Charles' and Prince William's regins will show that Princess Diana played a major role in each.

I can't see how she will have played a major role in either lives.

There is a pond in her honor. Is it still in use or closed down? I wish they could improve on that. I thought because she loved water and a Cancer that it honor her.

Most people call it the drainage ditch or the water trough. It hasn't been in the news lately, but if I recall, nobody is allowed to paddle in it. I don't wander through Hyde Park too often, so I don't know if it is open to the public now or not.

[ghost_night554]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I was refering to the Morton book and the Panorama interview. To me both were conducted with the utmost deception on Diana's part and both were, IMO, a stab in the back for HM. Many youngsters today have no idea who Diana was, apart from 'she was' William or Harry's mother, (depending on who they like). I wasn't suggesting that she won't be remembered, just that for many, time blurs the edges.Not so much a rebel, but by many as someone who caused the BRF a great deal of harm, who died when she got in to a car with a drunk driver. The inquest that Fayed fought for did her no favours and tarnished her memory for some IMO.

As much as I'm glad we heard Diana's side of the story just to see how she saw things in comparison to Prince Charles or their friends I do sometimes wish she hadn't gone and done the book and the interview. Actually you've got a point of her only being known as William and Harry's mother quick story we were at a BBQ last summer and my friend she's like 13 I'm 17 right so she turns to me while she's chatting on MSN I'm sitting on the couch bored and goes my friend is so obsessed with William and Harry I'm like uhuh and she's like their princes right..I was like ya she goes who's their mother I go Princess Diana she goes to me who?....oh the one that died in the car crash what did she do anyways ...I was like look it up and I ran out pissed off because that was around the time I first really started to like Diana anyways so you have a point many people don't really know who she is apart from she's William and Harry's mother or the one who got killed in Paris. And I do wish Fayed hadn't gone so deep with the inquest it really revealed some things which I wish had remained private.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I can't see how she will have played a major role in either lives.

Perhaps not Charles, but her memory will undoubtedly influence William. Just as all children are influenced by their parents in some form or another.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Most people call it the drainage ditch or the water trough. It hasn't been in the news lately, but if I recall, nobody is allowed to paddle in it. I don't wander through Hyde Park too often, so I don't know if it is open to the public now or not.

The memorial fountain has been fine the last few years and that's probably why you don't hear about it. People can paddle in it, 2 years ago during the British hot summer ( last time it was hot!) I was there along with a host of other people all paddling. It was quite sweet. Having wandered recently in Hyde Park it is open to the public and people have access to it, whatever problems there were in the past with it have been fixed. I actually like the fountain even if it resembles a draining ditch!

I agree that fewer people actively remember Diana, younger people have no living memory of her. It's witnessed by the fact that only 100 or so people turned up last year at her memorial service, many of them tourists, if you watched the TV on the spot interviews that took place. There were no crowds at her inquest, even though they were catered for, the public galleries remained empty. Earl Spencer's accounts show that fewer and fewer people are visiting the Diana exhibition at Althorp, down quite a lot this year. Like Princess Grace there will always be a hardcore memorial brigade but no great crowds nor will there be any future great calls for permanent memorials. I think the British public have had enough of Diana, witnessed by many of the negative comments that were around in the comment sections of the newspapers during the memorial hype last year and also the time of the inquest.

As much as it seems important that she's the mother of a future king, historically they aren't that important. If they are well loved Queens then they are remembered, but generally even the consorts fade into obscurity. A challenge for those who want to try, name the consorts of Kings George I to IV, William IV and even further back.