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

[Russophile]

And that's okay.
I can't say I was ever a Diana fan (though I marveled the way she modeled clothing and jewels, she was very beautiful!), but she did a lot of good and, I hope, will be remembered for that.

[Mermaid1962]

"Ain't" that the truth, Monika!

Originally Posted by Monika_

even those who are less than enthusiastic can’t seem to stop talking about her. Lol!!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Monika_

even those who are less than enthusiastic can’t seem to stop talking about her.

Normally to refute some of the silly stories that her 'fans' like to perpetuate and normally only on here and other forums. Do those that couldn't stand her in real life talk about her, Hmmm doubtful!

[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.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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,

I'm afraid they were not supposed to be in it, they can 'sit on the edge and refresh their feet'! Whether it is open or not, apparently depends on the time of day and the weather.

Diana Memorial Fountain

[sirhon11234]

I think she will be remembered for a very a long time.

A lot of people my age knows who she is I remember hearing a couple of my classmates discussing the inquest and one of them thought she faked her death to get away from the press. How absurd does that sound?
One of my friends who isn't a royal watcher doesn't know who Philip,Charles and Camilla are or what they look like. But she knows who the Queen, Diana, Wills and Harry is.
Diana's story is one of the most interesting of the modern age. IMO

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

One of my friends who isn't a royal watcher doesn't know who Philip,Charles and Camilla are or what they look like. But she knows who the Queen, Diana, Wills and Harry is.

Wow, so who does she think the Queen is married to or even Diana, to produce William & Harry?

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Wow, so who does she think the Queen is married to or even Diana, to produce William & Harry?

I have no idea, Skydragon there were people in my graduating class who thought Queen Victoria was the present monarch of G.B!

[ghost_night554]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

I don't know if it's so much they don't care anymore, I think what's happened is the media has gone way overboard with Diana even after her death that I think people are just sick of hearing about her daily (atleast that's what it seems like to me I don't live in Britain so I don't know) I think alot of what they've published are things meant to be private and I think it destroyed what she was known for, so people have forgotten about the good things she did. I mean the concert was a great success(ok I know alot of people went to see their fav artists) I dunno about Althrop and the Memorial but to be honest I had totally forgotten about the memorial service, but from the tv reports K.P. looked like it had alot of flowers up as it usually does, I just think when you compare it to her funeral it looks like a small amount but I don't think they've forgotten about her I think the public needs a break that's all..mind you the daily coverage from the inquest didn't help either. Sorry I tend to go off topic from the orignal post I was replying to.

[jcbcode99]

Interesting discussion; I think that Diana will be remembered as the mother of the King simply because she was. I also think that she was a divorced member of the Royal Family who made it a point to besmirch and "bring them down a notch" (which, in my opinion is not behavior becoming to a Princess). She has been honored as the mother of the future King, she has a fountain, water ditch, whatever you want to call it, etc....and still manages to sell papers and magazines--but not because of any endearing legacy she has left behind but because of the controversy which surrounded her death and these ten years since. Unfortunantly, that is the legacy she left behind--a media circus gone wrong. I'm sure it sounds as if I am less than enamoured of Diana, but that is how I view it. Also, her portraits should have been taken down upon her divorce from Charles because she was no longer a member of the BRF--she didn't want to be, so she got what she wanted and was entitled to.

[Monika_]

I respectfully disagree with your comments. First, Diana didn’t want to leave the RF as you suggest; she wasn’t willing to live a lie and ultimately that’s where the path took her. Perhaps she didn’t make the best choices along the way, and she acknowledged some of that before she died, but she did what she felt she had to do under extraordinarily unique and public circumstances. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the situation had the silent approval of the RF. Even the QM, who hated Wallis Simpson, turned a blind eye to it by making Birkhall available to Charles and company.

Secondly, Diana most certainly does have an enduring legacy, and it isn’t the media circus she had no control over immediately after and since her death. What about her work with AIDS/HIV sufferers, leprosy, the homeless, landmines, cancer, children’s charities, eating disorders, etc., etc.? Even after she lost her title, she continued to work with those less fortunate. Countless world leaders, humanitarians and dignitaries knew, understood and appreciated the real Diana and what she had to offer. (And yes, even millions of her silly ‘fans.’) They spoke of her contributions and the terrible loss her death represented. That, and her sons, is her legacy.

[jcbcode99]

I don't have a persistant need to pounce on the negatives of her memory; Diana was really a great face for mulitple charities and it cannot be disputed that she was instrumental in bringing attention to social issues like AIDS and to issues such as land mines; her charity work is something quite respectable and she had a wonderfully bubbly, compassionate personality which accompanied it. I don't believe I disparaged any of that in my recent post; what I did not do was clarify myself. What I should have said was that regardless of what she did in the way of charitable work in the time after her divorce, it will forever be overshadowed by the media circus which surrounded her until and after her death. And, in all honesty, she was in some part responsible for it. She enjoyed, craved, and needed that attention and affirmation which helped her shape who into who she became.

Also, I do believe that by her actions during her time as HRH The Princess of Wales were her own, she made choices (not great ones) of her own volition that have lead many to form the opinion that she "wanted out" but wanted to maintain her status as an HRH. Diana was really, in my opinion, the embodiment of someone who had a need for vengence and could be quite hateful if she wanted (ie pushing her stepmom down the stairs). I think she was quite good at manipulating people to gain what she wanted and if someone managed to upset her, well, that person was out of her life. I think she is not someone to be revered, looked up to, worshipped, etc.... because of her choices and behavior. I certainly believe she would have matured out of all of that, but unfortunantly, she died before she could fully evolve away from it. Thus, her legacy, to many people, is not especially significant outside of being the mother of the future King and his brother and needs no recognition other than what has already been done and accomplished on her behalf. As I recall, she did announce that she intended to retire from public life--which indicates that she wanted to be a simple, normal person. I do believe she was an exceptional mother and that her legacy lives on in her children, but I do not think that portraits need to be up of her and that countless statues need not be erected in her memory. I'm sure she would rather the money spent on statues go to a worthy charity.

[Monika_]

Thanks for the clarification. As for Diana's actions, well, again, the circumstances were extraordinary and there's that line about walking in someone else's shoes...

[jcbcode99]

I quite agree! I enjoyed our discussion!

[sirhon11234]

Well I beleive the Princess of Wales' portraits should stay. At the time of her divorce BP did say that she would still be regarded as a member of TBRF and they should still uphold that in death.

[ghost_night554]

To me I look up to her for her charity work and probably as a mother. Some of her actions...weren't all that great and I acknowledge that but she did live under a microscope..maybe she did force that upon herself in some ways but I do think there was a great deal of intrest even from the early days and I guess people who live under that sort of microscope are judged in every which way so I suppose Diana felt pressure not only in her marriage but her personal life, so perhaps due to that and maybe the way she was rasied she made mistakes she would later regret but I feel as time went on she would have learned to deal with the pressure alot better.If I could teach the younger generation about her in any way it would definitly be the great charity work she did.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

George I. = Sophie Dorothea of Brunswick (the "princess of Ahlen)
George II. = Caroline of Ansbach (enlarged Kew Gardens)
George III = Sophie Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strehlitz (flower Regina Strelitiae is named after her)
George IV. = Caroline of Brunswick (the uncrowned queen)
William IV. = Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen.

Further back is easy:
Anne Stuart = George of Denmark
Mary II. Stuart = William of Orange
James II. = Mary of Modena
Charles II. = Catherine of Braganca
Charles I. = Henriette Anne of France
James I. = Anne of Denmark
Mary I. Stuart = among others Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

a.s.o.

It's not so difficult if you're interested in history. Marriages were political unions during these times and as we can see with the Georges' marriages, they felt secure in their British position but realised that their German possessions were under constant threat from Prussia, so formed alliances to inherit from relatives (the Brunswick-princesses, Brunswick was reigned by the "Hanovers" as well, all branches of the Welf-dynasty), to Prussia (the Ansbachs were a branch of the Prussian Hohenzollern) or with Prussia's rival Saxony. For that reason marriages with the Danish RF were favoured as well. In 1866 Prussia annected Hanover. By then Victoria was already queen of the UK, so the lines of the British and the Hanover-Welfs had already separated.

[Elspeth]

This thread isn't going to turn into another Camilla-Charles-Diana eternal triangle battle, I hope.

I don't know why people find it necessary, when someone says something negative about Diana, to come back with "Well, and what about Camilla! Yah!" as though that somehow cancels out the previous post. If you don't agree with something that someone else says about Diana, then by all means say so, but leave other people out of it unless there's some very specific need to talk about them.

Elspeth
for the British mod team

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Well I believe the Princess of Wales' portraits should stay. At the time of her divorce BP did say that she would still be regarded as a member of TBRF and they should still uphold that in death.

Very many of them are still displayed. Whilst it is true the NPG took them down, they said it was only to clean them and many were put back up.

Galleries replace their portraits of various members of the RF periodically (when finance allows) and I don't think any disrespect is meant to anyone who is replaced. Some of Diana were taken down in Wales and replaced with the current Prince and Princess of Wales, that again is within the natural order. When the time comes, if William is made Prince of Wales, Charles and Camilla's portraits will be replaced.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Monika_

I respectfully disagree with your comments. First, Diana didn’t want to leave the RF as you suggest; she wasn’t willing to live a lie and ultimately that’s where the path took her.

Diana must have realised that after the Panorama interview, the public confession to her complicity in the Morten book and her affair with Hewitt, there would be no other option open to her.

Secondly, Diana most certainly does have an enduring legacy, and it isn’t the media circus she had no control over immediately after and since her death. What about her work with AIDS/HIV sufferers, leprosy, the homeless, landmines, cancer, children’s charities, eating disorders, etc., etc.? Even after she lost her title, she continued to work with those less fortunate.

Her work for AID's and Landmines will possibly not be forgotten, but the connection with many of the others has already been forgotten. As far as I can recall or find, Diana was never associated with any eating disorder charities.