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

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Because some people believe that everything bad about Diana was caused by Charles's affair with Camilla and that said affair is therefore the reason why Diana's legacy is any degree short of being perfect.

I disagree with that. Yes his affair with Camilla did hurt and didn't help her emotional problems but that wasn't what caused everything to be bad for Diana. Her legacy is so much more than that marriage imo.

[Mermaid1962]

So true. The 1990s seemed to be a time when a lot of people were going on television and talking about what terrible lives they had. Feeling like a victim was very much encouraged. Oprah tapped into this very well and had enormous success, at least in part, because famous and not-too-famous people got on her show and talked about their problems. So in a way, I think that Diana's tell-all behaviour was similar to what other people were doing at that time. However, other those other people weren't future Queens Consort.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

What would be a tragedy is for Diana to be constantly portrayed as a victim, her legacy deserves to be more than that.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Because some people believe that everything bad about Diana was caused by Charles's affair with Camilla and that said affair is therefore the reason why Diana's legacy is any degree short of being perfect.

Elspeth I dont believe that every bad choice Diana made was as a result of Charles' affair with Camilla......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress...I would be very suspicious of where he was going when he went out. If for example her home was only a few miles from ours I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her. I would also be very suspicious if he was spending the night at certain friends' houses. Which, as a certain tape has provided us with evidence from their own lips, they were carrying on their adultery.

How is this relevant to her legacy? Quite a few people with their own axe to grind like to say 'Oh Diana was unreasonable and then she had an unexplanable and irrational fit'. She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, this is an important part of her legacy--the way she got involved with things that affected peoples' lives in a major way. She got involved with huge social issues. AIDS is a horrible way to die, and I'm sorry that your family went through having a member suffer from it, Scooter.

Originally Posted by scooter

She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by scooter

. . . . . . . . She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people.

I'm sorry scooter, Diana dished out far more than her fair share. Her contribution to Andrew Morton's Biogaraphy of herself was supposed to vinicate her. Her vicious and vindictive glee at the way she helped orchestrate the hands-on eviction of her Stepmother, Raine, immediatedly following her father's death, was enough to curl your toes. Stuffing all her clothes in rubbish bags and hiffing them down the stairs. Coming as it did, right on the heals of her husband's death it is mind-blowing in it's sheer cruelty.

Not the actions of "humanitarian" nor even a half decent human being, but it did show her prefered way of handling things she did not like. She displayed a very real and not very nice nature. This did not in any way contradict her public "Princess of Wales" persona. She handled herself very adeptly, so much so that she was likened to Mother Theresa!

Originally Posted by Warren

Things started to become unstuck towards the end. The association with the Al Fayed family raised more than a few eyebrows, as did the "cutting off" of her mother. More tellingly, at least in terms of popular culture, the week prior to her death Hello! magazine published a very rare editorial column where the writer expressed concern that Diana's life appeared to be erratic and spinning out of control. I remember this well as two days after reading it she was dead.

I well remember the news of those weeks immediately preceeding her death. She was nobody's darling and verging on becoming a social parasite. With her death all that was negative was conveniently discarded and behold . . . . "Saint Diana", with enough miracles to seriously contend for official sainthood.

Like it or lump it, that is what people had to deal with. A media propaganda "Blitz" to ensure we all looked elsewhere for the cause of her death.

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

think that Diana did become an object of worship for many. Even now, it's possible to run into those who still see her as some kind of a secular saint, those who can't see her actions as contributing to her loss of respect and trust by those who once looked up to her. I don't think that Diana was evil, but I don't think that she was sweetness and light either.

Her legacy is mainly her children; but another part of her legacy will be division.

Well said Mermaid, neither evil nor sweetness and light and as a result division must surely be her immediate legacy. However, I believe her children will become her most enduring legacy.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by MARG

I'm sorry scooter, Diana dished out far more than her fair share. Her contribution to Andrew Morton's Biogaraphy of herself was supposed to vinicate her. Her vicious and vindictive glee at the way she helped orchestrate the hands-on eviction of her Stepmother, Raine, immediatedly following her father's death, was enough to curl your toes. Stuffing all her clothes in rubbish bags and hiffing them down the stairs. Coming as it did, right on the heals of her husband's death it is mind-blowing in it's sheer cruelty.

You forgot to mention that after the incident Diana apologized to Raine and Raine forgave her.

After all the years of turmoil, she decided to extend an olive branch to Raine Spencer.

A quote from the tape transcripts.

Morton: "They had this very emotional lunch at Kensington Palace, where Diana said; I want to thank you for looking after Daddy. That's to say, Earl Spencer. And they embraced, and Diana cried. And there developed, over time, a very close friendship between Raine Spencer and Diana.”

At Earl Spencer's memorial service Diana walked out of the church holding Raine's hand. Diana by Sarah Bradford "She did a very moving thing at Johnnie's funeral. Raine was on that side and Diana was on this side, and when they left their seats she went over to Raine and held her hand and walked down the church with her."

Of course this doesen't change the fact that Diana treated Raine badly in the past but she did the "grown up" thing by mending her relationship with her stepmother which would last till the end of her life.

Diana was surely no "Saint" I don't think anyone would dissagree with me on that.

[MARG]

My point, not very made, was that Diana had a very nasty temper and, unlike the vast majority of adults, was not averse to indulging her passions in tantrums or orgies (any act of immoderate indulgence) of malice, as discribed by herself in Andrew Morton's book as well as other publications.

That Diana actually apologised to Raine is terrific. However, the hurt and grief while forgiven, will never be forgotten, as will her many other less stirling actions.

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Diana by Sarah Bradford "She did a very moving thing at Johnnie's funeral. Raine was on that side and Diana was on this side, and when they left their seats she went over to Raine and held her hand and walked down the church with her."

In light of her knowledge of handling the media this could be viewed as purely playing to the audience.

I guess the most relevant point is that she was not a child when she behaved in this way and Princess Diana, like every other adult, became responsible for her own actions.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress... I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her

One of the tantrums I was referring to happened when he had to go to an event, in London where he was the main speaker. As for the hunting.. I say again it is obvious you have never been on an English Foxhunt, to be under the impression there is any opportunity for private conversations let alone anything physical, is ridiculous! However those that believe all there was to Diana was victim, they are doing her a disservice, IMO.

Originally Posted by MARG

That Diana actually apologised to Raine is terrific. However, the hurt and grief while forgiven, will never be forgotten, as will her many other less sterling actions.

What is terrific is the fact that Raine forgave her for the years of spite that culminated not with Diana pushing her down a set of stairs, but with throwing her possessions out of the house whilst the woman was still in mourning for her husband.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by scooter

Elspeth I dont believe that every bad choice Diana made was as a result of Charles' affair with Camilla......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress...I would be very suspicious of where he was going when he went out. If for example her home was only a few miles from ours I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her. I would also be very suspicious if he was spending the night at certain friends' houses. Which, as a certain tape has provided us with evidence from their own lips, they were carrying on their adultery.

How is this relevant to her legacy? Quite a few people with their own axe to grind like to say 'Oh Diana was unreasonable and then she had an unexplanable and irrational fit'. She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

The problem with this is - and I think we've had this conversation several times before so it's probably a waste of time saying it yet again, but whatever - that she had no actual evidence that Charles was carrying on with Camilla early in the marriage, just unsubstantiated suspicions. She said as much in the Panorama interview, when she said that in 1986 (I think that was the year) she realised that Charles had "gone back to his lady." You can't go back to someone you never left.

Not only did she have these unwarranted suspicions early on, but her reactions to them - tantrums, crying, yelling, refusing to do things - were deeply immature and almost calculated to drive a further wedge between them. The tragic irony is that by reacting like a thwarted child rather than like an adult, she helped make the later affair happen. If Charles really was missing Camilla, which he probably was, then Diana wasn't helping her own cause by making herself into someone he didn't want to spend time being with. And it wasn't just Charles - this pathological jealousy and insecurity had manifested itself in her childhood and continued for years after she and Charles split up.

Not to say that things were all her fault, but it gets really annoying to read these justifications of her less admirable side based on the supposition that Charles and Camilla were carrying on during Charles and Diana's engagement and from day one of the marriage when Diana herself has acknowledged with hindsight that that wasn't the case.

You can't base a true legacy on an untrue version of reality. Diana may very well have had so much empathy with suffering people because of the way she herself had suffered, but her suffering was to a large extent pathological.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The problem with this is - and I think we've had this conversation several times before so it's probably a waste of time saying it yet again, but whatever - that she had no actual evidence that Charles was carrying on with Camilla early in the marriage, just unsubstantiated suspicions.

Suspicion can be just as upsetting as actual proof imo. In many ways it could be said to be worse as it breeds mistrust and uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Not only did she have these unwarranted suspicions early on, but her reactions to them - tantrums, crying, yelling, refusing to do things - were deeply immature and almost calculated to drive a further wedge between them. The tragic irony is that by reacting like a thwarted child rather than like an adult, she helped make the later affair happen. If Charles really was missing Camilla, which he probably was, then Diana wasn't helping her own cause by making herself into someone he didn't want to spend time being with. And it wasn't just Charles - this pathological jealousy and insecurity had manifested itself in her childhood and continued for years after she and Charles split up.

Is it surprising if she acted like a child, she was barely older than one at the time they married. Moreover with hindsight it is clear to most that she was badly affected by her own parents divorce and the impact it had on her. She was an emotionally stunted woman in many ways which cannot have helped her.

I always thought that Charles represented a "father figure" to Diana and when she didn't get the attention she craved she lashed out.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Little_star

Is it surprising if she acted like a child, she was barely older than one at the time they married.

She was twenty years old! That is 20 . . . . An age when everyone else is considered an adult and most are out there earning a crust or slogging away at University to gain a degree. Old enough to drink and old enough to die for their country.

Moreover with hindsight it is clear to most that she was badly affected by her own parents divorce and the impact it had on her. She was an emotionally stunted woman in many ways which cannot have helped her.

Diana was hardly the first person to have suffered the angst of her parents divorce. There were, and are, thousands in her shoes but they did not have the advantages that she had. The best boarding school, no dramatic plunge in her standard of living, Nanny's, Governesses, all to help ease her way. A fabulous apartment, and a part-time job at a childcare centre to fill in her time when she wasn't cruising Sloan Street spending obscene amounts of money with the rest of her Sloan Ranger friends.

And yet she chose to be portray herself as a victim and gloried in telling the world of her of her misfortunes, but what is worse so many people brought into the whole deal right down to the wicked stepmother and uncaring husband.

Diana was an adult. She did not remain 20. She like everyone is else grew older and hopefully wiser. Diana made her own choices, and she alone was responsible for the consequences of those choices.

Choices that led to her legacy.

[Mermaid1962]

When did Diana acknowledge that Charles and Camilla weren't carrying on during the engagement early days of the marriage? I'm not challenging you, Elspeth; I'd like to have this information. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Not to say that things were all her fault, but it gets really annoying to read these justifications of her less admirable side based on the supposition that Charles and Camilla were carrying on during Charles and Diana's engagement and from day one of the marriage when Diana herself has acknowledged with hindsight that that wasn't the case.

[Elspeth]

During the Panorama interview she agreed with the interviewer when he said that the Dimbleby book had claimed Charles had gone back to Camilla in 1986, and when Martin Bashir asked her how she knew there was a relationship, she said (emphasis added): " By the change of behavioural pattern in my husband; for all sorts of reasons that a woman's instinct produces; you just know."

In the Settelen tapes she said (emphasis added): "By then I knew he had gone back to his lady but somehow we managed to have Harry"

You don't see a change in behavioural pattern as a symptom of something that's been happening all along, and the second quote is self-explanatory. This doesn't make sense in the context of an affair that continued throughout the engagement and marriage.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by MARG;995477 In light of her knowledge of handling the media this [I

could [/I]be viewed as purely playing to the audience.

On that we will have to agree to disagree.

[Odette]

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Odette

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

Couldn't agree more - she was totally unsuitable to be Charles' wife and her paranoid behaviour about a relationship between Charles and Camilla simply drove Charles into Camilla's arms.

She walked down the aisle with suspicion in her heart and she looked for evidence of that and even if it wasn't there that suspicion grew until it did become a reality.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by MARG

She was twenty years old! That is 20 . . . . An age when everyone else is considered an adult and most are out there earning a crust or slogging away at University to gain a degree. Old enough to drink and old enough to die for their country.

And other 20 year olds are deemed to be immature, naive, sheltered etc.

Are you saying that you think a 20year old has had the same life experiences as a 33year old man and is on the same level emotionally?

Originally Posted by MARG

Diana was hardly the first person to have suffered the angst of her parents divorce. There were, and are, thousands in her shoes but they did not have the advantages that she had. The best boarding school, no dramatic plunge in her standard of living, Nanny's, Governesses, all to help ease her way. A fabulous apartment, and a part-time job at a childcare centre to fill in her time when she wasn't cruising Sloan Street spending obscene amounts of money with the rest of her Sloan Ranger friends.

Just because some people are able to deal with divorce in a rational manner doesn't mean that those who do not are inferior. Moreover, material possessions are just that; possessions.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Odette

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

I agree, Charles was unsuitable for Diana as she was for him. They had different interests, were on two different intellectual levels. With their needieness and Diana's suspicions and Charles' self centered nature the marriage did not have a solid foundation.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The problem with this is - and I think we've had this conversation several times before so it's probably a waste of time saying it yet again, but whatever - that she had no actual evidence that Charles was carrying on with Camilla early in the marriage, just unsubstantiated suspicions. She said as much in the Panorama interview, when she said that in 1986 (I think that was the year) she realised that Charles had "gone back to his lady." You can't go back to someone you never left.

Not only did she have these unwarranted suspicions early on, but her reactions to them - tantrums, crying, yelling, refusing to do things - were deeply immature and almost calculated to drive a further wedge between them. The tragic irony is that by reacting like a thwarted child rather than like an adult, she helped make the later affair happen. If Charles really was missing Camilla, which he probably was, then Diana wasn't helping her own cause by making herself into someone he didn't want to spend time being with. And it wasn't just Charles - this pathological jealousy and insecurity had manifested itself in her childhood and continued for years after she and Charles split up.

Not to say that things were all her fault, but it gets really annoying to read these justifications of her less admirable side based on the supposition that Charles and Camilla were carrying on during Charles and Diana's engagement and from day one of the marriage when Diana herself has acknowledged with hindsight that that wasn't the case.

You can't base a true legacy on an untrue version of reality. Diana may very well have had so much empathy with suffering people because of the way she herself had suffered, but her suffering was to a large extent pathological.

Elspeth I dont mean to be disrespectful, but to state that the wife in the marriage did not know that her husband was misbehaving is at the very least unlikely. Life does not exist in a vacuum. Charles' own valet came right out and said that Charles spent the night before the wedding with Camilla, which statement was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother Richard in an interview in 1997. That, by definition, is from day one and hardly unwarranted suspicions. I dont know about you, but that would make me mighty PO'd. That's not pathological jealousy or insecurity. In science they say for every reaction there is an equal reaction.

[Elspeth]

The story about Charles and Camilla being together on the wedding night has been debunked; I think we've been through that in previous threads too. I'll take Sarah Bradford's opinion on that score over Stephen Barry's any day. Please refer to my post #453 for backup evidence to show that even Diana, at least with hindsight, knew that the affair was not active at the time of her marriage.

The sort of pathological suspicion she had as a newlywed would have been problematic enough if the affair had been a reality - no powerful and self-centred man wants to be yelled and nagged and cried at for any reason - but as long as the affair wasn't a reality it was simply poisonous. Biographers have documented this same sort of jealousy and insecurity in Diana's younger life too, so it didn't start with Charles. Nor did it end with him. And unfortunately, her destructive attitude toward the people close to her, whether husbands, lovers, friends, or family, will remain part of her legacy (especially when it's so much at odds with her empathy and ease of connection with strangers), and it's something inherent in her emotional makeup, not something that can be simply blamed on Charles.