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

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I think its a little quick to say that forty or fifty years from now, there will be little or no interest in Diana.

And for proof you need to look no further than this board. There are many people who join the Forums who weren't born when Diana married in 1981 and yet found this board (and other avenues) to learn more about her.

Its the same reason that I am have an interest in Queen Victoria and her family while others have an interest in Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Grace, Queen Marie of Romania etc. to name a just a few. Heck, there was enough of an interest (or rather a story) for movies to be made on Queen Elizabeth I.

In all likelihood, there will not be the same number of people who watched her televised funeral or came to London to put flowers in front of Kensington Palace but she will generate some interest.

I have always felt the reason the Diana is still covered and talked about as much at the moment is that there really is no one in the Royal Family that can take her place as a sure way to sell papers. For whatever reason the general public have never been that interested in Edward and Sophie and Charles and Camilla are a mature couple who are obviously not going to be adding to their family. So until William and Harry marry and start families Diana is really all they have got. When the Princes do have their own families I think that Diana will no longer be front and centre in the media but become like other deceased members of the royal - an important part of history.

If and when William becomes King, based on whatever happens with the media will also generate a lot of interest in his mother as I am sure the press will no doubt rehash a ton of Diana stories. And if that happens 40 to 50 years from now, she will in no doubt be introduced to another generation of people

I think that it will depend on when he becomes King. If it were to happen in the next few years then yes I can see Diana being brought into the mix but if it is 20/30 years time then not so much. I'm sure she will be mentioned but nothing like the headlines she would get now. They will be a whole new generation of Royals for the press to cover by then, William's wife and children, Harry's wife and children - maybe even the York Princesses and their families and there will be a whole generation of people who will know little of Diana other than she was William's mother who died 30/40 years ago.

I do think that people will always know that Camilla isn't William's mother, however imo there will be people one day who won't be able to tell you who his mother was or if they can tell you her name but nothing else about her. Those who have an interest in Royalty will always remember her but the rest of the world will move on.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Zonk

And for proof you need to look no further than this board. There are many people who join the Forums who weren't born when Diana married in 1981 and yet found this board (and other avenues) to learn more about her..

And yet on this board how many are from Britain? If you visit other forums, it is the same old, same old, posting under a host of names, (there are those who use the same name but have no idea that many use a different name and can see everything they write about them. ).

I have no doubt there will always be some, mainly in the US, who will cling to the 'Diana will never be forgotten', but in reality people move on and focus on other celebs and that if anything is how Diana will be remembered, not as a young woman who married into the royal family.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I have no doubt there will always be some, mainly in the US, who will cling to the 'Diana will never be forgotten', but in reality people move on and focus on other celebs and that if anything is how Diana will be remembered, not as a young woman who married into the royal family.

You'll probably be right in a few years, Skydragon. But for now, I think people are still well attached to Diana and the image brought on by the media; this "love affair" book that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing wrote made some sensation here.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

And yet on this board how many are from Britain? If you visit other forums, it is the same old, same old, posting under a host of names, (there are those who use the same name but have no idea that many use a different name and can see everything they write about them. ).

I have no doubt there will always be some, mainly in the US, who will cling to the 'Diana will never be forgotten', but in reality people move on and focus on other celebs and that if anything is how Diana will be remembered, not as a young woman who married into the royal family.

Just because people move on doesen't mean she's going to be forgotten; and her name won't be remembered. She has a sizable fanbase not only in the U.S. but in Great Britain and around the world.

This is just another topic that some of us will have to agree to disagree.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

You'll probably be right in a few years, Skydragon. But for now, I think people are still well attached to Diana and the image brought on by the media; this "love affair" book that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing wrote made some sensation here.

A passing mention here. We had the outraged at such a suggestion, the 'I'd believe anything of her', the deluded old man and collapsed in a heap of laughter responses! The story was dead the following day!

[TheTruth]

True but he's actually doing a tour of all French TV sets and channels… Quite some publicity for him and his book.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Just because people move on doesen't mean she's going to be forgotten; and her name won't be remembered. She has a sizable fanbase not only in the U.S. but in Great Britain and around the world.

This is just another topic that some of us will have to agree to disagree.

As a Princess Diana fan my one wish was that she rest in peace. I think this is starting to happen. But, just because people move on doesn't mean she will be forgotten. Diana, Princess of Wales will live on in her sons and what they both will do for Great Britain. Her boys are her legacy to the people of Great Britain and the world.

So as Sirhon said this is just another topic that some of us will have to agree to disagree on.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

A passing mention here. We had the outraged at such a suggestion, the 'I'd believe anything of her', the deluded old man and collapsed in a heap of laughter responses! The story was dead the following day!

Skydragon thank you for this news. I hate how Diana, Princess of Wales is a cash cow for just about anyone who was near her during her life. Thanks!

[Grace Angel]

She was a cash cow for the media in her lifetime too. Not much has changed.

[MARG]

Hmm . . . . being a "cash cow" is a hell of a legacy.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

She was a cash cow for the media in her lifetime too. Not much has changed.

Only because her fans insisted on knowing everything about her and buying every magazine etc that had a story or a photo or anything about her.

Her fans bought the stuff and thus the media had a market for their stories and photos and the fans are the ones who are still buying her stuff and lining the pockets of the media and scum like Burrell who has sold her down the river to her fans.

[sirhon11234]

Why are you generalizing fans of Diana? Not all of us buy every single Diana memorabilia, books or wanted to know every single detail about her private life. I despise Paul Burrell and Simone Simmons for writing their tell all books about her trying to make a quick buck. And that ridiculous Inquest bringing up Diana's past lovers which had nothing to do with her death. I certainly did not want to know everything about her.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Why are you generalizing fans of Diana? Not all of us buy every single Diana memorabilia, books or wanted to know every single detail about her private life. I despise Paul Burrell and Simone Simmons for writing their tell all books about her trying to make a quick buck. And that ridiculous Inquest bringing up Diana's past lovers which had nothing to do with her death. I certainly did not want to know everything about her.

All right - the vast majority of Diana fans, although there might be some exceptions.

[Grace Angel]

I guess Diana was more like a celebrity than royalty to people, in that regard. People always want to know everything about celebrities.

[Carminha Stalker]

When Prince Charles came over here to Rio with his new wife, people were astonished that he had married "such an ugly woman" sic...These same people (workers in one of the favelas) were later entranced by French President Sarkozy´s wife, Carla Bruni.
I never met one person who thought that Camilla was like you describe.But all the ones I´ve met liked Diana and thought she had a very difficult time withthe Royal Family.

[Skydragon]

I find it sad that some people judge others solely on their looks and that says more about them than the person they are judging. There is an old saying here in the UK, Beauty is skin deep. For many it is the personality and intelligence that is the important thing about a person, not just how much makeup they can apply. Carla Bruni is young, I wonder what she will look like when she is in her 50s, although I have to say I find her very 'hard faced'. Perhaps a rule should be brought in to say that all wives of politicians and princes must have won at least 2 beauty pageants before they are acceptable! As for the 'hard time had by Diana, what about the hard time, distress and embarrassment she caused to her own family, her husbands family, her sons, her friends, the wives/girlfriends of her lovers and the British people? You say 'like I describe', perhaps you could point me in the direction of any description.

Yes there were scandals before Diana, gosh there was even a royal family before Diana, but they didn't make much of a news item, simply because none of them deliberately involved the media. Did Margaret 'tell all' to the press, no of course not. You saw a recent programme showing what about Moustique, very little accuracy I would imagine, much like the the film The Queen most of it in the writers imagination 'supported' by a few facts and the ubiquitous unnamed source.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I find it sad that some people judge others solely on their looks and that says more about them than the person they are judging. There is an old saying here in the UK, Beauty is skin deep. For many it is the personality and intelligence that is the important thing about a person, not just how much makeup they can apply.

Here we go further . . . . . . . Beauty is only skin deep but ugly cuts to the bone! And we're not talking looks!

Having said that, I still keep wondering, is this a "pretty" contest or what?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by MARG

I still keep wondering, is this a "pretty" contest or what?

For some it obviously is. By believing that pretty = good and not pretty = bad, the world is greatly simplified and no further thinking is required.

[sunshine_93]

I'm totally agree with you,Carminha!
her beauty was internal too...and that's more important!!!I miss her...

[Warren]

Originally Posted by sunshine_93

I miss her...

How can you "miss her"? You were four years old when she died.