The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #721  
Old 06-17-2011, 09:30 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The fact that there are many in Britain and elsewhere, including people here, who regularly call for the succession rules to be put aside shows just how damaging her legacy is - to promote the popularity of the moment or even the individual over the institution itself is damaging to the institution and she put that on the agenda.

The very fact that people here and elsewhere want William to take his father's place shows how much she damaged the perception of the family relationship as well. William has two parents but most people seem to forget that - I even read comments in the lead up to the wedding asking why Charles should be having anything to do with it? That is also a large part of Diana's legacy - she set out to destroy her husband and even from the grave her supporters are still trying to bring about her desire - too bad if that desire might hurt and upset the sons she had with Charles.
The same could be said for some of Charles supporters who set out to destroy Diana as well. The key word I used is some instead of grouping all of the supporters and accusing them of something some of them haven't done.
As to whether she damaged the family relationship she wasn't alone in that Charles also helped.
__________________

__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 06-17-2011, 09:51 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Diana's legacy is easily expressed: The future King William V (God willing) and his brother, Prince Harry. Their way of conducting themselves, their informality, their sense of how the "common person" lives in the UK and Commonwealth and yes, their charisma along with a good ability to handle the media all speak to Diana's success as a mother.
In addition, I believe the Princess herself would have seen them as her legacy; their upbringing was her number one priority in life and her love for them was absolute and unconditional. In turn, they never let her down, either, and satisfied her need to receive unconditional love to the extent it is possible for children so to do.
She put an enormous amount of thought into the manner in which they were raised, even trying to make sure each cultivated enough "outside" friends early on enough in life so that questions of sycophancy never enters these relationships. She really thought their futures out in minute detail and I believe the results are obvious for all to see.
Now before anyone jumps on me, of course I recognise the role the Prince of Wales played as well, but that is not the question addressed by this thread. (Although the amount of vitriol served up to Diana by a few posters makes me wonder if former members of Prince Charles' household, particularly those who served during the "War of the Waleses", are posting here, lol.)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 06-17-2011, 10:27 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Diana, Princess of Wales' legacy only proves that fairy-tales of profound happiness and a perfect life, do not exist in the real world. Like most, she found that out the hard way. I only have praise for the late Princess of Wales.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 06-18-2011, 12:12 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The fact that there are many in Britain and elsewhere, including people here, who regularly call for the succession rules to be put aside shows just how damaging her legacy is - to promote the popularity of the moment or even the individual over the institution itself is damaging to the institution and she put that on the agenda.

Yes, I agree with this. Royalty does not, nor should it, have anything but an incidental relationship with celebrity. Royalty trumps. Celebrity is the result of royalty - the reverse is a perversion. It might be largely ceremonial, in this case, but it is a matter of both constitution and culture - society and politics joins never so easily as in a Monarchy and I consider it a vital aspect of my identity and my country's stability. To have it appear subservient to the public's whimsy is a dangerous ground. My grandmother would call it a slippery slope.

Diana appears to have believed the power of popularity and celebrity could alter one of the most fundamental safeguards of a thousand year old monarchy. This, in itself, indicates a very weak mind, if not an irrational or disordered one. Whilst a monarchy wants to be popular and relies, as a whole, upon the goodwill of the people, the manner of its workings are etched in old stones and its stability relies upon ... well, its stability. Which some might read as intransigence or rigidity or even, ahem, regal arrogance. It is what it is and it sits at the core of successful monarchies.

It is my belief that William is well aware of the important mistake she made in this regard. He has commented on the preposterous nature of the notion that he should leapfrog over his father to the throne.

Whatever good she did, and I see a lot of it - right down to opening up the Monarchy a little (although there is that famous quote about letting too much light in will let some of the magic out - was that King George V?) and the clearly loving manner in which she chose to mother her children - the damage she *almost* did, willful and selfish as it seems to have been, makes her historical footnote, in my opinion, not dissimilar to the Duke of Windsor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 06-18-2011, 12:29 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Diana's cautionary tale, is never marry a man who is married to someone else in his heart. Never marry a man who will envy any of your accomplishments. Never marry into a family that has no innovative thought, until it is screamed for. Never marry into a family that sees itself better than you.
Your opinion comes from so vastly different a place than mine that I sometimes forget *that* side of things is important to people, too. It's good to have the reminder :)

I come from the school of stoics, I am afraid. As far as I am concerned, she was obligated, as was Charles, to suck it up, accept the personal sacrifice being married to one another might mean, put on the show-face and fulfill their roles. He asked. She said yes. They had children. They were in line to the throne. They both needed to step up. I can't say who failed first or who caused the failure - but it is my distinct impression Charles would have done just that. Stepped up and played the game like a good Prince of Wales. I can't imagine being married to either of them was a piece of cake.

I am old enough - or just of that old school mentality - that says you do not put self ahead of duty - whatever the duty is.

Frankly, while I have human sympathy for her suffering, as a subject of the realm, I had a greater need of her than her own personal happiness and she let me down. She put herself ahead of the countries to whom she was to be Queen. It's ironic that it is, like with Edward VIII, only in their failure to achieve/keep the role that we learn we were better off without them. It would seem that the royal family has a self preservation gene - the really unfortunate ones self destruct :)

Sorry to waylay your post.

I appreciate that the personal aspects of Diana's experiences must seem overwhelming to many people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:11 AM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
If Diana's legacy is a weaker monarchy, that is a consequence primarily of the marriage. And that is half/half. Prince Charles was the one who should be more concern about his position. said that before and will repeated, cause it will always come down to this for me: She was 19, he was the 32year-old one. He should've know better!

While watching Prince William' wedding it became even more clear to me that the only reason some are willing to wait for Charles it's because William is Diana'son and will be next.
(Even if I don't share the same views, I believe Prince Charles has proven himself and regardless is deserving of the throne).
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:18 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
Yes, I agree with this. Royalty does not, nor should it, have anything but an incidental relationship with celebrity. Royalty trumps. Celebrity is the result of royalty - the reverse is a perversion. It might be largely ceremonial, in this case, but it is a matter of both constitution and culture - society and politics joins never so easily as in a Monarchy and I consider it a vital aspect of my identity and my country's stability. To have it appear subservient to the public's whimsy is a dangerous ground. My grandmother would call it a slippery slope.

Diana appears to have believed the power of popularity and celebrity could alter one of the most fundamental safeguards of a thousand year old monarchy. This, in itself, indicates a very weak mind, if not an irrational or disordered one. Whilst a monarchy wants to be popular and relies, as a whole, upon the goodwill of the people, the manner of its workings are etched in old stones and its stability relies upon ... well, its stability. Which some might read as intransigence or rigidity or even, ahem, regal arrogance. It is what it is and it sits at the core of successful monarchies.

It is my belief that William is well aware of the important mistake she made in this regard. He has commented on the preposterous nature of the notion that he should leapfrog over his father to the throne.

Whatever good she did, and I see a lot of it - right down to opening up the Monarchy a little (although there is that famous quote about letting too much light in will let some of the magic out - was that King George V?) and the clearly loving manner in which she chose to mother her children - the damage she *almost* did, willful and selfish as it seems to have been, makes her historical footnote, in my opinion, not dissimilar to the Duke of Windsor.
I agree with you entirely Diana was not mallicious, but she was extremely foolish, and her actions damaged The Monarchy for years. Fortunatley the recovery is happening.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:29 AM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
Well, we at least can agree that the British Royal family has learn a great deal with the past 2 decades and the future generations will be and are benefiting from it.
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:38 AM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Some almost-harsh words about the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it is fantastic that differing opinions about the late PoW have been expressed. This has only opened my eyes to things I had not realized about her. I still do believe HisRH, the PoW, should have never lied to himself about his feelings about the then-future-Duchess of Cornwall. I think he married Diana to please the masses who had been speculating marriage for him all of his adult life. IOW, he married Diana for all the wrong reasons, while she married him for the right reasons. Her heart of gold existed in her naivitee, and as time progressed and she matured, her heart was simply shattered into many pieces with the realization of the obvious. Being used by the main players in the BRF, probably kicked Diana the gut many, many times. It is one of the most devastating feelings to ever deal with. I was happy for her when she began to start a new life for herself, but tragically .........
She is 'for the ages' now, and rests in
peace.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:27 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Darwin View Post
I agree with you entirely Diana was not malicious, but she was extremely foolish, and her actions damaged The Monarchy for years. Fortunately the recovery is happening.
I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 06-18-2011, 06:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
I don't think I would make a comparison between Diana and the Duke of Windsor.

The two scenarios are very different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 06-18-2011, 06:48 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.
I hardly see Diana as a victim. I just don't want to make a blanket statement given the theories about her mental health.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 06-18-2011, 07:16 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renata4711 View Post
I don't think I would make a comparison between Diana and the Duke of Windsor.

The two scenarios are very different.
Oh yes, vastly different. And still, there is the underlying theme that both the DoW and the PoW felt their own personal happiness more important than the stability of the monarchy and took steps to ensure their own happiness that actually damaged the monarchy.

Henry VIII was similar except that in Henry's day he could reasonably expect to be able to force such changes as were needed to make his happiness complete- Kings and Queens were powerful in those days.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 06-18-2011, 07:18 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Henry VIII was basing his opinions/actions on the Divine Right of Kings theory.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 06-18-2011, 07:25 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia_mae View Post

While watching Prince William' wedding it became even more clear to me that the only reason some are willing to wait for Charles it's because William is Diana'son...
The notion that people feel "willing to wait" is ... strange. It implies a choice. It implies we run the monarchy by popular vote. We wait because Charles is next and then William. I like William, frankly, despite the fact that his mother seems to have suffered from some form of mental instability which would be a terrible thing to sit latent in such a promising young man. But even so, like or dislike, it's Charles and then William and that's the way it is - whether we be willing or unwilling.

I think *this* - the notion that we're somehow in charge of the succession by our popular opinion - is, sadly, Diana's most enduring legacy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 06-18-2011, 07:28 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Henry VIII was basing his opinions/actions on the Divine Right of Kings theory.
Yes, indeed. Little bits (vague and theoretical and devoid of religious context as they are) of which color my own perception of the modern monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 06-18-2011, 07:36 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.

I agree with this. I think one problem is that Diana had no patience- she wanted what she wanted, right NOW.

An example of this is the way she went about getting rid of Camilla, basically just demanding she be gone. A clever woman would have worked slowly and carefully, learning from the way Camilla handled Charles, and then gradually undermining her. It would have been possible in the early days of the marriage.

As it was, the Monarchy suffered, but so did Diana.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 06-18-2011, 08:07 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Some almost-harsh words about the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it is fantastic that differing opinions about the late PoW have been expressed. This has only opened my eyes to things I had not realized about her. I still do believe HisRH, the PoW, should have never lied to himself about his feelings about the then-future-Duchess of Cornwall. I think he married Diana to please the masses who had been speculating marriage for him all of his adult life. IOW, he married Diana for all the wrong reasons, while she married him for the right reasons. Her heart of gold existed in her naivitee, and as time progressed and she matured, her heart was simply shattered into many pieces with the realization of the obvious. Being used by the main players in the BRF, probably kicked Diana the gut many, many times. It is one of the most devastating feelings to ever deal with. I was happy for her when she began to start a new life for herself, but tragically .........
She is 'for the ages' now, and rests in
peace.
Beautifully put and very true, IMHO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 06-18-2011, 08:27 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.
I can't quite decide if some members of TRF are relatives of Charles' former private secretary, Richard Aylard,or if they are Richard Aylard himself and his wife... JK.

The next time I see the Princess described as "paranoid of the Establishment" I will completely understand how she came to that state of being. Almost fourteen years since her death and the amount of vitriol and sheer nastiness bandied about concerning a dead lady with no way to defend herself just takes my breath away. And I am far from being part of the "let's sanctify Diana" crew; she did make many mistakes and had many faults - she was human, just like all of us.

As I've already posted, her sons are her legacy. So too is the pared-down Monarchy, more in touch with the people. All the staunch old-school Monarchists seem to miss the point that by bringing a human face, complete with mistakes, back to the Royal Family - she probably ensured its continuance. Why else has the Queen implemented so many of the changes Diana had pushed for?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 06-18-2011, 09:10 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
Almost fourteen years since her death and the amount of vitriol and sheer nastiness bandied about concerning a dead lady with no way to defend herself just takes my breath away.
Such is the nature of historical discussion. None of the former members of the RF are here to defend themselves. Their lives and actions are their only defense. Diana is a historical figure and I, for one, discuss her more in the abstract with no regard for the "respect for the dead" we afford private citizens because ... well, she wasn't a private citizen.

I believe it is important to understand Diana and her legacy, as it were, so that mistakes, if made, won't be repeated. This is the value, as Churchill well knew, of historical rumination. This is *huge* stuff - the stuff of stable or unstable monarchies - entire cultural ways of life. Maybe part of the problem is that Diana did not, herself, understand how much bigger and more important than herself it is/was. Maybe. It's purely conjecture on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
And I am far from being part of the "let's sanctify Diana" crew; she did make many mistakes and had many faults - she was human, just like all of us.
No, she wasn't. Well, yes she was human like the rest of us - but her actions affected an entire society and is it not the nature of royalty that they occupy positions that render them something slightly "more" than a rank and file human citizen? This sets them to a higher standard - whether that seems "fair" or not, in a human to human way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
As I've already posted, her sons are her legacy. So too is the pared-down Monarchy, more in touch with the people. All the staunch old-school Monarchists seem to miss the point that by bringing a human face, complete with mistakes, back to the Royal Family - she probably ensured its continuance. Why else has the Queen implemented so many of the changes Diana had pushed for?
I will directly disagree with the notion that Diana "ensured" the "continuance" of the monarchy. But it's too big an argument to tack onto this smaller bit :)

Let's shift the context for the sake of illustration...

So, if my fifteen year old throws a tantrum in the store and gets what he wants (let's say it was an ice cream) so that I can get along with my day (or whatever reason one gives into tantrums) and the result is that ice cream is now part of all shopping trips - is this a good thing? Sure, it's good for the kids. Until the fourteen year old figures we should have donuts, too. And then the twelve year old decides a chocolate bar would be good also. So, we continue making shopping trips, the kids get what they want and I have lost all authority and the "institution" of my parenthood has been damaged in serious and insidious ways.

I really do get confused by the notion that (a) we ought to treat this figure like a simple human being in terms of the post mortem analysis, so to speak and (b) publicly humiliating the Monarch and the entire BRF is seen to have a "net positive" effect.

That said, I admit to an intellectual stridency on the topic :)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, legacy, memorial, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Left-handed or right-handed royals? Peggy Royal Life and Lifestyle 31 01-28-2013 11:07 AM
Diana's will msleiman Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 56 01-06-2008 07:22 AM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]