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

[roseroyal]

Originally Posted by Aliza

I agree wholeheartedly that Diana would have penned quite a different story in 1997 than she did in 1992...

Agree with you about the above! Though you have to agree that Diana did some wonderful things by leading with her heart. It is what made her the Queen of Hearts. She would not have been the same person otherwise.
Did she make mistakes? Of course. She was human.
But I admire her from leading from the heart.

[Aliza]

Yes, isn't it interesting how some people, for example, Diana - her best qualities, like leading from the heart and being open to people were also the source of many of her troubles....

My Mum used to say that you CAN have too much of a good thing!

Please don't misunderstand me. I have always been and will always be an avid admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales. I just don't belong to the "sanctify Diana" brigade and obviously both of you, Roseroyal and Olebabs don't belong to that crew, either.

Diana's flaws, her humanity, are part of what made her so special. I'm no fan of Earl Spencer's speech at her funeral, but I did think he described his sister well at the end, "The unique, the complex and irreplaceable Diana, whose beauty, both internal and external will never be extinguished from our minds." (I'm pretty sure I forgot an adjective in there - sorry for the paraphrasing!)

[roseroyal]

Great last 2 posts, Aliza! Agree with both 100%! BTW, you are very welcome.

[Kataryn]

[QUOTE=Aliza;1272298]

Originally Posted by roseroyal

Then maybe that is part of her legacy; Diana demonstrated that Royals can show flaws and be humanitarian instead of portraying themselves as "picture perfect" people in order to be loved and respected. She brought humanity to the BRF without losing the magic of Royalty.

Thanks roseroyal, I never thought of it that way before, but it makes sense.

I for one could have well lived without that kind of "humanity". I wished she had shown more humility when it comes to Britain's tradition nd its monarchy.

[sirhon11234]

[QUOTE=Aliza;1272298]

Originally Posted by roseroyal

Then maybe that is part of her legacy; Diana demonstrated that Royals can show flaws and be humanitarian instead of portraying themselves as "picture perfect" people in order to be loved and respected. She brought humanity to the BRF without losing the magic of Royalty.

Thanks roseroyal, I never thought of it that way before, but it makes sense.

I agree, imo Royals shouldn't strive to project a perfect image. A dignified human yet relatable image is much better for me.

[roseroyal]

[QUOTE=Kataryn;1272541]

Originally Posted by Aliza

I for one could have well lived without that kind of "humanity". I wished she had shown more humility when it comes to Britain's tradition nd its monarchy.

Respect for tradition is a good thing- and I beleve Diana had plenty.
But change is also a good thing. Moving forward to fit the times, and meet the needs of the people is a good thing.
In these times, people need humanity. They need the human touch. Regal majesty, and cold stiffness, pomp and circumstance alone does not cut it anymore.
People of Britain needed a monarchy that respected tradition, and the old ways, ( The Queen) but they also needed one that displayed humanity, and moved with the times( Diana). They had both. It was a win-win.
And the lessons from Diana remain.

[olebabs]

So true RoseRoyal. But what a price, they had to pay for them.

[roseroyal]

Really tragic.... Diana paid the ultimate price. As did Britain.

[olebabs]

Originally Posted by roseroyal

Really tragic.... Diana paid the ultimate price. As did Britain.

Yes but in a way, that facilitated what she tried to achieve; it open the monarchy up a bit. Otherwise Charles would never be able to marry the woman he wanted from the beguinning.

[Aliza]

Originally Posted by olebabs

Yes but in a way, that facilitated what she tried to achieve; it open the monarchy up a bit. Otherwise Charles would never be able to marry the woman he wanted from the beguinning.

Isn't the fact that Diana paved the way for Charles to marry Camilla just the ultimate irony? And also, isn't it sad how many people can't let go of the "War of the Waleses" fourteen years after the Princess' death and fifteen years after Charles and Diana had managed to establish some sort of friendship, forgiven each other and were healing their family bonds, including being more flexible about the time the boys spent with each parent? One of the saddest points I always remember about 1997 is how Diana had been promised by the Queen that the boys could spend Christmas with their Mother instead of at Sandringham...

It's a shame that a thread devoted to Diana's legacy is used to bash her memory by reciting mistakes she made (and some she didn't make) while there is no acknowledgment that all parties had moved forward from the mistakes made on all sides and the future was looking brighter for everyone concerned.

That willingness to forgive and move on after such a bitter fight should be a wonderful tribute to the Princess and acknowledged as part of her legacy as well.

[Warren]

Discussion of the Mohammed Al Fayed-financed conspiracy film "Unlawful Killing" has been moved to the Diana film, video and TV thread
in the Royal Library.

[Mermaid1962]

Personally, I don't think that Diana would still want her supporters to be bashing Charles and Camilla now. Time does have a way of healing bitterness, particularly after there's been a death. Both Diana and her marriage to Charles belong to the historians now, and I think that there's enough evidence available for them to be able to make fair judgments about Charles and Diana. William and Harry, who are her living legacy, seem to be doing alright and I'm sure she'd be enormously proud of how they're doing now that they've become their own men and public personalities. I am bothered both by those who think that the young Diana was a scheming shrew out to "get her man" and by those who see her as having no fault at all in the breakdown of her marriage and the lowering of her reputation in later years. The same with Prince Charles. I don't think that he was a victim in his marriage, nor do I think that he was completely cold and heartless. People are more complex than that.

Originally Posted by Aliza

And also, isn't it sad how many people can't let go of the "War of the Waleses" fourteen years after the Princess' death and fifteen years after Charles and Diana had managed to establish some sort of friendship, forgiven each other and were healing their family bonds, including being more flexible about the time the boys spent with each parent? [/B]

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Personally, I don't think that Diana would still want her supporters to be bashing Charles and Camilla now. Time does have a way of healing bitterness, particularly after there's been a death. Both Diana and her marriage to Charles belong to the historians now, and I think that there's enough evidence available for them to be able to make fair judgments about Charles and Diana. William and Harry, who are her living legacy, seem to be doing alright and I'm sure she'd be enormously proud of how they're doing now that they've become their own men and public personalities. I am bothered both by those who think that the young Diana was a scheming shrew out to "get her man" and by those who see her as having no fault at all in the breakdown of her marriage and the lowering of her reputation in later years. The same with Prince Charles. I don't think that he was a victim in his marriage, nor do I think that he was completely cold and heartless. People are more complex than that.

Excellent post!

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Aliza

One of the saddest points I always remember about 1997 is how Diana had been promised by the Queen that the boys could spend Christmas with their Mother instead of at Sandringham....

Could you post a link to this please as I have never heard this before?

I do know that Diana was always invited to spend Christmas at Sandringham and could have spent Christmas with her sons every year if she had wanted to but she chose not to do so, instead choosing to stay in London alone. It was Diana's choice to spend Christmas away from her sons and no-one else's.

The Queen made Wood Cottage available to Sarah for many years for Christmas so that she could see the girls over Christmas, and the Queen herself would often go over there in the afternoon and have a cup of tea with Sarah and the girls.

[Mermaid1962]

Thank you, Zonk.

Originally Posted by Zonk

Excellent post!

[olebabs]

Hear, hear

In fact I read somewhere, that Diana urged Charles to make an honest woman of Camilla.

I think it is a shame, that she is forever linked with Dodi Al-Fayed. I am sure he was a very nice man though, but had she been really serious about him, I think she ould have come right out and said so. No need for grainy pictures, but we all have to kiss some frogs before we find the prince( in her case...again). Fortunately, the rest of us doen't have 50 photographers on our tail while doing it.
And who would turn down a holiday in the Mediterranian on a nice boat. I certanly would not.

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Personally, I don't think that Diana would still want her supporters to be bashing Charles and Camilla now. Time does have a way of healing bitterness, particularly after there's been a death. Both Diana and her marriage to Charles belong to the historians now, and I think that there's enough evidence available for them to be able to make fair judgments about Charles and Diana. William and Harry, who are her living legacy, seem to be doing alright and I'm sure she'd be enormously proud of how they're doing now that they've become their own men and public personalities. I am bothered both by those who think that the young Diana was a scheming shrew out to "get her man" and by those who see her as having no fault at all in the breakdown of her marriage and the lowering of her reputation in later years. The same with Prince Charles. I don't think that he was a victim in his marriage, nor do I think that he was completely cold and heartless. People are more complex than that.

[Mermaid1962]

The problem with Diana's holidaying with the Fayeds was that Mohammed Al Fayed was caught up in a "cash for questions" scandal involving British Members of Parliament. The allegations were made in 1994, which was only three years before Diana's summer holiday courtesy of Mr. Al Fayed. He had a history of being extravagant towards those who could do him favours and both desperately wanted to be part of British high society and yet despised those who denied him British citizenship. Diana, as The Princess of Wales in 1994, should have been more aware of his reputation and that he was someone she shouldn't have her children, grand-sons of HM The Queen, exposed to.

Originally Posted by olebabs

And who would turn down a holiday in the Mediterranian on a nice boat. I certanly would not.

[olebabs]

Of course you are right Mermaid1962, but to my knowledge the Fayeds was friends of her father(please correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, it may not have seemed so controversial for her to spend time with him and his family.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by olebabs

Hear, hear

In fact I read somewhere, that Diana urged Charles to make an honest woman of Camilla.

I think it is a shame, that she is forever linked with Dodi Al-Fayed. I am sure he was a very nice man though, but had she been really serious about him, I think she ould have come right out and said so. No need for grainy pictures, but we all have to kiss some frogs before we find the prince( in her case...again). Fortunately, the rest of us doen't have 50 photographers on our tail while doing it.
And who would turn down a holiday in the Mediterranian on a nice boat. I certanly would not.

It would depend on who the invitee was.

If I was opposed to land mines I wouldn't take a holiday with the nephew of an arms dealer with connections to the Iran-Contra affair and the Lockhead bribery scandal - Adnan Khashoggi was the brother of Dodi's mother, Samira.

There were also headlines in the press within a week or so of her death asking just how many holidays one person needed in a summer as Diana seemed to spend a lot of that summer in the sun on one holiday or another.

[olebabs]

Well now, she was not the guest of Mr. Khashoggi and had she been, I would totally agree with you. As for the holidays, it sound like sour grapes to me. I have 4 weeks of vacation this summer + 2 more weeks for the rest of the year, so I can't se a problem.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It would depend on who the invitee was.

If I was opposed to land mines I wouldn't take a holiday with the nephew of an arms dealer with connections to the Iran-Contra affair and the Lockhead bribery scandal - Adnan Khashoggi was the brother of Dodi's mother, Samira.

There were also headlines in the press within a week or so of her death asking just how many holidays one person needed in a summer as Diana seemed to spend a lot of that summer in the sun on one holiday or another.