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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Diana has been dead for 17 years now, and people still remember her and are debating her legacy. In fact there are over 60 pages on this one thread doing just that. As Ish has pointed out there was a new book out about Diana this year. I also doubt that she is a fading memory to her children.

I was just pointing out that nothing in the future is certain. Just as Diana was once regarded as a future Queen Consort so is Camilla now. However, there is no guarantee that anyone can give that Charles will outlive his mother. I'm certainly hoping he does do so, but nobody knows what is going to happen. If he doesn't come to the throne then Camilla will remain Duchess of Cornwall and a very minor footnote indeed.
 
And if William predeceases his father, Diana becomes an extremely minor footnote.
 
She will still be the progenitor of monarchs.


Her lineage won't be the only reason that she will be dissected for millennia to come however. She will be a figure of note because of the angst she caused within the family and the nation.
 
The longer between her death and William becoming King, the less people will associate William with Diana.

William is no longer a child. He has another woman in his life, Catherine. The focus will be on his wife and children rather than his mother.
 
She will still be the progenitor of monarchs.


Her lineage won't be the only reason that she will be dissected for millennia to come however. She will be a figure of note because of the angst she caused within the family and the nation.


I think she'll also always be an iconic pop culture figure and her work will always be highlighted in the history of AIDs research.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I doubt people still connect AIDS to a Princess somewere in the 1990's. Even knowledge how deadly AIDS once was (compare it with Ebola) is faded away from collective memory.
 
I doubt people still connect AIDS to a Princess somewere in the 1990's. Even knowledge how deadly AIDS once was (compare it with Ebola) is faded away from collective memory.

I didn't realize Diana had a connection to Aids, so that probably illustrates this ;)
 
Last edited:
I too never associate AIDS and Diana.

The first time I heard/read of her connection was from forum posters within the past 2 years.
 
I too never associate AIDS and Diana.

The first time I heard/read of her connection was from forum posters within the past 2 years.

Diana was ONE of the first noteworthy people to touch someone with HIV/AIDS. And this was a big deal at the time because not much was known about the disease and many were afraid that you could get it by touching an infected person. She wasn't the first and only but she was public figure and such a small gesture helped a lot.

I think there is some confusion about the legacy of well known figures or how they will be remembered in the future. It's worth nothing that NOT all historical figures are equal.

For some she might be a quick answer on a history test, or a passing mention in discussion about the BRF. For others she might be someone that they take a general interest in as they discuss her role in the BRF, the eternal triangle and whether or not she isn't a saint or sinner.The very fact we are discussing how someone who died 17 years ago but will be remembered in the future, tells me that Diana is a controversial subject that may be debated for years to come.

Aren't we still talking about the likes of Lincoln, Churchill and Kennedy. Okay...Diana certainly in their class in term of historical importance BUT Isn't Elvis remembered more than 25 years after his death? And not just by fans? Don't we still talk about Marilyn Monroe when previously undiscovered pictures are published? Will it by the mass hysteria that accompanied Diana's life and death? Of course not, I doubt that anything will reach that again. But she will be remembered, even if its just a footnote as the mother of a King and a grandmother of a King/Queen. The interest in the Diana might not be same as an American President or British Prime Minister or a British King, but there might be some interest in her.

She is forever connected with the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and the of the BRF. She will be mentioned with Charles and William become King and when they die. If William and Harry have daughters, and if ONE of them has a passing resemblance to Diana, it will be pointed out by the press just as the press does know when they make reference to current members of the BRF who resemble deceased family remembers (Prince Michael of Kent/Nicholas II, Lady Louise Wessex/a young Princess Elizabeth of York, etc.).

Many of us here at TRF have an interest in royalty. Mine began when I learned about Henry VIII and I read everything I could about him in the old fashioned encyclopedia...this was before the internet and even before Charles married Diana. The renewed interest in the Tudors as well as the many books written about Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary, Elizabeth I and others have happened a good 450 years AFTER they lived. But they also lived in a time when you had to fight to survive and live through severe court intrigue, and were absolute rulers. So of course they can't be compared to Diana. Only Anne Bolyen can (mother of a future ruler) and yet many (us at TRF, authors, historians, etc.) are still talking about her.

As previously pointed out there is continued interest in the Tudors, War of the Roses, Marie Antoinette and the Windsors. Who would have thought that there would still be interest these people many many years later? Whose to say that 50 to 100 years from now...there will not be a renewed interest of Diana, Princess of Wales. Someone somewhere might feel the need to look for a new angle, and reshash (the very good and the very bad) everything we have been talking about for the past 10 years.

In conclusion, I wouldn't write her off just yet. There might be a budding historian or author, who following the death of King William V (Not that I am wishing harm on William).....and while people are discussing his legacy learns about his late mother, Diana. In the past, she was just something briefly mentioned in passing. This budding writer/historian was born a good 50 after Diana's death and decided to focus Diana's life/death and how it played a part in William's reign. And its all at their finger tips.

Anything is possible but many of us might not be around to see it. Cause that is just life.
 
Last edited:
I've very much associate Diana with the fight against AIDS. The picture of her holding the little black baby with AIDS is iconic. It move me at the time and it is an image that I will never forget. I think she set a new standard for young celebrities to use their popularity promote serious causes. Angelina Jolie and others have said that they found their inspiration in Princess Diana.

So although the divorce proceedings were very negative and may have taken away from her image at the time, I think her long-term legacy is going to be her use of her celebrity for good. I'm not saying that she was an AIDS researcher but sometimes a picture or a celebrity saying something ( e.g. Elizabeth Taylor) can draw attention and money to an important cause.

I also think her legacy is her sons. Harry definitely seems to get the point about using a celebrity and popularity for the good. Finally, I think another aspect of her legacy is that she did change the way that the British royal family relates to the media. Although Prince Charles despises the intrusions by the media it is also clear that he has caught on to how to use the media and celebrities to promote his causes.
 
This Aids conversation is very curious. :ermm: I grew up in the 80's and 90's. My mother was into royalty but I don't have a recall of this, vivid or otherwise, oddly enough. As a result I did a google and this is what I came up with on my first go:

LINK: Aids doctor's row with Diana | Daily Mail Online

Diana is a mixed message when it comes to her own story. It will never be clear-cut. She does not always stand up well in memoirs. There are a lot of gray areas. She's a hard one to call.

My own opinion is Diana will likely be glossed over as a controversial figure, the center of several scandals, and that will be it. Mother of a King who died tragically and much too young. At some point revisionist historians will step in and the past will be unrecognizable. It already is very likely to those who lived it. You can tell from some of the comments.

For me Diana is like Wallis Simpson, or the Czarina Alexandra of Russia - I don't really get what all the fuss was about, how certain women can create such a stir in the popular imagination. For that reason alone, Wallis Simpson is interesting, and Alexandra, and for that reason, too, so will be Diana. JMO.
 
Last edited:
Diana was not a pioneer is bring AIDS to the forefront.

Ryan White and Rock Hudson were.

By the time Diana had hugged a child everyone was on the bandwagon hugging and kissing children affected with AIDS.

It was Ryan White's story that quieted the hysterical over the spread of AIDS through casual contact.

In 1985 Ryan White fought his school system to be allowed to go to school.

His story was in the news every single day and it was his story that brought AIDS to the forefront. He changed the face of AIDS from a disease that affected drug users and gays to children and the general population.

Each story and newscast about him stated how AIDS was contracted. Reports all stated that the disease could not be contracted through touching and the public was not at risk unless they engaged in risky sexual behavior, drug use, shared tainted needles or had a blood transfusion.

It was Rock Hudson's admission that he had AIDS that cause the U.S. government to expand it spending to finding a cure for AIDS.

Ryan White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson
 
Last edited:
I have a vague memory of Diana doing something with an AIDs charity or something like that but my memory of her is more that she wore clothes well to her charity does. What charities she supported I couldn't tell you as I don't remember her and any specific charity - that she worked for charities I do remember but which one - no. Why - because the coverage was always on what she wore to the event and not on the charity itself.


Using the media - she was the master of course. Her sons haven't learnt anything about that from her other than to keep them at arms length especially William who is paranoid about allowing the press to even take any pictures of his family - unlike Diana who was keen for the photographers to take lots of photos of her with her sons. William is more like his father in that regard - keep the private life private - something Diana never did.
 
In the greater historiography of the AIDS epidemic, Diana will be nothing more than a "footnote." She really didn't play an important role in it; there's a reason that she isn't mentioned once in the Wikipedia page for HIV/AIDS. The people who are going to play an important part in the historiography of AIDS - the people who do play an important part in it - are those like Rock Hudson, Nicholas Eden, Freddie Mercury, Arthur Ashe, Magic Johnson, Pedro Zamora, and Ryan White - people who publicly acknowledged having HIV or AIDS before their deaths or, in the case of Magic Johnson, publicly acknowledged having HIV and then went on to play a huge activist role in it.

In the historiography of Diana her work with AIDS organizations will likely be noted, as will her other charity works. That said, the focus of her historiography is going to be on her marriage, her divorce, and her death. Those are always going to be the main focal points of historical research on Diana, and while she's not going to be a person that pops up on a high school history test she will continued to be studied in the future.
 
while she's not going to be a person that pops up on a high school history test she will continued to be studied in the future.


I think there is a very good chance she could end up on high school history exams at my school next year. The Elective History class in Year 10 are studying Assassinations and Conspiracy Theories and have chosen to study Diana's death as an example.

I know other schools who also teach that unit - or something similar - so she will pop up.

The others we are studying by the way - Julius Caesar, Rasputin ad JFK.
 
I think there is a very good chance she could end up on high school history exams at my school next year. The Elective History class in Year 10 are studying Assassinations and Conspiracy Theories and have chosen to study Diana's death as an example.

I know other schools who also teach that unit - or something similar - so she will pop up.

The others we are studying by the way - Julius Caesar, Rasputin ad JFK.

Okay, 1. your high school level students get to study some really interesting stuff. And 2. I meant more in a general history course; the one you're mentioning seems to be more of a specialized one.
 
Not at all, Bertie. You've made me almost wish I was a high school student in Australia - and I haven't wanted to be a high school student in about 15 years now.
 
I doubt people will debate much of anything about Diana's role in the AIDS crisis-but I do think that as many will continue to appreciate the way that Diana--and countless other individuals--acted in such a way that countermanded the popular and yet totally ridiculous notion that AIDS patients should be treated like pariahs or lepers.
 
Diana is an interesting figure - loved, and frequently now, loathed in equal measure. More than being remembered for helping specific causes, I think her legacy is her two sons, and the effect she had on their "style" of being royal. Diana brought empathy and a certain amount of informality to the royal rounds. She showed that she cared. In many ways, this was emblematic of the times in which she lived; society was becoming more open as far as showing feelings, sharing emotions, etc. But, it had not been practiced so openly in the royal family prior to her arrival. Many of the things she did as Princess of Wales (e.g. shaking hands with Aids patients, visiting homeless shelters at night with her young sons) simply had not been done by other members of the royal family. There was an aloofness about them. For better or for worse, Diana had a big part in breaking that image, and exemplifying it in front of her sons while she was alive. So, really William and Harry are her lasting, living legacy. Not a bad way to have influenced society - through your children!
 
Many of the things she did as Princess of Wales (e.g. shaking hands with Aids patients, visiting homeless shelters at night with her young sons) simply had not been done by other members of the royal family.

I agree that shaking hands with AIDS patients had not been done before by the British Royal Family but Princess Anne had spent a considerable amount of time in non-glamorous conditions with Save the Children so Diana wasn't new in taking on "hard" causes.

As for her impact, someone above mentioned Ryan White and Magic Johnson. They might have been leaders of the AIDS cause in America but certainly not in the UK where basketball had no TV coverage and Ryan White made headlines only because Michael Jackson went to see him.

Growing up in the UK it was the media attention on Diana meeting AIDS patients that I saw. I recall at the time of the first visit when she was photographed shaking hands with someone with AIDS there were people saying she should not do it because it was dangerous. So it was an important step to show she was not afraid of catching the disease from social contact. While her impact may not have been as great in North America, it was positive and new in the UK.

In regards to taking her sons to homeless shelters, I'm afraid I see this a little like the doctor in the AIDS article posted above. Who's benefit was this for? Unfortunately, Diana manipulated the press so much that I am always skeptical about her motives even though she may have done it with the very best of intentions.
 
Diana certainly had an impact on the perception of AIDS and she raised a lot of money for various causes, but she was one of many celebrities. Obviously she got more media attention in the UK than Magic Johnson. But I was in the UK shortly after Rock Hudson's death and there was a lot of media coverage, particularly discussions about how AIDS is transmitted.

Moreover, Diana also tried to improve perceptions about leprosy, with much less success--mainly because the UK and the US don't have a large number of people suffering from the disease.

Regarding taking her young sons to visit a homeless shelter, I tend to think of it as a publicity stunt. It didn't hurt them but I don't think it was essential to forming their character. I'm not saying it didn't make an impression but I believe they would have been interested in helping those who are homeless even if they had never visited a homeless shelter as children.

The royal family and many others have been working for charities for years. Charles has been working on charities to address employment, affordable housing, and drug addiction--root causes of homelessness--since before he married Diana.

I doubt that the Earl of Spencer took Diana and her siblings to tour homeless shelters. She had a natural interest. My parents didn't take me to those types of places, yet I regularly volunteer to serve meals and donate funds to homeless causes. William and Harry would have been encouraged to follow in the family footsteps regardless of Diana's involvement.

Diana certainly contributed to her sons' interest in charitable work but I think her main contribution was helping to formulate their personalities. Diana had a sense of informality and fun. Her sons, particularly Harry, share it. She was committed to giving them a "normal" middle-class life. They went to amusement parks, they saw movies in theaters, they went shopping, they didn't have to be so formal around her, etc... On the other hand, like the royal family, she had servants and took them on expensive vacations--and there is nothing wrong with that.

This has been a very interesting discussion because I've been approaching the whole "will Diana be a footnote or not" discussion as an American. It's natural for me to consider members of the modern British royal family as "footnotes," but UK nationals and members of the commonwealth have a different view. I'm learning a lot.
 
Donating funds & volunteering at homeless shelters seen as a "duty" to the less fortunate is an entirely different thing from showing up at inconvenient hours, and actually engaging with and showing empathy for the people who are residents, especially with young, impressionable children in tow.
 
Diana is an interesting figure - loved, and frequently now, loathed in equal measure. More than being remembered for helping specific causes, I think her legacy is her two sons, and the effect she had on their "style" of being royal. Diana brought empathy and a certain amount of informality to the royal rounds. She showed that she cared. In many ways, this was emblematic of the times in which she lived; society was becoming more open as far as showing feelings, sharing emotions, etc. But, it had not been practiced so openly in the royal family prior to her arrival. Many of the things she did as Princess of Wales (e.g. shaking hands with Aids patients, visiting homeless shelters at night with her young sons) simply had not been done by other members of the royal family. There was an aloofness about them. For better or for worse, Diana had a big part in breaking that image, and exemplifying it in front of her sons while she was alive. So, really William and Harry are her lasting, living legacy. Not a bad way to have influenced society - through your children!

Great post. The compassion that is shown by both William and Harry is the greatest legacy that Diana could have.
 
Donating funds & volunteering at homeless shelters seen as a "duty" to the less fortunate is an entirely different thing from showing up at inconvenient hours, and actually engaging with and showing empathy for the people who are residents, especially with young, impressionable children in tow.

I have more appreciation for stories about royals apparently have been secret benefactors. That was the problem with Diana. How wonderful what she did for homeless, but eeeh... how conveniently there was always someone from the Daily Mail or The Telegraph on that unchristianly hour...

I think it is not bon ton to talk about good deeds, to show "Princess Helps Pauper". Just do it. Help them. Give aid. Don't misuse it for tweaking a public appreciation.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
In principle you have a point, good deeds should go in silence indeed. But in this particular case not so much. Her presence -or that of any royal or celebrity- has more effect when it comes in the press. That way more attention is generated to the cause, which will hopefully lead to an increase of understanding, volunteers or donations for the cause.
 
Donating funds & volunteering at homeless shelters seen as a "duty" to the less fortunate is an entirely different thing from showing up at inconvenient hours, and actually engaging with and showing empathy for the people who are residents, especially with young, impressionable children in tow.
First, I am not sure that it is just a "duty" to the royal family, they seem to be genuinely caring.

Second, I don't know that bringing young, impressionable children to homeless shelters is necessarily a good idea. It may be okay in some cases but those who are forced to stay in shelters are people with feelings -- not "life lessons" for parents to use as examples for their children. There are many ways to teach about compassion. As I pointed out, I doubt Diana herself spent much time at homeless shelters when she was growing up.

The shelter I work with (at inconvenient hours) does not allow children under 15 years old to volunteer or visit. Most high schools require older high school students (16 and 17 years old) to complete a certain amount of community service hours in order to graduate. It's an excellent idea.

My own kids did not visit shelters when they were younger. Now, they often they go with me, but it is always their choice. I make it a point not to force them or reward them in anyway. It should come from the heart. I tried to set an example by volunteering, talking about the problems with them, and listening to their thoughts.

That is not to say that I don't think Diana should have publicized her visits. The publicity certainly helped the cause.

But the bottom line is that Diana was not the only influence in William and Harry's lives. Frankly, William seems more passionate about wildlife conservation than homelessness. Similarly, Harry seems more passionate about wounded veterans than homelessness.

Both men are certainly part of her legacy, but they had many influences and they have forged their own path--just like both their parents did.
 
Agreed. I'd also like to add that there were things that Diana did of a charitable and humanitarian nature that weren't revealed until after her death. Diana: The Portrait has many of these stories.:flowers:

In principle you have a point, good deeds should go in silence indeed. But in this particular case not so much. Her presence -or that of any royal or celebrity- has more effect when it comes in the press. That way more attention is generated to the cause, which will hopefully lead to an increase of understanding, volunteers or donations for the cause.
 
I would had a an important part of making your memory last is your children passing on the ideals, ideas, dreams you taught to the next generation...Will Harry and William, try to raise children the way Diana tried to raise him, going to shelters and fast food joint's and seeing the way regular people struggle and such? time will tell but then you can see if she really changed royal behavior in a lasting way .
 
In the greater historiography of the AIDS epidemic, Diana will be nothing more than a "footnote." She really didn't play an important role in it; there's a reason that she isn't mentioned once in the Wikipedia page for HIV/AIDS. The people who are going to play an important part in the historiography of AIDS - the people who do play an important part in it - are those like Rock Hudson, Nicholas Eden, Freddie Mercury, Arthur Ashe, Magic Johnson, Pedro Zamora, and Ryan White - people who publicly acknowledged having HIV or AIDS before their deaths or, in the case of Magic Johnson, publicly acknowledged having HIV and then went on to play a huge activist role in it.

In the historiography of Diana her work with AIDS organizations will likely be noted, as will her other charity works. That said, the focus of her historiography is going to be on her marriage, her divorce, and her death. Those are always going to be the main focal points of historical research on Diana, and while she's not going to be a person that pops up on a high school history test she will continued to be studied in the future.

Well, I personally, as someone who had a close family member die of Aids in 1991, have to disagree that she 'did not play an important role'. Until the Pss of Wales was photographed holding the hand of a dying Aids patient, they were considered a pariah. I wonder if those of you who are denigrating the fact that her outreach was a HUGE change in the way Aids patients were regarded have had any one they were close to die of this disease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom