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.
This statement, however, that detractors have used Diana's 'mental illness' to 'degrade' her, I have never seen, and I have read a lot. This is the kind of inflammatory statement that fuels the fire for those who are on some level devoted to the image of Diana, rather than the reality of who she was as a human being: flawed, as we all are, and no more nor less deserving of regard as anyone else. She was not unique. It's this insistence that Diana was somehow unique and special that can grate and needs looking at imo. We all have our story to tell, but there are points by which we have to accept that we make choices in how we will react to the pressures of the world. We're in charge. For me, Diana was never a very solid role-model in how to handle one's life.

I said many, I didn't say all. You may not have seen it but I have.
And on the subject of her being unique, you don't see it and that is perfectly fine. But some other do, personally I believe everyone is unique and has her or his own special qualities.
 
Diana's disclosure that she suffered from mental illness helped a lot of people and is very much part of her legacy. Unfortunately, she never really understood illness but it is a major comfort to people to know that they are not alone.


I have seen a few people use her illness to attack her, but not often. It's more common to see some of Diana's fans become offended when someone points out that her mental illness was a factor in the breakup of her marriage. Despite Diana's courage in coming forward, too many people, including some of her fans, continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or a fault.
 
Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.


I think what happens more is that Diana's detractors degrade her because of her behaviour, while pointing out that her behaviour may very well have been caused at least in part by her mental illnesses.

Diana suffered from bulimia and depression. Many believe she may have suffered from other undisclosed or undiagnosed mental illnesses. These in themselves are not things that she should be degraded for - they are illnesses, and I think in the way that she did acknowledge some of her problems did great things for bringing awareness to the issues and helped those suffering from bulimia, anorexia, and depression.

That said, there are times when Diana's behaviour was deplorable. There are stories about things she did and said that depict her as having been rather cruel and as having been in ways an abusive person. I don't think this is what she herself was like at her basic core, but the behaviour described in these stories show a woman who behaved atrociously at times - and that behaviour can be seen as a symptom of both her childhood and her mental illnesses. I don't think Diana should be criticized for having had a mental illness, but I do think that her mental illnesses are explanations for her at times deplorable behaviour, and she should be criticized for said behaviour.

Having a mental illness doesn't mean you should be criticized. But it also doesn't mean that you get excused for bad behaviour.
 
I said many, I didn't say all. You may not have seen it but I have.

Fair enough, I accept that that is so. :flowers: I trust you have dealt with such kindly and wisely when you have seen it happening.

And on the subject of her being unique, you don't see it and that is perfectly fine. But some other do, personally I believe everyone is unique and has her or his own special qualities.

In that sense, I for sure agree with you. :flowers: We are all deserving of respect for that 'something special' that is unique and that only each of us can bring. Quite so.

Where I draw my own line is when I detect that someone is being made unique above all others, that then makes the actions they do that are really 'not nice' apparently 'okay'. Diana, unfortunately, created havoc in the lives of those around her. There's no getting around it. She may have had the 'courage' to place a hand on an AIDS child (after being assured by the doctors that she would not be infected), but she had no problem destroying lives around her in her personal life. I find it hard to laud the former when the latter (to me) is the more front-and-center important action she ever took.
 
That said, there are times when Diana's behaviour was deplorable. There are stories about things she did and said that depict her as having been rather cruel and as having been in ways an abusive person. I don't think this is what she herself was like at her basic core, but the behaviour described in these stories show a woman who behaved atrociously at times - and thatbehaviour can be seen as a symptom of both her childhood and her mental illnesses. I don't think Diana should be criticized for having had a mental illness, but I do think that her mental illnesses are explanations for her at times deplorable behaviour, and she should be criticized for said behaviour.

Having a mental illness doesn't mean you should be criticized. But it also doesn't mean that you get excused for bad behaviour.

IMO, her childhood and 'mental illness' are used as excuses for her bad behaviour. Her childhood is overdramatized and her 'mental issues' are exaggerated.

The reality is her childhood was happy. Her parent divorce had little impact on her. (Sources: several people including her nanny.)

IMO, her depression was overblown. Lot of people get the blues. Whether it is the baby blues or blues related to disappointments in life.

Diana rewrote her life and some people believe it and use it as excuses for Diana's bad behaviour toward others.
 
Last edited:
IMO, her childhood and 'mental illness' are used as excuses for her bad behaviour. Her childhood is overdramatized and her 'mental issues' are exaggerated.

The reality is her childhood was happy. Her parent divorce had little impact on her. (Sources: several people including her nanny.)

IMO, her depression was overblown. Lot of people get the blues. Whether it is the baby blues or blues related to disappointments in life.

Diana rewrote her life and some people believe it and use it as excuses for Diana's bad behaviour toward others.

Excellent post imo. :flowers: Excellent points. I agree with every item, especially the final bolded one: Diana did re-write her life, and I have a theory why. In every instance when she did so, she was trying to get out of hot water. Her behavior was so bad she was experiencing consequences, so telling the tall tales was her 'get out of jail' card. That she was so resoundingly believed is the stunning part. That so many were willing to toss Charles out on his ear baffles, a man who has never said one negative word about Diana, and if anything, exemplifies good conservative social values regarding manners and duty.

The tactic she used is familiar to me, because I used it to great advantage as a teenager. :rolleyes: Yep. It's called mis-direction. I have done something I would like to have overlooked, so cook up a greater sin my brother has done. It worked more times than I care to admit. Happily, my brother doesn't hold grudges. :p

What Diana did was far more egregious, though, imo. She really did damage to people. She played a piper's tune that a whole nation seemed to dance to: why? I think that will always be the social historian's great question when it comes down to Lady Diana Spencer.
 
Last edited:
I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.

She played a piper's tune that a whole nation seemed to dance to: why? I think that will always be the social historian's great question when it comes down to Lady Diana Spencer.
 
There are some individuals (celebrities and others) that just exude vulnerability and a warmth that draws people to them. I think that Diana, whatever her private flaws, had that.

Also, remember the times when Diana first came to public notice. No internet with its constant revelations. A large proportion of women who regularly bought magazines. A British public who enjoyed the fairy-tale aspect of a pretty Earl's daughter marrying her Prince Charming.

People were a lot less cynical about PR, spin-doctoring etc in those days, and the wedding was magical. Some of that magic remained with Diana all her life and combined, imo, with the qualities that attracted others to her.
 
I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.

That described my feelings in a nutshell and it still does. She had magic, and an indefinable aura about her or she would not inspire such intense feelings in people to this day. Grace Kelly was also a radiant woman who manufactured an image of her herself that was not all that it seemed, but she does not inspire the type of intense pro/con debate that Diana did and does.

The fact that she was deeply troubled and flawed is beside the point for me. I accept that about her as part of a COMPLETE PACKAGE.For me, the fact that this uneducated, unsophisticated rather sheltered young woman came to symbolize what she did in her brief life...compassion, courage, beauty and elegance are what people will remember about her in 100 years, not her disturbing dark side. She made more people happy than unhappy during her journey here on Earth.

I became interested in the Windsors solely because of Lady Diana Spencer and the stark truth is that I don't really care that much about any of them now. No offense to William, Kate and Harry.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all three for trying to give me a sense of what it was that mesmerized people about her. :flowers: It's curious the interpretations of her because as a child I never found her interesting. I suppose it must be akin to liking an actress: for one person an idol, for another grating like fingernails on a chalkboard. From my child's perspective I found her indirect gaze off-putting, 'insincere', and interpreted her 'smile' as a 'smirk'. How different. It's why I never bothered with her growing up.

There are some individuals (celebrities and others) that just exude vulnerability and a warmth that draws people to them. I think that Diana, whatever her private flaws, had that. [...] People were a lot less cynical about PR, spin-doctoring etc in those days, and the wedding was magical. Some of that magic remained with Diana all her life and combined, imo, with the qualities that attracted others to her.

I think it all comes back to when the cameras started following Diana in the fall of 1980. She came across as young, innocent, polite and patient. Her wardrobe was unsophisticated, and she loved children. With her large blue eyes, she appeared childlike and vulnerable. Even though she became much more glamorous and self-assured in later years, she still had those large blue eyes and gentle manner (at least in public) that the young Lady Diana had. It was very hard to reconcile the stories of the private, troubled individual with that sympathetic image. This is the closest I can come to explaining it.

That described my feelings in a nutshell and it still does. She had magic, and an indefinable aura about her or she would not inspire such intense feelings in people to this day. Grace Kelly was also a radiant woman who manufactured an image of her herself that was not all that it seemed, but she does not inspire the type of intense pro/con debate that Diana did and does.

The fact that she was deeply troubled and flawed is beside the point for me. I accept that about her as part of a COMPLETE PACKAGE.For me, the fact that this uneducated, unsophisticated rather sheltered young woman came to symbolize what she did in her brief life...compassion, courage, beauty and elegance are what people will remember about her in 100 years, not her disturbing dark side. She made more people happy than unhappy during her journey here on Earth.

I became interested in the Windsors solely because of Lady Diana Spencer and the stark truth is that I don't really care that much about any of them now. No offense to William, Kate and Harry,

However, due to my mother, I did read a great deal about her. I was also around for a lot of her actions during my teenage years. I have seen a great deal of the video of her and I cannot honestly figure out how people could have been drawn to such an obviously unpleasant person. That's what I saw as a teenager in those trips she took with Charles. I mentioned that I will not repeat my adolescent opinion of what I saw, I will abide by that. It was not flattering. Just leave it that what I saw was a smirky smugness that I have never been able to un-see. I knew girls in school like her, or so I projected.

As I've also said, I think my view of her is far more balanced now, due in large measure to my mother's efforts, I do believe. ;) I think I am more reasonable and understanding regarding her.
 
Last edited:
Lady Nimue, you have described how I feel about the idolatry and mystique around Marilyn Monroe. Others see a vulnerable, eternal sex goddess destroyed by men who used her... I see a vulgar mentally unbalanced floozy who had no qualms about indiscriminate adultery with other women's husbands. And her silly babykins whisper is just incredibly annoying to me when I hear it.

It sounds awful of me, but she leaves me as cold as a popsicle. I guess you had to be there.:sad:
 
I can see that in retrospect, not so much during the early 80s, but later on--when her marriage was falling apart and she became more brazen in her behaviour around Prince Charles. There was a real change in her speeches as well in later years. Initially, they were about the organizations she was addressing; later, she used her speeches to score points and draw attention to her own problems.

It was not flattering. Just leave it that what I saw was a smirky smugness that I have never been able to un-see.
 
:previous: Yes, I definitely agree with that. Most of her post divorce speeches made me cringe...and they still do when I listen to them.:ermm:
 
Is there an origin for this speculation: I have now read in two different sources that William promised his Mom that he would restore her HRH when he came king.

I have no memory of this from the past. Does anyone know if this has an origin - or it something that has just been invented and is being repeated in accounts today?

It is the kind a promise a little boy would make his emotional mom, I guess. But I don't suggest this be at the top of his bucket list as king. It may be personally satisfying but not best for the future of the monarchy. And I say that only because looking back and fixing things long past rarely works out as intended. JMO
 
Restoring it to his mother, when he became King, and she was alive might have had some merit but to give it to a woman who will, in all likelihood have been gone for close to half a century by the time he becomes King is not likely. He would have to overturn the LPs of his grandmother - which removed the HRH from both Diana and Sarah.
 
If William said anything of the sort, it would have been a very private conversation between him and his mother and I cannot imagine either one would have mentioned it to anyone else. As such, I would say it was just a rumour and it really isn't worth spending the next 20 or 30 years wondering if it will come true.
 
[...] He would have to overturn the LPs of his grandmother - which removed the HRH from both Diana and Sarah.

There is no such Letters Patent removing the HRH from both Diana and Sarah. Note that HRH is not a title but a form of address, like His Grace for a Duke, His Eminence for a Cardinal, His Excellency for an Ambassador.

A divorced lady once married to a titled gentleman continues to use her previous title, preceded by her christian name, but does so as if the title were a name:

Diana, Princess of Wales
Sarah, Duchess of York

Because the title is regarded merely as a name, the status corresponding to the title is lost, as is the style of that: no longer Her Royal Highness, no longer Her Grace, etc. The spouse's style of address came with marriage and it went when that marriage ended. Diana and Sarah 'simply' followed the practice which has grown in society. No LP of the Queen was needed.
 
There is no such Letters Patent removing the HRH from both Diana and Sarah.

Not true.

LPs issued August 1996 declared that former wives of male HRH holders are not entitled to the HRH style/title/attribute (except for widows before or until they remarry). The removal did not specifically target Diana and Sarah, but their divorces were almost certainly the motivation behind the LPs.
 
I hope Diana's HRH isn't revived... when she divorced she conciously revoked both the privileges and the responsiblities that came with that status.
 
I hope Diana's HRH isn't revived... when she divorced she conciously revoked both the privileges and the responsiblities that came with that status.

I don't think that is a realistic possibility.
 
HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge. In a way has given back the HRH. :flowers:
 
:previous: My mischievous streak is thinking that with the name Charlotte being a tribute to Prince Charles, Charles and Diana are together again.:D
 
There is no such Letters Patent removing the HRH from both Diana and Sarah. Note that HRH is not a title but a form of address, like His Grace for a Duke, His Eminence for a Cardinal, His Excellency for an Ambassador.

A divorced lady once married to a titled gentleman continues to use her previous title, preceded by her christian name, but does so as if the title were a name:

Diana, Princess of Wales
Sarah, Duchess of York

Because the title is regarded merely as a name, the status corresponding to the title is lost, as is the style of that: no longer Her Royal Highness, no longer Her Grace, etc. The spouse's style of address came with marriage and it went when that marriage ended. Diana and Sarah 'simply' followed the practice which has grown in society. No LP of the Queen was needed.

Not true. The specific LPs were dated to 21st August 1996 Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Elizabeth the Second by the grace of God and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith to all to whom these presents shall come greeting .....Now Know Ye that We of our especial Grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our royal will and pleasure that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of the Realms of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness in Witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patent witness Ourself at Westminster the 21st day of August in the 45th year of our reign.
 
I can see that in retrospect, not so much during the early 80s, but later on--when her marriage was falling apart and she became more brazen in her behaviour around Prince Charles. There was a real change in her speeches as well in later years. Initially, they were about the organizations she was addressing; later, she used her speeches to score points and draw attention to her own problems.
. . . . . Yes, I definitely agree with that. Most of her post divorce speeches made me cringe...and they still do when I listen to them.:ermm:
In the last few years of her life the media were starting to swing and questioning the very illusion that they were largely responsible for creating. Diana's former lovers were selling their stories for cold hard cash and in telling, destroyed forever the myth of the victimised waif. Suddenly she was the other woman and that resonated with people who had really felt for a "young woman betrayed".

Where was her legendary kindness, sympathy, empathy? And the reality started to bite. By the time she staged her second great "poor lonely deserted me" photo, (the first being the Taj Mahal), people were not fooled. She was sitting on a the end of a diving board all alone on a luxury yacht that she was "holidaying" with her latest lover. It didn't quite carry the same emotion of the first.

When she died in such a shockingly pedestrian way, a car crash, there was an outpouring of grief. Then came the accusations against the paparazzi and suddenly the media was in the gun. Their response was one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history, and the woman they had begun vilifying for her sordid lifestyle was suddenly elevated to sainthood.

It is only now that people are starting to figure out the fact from the fiction. That there were no pathetic victims any more than there were dastardly villians, just real people who had the misfortune to live their lives in front of the camera.
 
Diana's main legacy will always be her sons, and through them her grandchildren and future descendants. That's not lessened because she's dead. Following on William giving his daughter his mother's name, only yesterday, in Sydney a woman who had obviously met Diana when she and Charles were touring here, brought pictures of that event for Harry. He was photographed leaning forward looking at them.

She probably didn't even think that in showing Harry those photos she might have been causing him pain. Nevertheless, she felt it was important to meet Diana's son and share with him her memories of his mother. As that Royal tour was decades ago now, (I can remember waiting to see Diana myself on a very cold evening in Melbourne) I think that sends a pretty powerful message about Diana's continuing influence on those who remember her.
 
A wonderful chance meeting for the woman and Harry so he could see photos from decades ago!

Curryong-Do you remember the year when you saw Diana in Melbourne?
 
Yes, it was on the 1983 tour. Charles and Diana went to a concert at the Melbourne Concert Hall. She was 21 and wore a lovely pale pink silk dress on that occasion, though I have to say that some of her other clothes on the tour were hideous. Some of the fashions of the day, ugh! Diana was tall and slender though, so she could carry most of it off. I also saw both of them in Hobart.
 
Diana's main legacy will always be her sons, and through them her grandchildren and future descendants. That's not lessened because she's dead. Following on William giving his daughter his mother's name, only yesterday, in Sydney a woman who had obviously met Diana when she and Charles were touring here, brought pictures of that event for Harry. He was photographed leaning forward looking at them.

She probably didn't even think that in showing Harry those photos she might have been causing him pain. Nevertheless, she felt it was important to meet Diana's son and share with him her memories of his mother. As that Royal tour was decades ago now, (I can remember waiting to see Diana myself on a very cold evening in Melbourne) I think that sends a pretty powerful message about Diana's continuing influence on those who remember her.

I'm not sure seeing the pictures was painful for Harry. I think and and William fully appreciate people holding on to the experience and memory of meeting their mother.


In the last few years of her life the media were starting to swing and questioning the very illusion that they were largely responsible for creating. Diana's former lovers were selling their stories for cold hard cash and in telling, destroyed forever the myth of the victimised waif. Suddenly she was the other woman and that resonated with people who had really felt for a "young woman betrayed".

Where was her legendary kindness, sympathy, empathy? And the reality started to bite. By the time she staged her second great "poor lonely deserted me" photo, (the first being the Taj Mahal), people were not fooled. She was sitting on a the end of a diving board all alone on a luxury yacht that she was "holidaying" with her latest lover. It didn't quite carry the same emotion of the first.

When she died in such a shockingly pedestrian way, a car crash, there was an outpouring of grief. Then came the accusations against the paparazzi and suddenly the media was in the gun. Their response was one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history, and the woman they had begun vilifying for her sordid lifestyle was suddenly elevated to sainthood.

It is only now that people are starting to figure out the fact from the fiction. That there were no pathetic victims any more than there were dastardly villians, just real people who had the misfortune to live their lives in front of the camera.

It's very true, Diana was never a saint. She had her flaws like all human beings and she made her share of mistakes.

However, none of that takes away from the good job she did as a mother, Princess of Wales/future Queen and after her marriage. She supported Charles as his wife, she birthed and loved their two sons, she worked and supported The Queen and "Firm" as a senior member of the royal family. She was an active patron/president of countless charitable organizations and she touched many peoples lives along the way. Her private life was far from perfect, but Diana did some good things while she was here, and I think the good things outweigh the bad things.

I totally understand people rejection of the media making Diana out to be some sort of saint in the aftermath of her tragic passing, but I really focus on the good things she did and how she used her royal status to help others in need.

We can go over her past mistakes over and over again, and have countless debates. What truly matters is how she made so many people happy with her warmth, smile and friendly hand.
 
Yes, it was on the 1983 tour. Charles and Diana went to a concert at the Melbourne Concert Hall. She was 21 and wore a lovely pale pink silk dress on that occasion, though I have to say that some of her other clothes on the tour were hideous. Some of the fashions of the day, ugh! Diana was tall and slender though, so she could carry most of it off. I also saw both of them in Hobart.

I'll have to look for some of those photos online. Yes, some of her outfits were wonderful and others were well so over the top 80's.;)
 
I think Diana was a very pure humanitarian, a natural giver of herself, and she could sacrifice a lot (she did sacrifice a lot) for other people, especially the most vulnerable people in the society. When she went out to help these people, she didn't seem to want anything back. And I don't see why people will loathe her and call her a mean-spirit person on this board.

And this is not just my opinion, because I have a full range of evidences to back up my claim here.

About Diana's mental illness problem. No doubt she had suffered from depression and bulimia for a long time. And these had harmed her ability to make wise decisions sometimes. But I believe as she claimed herself, she had went out of them in the last two years. Especially after divorce, she became very focused and knew exactly what her future role should be. As much as I knew the pressure she was under in her last year due to her landmine campaign, she displayed incredible courage and strong determination to achieve her goal. That didn't sound like a mentally ill person to me.

Even one of her main detractors, Charles' spin doctor Mark Bolland, after he left Charles' payroll, commented "Diana had many remarkable qualities. The most important for the monarchy was her ability to connect with people and to champion important causes in a highly focused and disciplined way."

I also think she was a very complex person, which made herself not easy to be understood. People, even her close friend can misjudge her real intention behind some antic behaviors. But this complexity made her a fascinating figure to study. Even after 18 years, we can still uncovered some very interesting stories about her. As I see, her story had not came to an end at all. There will be more interesting things coming out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom