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

[anbrida]

It has been reported that they ruled out any major event.

Honestly thank you. It's time to move on. Unless you are her family or friends, this need for public mourning decades later is bordering ridiculous. If her fans want to remember, put on clips of her, drink some wine and toast her life. Or better yet, make a donation to one of the causes she loved.

If there is any event, the purpose is definitely not for mourning. What I hope is people who know about her life, can get some inspiration from her stories. By saying people who know about her life, I am not just talking about her families or her friends. I've never met her, but I can say for myself that I know quite a big knowledge about her, because she was such a public figure, and I do get a lot inspiration from her, especially the last year of her life.

Personally, I want to pay a tribute to her in my own way, too.

 

[Countessmeout]

If you are inspired by her, do something. Volunteer. Donate.

A concert or event doesn't honor or remember her other than as some celebrity. How many decades does this idol worship need to continue? Thirty? Fifty? Until the older generation passes away and those left either don't remember her, care, or know who she was? There is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is.

 

[Dman]

If you are inspired by her, do something. Volunteer. Donate.

A concert or event doesn't honor or remember her other than as some celebrity. How many decades does this idol worship need to continue? Thirty? Fifty? Until the older generation passes away and those left either don't remember her, care, or know who she was? There is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is.

William and Harry want to honor her and continue on her legacy. So does many people who remember and admired her.

No one is worshiping an idol.

It's true, there's a generation of people who don't know her. They'll come across her story in history books and I think it's good to teach kids about her and what she did in her short time here.

 

[anbrida]

If you are inspired by her, do something. Volunteer. Donate.

A concert or event doesn't honor or remember her other than as some celebrity. How many decades does this idol worship need to continue? Thirty? Fifty? Until the older generation passes away and those left either don't remember her, care, or know who she was? There is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is.

No one is suggesting a concert to commemorate. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate. I can feel that you are quite angry with this commemoration of Diana. Yes there is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is, but there are three generations people who are still living and know who she is.

 

[anbrida]

It's true, there's a generation of people who don't know her. They'll come across her story in history books and I think it's good to teach kids about her and what she did in her short time here.

Yes, that is what I think the best way to remember. But first of all, one have to make sure the history is correctly recorded.

 

[MARG]

If you are inspired by her, do something. Volunteer. Donate.

A concert or event doesn't honor or remember her other than as some celebrity. How many decades does this idol worship need to continue? Thirty? Fifty? Until the older generation passes away and those left either don't remember her, care, or know who she was? There is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is.

William and Harry want to honor her and continue on her legacy. So does many people who remember and admired her.

No one is worshiping an idol.

It's true, there's a generation of people who don't know her. They'll come across her story in history books and I think it's good to teach kids about her and what she did in her short time here.

No one is suggesting a concert to commemorate. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate. I can feel that you are quite angry with this commemoration of Diana. Yes there is a whole generation of people who have no idea who she is, but there are three generations people who are still living and know who she is.

I understand where Countessmeout is coming from because I feel the same and, while I can understand William and Harry wishing to honour her, I think that after 20 years they need to publically concentrate on their own lives and not continue to be defined by their deceased mother.

The fact that Diana has been dead for 20 years and most people under the age of 30 (or a whole generation) do not 'relate' to her in any way, is a definite drawback. Like it or not Diana was an attractive footnote in royal history as regards her personal 'legacy', namely Princes' William and Harry but, in the grand scheme of things, there are others, both royals and not, that have left a far greater and lasting charitable legacy.

 

[Dman]

Yes, that is what I think the best way to remember. But first of all, one have to make sure the history is correctly recorded.

It's correctly recorded.

Nothing mysterious about her death - a drunken driver and without security belt - it was a silly unnecessary death, of a silly woman who was playing games with the media and an equally silly and worthless playboy.

It is not 'historians' who love mystery - where there is non - but the media and 'the people'.

Her death came much too early, especially for her two young sons. In reality she was only a great loss to them - and of course the media, who lived of her silly antics.

The emotional loss felt by the public was imagined - they didn't know her, and she wasn't doing anything for them, except generating entertainment.

Diana had been Princess of Wales for 16 years. She traveled the world in her royal role. She met a great deal and touched many. For those who didn't meet her, felt like they did know her after all those years of her being around.

Now, the media did make some entertainment out of her passing, but her passing was widely felt. What added to the sadness was the fact that she left behind two kids whom she loved more than everything.

Also, she was a member of the British royal family. No matter how you feel about their popularity and history, the Windsor's are held in very high regard around the world. A senior member of the family dies, get married or coronated, the worlds attention turns to them. Something other European royals don't get. Some think it's weird, but I think it's an historical thing.

 

[Osipi]

Time does things to history and how it is looked at and, for the most part, is broken down into facts or what can be perceived as facts. 5,000 years from now, archaeologists and anthropologists may be digging in Tennessee and find the palace of a mighty king that was known as Elvis. Elvis died in 1977 yet people still flock to Graceland to remember him.

I feel that the Diana Award is the perfect vehicle to keep Diana's legacy alive and with that, the award goes to the living that most exemplify some of the wonderful character traits that were very much Diana in her work with people.
Her sons are continuing with some of the causes that she embraced and between her boy's work and the Diana Award, Diana's mark on the world around her is kept alive.

There are times when a death will seem to make the world stand still and earth's inhabitants pause and mourn the passing but life does go on and other things become their focus.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts referring to conspiracy theories in respect of the life and death of Diana, Princess of Wales have been deleted.

 

[Lee-Z]

Small article Althorp honoring Diana and the new award
Althorp eert wijlen prinses Diana|Prive| Telegraaf.nl
google translated

With the way the world is at the moment imo any initiative to award selfless commitment in people is a great idea
And even though it's hard to know what someone who unfortunately left us so long ago would think, i have a feeling Diana would be very much in favor of this idea

 

[Dman]

Diana Award Winner Katie Curran Leads Project Next Generation

 

[Rudolph]

From The Telegraph

Princess Diana lives on in her sons - what Prince Harry and William *have done this week proves that

 

[Osipi]

I've had this thought cross my mind quite a few times recently and that is that I can sincerely believe that the amazing work being done with William, Kate and Harry's Heads Together is due in part to Diana and I would count that as being part of her legacy.

Not only with Harry having his own personal demons coping with his mother's death but in her own lifetime, Diana had many mental issues that have come to the forefront as people examine her lifetime.

I often wonder if something like Heads Together was in force during Diana's lifetime if I would have made a difference.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'd imagine that William, in particular, remembers his mothers unhappiness and has since learned of her bulimia and her other problems. I've often wondered how much impact this has had on his and Harry's interest in these things. Plus, I'm sure that William has learned about the impact of mental health issues on problems such as drug abuse and homelessness; and Harry has had exposure to such things as PTSD among veterans.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't know why, but I feel this mental health kick they are on was much influenced by Kate.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't know why, but I feel this mental health kick they are on was much influenced by Kate.

I would agree with that. Kate (and Carole, let's face it) have likely seen up-close the demons both men deal with. But regardless who, when, or where, both men were nudged towards therapy (as they have decided to go public regarding), it was successful and has resulted in what we are now seeing. Everyone benefits. I wish them sustained progress.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

A very interesting documentary about Diana, Princess of Wales is on TV right now in America on NBC-TV. The show is Dateline.

 

[Denville]

I don't know why, but I feel this mental health kick they are on was much influenced by Kate.

really? It doesn't strike me that kate is interested in issues, and I doubt if she's likely to push her husband towards championing such a cause.

 

[Osipi]

Personally, I think the work they're doing with Heads Together is remarkable. I'd not be surprised though if eventually it came out that Diana was part of the inspiration for the campaign.

 

[Denville]

Its certainly taken them long enough to find a cause that seems to have goten tehm some notice. However I agree that Diana's depression, eating disorders etc have problaby been a spur towards their getting into mental health issues, and I think that that's a good thing. There was less help available for such illnesses and problems when she was younger and both boys must have been upset by her problems and now want to do something towards helping others who have such problems. And I'm sure Diana would love them to be involved in this cause. and both of thtem have been affected by her early death and the trauma it caused, so that's another issue that they have personal knowledge of.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes and no. When you become so involved in a cause there is usually a very personal reason. Makes you a better patron if you feel some connection. If it's just something you got assigned, or picked to fill a quota of certain patronages, it shows.

For William I would agree. I think William has had a pretty comfortable life. For him his connection is bereavement. It is dealing with the loss of his mom.

Harry I think it's different. Harry has shown an interest in mental health long before he was willing to talk about mom. For him. He has said it was coming home from Afghanistan with wounded soldiers. His time in actual war zones drives him IMO. Besides senteble, if we look at the direction of his charity work, that is evident. He focussed on soldiers and the physical and mental struggles.

Kate never knew Diana. I don't see her being a driving force for Kate. And honestly I feel the least connection with Kate and the campaign. It feels more like she is along for the ride with the other two. She never speaks of her personal connection.

If they are all going to focus on this one issue, with the slimming down of causes, they need to all take different directions with in

1 William seems the most able and willing to speak about Diana. He can focus on the bereavement side.

2 Harry can focus on soldiers and others dealing with PTSD and related issues. It ties in with his military work.

3 Kate needs to either show her own connection or leave it to the brothers. We are told she was bullied, perhaps focussing on the bullying side. She is already involved in school programs. Would be good to see her with teen issues, maybe even things like lgbt. Or mothers, women who suffered through HG like her, and other pregnancy struggles.

It's a great cause but it could be handled better by dividing up and covering the areas they have a link with. They all seem to be committed, which is good. Can always be better. This cause needs it.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

really? It doesn't strike me that kate is interested in issues, and I doubt if she's likely to push her husband towards championing such a cause.

Harry and William already said Kate was the one whose idea it was to form Heads Together. And people who have met and talked to her at events say she is well informed and knowledgable about the issues. I think that shows interest and intelligence.
Also one of Kate's interests is hospice for children and their families. That definitely has mental health aspects. And she doesn't have to have had a child who was gravely ill or died to care about it.

 

[Denville]

She's well informed because she's well briefed. I Dont see kate as being very interested in issues, but she has to do something as a Princess. It doesn't matter, in a way as long as she DOES do some work.. but I don't think she's ever going to be a powerhouse of royal duties. I think that clearly Harry has learned about metntal health issues from his army work and working with veterans and he and Will have both been traumatised by Diana's death and also hurt I would imagine by seeing her struggling with depression when they were younger

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps part of Diana's legacy is the fact that she inspired in her sons the courage to take on something that hadn't been done before and was stigmatized to the point that mental health issues just weren't talked about. Diana did this with her AIDs campaign. She was a trail blazer in that respect for the British royal family. She took on homelessness with Centrepointe that William continues to this day. No matter what area of causes and charities that W&K&H get involved in now, if it relates to humans, it most likely also has an area where mental health can be a big concern.

Little acorns grow into big oak trees that endure.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Yes, I'm back on these threads again, but I have no plans to make this into a habit and I'm not here to offend the (now) small, but vocal Diana fans.

Osipi and Curryong (whom I have great respect for as posters here) wrote something in the Duke and Duchess of the Windsor thread, which I choose to answer here.

As I'm right smack dab in the middle of reading "King Edward VIII" by Philip Ziegler, a comment the author made is still very fresh in my mind.

The first grouping of pictures of David are from his birth up to around 21 years old. The very first photo is one of him at a toddler and the author remarked that it is "perhaps one of the rare photos where he is pictured looking uncomplicatedly cheerful" and described the rest as being characteristically wistful.

This may sound strange but if I were to compare David with any other British royal from what I've gleaned from the book so far, I would have to say that personality wise, he actually was, in ways, similar to Diana, Princess of Wales.

His fitness was a big concern for him. He exercised and pushed his body to keep fit and ate very little. When things bothered him, they bothered him to a great depth. They both were very concerned with the welfare of the people and as far as service during World War I, I even see Harry in David's thoughts. When David loved, he loved with every inch of himself to the point of obsession. There's other places that related between David and Diana and I found it uncanny. Its the way these people were and its neither good or bad but just the way they were.

I'm only up to the point in the book where he's just met Freda Dudley Ward and have lots yet to read.

Osipi, you're one of my favourite posters here, but how it is possible to say that she cared about people after all the bad things we have heard about her, her behavior towards the Queen, the way she treated some of her staffers and her manipulation is just beyond my comprehension.

And when it comes to her charity work: Others in the royal family worked for the weak in society long before Diana came into the picture, and we know for a fact (as I also think Osipi has written in these threads before, when she was more critical of Diana) that she (Diana) did much of what she did to increase her popularity when she received bad press coverage.

Excellent, Osipi. I hope you're enjoying it. I have it on my Kindle having read a library copy years ago. I think Ziegler does a very good job, only rivalled perhaps by Frances Donaldson's biography of Edward, and often refer back to it when the subject of the Duke comes up.

He was certainly a very complex character, restless and without inner resources really, apart from his gardening and sporting activities. He was extraordinarily self-pitying (his letter to Freda Dudley Ward when he was on Empire Tours in his twenties are just maudlin) and constantly felt hard done by. He, like Diana, was immensely popular, almost worshipped. Hard to imagine now.

This is just wrong, yes, she became very popular after she married Charles (as everyone would had been in the 80s), but she turned into a divisive and controversial person who really damaged the monarchy before she died.

I also want to say that Harry (William from 2010-2013) is much more popular than what Diana was. And compared to the popularity and love the Queen has had through these 65 years of service to her peoples, Diana's (popularity) becomes nothing in comparedment.

Edit: And when it comes to Diana's most hysterical fans (which Osipi is not a part of), Denville is, at least, willing to admit that Diana also had bad sides.

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps I need to clarify things a bit more as my post about Edward VIII has been moved here because of my claim that David and Diana were alike in the respect they cared about people. From what I'm reading, David was always concerned about the troops fighting in WWI and longed to be a part of them but for him, it was curiosity to see what *action* was like. He resented his status of Prince of Wales at the time as he felt it held him back. Diana, in some of her charity work (even after the divorce such as land mines) cared about the welfare of people but it wasn't going to affect her private life. Neither of them come close to being a caring Mother Teresa kind of person. Both actually were pretty self absorbed people which is what hit me the most. Both focused on their woes and tribulations. Both were very self conscious of their appearances to the point of extreme exercising and food issues.

Diana very much used her public appearance to garner admiration and adoration as I feel it fed her self esteem. None of the other royals ever have done that. In a way too, I think David depended on what other people thought of him and was always looking for consolation.

Both were very complex people and with Diana being the most recent one, its far easier to see just how complex she was. A lot of us have lived through her lifetime as a British royal and with interest, we've come to know and discuss her and come to realize that the the public Diana we thought we knew was a totally different person in her private life with warts and all.

With coming to realize a lot of the personal problems that Diana had in her lifetime, it kind of hit me how similar some of the ways David was were similar.

 

[Denville]

I don't think that Diana was excessively self absorbed...she was unhappy and that makes peole turn in on themselves. When she could turn outwards and show affeciotn and caring to other people she was problaby happier but its not that easy. andI think its unfair to say that she was not thinking of others, ro that she only was using them to boost her self esteem. She did a lot of good for people, often in a quiet way, havng people to visit at KP when they were in London seeing their sick children, helping with money donations for some kids who needed operations, writing letters to sick children and their families. She was a great letter writer and I think that the people who received her notes trying to cheer them, were genuinely grateful for her kindness and the efforts she made for them. And visitign the sick and dying.
(Not everyone is Mother Teresa and indeed many people disaprove of Mr Teresa). she wasn't a saint, she was in many ways an ordinary young woman, but she had a gift for communicating with people and she had a warm heart that led her to reach out to others, even if she had faults and wasn't going to live in a commune or a convent. why should she? S he used her wealth and her skills to help as she felt able to do. She wasn't magicaly transformed intot a self denying angel, but she had a very good side as well as faults.

 

[Osipi]

I don't think that Diana was excessively self absorbed...she was unhappy and that makes peole turn in on themselves. When she could turn outwards and show affeciotn and caring to other people she was problaby happier but its not that easy. andI think its unfair to say that she was not thinking of others, ro that she only was using them to boost her self esteem. She did a lot of good for people, often in a quiet way, havng people to visit at KP when they were in London seeing their sick children, helping with money donations for some kids who needed operations, writing letters to sick children and their families. She was a great letter writer and I think that the people who received her notes trying to cheer them, were genuinely grateful for her kindness and the efforts she made for them. And visitign the sick and dying.
(Not everyone is Mother Teresa and indeed many people disaprove of Mr Teresa). she wasn't a saint, she was in many ways an ordinary young woman, but she had a gift for communicating with people and she had a warm heart that led her to reach out to others, even if she had faults and wasn't going to live in a commune or a convent. why should she? S he used her wealth and her skills to help as she felt able to do. She wasn't magicaly transformed intot a self denying angel, but she had a very good side as well as faults.

Actually, Mother Teresa was canonized as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church on September 4, 2016. It doesn't make her angelic by any means as she was completely human and of course had ups and downs and faults and positive attributes like everyone else.

Diana, to me, did use her public life to accentuate her own self esteem. This doesn't mean that it was the have all and be all of why she did what she did for people. It worked both ways. She was notorious, and its been reported in several books, that she would pour over any text or pictures that were printed about her. That, though, does not detract from the good she did and how she made other people feel when she interacted with them.

I also believe that if she was a bit less self absorbed in her private life, perhaps she could have found and looked for ways of coming to understand just why Charles was the way he was, accepted him for being who he was and adapted better to it. But that is just my opinion.

As we're on the subject of Diana's legacy, I think its the good and positive attributes of Diana that have affected her sons and we can see that clearly in their mannerisms, their personalities and their willingness to be of service to others. In my book, that's really what counts in the long run.

 

[Curryong]

Indeed, Osipi. And, as we have said several times on this thread and others, Diana's two sons are her great legacy to Britain and to the BRF.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Actually, Mother Teresa was canonized as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church on September 4, 2016. It doesn't make her angelic by any means as she was completely human and of course had ups and downs and faults and positive attributes like everyone else.

Diana, to me, did use her public life to accentuate her own self esteem. This doesn't mean that it was the have all and be all of why she did what she did for people. It worked both ways. She was notorious, and its been reported in several books, that she would pour over any text or pictures that were printed about her. That, though, does not detract from the good she did and how she made other people feel when she interacted with them.

I also believe that if she was a bit less self absorbed in her private life, perhaps she could have found and looked for ways of coming to understand just why Charles was the way he was, accepted him for being who he was and adapted better to it. But that is just my opinion.

As we're on the subject of Diana's legacy, I think its the good and positive attributes of Diana that have affected her sons and we can see that clearly in their mannerisms, their personalities and their willingness to be of service to others. In my book, that's really what counts in the long run.

I would say that's the Queen's lagacy (at least when it comes to William, since he's very close to her and talks about here in the way he does) and of course some of it is down to Charles too.