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.
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.

Shows to go ya that those two boys had some excellent role models in their formative years doesn't it?

That's what its all about. You take the best from the people you meet and discard anything that is negative. That's what legacies do. An estate inheritance is usually of the good stuff a person had and not their garbage. :D
 
Agree! Just promise me to not go completely Diana crazy because I already miss the old Osipi.
 
In fact, I would say that the extent of William's and Harry's charitable work (especially the creation of their own foundations) is directly attributable to their father's influence, not their mother's. I think what we see in how the two men go about their charity work reflects Charles; how they may be in the process of meeting people, etc., will reflect both parents, even grandparents. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
Shows to go ya that those two boys had some excellent role models in their formative years doesn't it?

That's what its all about. You take the best from the people you meet and discard anything that is negative. That's what legacies do. An estate inheritance is usually of the good stuff a person had and not their garbage. :D

well I'm not a great fan of either of them. I tink that both of them are lacklustre...and certainly botht went through a period of being "upper class rowdies".
 
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.

.

I Asrun.
Please do you think that I don't know this??? I am a cradle Catholic and I certainly know tat Mr T was made a saint.
I said that many people are not fans of Mother Teresa. She has received a great deal of criticism. much of it in many ways deserved IMO>
Having said that she admired Diana and as I recall caused some controversy by sayng that the divorce was all for the best...
And I don't think that anything would have saved the Charles/Di marriage. Yu could say that if Charles had not been so self absorbed and spoiled, HE c
could have adjusted better to Diana, understood her for what she was, and her good points and made the marriage work. While I'm a fan of Charles' I think he was often very selfish in terms of not understanding how his young wife thought and flet or adjusting his life to fit her in. I think he didn't mean to be unkind but he was often careless, through being spoiled.
Of course Diana pored over the papers, she had little in her life, when her sons were small to give her validation other than the love and admiration of the public.. her husband was increasingly indifferent, the RF were not really that fond of her, and her sons were too young to be any real support. Why should she not get job satisfaction from her work and its being reported?
 
Please do you think that I don't know this??? I am a cradle Catholic and I certainly know tat Mr T was made a saint.
I said that many people are not fans of Mother Teresa. She has received a great deal of criticism. much of it in many ways deserved IMO>
Having said that she admired Diana and as I recall caused some controversy by sayng that the divorce was all for the best...
And I don't think that anything would have saved the Charles/Di marriage. Yu could say that if Charles had not been so self absorbed and spoiled, HE c
could have adjusted better to Diana, understood her for what she was, and her good points and made the marriage work. While I'm a fan of Charles' I think he was often very selfish in terms of not understanding how his young wife thought and flet or adjusting his life to fit her in. I think he didn't mean to be unkind but he was often careless, through being spoiled.
Of course Diana pored over the papers, she had little in her life, when her sons were small to give her validation other than the love and admiration of the public.. her husband was increasingly indifferent, the RF were not really that fond of her, and her sons were too young to be any real support. Why should she not get job satisfaction from her work and its being reported?

You're right, in a marriage it has to work both ways. This is what I meant by stating a while back ago that they both sought to be understood but had problems understanding.

But... this is all water under the bridge when it comes to talking about the legacy that Diana left behind. There will be threads on what all the royals have left behind when they pass on. I kind of like what was said at my father's memorial service when he passed on. It was stated "When a man dies, he holds only in his hands that which he has given away".

There was a lot about Diana (the good, the bad, the ugly and the misinterpreted and exaggerated) that have caused an effect on people and things to this very day and that is what comprises her legacy. Things that happen that make us remember her. Things that happen that may have had a root in something Diana did. Things that happen that just makes us smile.

Her legacy lies in the things that make us realize that she may be gone but she's not been forgotten. :)
 
Diana damaged the monarchy and treated the Queen and others like crap, that's her legacy to me.
 
That is the huge downside to Diana's legacy but I do think things of a positive nature came out of all the troubles that Diana caused the RF.

They now know that there cannot be a repeat again of someone like Diana becoming a royal "superstar" in her own right. That's where Diana went wrong. She actually went out of her way to bite the hand that fed her and the results were disastrous and hurt a lot of people and the monarchy she was supposed to be representing.

We see this to this day as emphasis is being put on teamwork as Philip announces his retirement. "Team Windsor" was never an idea that would have occurred to Diana.
 
I think that it is sad that Diana's legacy IS now down to those 2 lacklustre "boys".. She did a lot of charity work, with her warmth of heart she began the trend of royals being more open and friendly to the public and doing things "from the heart" rather than a few stiff meetings wearing gloves. Charles's work is very worthwhile too, and I think it comes from the heart with him, but he is shy and awkward and he's better at the organising and backroom work. He and Di, if they could have gotten on better, woudl have made a good team, with him doing the brainy stuff, and her doing the meeting people and she was also good at "day to day" organising and getting practical things done.
But nowadays all people seem to do is rubbish her for her faults and yes she had faults and forget all the good that she did. or endlessly re hash her maritail problems..
I agree that without the RF she might have found ti hard to find a way of using her special gifts for working with people. She had alienated them, she had foolishly thrown over her security people and that meant that it was more difficult for her to do things when she was harassed by the press when she DID try and "lead a normal life" so it would have been impossible for her to say volunteer somewhere, like an ordinary person could, and which was something she wuoudl have been very good at.
She may have felt that marryng someone very rich like Dodi, would have been a way for her to do some work without having to devote herself to it and give up a private life.. but Dodi didn't seem much of a humanitarian.. Hasnat Khan, who was, didn't want to marry her and wasn't rich enough to give her the sort of protection she would have needed...
 
I think that it is sad that Diana's legacy IS now down to those 2 lacklustre "boys".. She did a lot of charity work, with her warmth of heart she began the trend of royals being more open and friendly to the public and doing things "from the heart" rather than a few stiff meetings wearing gloves.

I read a statement in Tina Brown's book that, to me, shows there is more to Diana's legacy than just her two sons. To quote the statement that stood out for me is from Robin Janvrin, the Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen at the time of Diana's death. He said "The death of Diana made the institution [the monarchy] look hard at itself".

I think that with Diana's death and mass response to her death and how Diana affected the people, Diana actually accomplished something by her death that never happened while she was alive. They listened to her and learned.
 
One of the sad things of her legacy has to be the hate that is engendered on her behalf towards Charles by her fans.

These fans think they are doing what she wanted in calling for William to succeed the Queen rather than Charles, wishing that Charles would die (and there are many that want that), glorying in the reports that William won't let Charles see his grandkids etc etc.

If that is what her fans think she wanted and that is what she is like it is a very negative legacy to leave - one which suggests that she wanted her sons to hate their father.
 
There isn't any such beast in this life that is ever totally positive or totally negative. I think the positives that stemmed from Diana's life will endure and continue into the future as her legacy.

The negative "hate" campaign towards Charles by a fraction of the people who insist on keeping the War of the Waleses fresh and ongoing will fade away in time. They're holding onto grudges that, IMO, Diana let go of before her death just like conspiracy theories about anyone historically famous are believed by only a fraction of the people.
 
I'm not sure she did, entirely but I hope itn time she would have moved on from the sad times of her marriage.. I agree that the RF DID change a bit after her life, in time. I think that the changes that we see now, the greater informality, the way that young wives are given time to get into royal life gradually, and the greater flexibility about relationships, ie Kate and Will being able to live together for years and get to know each other.. is I suppose part of Di's legacy. *But of course Kate is criticised by many royal watchers for being middle class, for spending to much time iwht her own family etc.
BUt I'd rather think that Di's legacy was the love that she won from the public, and the way that she did "go out to meet them" with a warm heart and a willingness to do her best to help people...
 
There isn't any such beast in this life that is ever totally positive or totally negative. I think the positives that stemmed from Diana's life will endure and continue into the future as her legacy.

The negative "hate" campaign towards Charles by a fraction of the people who insist on keeping the War of the Waleses fresh and ongoing will fade away in time. They're holding onto grudges that, IMO, Diana let go of before her death just like conspiracy theories about anyone historically famous are believed by only a fraction of the people.

That is my point - that the Diana fanatics won't let it go and they are out there and quite vocal.

It isn't 'fading' away sadly but keeps coming up every time there is any discussion about the succession to the throne etc.

Many polls show a preference for William over Charles and not all of that is from those who lived through those years.
 
One of the sad things of her legacy has to be the hate that is engendered on her behalf towards Charles by her fans.

These fans think they are doing what she wanted in calling for William to succeed the Queen rather than Charles, wishing that Charles would die (and there are many that want that), glorying in the reports that William won't let Charles see his grandkids etc etc.

If that is what her fans think she wanted and that is what she is like iis a very negative legacy to leave - one which suggests that she wanted her sons to hate their father.

I think those who want William to succeed and not his father sometimes uses Diana's memory and legacy to justify their thoughts. That's the problem, people like using her life and name to do silly things and make it seem like she would want it that way. Which is completely wrong.

Everyone have admit that the majority of people who want William to succeed isn't really into hating Charles, but it's because there's a big desire to see a young King and Queen on the throne. Don't have anything to do with Diana. The thought of seeing two 70 year olds and unpopular people on some thrones aren't that appealing to many.
 
Last edited:
Everyone have admit that the majority of people who want William to succeed isn't really into hating Charles, but it's because there's a big desire to see a young King and Queen on the throne. Don't have anything to do with Diana. The thought of seeing two 70 year olds and unpopular people on some thrones aren't that appealing to many.

Imo from what i can judge via internet media (which is not representive but it's all i can go with): for people who indeed view the two 70 year olds as "unpopular", this is in 99% of the times directly linked to Diana...
 
That is my point - that the Diana fanatics won't let it go and they are out there and quite vocal.

It isn't 'fading' away sadly but keeps coming up every time there is any discussion about the succession to the throne etc.

Many polls show a preference for William over Charles and not all of that is from those who lived through those years.

Hardly matters as Chalres will be king if he outlives his mother.. and William after him. Some of this is probably due to ageism, in that Charles and Cam are older and not pretty people, and there's usualy a bias towards youth. it was the same in the 80s that there were people saying "why doesn't the queen hand over to the younger Prince chalres and his pretty young wife..."
 
Yes, I remember the talk about the Queen abdicating early and letting Charles take over. Thank goodness that didn't happen!
 
Yes, I remember the talk about the Queen abdicating early and letting Charles take over. Thank goodness that didn't happen!

I think a lot of that was (and perhaps still is) due to the change of how the press presented the Royal Family. Diana was speaking out against them and their treatment of her and with so much of that in the public's face day in and day out, the public actually got the feeling that they had a say in how things should be and totally forgot that the constitutional role of the monarch and its succession was written in stone and would not change.

Its the case of the people believing they had a voice in matters where they didn't.
 
The idea of the young Waleses and Cambridge's on the throne is very appealing to the media and others. They want to recreate the young Elizabeth and Philip on the throne. Everyone just have to accept they're we're not going to get that.
 
Yes, I remember those times; but as I remember it, the talk was more of skipping over Charles and letting the throne going to William.

I was speaking of the time during the 80s, particularly the early 80s, when there was such a "feel good factor" about Charles and Diana that some folks wanted the Queen to pass on the throne to Prince Charles right away.

Again, there was a lack of understanding about how these things work. :flowers:

I think a lot of that was (and perhaps still is) due to the change of how the press presented the Royal Family. Diana was speaking out against them and their treatment of her and with so much of that in the public's face day in and day out, the public actually got the feeling that they had a say in how things should be and totally forgot that the constitutional role of the monarch and its succession was written in stone and would not change.

Its the case of the people believing they had a voice in matters where they didn't.
 
It is niot "wrtten in stone". It could be changed, if the people really want it, but generaly speaking the Powers that be are conservative bout these matters and the RF obviously is as well. In Europe many other monarchs have decided to abdicate at a certain age to allow their heirs to take over while still relatlively young
 
:previous: None have chosen to abdicate because of the age of heir. Albert for health reasons. JC due to all the scandal. Beatrix possibly age but it is common in Netherlands, besides it was close to the death of her son.

Elizabeth is a woman who takes duty to a whole new level. She swore to serve her entire life. Her son's age is not reason enough for her to turn her back on duty. People seem to be viewing abdication as a band wagon and we are waiting for the next royal to join the fun. Wouldn't hold my breath on Elizabeth, the BRF is different then the continent in more ways than one.
 
I'm sure that as people livie longer, this trend will happen more at least in Europe. As I recall Q Juliana also abdicated, so clearly the continental royals feel tht they don't need to continue in their role till they die, that they can retire and take things easier, when they are elderly and in less good health... and that means that their heirs can take over rather than waiting in the wings all their lives as Charles may be fated to do...
However I think that its true the queen would never abdicate. but that does not mean that the succession laws can't be changed
 
An important difference between the British monarch and her European colleagues is that the monarch of the UK is still crowned and anointed. The anointing, in particular, has spiritual significance. The coronation vows are made to God as well as to the nation. :flowers:
 
True but while Charles is religious I don't think that William is, and he may not feel the same dedication.. may in his day feel that there are things to be said in favour of passing on the throne when he is elderly...
 
It depends too on how things happen politically. If the Church of England becomes disestablished, the whole coronation service might change. There might be no need to have the service in a Cathedral at all. Then again, perhaps William will become more "religious" as his ages. A person never knows. We're getting terribly off-topic here BTW.

Diana was a woman of her time in regard to her New Age therapies and astrologers and so on. I think that this probably had an affect on William and Harry in the way that any parent's religious beliefs affect their children.
 
A small note if I may:

The coronation in London doesn't take place in a Cathedral but an Abbey. Every monarch since 1066 has been crowned in Westminster Abbey, other than Edward V and Edward VIII.

Westminster Cathedral is a fairly new church having only opened in the 1890s and is Roman Catholic.

Westminster Cathedral and Westminster Abbey are two very different churches. The Abbey is across the road from the Palace of Westminster while the Cathedral is some distance away.

The Abbey: https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2016/12/i875/westminster_abbey_jamie_koster.jpg

The Cathedral: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03119/Westminster_Cathed_3119984b.jpg
 
Oh, right. Thanks for the reminder. :flowers:

A small note if I may:

The coronation in London doesn't take place in a Cathedral but an Abbey. Every monarch since 1066 has been crowned in Westminster Abbey, other than Edward V and Edward VIII. ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom