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 think ppl, media will talk abt her charity work , love triangle, her affairs and relationships with RF.

Yes, that is the 'memory', and within all that is serious damage being done to one person in particular. (I view Camilla as 'road kill' in Diana's wake). The 'love triangle' is the rationale Diana gave ('there were three of us in the marriage' said directly after admitting she was 'madly in love' with Hewitt :rolleyes: good grief, one can't make this stuff up as the current saying goes) for why she phone stalked an unwilling-to-cooperate married man, risking criminal charges being laid at the door to the wife of the heir to the throne. This goes beyond irony. :sad:

In many ways, Diana presages our current political times (certainly in the US).
 
Last edited:
I'm going to take a stab at it. What has been "kept alive" is the years of Diana's public works. Her sons have taken on some of the good works Diana started and this is what I believe they want to keep alive.

From all we've seen of William and Harry, there is a red line drawn in the sand between their private and public lives. I can't see them pushing to keep alive anything pertaining to Diana's private life and the chaos that was their parent's marriage. They focus mainly on the good she did out and among the people.

I didn't read their various things they did last August, not fully but I got the impression they did talk about her private life, more than her charity work- which is proper in a way. She was thteir mother, they knew her as Mum, rather than as a charity worker or a Royal.. but I think that it DID stir up a lot of stuff in the media, and on social media of people either snarking about perceived flaws in Diana herself or in using what the 2 of htem said to have a go at Charles...
 
An interesting analysis of Diana PofW's impact on the British royal family, and her lasting legacy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/sunday/princess-diana-britain-monarchy.html

It's not saying Diana was perfect of course. But it does tell the truth about the cold practice of how she was chosen as a virginal bride for Prince Charles, who did not have the determined backbone of his parents. Both Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten were each also manipulated during their 1940's courtship, but they both ultimately knew their own minds and held out for what they wanted, which in the end and essentially from the very beginning, was each other.*

I've recognized for some time that Prince Harry and Prince William, through the love they received from both their parents, have managed to survive the griefs of their childhood and in the process they have overcome some of the shortcomings of the institution into which they were born. They are Diana's lasting legacy.

The writer proclaims that Diana "is the ultimate victor." That's a nice sentiment, but I wouldn't phrase it quite that way because although Diana was engaged in a war for her own survival, sanity, and happiness, I do not think she was against what the royal family stood for. She was just unwittingly caught up in it's old-fashioned strictures and it's chaotic lurch into the modern age. Fortunately, it is the better angels of Diana's nature that she succeeded in passing onto her sons. That inheritance of love, caring, vulnerability, and rebellious grace is coupled with Harry's and William's filial sense of duty and respect for ancient family traditions.

For her part, I think Diana would simply feel relieved, proud and at peace to see her sons genuinely and happily in love, well-adjusted, and carrying on her work of reaching out to others and trying to make the world a better place.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...-also-changed-royal-family-forever/539706001/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/opinions/princess-diana-impact-on-royal-family-maltby/index.html
 
Last edited:
Sadly, Diana's 'lasting legacy' seems to be the crushing animus against Charles. She is a 'gift that keeps on giving.' :sad: Sorry. Often I am not on TRF but I do read royal news items and it is when I am reading those that I have realized that it is simply a given that whenever an historical summary is given and Diana is referenced, there is an automatic reference to the state of Diana's distress in her marriage to Charles (with Camilla lurking in the background). :rolleyes: It even happens here on this forum. Camilla is endlessly positioned as the woman Charles was in love with when he said his vows to Diana, dismissing all that Charles did to make that marriage work. On and on and on. It never ends.

That is Diana's 'lasting legacy': the utter contempt shown towards Charles. It's toxic. It needs to stop, and her sons could stop it in it's tracks. That's a fact. Without 'taking sides' they could put an end to it all in one fell swoop. I await that day, if ever it comes. :ermm:
 
Last edited:
Sadly, Diana's 'lasting legacy' seems to be the crushing animus against Charles. She is a 'gift that keeps on giving.' :sad: Sorry. Often I am not on TRF but I do read royal news items and it is when I am reading those that I have realized that it is simply a given that whenever an historical summary is given and Diana is referenced, there is an automatic reference to the state of Diana's distress in her marriage to Charles (with Camilla lurking in the background). :rolleyes: It even happens here on this forum. Camilla is endlessly positioned as the woman Charles was in love with when he said his vows to Diana, dismissing all that Charles did to make that marriage work. On and on and on. It never ends.

That is Diana's 'lasting legacy': the utter contempt shown towards Charles. It's toxic. It needs to stop, and her sons could stop it in it's tracks. That's a fact. Without 'taking sides' they could put an end to it all in one fell swoop. I await that day, if ever it comes. :ermm:
Can you elaborate on how William and Harry can reverse "the utter contempt shown towards Charles"?
 
Sadly, Diana's 'lasting legacy' seems to be the crushing animus against Charles. She is a 'gift that keeps on giving.' :sad: Sorry. Often I am not on TRF but I do read royal news items and it is when I am reading those that I have realized that it is simply a given that whenever an historical summary is given and Diana is referenced, there is an automatic reference to the state of Diana's distress in her marriage to Charles (with Camilla lurking in the background). :rolleyes: It even happens here on this forum. Camilla is endlessly positioned as the woman Charles was in love with when he said his vows to Diana, dismissing all that Charles did to make that marriage work. On and on and on. It never ends.

That is Diana's 'lasting legacy': the utter contempt shown towards Charles. It's toxic. It needs to stop, and her sons could stop it in it's tracks. That's a fact. Without 'taking sides' they could put an end to it all in one fell swoop. I await that day, if ever it comes. :ermm:


Mmm. Perhaps if we remove the names Charles and Diana we might be able to see the situation rather less passionately. Let's just say that male falls helplessly in love with a female who suits him in every way but for various reasons doesn't make the ultimate commitment to her. He is, however, rather put out when she marries elsewhere and carries memories of what they had once had. He eventually gets together with another female, deemed by others to be much more suitable. As he feels, by now, it's necessary for him to marry, ie, it's his duty, he marries her. His duty is DONE, not necessarily FELT. The fact that his bride isn't as perfect a match -for him- as was his past love, makes commitment to the marriage more difficult. When his past, and real love, once again crosses his path and all his old feelings for her resurface, there surely must have been turmoil for him, especially as his wife was the mother of his children and loved by all.
I don't doubt that the man DID what he could, as far as was possible for him, to make his marriage work, but if his heart was elsewhere -and I don't believe he'd ever fallen out of love with his first love and then fallen IN love again- there could not have been the depth of feeling there, especially so if he'd started to see the possibility of a permanent future with his first love. It matters, not a jot, what are the names of those enmeshed in the sad triangle. The dilemma would be the same whoever they were.
 
Last edited:
Utter contempt shown to Charles>? yes thanks to his marital failure he is awlasy going to get some criticism and he will have people who are not that happy with him because of the way he managed his marriage. And the fact that he wound up married ot the woman who got involved iwht him, afer he was married and who is also divorced. Some conservative people are critical of him for this, givin his postion in the C Of E. But I don't see any great contempt for him. Mostly people have accepted that times have changed.. that his first marriage was a mistake and that it didn't wrok out. Mabye he didn't try as hard as he could, but most people don't relaly mind.
I can't see what this has to do with Diana's legacy.
 
Utter contempt shown to Charles? Yes thanks to his marital failure he is always going to get some criticism

No one else has a marital failure? A marriage fails and we must suffer lifelong denigration? In what universe? :sad:

and he will have people who are not that happy with him because of the way he managed his marriage.

He was not omnipotent. He needed Diana to be cooperating. She wasn't.

And the fact that he wound up married to the woman who got involved with him afer he was married and who is also divorced.

Says something about the character of the man, his loyalty and devotion to a friend who was equally loyal. Diana threw away that man. There is an a priori condition that your spin relies upon: that Camilla was the love of Charles' life. That is not a given. That is Diana's spin from which all else follows.

Some conservative people are critical of him for this, givin his postion in the C Of E.

But no criticism of Diana for a far, far more active adulterous life than Charles ever engaged in? :sad:

But I don't see any great contempt for him.

Hmmm....

Mostly people have accepted that times have changed.. that his first marriage was a mistake and that it didn't work out. Mabye he didn't try as hard as he could, but most people don't really mind.

He didn't try....what about Diana? Why is Charles taking all the blame? Where is Diana in all this? She appears to have given the marriage 'a chance' for 2-3 years before she started her flirtations and amours. What was Charles to do? :sad:

I can't see what this has to do with Diana's legacy.

Everything to do with her legacy. As stated, this is Diana's legacy: she played the contempt card for Charles, and her fans continue playing that card to this day, as you so clearly demonstrate in your text above. As every news article that repeats Diana's fiction again and again as fact when discussing Charles and his current wife.

However, I bow out. I find Diana-conversations unsavory. :sad: When one gets a handle on the nature of the major player in this drama, all the side fluff is hard to swallow. Just me.

Ciao!
 
Last edited:
I think ppl, media will talk abt her charity work , love triangle, her affairs and relationships with RF.
To be honest, they may give her charity a passing nod, ignore her many affairs and bash Charles and the BRF. That is just the way it is and as adults both William and Harry know a lot more of the unpleasant side of the marriage than anyone else. They are wise enough to celebrate "Their Mother".

I have to admit that those who think that Diana's sons are her biggest legacy seem to have latched on to Harry and Meghan and that is a real worry because neither of them can equate their marriage (or soOn to be married) state with that of their mother but since the advent of Meghan the media are really trying to hype the "Diana" factor and not in a healthy way.
 
Last edited:
Utter contempt shown to Charles>? yes thanks to his marital failure he is always going to get some criticism and he will have people who are not that happy with him because of the way he managed his marriage. And the fact that he wound up married to the woman who got involved with him, after he was married and who is also divorced. Some conservative people are critical of him for this, given his position in the C Of E. But I don't see any great contempt for him. Mostly people have accepted that times have changed.. that his first marriage was a mistake and that it didn't work out. Maybe he didn't try as hard as he could, but most people don't really mind.

Some of Diana's legacy is that there are many people who still take her spin on their marriage troubles as the only truth. They are blind to her affairs and solely blame Charles for the marriage ending. They attribute any of the negatives about Diana to be either Charles's fault because he wasn't a good husband or false stories put out by Charles's friends.

I know these people exist because one of them is my mother, no matter what information I try to provide. She made up her mind 25 years ago and nothing is going to change it.
 
That is Diana's 'lasting legacy': the utter contempt shown towards Charles. It's toxic. It needs to stop, and her sons could stop it in it's tracks. That's a fact. Without 'taking sides' they could put an end to it all in one fell swoop. I await that day, if ever it comes. :ermm:

I don't see how William and Harry could "stop it in its tracks." They can't sue, so what can they do?
 
Some of Diana's legacy is that there are many people who still take her spin on their marriage troubles as the only truth. They are blind to her affairs and solely blame Charles for the marriage ending. They attribute any of the negatives about Diana to be either Charles's fault because he wasn't a good husband or false stories put out by Charles's friends.

I know these people exist because one of them is my mother, no matter what information I try to provide. She made up her mind 25 years ago and nothing is going to change it.

Some people even blame Charles for Diana's death. "If he'd been a good husband she wouldn't have been in Paris with Dodi." Good grief! Forget about the fact that she chose to give up her royal security officer & associate with the dodgy Fayeds.
 
Someone like that (Charles's fault she died) is not reasonable in their thinking. No point in even discussing things with them.


LaRae
 
Mmm. Perhaps if we remove the names Charles and Diana we might be able to see the situation rather less passionately. Let's just say that male falls helplessly in love with a female who suits him in every way but for various reasons doesn't make the ultimate commitment to her. He is, however, rather put out when she marries elsewhere and carries memories of what they had once had. He eventually gets together with another female, deemed by others to be much more suitable. As he feels, by now, it's necessary for him to marry, ie, it's his duty, he marries her. His duty is DONE, not necessarily FELT. The fact that his bride isn't as perfect a match -for him- as was his past love, makes commitment to the marriage more difficult. When his past, and real love, once again crosses his path and all his old feelings for her resurface, there surely must have been turmoil for him, especially as his wife was the mother of his children and loved by all.

I don't doubt that the man DID what he could, as far as was possible for him, to make his marriage work, but if his heart was elsewhere -and I don't believe he'd ever fallen out of love with his first love and then fallen IN love again- there could not have been the depth of feeling there, especially so if he'd started to see the possibility of a permanent future with his first love. It matters, not a jot, what are the names of those enmeshed in the sad triangle. The dilemma would be the same whoever they were.

Excellent overview and without enmity.

:easterbasket:
 
Mmm. Perhaps if we remove the names Charles and Diana we might be able to see the situation rather less passionately. Let's just say that male falls helplessly in love with a female who suits him in every way but for various reasons doesn't make the ultimate commitment to her. He is, however, rather put out when she marries elsewhere and carries memories of what they had once had. He eventually gets together with another female, deemed by others to be much more suitable. As he feels, by now, it's necessary for him to marry, ie, it's his duty, he marries her. His duty is DONE, not necessarily FELT. The fact that his bride isn't as perfect a match -for him- as was his past love, makes commitment to the marriage more difficult. When his past, and real love, once again crosses his path and all his old feelings for her resurface, there surely must have been turmoil for him, especially as his wife was the mother of his children and loved by all.
I don't doubt that the man DID what he could, as far as was possible for him, to make his marriage work, but if his heart was elsewhere -and I don't believe he'd ever fallen out of love with his first love and then fallen IN love again- there could not have been the depth of feeling there, especially so if he'd started to see the possibility of a permanent future with his first love. It matters, not a jot, what are the names of those enmeshed in the sad triangle. The dilemma would be the same whoever they were.

Good summary, but I would add a few more factors - the fact that the two really didn't know each other before the marriage and were an incompatible mismatch with little if no common interests on which to build a relationship, on top of that the bride had to adjust to a much more public & rigid lifestyle than she was used to and resented her husband's commitment to his duties, and both had emotional needs the other couldn't satisfy.

In my opinion the marriage didn't fail simply because Charles had a prior love. I suspect he went into the marriage fully intending to commit to Diana but there wan't anything either of them could stand on while they built & cemented a relationship.
 
In my opinion the marriage didn't fail simply because Charles had a prior love. I suspect he went into the marriage fully intending to commit to Diana but there wan't anything either of them could stand on while they built & cemented a relationship.

This is basically what happened in a nutshell. If the marriage had been a stable, loving one where two people meshed together physically, mentally and spiritually, nothing could have broken it. They were just two different people unable to form this kind of a bond. Just like oil and vinegar will never mix.

Part of Diana's legacy is a reform of the old ways of thinking of "checking off the proper boxes" when it comes to a marriage. The old standards were proven to be actually detrimental to a dynastic type marriage and the lessons were learned. When William married, the boxes to be checked off were thrown out the window and will never return again.
 
Part of Diana's legacy is a reform of the old ways of thinking of "checking off the proper boxes" when it comes to a marriage. The old standards were proven to be actually detrimental to a dynastic type marriage and the lessons were learned. When William married, the boxes to be checked off were thrown out the window and will never return again.

At least I think we may be assured that the days are thankfully long past when a willing virgin will be coerced, by an ambitious Mama, to walk down the aisle -like "a lamb to slaughter"- to the fate worse than death awaiting her.................the first hurdle necessary to overcome MAY be that of finding a virgin who is willing, OR finding a virgin?
 
I think the last Virgin bride was lost to the world when Holly Branson married.

The only place where its applicable to shop for anything "virgin" is in the supermarket in the olive oil department. :D
 
This is basically what happened in a nutshell. If the marriage had been a stable, loving one where two people meshed together physically, mentally and spiritually, nothing could have broken it. They were just two different people unable to form this kind of a bond. Just like oil and vinegar will never mix.

Part of Diana's legacy is a reform of the old ways of thinking of "checking off the proper boxes" when it comes to a marriage. The old standards were proven to be actually detrimental to a dynastic type marriage and the lessons were learned. When William married, the boxes to be checked off were thrown out the window and will never return again.

Spot on! I was a teenager when Charles and Diana married & knew nothing of Camilla but even then the whole situation seemed very strange to me. A 32 year old man involved with a sheltered 19 year old. And then that creepy announcement from her uncle, assuring the world she was a virgin. BLECH! and OMG! Just too medieval.
 
:previous: I was 19 when they married; and, to me, she seemed more than just one year older than I. At the time, nothing seemed more romantic to me than this young woman marrying this older, royal man. It's only in hindsight that it seems rather unusual.
 
Diana was a beautiful bride and she and the Emmanuel's managed to create the perfect fairytale wedding gown and the BRF finished the look with the perfect fairytale Glass Carriage!

When Diana exited the Carriage she looked her age as she, the bridesmaids and the Emmanuel's wrestled that gown into shape, one thing she didn't look was sad, scared, unhappy, coerced, etc. and, when she and Charles exited the Cathedral, they looked like any other blissfully just-married bride and groom.

We are all the sum total of our life experience and since there were 14 years between my mother and father, I didn't give the marriage of Charles and Diana a second thought, not then and not now.

So what legacy did she leave . . . two beautiful well loved sons. Golden heirs to remind us all of her. Unfortunately, it was a double-edged sword which meant their every move was followed intrusively. It's a miracle they both didn't take to drink and licentiousness as a career as they were damned for every real and created faux pas.
 
How great was Diana diplomatically?

I have read time and time again how when Diana went on royal tours outside the UK, she was great with soft diplomacy, she won people over, she had charm as well. In a sense she was a secret weapon to the monarchy and parliament. Every heads of states, foreign leaders, other royal members, US Presidents, politicians all wanted to meet her. She was in demand. She actually made it seem that UK was bigger than it actually was. She was an economic force boosting tourism in the countries she would visit. Does any of you guys have other examples of Diana and diplomacy?
 
Can you quote some sources because I have never read this anywhere.
 
I am not criticising Diana but that was about her death and not about your original question regarding her impact diplomatically.

I don't think anything she did changed diplomatic relations between UK and other countries.

She was liked but that doesn't change diplomatic relations.
 
I am not criticising Diana but that was about her death and not about your original question regarding her impact diplomatically.

I don't think anything she did changed diplomatic relations between UK and other countries.

She was liked but that doesn't change diplomatic relations.

But she did. I've read so many articles and books people have written. I will find them.
 
She didn't in the same way even the spouses of Monarchs haven't changed relationships.

The royals have no power between countries - that lies with Government.

She was the wife to the heir to the Throne - no diplomatic power at all.
 
She didn't in the same way even the spouses of Monarchs haven't changed relationships.

The royals have no power between countries - that lies with Government.

She was the wife to the heir to the Throne - no diplomatic power at all.

Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think Kitty has made it clear that she's talking about soft diplomacy, which Diana was a pro at. The government may have directed her to go to a certain country, but the charm she laid on was not something the government could order up, and it was arguably as powerful if not more than the actual diplomats' work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom