The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1761  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:27 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,911
She attended an opening for an AIDS clinic in 1989 (July 25).

BBC ON THIS DAY | 25 | 1989: Diana opens Landmark Aids Centre
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1762  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:28 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryGirl View Post
Great debate as to who or what deserves to be memorialized. There can never be a full consensus, but I tend to believe that there would really be no reason to create a statue of Diana. By the way can anyone tell me the first year that she touched/interacted with AIDS patients?
April 1987 during AIDS awareness campaign. Packets were sent to all households. Diana touching an AIDS patient was part of the campaign and not her idea. It was suggested in January 1987.

ETA: Interesting that BBC think it was two years later in July of 1989.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1763  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:38 PM
HistoryGirl's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 163
Got it. Thanks guys!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1764  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,554
I want to make clear a post I made saying Harry is Diana's legacy. Of course William is also Diana's legacy but to me Harry has so many of Diana's ways and the way he interacts with people and informal way he hugs people etc. to me he is following in her steps so is her legacy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1765  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:48 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,242
Yes, they were taken early in the fall of 1980 and they were kindergarten children. I'm thinking in September. It was during this session that the infamous photos were taken of Diana with the sunlight showing through her skirt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Just looked at the photo again carefully and they are random children and the notations say photo was pre-marriage years. Most likely taken at the kindergarten she worked at perhaps?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1766  
Old 05-10-2016, 09:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
April 1987 during AIDS awareness campaign. Packets were sent to all households. Diana touching an AIDS patient was part of the campaign and not her idea. It was suggested in January 1987.

ETA: Interesting that BBC think it was two years later in July of 1989.
But, she did it. No white gloves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1767  
Old 05-10-2016, 09:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,894
Diana did touch patients without protest, though, and her work with them had such an impact. I agree with Royal Rob about Diana's legacy with her boys. Harry has all the empathy and authenticity Diana had in such abundance, and it's good that he's involved with Halo and the land mine issues too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1768  
Old 05-11-2016, 01:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana did touch patients without protest, though, and her work with them had such an impact. I agree with Royal Rob about Diana's legacy with her boys. Harry has all the empathy and authenticity Diana had in such abundance, and it's good that he's involved with Halo and the land mine issues too.
Yes, she did without gloves, and there was some consternation by the BRF about it at the time. They had wanted Charles to come but he was committed elsewhere, but Diana was offered and well, the rest is history.

I laugh how Camilla-philes try and knock her work, you didnt see other Royals jumping in to do this sort of thing at that time. Look at even a few years later when Barbara Bush is visiting AIDS patients with Diana and the closeness and comfort level she shows vs. the First Lady.

If I had to estimate the other BRF's reaction to doing that, it'd be more like her reaction than Diana's. Trying to knock her AIDS work is a losing hand, theres so much better areas to try and get some anti-Diana traction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1769  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:02 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
But, she did it. No white gloves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana did touch patients without protest, though, and her work with them had such an impact.
In 1987 she was told to touch an AIDS patients barehanded. It was not her idea.

This was the point of her visit in April 1987 during AIDS awareness in the U.K.

The idea was from the Minister of Health or someone along those lines after visiting San Francisco. The idea was hatched in San Francisco in January of 1987.

(I had posted the article detailing this about a year ago on this forum but the link is no longer available.)

The BRF was behind the idea.

The 1989 visit was a repeat but outdoors. I guess the first visit did not get the same traction so there was a repeat which would explain why the BBC said it was the first time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1770  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,554
What's it matter if she was told she did it no one else did


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1771  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
IN 1987 she was told to touch an AIDS patients barehanded. It was not her idea.

This was the point of her visit in April 1987 during AIDS awareness in the U.K.

The idea was from the Minister of Health or someone along those lines after visiting San Francisco. The idea was hatched in San Francisco in January of 1987.

(I had posted the article detailing this about a year ago on this forum but the link is no longer available.)

The BRF was behind the idea.

The 1989 visit was a repeat but outdoors. I guess the first visit did not get the same traction so there was a repeat which would explain why the BBC said it was the first time.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=bFQ...dshake&f=false

pg 158 Mike Adler , clinician in charge, suggested it would do a great deal to remove public anxiety and the stigma of AIDS if the princess was seen to be shaking hands with a patient. The Palace intially asked if she should wear gloves to protect herself....It is of great CREDIT to the Princess and her advisers that she AGREED to the gloveless handshake...once she AGREED he was quick to realize the potential!!!!!

https://books.google.ca/books?id=pa3...&f=false\\-age 95
Arthur Edwards "She was going against all the advice from the old guard at Buckingham Palace" in reference to her bare handshake.

If the royals were so keen on touching AIDS patients why did the Queens first visit happen in 2007???

Queen follows in Diana's footsteps | Blogs | Comment | Daily Express
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1772  
Old 05-11-2016, 04:39 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Everyone's memory slips away. Diana did some groundbreaking things. Touch an AIDS patient bare handed and being a princess, too. The queen wears gloves to touch anyone. 50 years from now, Elizabeth will be remembered as living a very long time. She has done nothing groundbreaking. Just a very nice and decent person. George III lived a very long time, if not for the Revolutionary War, who would remember him? Yes, Diana was an icon in many ways, but icons fade, too. Victoria was Elizabeth in her day. Perhaps, greater. More influence on the continent. Today, she is a statue of a short, stout lady. That's how things go.
I could have written so much, but I will answer you and some other posters here with what I wrote in another thread:

Our beloved, iconic, remarkable Elizabeth II is the UK and the Commonwealth and she is as Obama said a jewel to the world.

She is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling) She was also with her parents, sister and Winston Churchill a symbol of peace during World War II.

She is as several of the so-called experts said on British/American/Canadian television during her 90th birthday celebrations and Jubilee celebrations in 2012 a symbol of continuity and goodness in the world. And as Baroness Scotland said during an interview: She is kind, caring, warm, forgiving and concerned with poor people, young people and people who are struggling.

Monarchs, Presidents, former Prime Ministers, former employees and family member have said the same and the Queen herself has mentioned it several times in her speeches over the years.

She is simply THE QUEEN and world leders around the world admirer her, and she make me proud to be half-British. We should be proud to live in this admirable lady's reign.

There will be no one like her again, and I agree with Tony Parsons that she will be the last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation, but the monarchy will continue to endure in to future with Charles, William and George.

And you can not compare the Queen's legacy with the legacy of a controversial person, which almost no Britons under 30 care about.

Diana was pretty controversial before her death. She had turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, she attacked her husband on television, she embarrassed the Queen and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. I'm not saying that Charles was innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

When it comes to her charity work: I think it took her several years to become patron of approximately 100 charities and she accepted many of them to boost her popularity during the 90s. She then (I think) dropped most of them.

And when it comes to her death: As cepe wrote in this post:
The Royal Family and the Media
Quote:
The immediate response of the British people was to turn on the press. So what did the press do? Turn it round and blame HMQ. With hindsight we know what HMQ did in looking after her grandchildren was the right thing.
Most people today (even journalists) regrets the way they attacked/bullied the Queen in the days following Diana's death. And the monarchy is more popular today than it was during the Diana years. We've had record high support for the monarchy in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1773  
Old 05-11-2016, 06:15 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 18,733
Although she is indeed the Queen of the UK, she isn't a saint. And like all humans I am sure that also QEII has made one or two mistakes in those 90 years. Her role as a constitutional monarch has prevented her from wielding too much powers and from participating actively in government. She will therefore probably be remembered by the time she ruled and will symbolise post-war Britain. The same can be said of Queen Victoria, who is mostly remembered by the period that was named after her and not by her personal achievements - which I am sure were many.

The late princess of Wales may have been ground breaking in her charities. But charities and royalty come hand in hand and things that were ground breaking at the time will be regarded as normal in the future. Many royals have done good deeds in the past and will do so in the future. She will probably mostly be remembered as a glamourous royal figure with an eventful and tragic life, much as Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Charlotte of Prussia and perhaps Marie-Antoinette.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:02 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Memorial statues are to mark the passing of someone of importance. Both Diana's boys are hale and hearty and it would be downright creepy having them immortalised in a memorial statue.
She was someone of importance, just not to you. Those arent William and Harry, its from when she worked at the Young England Kindergarten.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1775  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:15 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,242
Exactly. King George V and Queen Mary had a great deal to do with the development of the idea of members of the BRF being seen out and working among the people. George VI and Queen Elizabeth were tremendous symbols of the fight against the Nazis. They had the first attempts at what's now taken for granted, the Walkabout. There's innovation with every reign.

Yes, I think that Diana will be remembered as a glamorous, tragic figure as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
The late princess of Wales may have been ground breaking in her charities. But charities and royalty come hand in hand and things that were ground breaking at the time will be regarded as normal in the future. Many royals have done good deeds in the past and will do so in the future. She will probably mostly be remembered as a glamourous royal figure with an eventful and tragic life, much as Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Charlotte of Prussia and perhaps Marie-Antoinette.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1776  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:18 PM
HistoryGirl's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Although she is indeed the Queen of the UK, she isn't a saint. And like all humans I am sure that also QEII has made one or two mistakes in those 90 years. Her role as a constitutional monarch has prevented her from wielding too much powers and from participating actively in government. She will therefore probably be remembered by the time she ruled and will symbolise post-war Britain. The same can be said of Queen Victoria, who is mostly remembered by the period that was named after her and not by her personal achievements - which I am sure were many.

The late princess of Wales may have been ground breaking in her charities. But charities and royalty come hand in hand and things that were ground breaking at the time will be regarded as normal in the future. Many royals have done good deeds in the past and will do so in the future. She will probably mostly be remembered as a glamourous royal figure with an eventful and tragic life, much as Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Charlotte of Prussia and perhaps Marie-Antoinette.
I agree. Even now the things remembered about her is her fashion sense and the whole Charles/Camilla bit. That doesn't mean that she didn't mean a whole lot more to other people but that's what sticks in the minds of the general public; especially those who, like myself, were not old enough to grasp the charity work aspect of her job.

I asked about her AIDS work because at the time she did it, other celebrities had done work with AIDS patients and had taken on the cause. So she wasn't the first to have close contact with AIDS patients. That's not to take away from what she did, but more to put it in perspective.

I agree that her biggest legacy comes from her boys. Every time W and H do anything they're asked about their mother. So her lasting effect is of a tragic figure that left behind her beloved boys.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1777  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:58 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryGirl View Post
I agree. Even now the things remembered about her is her fashion sense and the whole Charles/Camilla bit. That doesn't mean that she didn't mean a whole lot more to other people but that's what sticks in the minds of the general public; especially those who, like myself, were not old enough to grasp the charity work aspect of her job.

I asked about her AIDS work because at the time she did it, other celebrities had done work with AIDS patients and had taken on the cause. So she wasn't the first to have close contact with AIDS patients. That's not to take away from what she did, but more to put it in perspective.

I agree that her biggest legacy comes from her boys. Every time W and H do anything they're asked about their mother. So her lasting effect is of a tragic figure that left behind her beloved boys.
As someone old enough to remember it, being in college at the time, it WAS a big deal her shaking an AIDS patient hand. She was the first big celebrity to be seen touching an AIDS patient, im sure someone, somewhere on the net can find a D list celebrity doing it before her, maybe, but it made a huge impact on how people viewed people with AIDS.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1778  
Old 05-11-2016, 03:15 PM
HistoryGirl's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 163
The story of Elton John and Ryan White; a boy who was bullied for being HIV positive The Story of Elton John and Ryan White

Didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said she wasn't the first for the sake of fact checking. I'd heard about the Ryan White case while I was studying the history of AIDS in the developing world. He actually met a whole lot of stars after a high profile lawsuit against the school who kicked him out. Alyssa Milano even gave him a kiss.

That was a big case but I'd say the biggest impact on how people viewed AIDS came when celebrities themselves admitted to having the illness ie. Magic Johnson and Freddie Mercury.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1779  
Old 05-11-2016, 03:57 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
As someone old enough to remember it, being in college at the time, it WAS a big deal her shaking an AIDS patient hand. She was the first big celebrity to be seen touching an AIDS patient, im sure someone, somewhere on the net can find a D list celebrity doing it before her, maybe, but it made a huge impact on how people viewed people with AIDS.
I don't agree about A, B and C list celebs having not ever touched someone with HIV Aids. There were A, B and C list celebs with HIV, for heaven's sake. But as a Princess, well, there were rules about touching UK royals. So for her to touch patients was a big deal to do with royalty more than celebrity as I experienced it. And yes, the impact was huge.
The handshake was 1989.
Here is a general Aid/HIV timeline. https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics...aids-timeline/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1780  
Old 05-11-2016, 04:07 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
Elizabeth Taylor was an early AIDS supporter started in 1984. Testifying to Congress, creating amFAR pre Diana handshake. Raised more $270 million during her lifetime. Certainly not a D list celebrity.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, legacy, memorial, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Grace's Legacy HMTLove23 Princely Family of Monaco 165 12-07-2017 05:59 PM
Left Or Right-Handed Royals? Peggy Royal Life and Lifestyle 49 02-03-2016 02:34 AM
The Legacy of Elizabeth II vkrish Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 21 12-18-2012 07:45 AM




Popular Tags
albania birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge style duchess of york earl of snowdon general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta pilar infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein miguel urdangarin monarchy news nobel prize prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince of wales prince oscar princess alexandra princess beatrice princess claire princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary daytime fashion princess mary hats princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofias hats princess sofia style princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia rohan rohans state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises