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

[Aliza]

Her "former other half's" second chance had nothing to do with the death of Diana. She was the one who got in the car with a drunk driver and chose not to wear a seat belt.

What a presumptive thing to say.

Sorry, KittyAtlanta, but I don't see where Mia_Mae connects Charles' second chance with Diana's death. Before Diana's crash, the PoW had already put Camilla's status as "non-negotiable" and I think that if anything, Diana's death put their plans back instead of forward. Just my opinion.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Charles and Diana were already divorced when Camilla became "non-negotiable." Diana did have a second chance, but she got caught in a terrible accident that could have been avoided. Her death had nothing to do with Charles, his second chance or anything else.

Mia's comment was uncalled for.

As for Diana's legacy, which is the discussion, her legacy will be --- just like everyone else's legacy --- photographs for everyone, and photographs and memories for those who knew her.

Aside from the 50th anniversary of Diana Spencer's birth being published this month, there have been no books written since 2004 (I could be wrong on the year), which indicates a decline in interest. The new book will be no more than a recompilation of her life story with a few photos of Kate and Wills' wedding added for good measure.

It's not my intention to be rude to other posters or disrespectful to the dead, but reality is reality.

 

[sirhon11234]

There have been books published after 2004. There is an upcoming fictional book about Diana to be released sometime this year

 

[Aliza]

Charles and Diana were already divorced when Camilla became "non-negotiable." Diana did have a second chance, but she got caught in a terrible accident that could have been avoided. Her death had nothing to do with Charles, his second chance or anything else.

Mia's comment was uncalled for.

No one said that her death had anything to do with Charles' second chance. The divorce was finalised almost exactly one year prior to the Princess' death, so of course, that is exactly what I was saying: Diana's death had nothing to do with Charles' second chance and that, if anything - Charles and Camilla had to slow down the PR campaign to get the public to accept Camilla because of Diana's death. (Since Charles specifically hired a PR advisor for this task, I don't think that's a controversial thing to post.)

How exactly did Mia connect Charles' second chance with Diana dying? I have read and reread her posts and see nothing remotely connecting the two. What I see Mia saying is that because of Diana's death, we never got a chance to see what Diana would have done with her second chance as we have been able to see Charles find some happiness with his second chance. I guess Mia should explain this, herself, if she feels like doing so. I can only state what impression I gained from reading her post and of course, it's only an opinion, just like your opinion of what Mia meant.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

There have been books published after 2004. There is an upcoming fictional book about Diana to be released sometime this year

Fiction is the key word.

******************************************************************

We all see things differently. What I read was that Diana did not get a second chance. She did get a second chance, she was living a different life --- her own life, not the "royal" life. Unfortunately, the accident brought that second chance to an end. Nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[Aliza]

******************************************************************

We all see things differently. What I read was that Diana did not get a second chance. She did get a second chance, she was living a different life --- her own life, not the "royal" life. Unfortunately, the accident brought that second chance to an end. Nothing more to say on the matter.

I agree with you 100% on this. Diana was living her second chance that first year after her marriage, her "own life" as you put it. And the accident did bring that chance to an end. Sorry if I was too outspoken.

 

[Mia_mae]

Papapapapapa! Now wait! Something has gone into the wrong direction here !
Aliza, thanks for the post, but I'll take that Kitty just interpreted differently, which in a forum is more than normal.

I did not say Charles didn't deserve his happiness or the marriage to Camilla. What I was saying, or tried to was that I wished Diana could have found someone else, someone who she truly loved, like her ex-husband. Cause he did, didn't he?!
In no way did I intend to say Prince of Wales current relationship is unfair, just that I wish both parties could have had happy endings.

On another lighter note What Would Have Been | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Zonk]

Diana's, Princess of Wales, legacy has left an impact, not on commoners, but on many royal heirs-to-a-throne. Her charismatic personality and her common touch was sought by the crown princes of European monarchies in their future crown princesses. I do not have to name the 'M's' or the one 'L,' you all heard and read of them many times. The late Princess of Wales' was a very unique person, just as I believe we are all in some way(s). She is 'for the ages' now. Her life played out the way it had to - fate inevitably intervenes for all. Fate decided when, where, and how she would perish from existence. Speculation on her life at 50 is for naught - her life ended when fate decided. None of the scenarios you all mentioned where ever meant to be. I only have praise for her - I will let her rest in peace. To do otherwise, only reflects on one's own inner evils.

I am not sure what your post has to do with mine. Particulary the point, where you state "to do otherwise, only reflects on one's own inner evils." Very confused am I.

 

[Renata4711]

The so-called "second chance" is irrelevant with hindsight.

Diana would have rejoiced in seeing her boys grow into fine specimens, and she herself would have outshone everyone who came into her orbit.

I'm still very sad that she could not have lived longer...

 

[NotHRH]

I am not sure what your post has to do with mine. Particulary the point, where you state "to do otherwise, only reflects on one's own inner evils." Very confused am I.

Those who disrespect the dead by assuming negatively how her life would have been until now, only show their inner negative feelings toward the late princess. These feelings simply express lack of respect for one has passed on. To me, lack of respect and expressing thoughts of negativity toward another, only regards the evil feeling of superiority. Some will put others down, which only points to their their childishness and lack of maturity. There will always be written words that some will not underdstand. I am only expressing my feelings. You do not to have understand!
Your feelings of superiority toward me were the 'elephant in the room' in your reply post. Your attempt to make me feel stupid and to hurt my feelings, only adds to my confidence level! Thanx! :-D

 

[Zonk]

I am simply AMAZED that you got all of that of my post that IMO had no negative comments about Diana or spoke ill of the dead.

But whatever.

 

[Mia_mae]

NotHRH, I'm re-reading Zonk post and also can't see any of that judgement you are seeing. There is a clear misunderstanding here.

 

[scooter]

Zonk is always very even dispositioned. ;-P . There are others here who have been scathing of the late Princess, but not Zonk...

 

[MRSJ]

NotHRH, I'm re-reading Zonk post and also can't see any of that judgement you are seeing. There is a clear misunderstanding here.

I have to add my 2 cents and agreement.....

 

[Aliza]

I have to add my 2 cents and agreement.....

Make that four cents, now. My two have gone to agreement along with yours. I saw nothing in that post that put down either the late Princess or the person posting. I've had my issues, as new as I am, with other administrators here - but never with Zonk.

 

[Zonk]

While I thank everyone for their support, let's get back on topic.

Needless to say, I don't please everyone all the time, and this thread doesn't need to be about Zonk, but rather Diana, Princess of Wales and HER legacy.

 

[scooter]

*Bats eyelashes at Zonk*

 

[pgm1952]

Diana left two boys after she died, now young men after her own heart. They are dedicated to their charities and those Diana had herself. They are her living legacy.

Her historical legacy is as the most famous Princess of Wales of modern times, a style icon of the late 20th century, and a maverick royal who pushed aside protocol to touch people deeply and profoundly the wold over in a way that has not been equalled since.

Within the British royal family she left painful memories of a failed marriage to the heir, damage to the integrity of the crown through both of their affairs and... the repository of all the hopes of this ancient institution in the form of her son, William.

To many of us she is a saint/goddess in all but name; the woman who touched something in so many of us as the princess who cared and who could do no wrong. She is now forever young and at rest from the traumas of her life, an angel among the saints in heaven and a saint among the angels. No one can replace her or rob her of her legacy as the People's Princess in our collective conscience.

She lives in her boys and in our hearts.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana left two boys after she died, now young men after her own heart. They are dedicated to their charities and those Diana had herself. They are her living legacy.

True.

Her historical legacy is as the most famous Princess of Wales of modern times, a style icon of the late 20th century, and a maverick royal who pushed aside protocol to touch people deeply and profoundly the wold over in a way that has not been equalled since.

As there hadn't been a Princess of Walese since 1910 it wasn't hard to be the 'most famous Princess of Wales of modern times' - she was the only one in modern times.

Within the British royal family she left painful memories of a failed marriage to the heir, damage to the integrity of the crown through both of their affairs and... the repository of all the hopes of this ancient institution in the form of her son, William.

'Their' son - William had two parents and Charles has had as big an influence on his son as his dead mother - particularly as it has been Charles that has been there for the last 14 years of his life - nearly half of William's life has already passed without her in it directly - sure give her credit but not at the expense of ignoring Charles.

To many of us she is a saint/goddess in all but name; the woman who touched something in so many of us as the princess who cared and who could do no wrong. She is now forever young and at rest from the traumas of her life, an angel among the saints in heaven and a saint among the angels. No one can replace her or rob her of her legacy as the People's Princess in our collective conscience.

I don't think that liars and adulterers can be counted as saints or angels. Nor can they be described as someone 'who could do no wrong' unless you regard lying, manipulation of others and multiple adulterers as acceptable behaviour and as not doing wrong. You might of course - and from your statement I will assume that you do - but I most certainly do not.

She lives in her boys and in our hearts.

She can live in your heart but my heart belongs to the people I know and love not to a stranger who tried to destroy and institution I was raised to love but now - thanks largely to her and her supporters and the actions of her sons - have come to regard as wasteful and irrelevant - so her legacy for me is to help make me a republican so that I don't have her son as my future King.

 

[Mia_mae]

Charles is not being ignored, this thread is about Diana, so her/his post was normally directed to her role as William and Harry parent.

Also, as I've said before, to put the whole blame on Diana is absolutely ridiculous, a marriage is about TWO people, besides the Princess, Prince Charles is, as his wife, accountable for the problems in the relationship.
We may have move on, but let's not be blind about the reality.
No Diana was not a Saint, hey QEII is not, no one is. But the Royal Family played the part when Diana was young and the perfect bride, and didn't discouraged the press with the perfect couple portrait that they weren't. Public have lost respect after the whole press parade of the Wales, but that happened on both ends.

 

[Super Baroness]

In the spirit of going back on topic…I’ll give my perspective.

I’m part of the generation who were rather young when Diana lived and died, so I really only learned about her through other people. My mother was one who got up early and put on a tiara to watch the Royal Wedding in 1981, and who years later met her friend to have a cry over Diana’s funeral in 1997. So I grew up fully aware who “Princess Diana” was: a beautiful princess who was cheated on in life, yet still managed to forever change the British Monarchy. Last summer even, when I started getting into royalty, I got a couple post-funeral magazines about Diana, and they completely affirmed by beliefs.

However, over the past few months I’ve learned a lot about Diana, Princess of Wales (especially through this wonderful forum), and my feelings of admiration have altered quite a bit. But still, I think to the general population, who watched her enter the scene, make a splash, and exit on harsh terms, her legacy will be one people remember in an overall positive way . (Of course, I really cannot speak for that group as I am not part of it!) Nowadays, I would say Diana’s legacy is greatly being carried on through her photographs. She was a very photogenic woman, so it makes sense that on photo blogs like tumblr (where there are a great deal of teenagers and twenty-somethings), pictures of her are extremely popular and generally well-regarded. As such, I would say Diana and her legacy are being revered (and kept current) in that way.

Personally, I think, like most everything in this world, it all boils down to the interpretation of how much you know, and what is important to each individual person. I was talking to a friend of mine last week, and she told me she was really into “Candle in the Wind.” We were speaking about Diana, and I rather sheepishly remarked how I didn’t understand the hype around her and to a degree, actually disliked her. My friend, the most sensible I have, looked at me and said, “Well, just don’t say that too loud. There are a lot of people in this world who really like her.” I just shrugged my shoulders in response.

 

[Catherine J]

As I believe that the sincerity one brings to their life is reflected back through the legacy of their deeds, I can sum up my perception of Diana's legacy, at best, with a half full/half empty comment.

On the one hand, her work with AIDS and leprosy patients and, later, with land mines, represents the half full. Without any other context, without any other knowledge of her or her deeds, these acts must be respected, on their face, as providing a positive overall benefit.

On the other hand, what knowledge I do have of her personality and personal life (and considering the source of this "knowledge" is never first hand or personal and only as reported or, in a few cases, as she put forth) leads me to consider her legacy as half-empty. In some instances, I wonder whether or not any of her acts were selfless or whether they were part of a larger strategy of "domination" (for lack of a better word that won't lead to a treatise on personality and politics).

I think I had kept an open mind about her until I saw the Panorama interview. I remember flicking the television from live to record and walking away in disgust. I'm about the same age as Diana (born early 1962) would have been and was, therefore, around her age when I saw the interview. She was a woman putting on a performance and it sickened and revolted me and actually made me angry. She appeared to be trying to usurp the monarchy - or at least Charles - and I wondered at what point the poor woman began to believe her own press and took leave of her rational senses. She was, for all the world and on the world stage, a scorned woman getting hers back. Ugh. Whatever sympathy she might have garnered from me for her "lamb to the slaughter" rhetoric was slammed into rocks and covered with the sludge of what came next. I remember the predominant feeling was that I was sorry for her sons and deeply embarrassed for the Queen and the Prince of Wales.

What followed, with Dodi Al Fayad and the crash in Paris was, sadly, the stuff written on the subway walls, so to speak. Not that I believe anyone deserves death (or an inquest into their life after their death) but if it had not been a Paris tunnel, it would have been something else - she was a woman seemingly bent on self destruction. Her choice in lovers says a lot about her and her inability to understand her role - its limitations, its benefits and its provenance. The fact that she thought a divorce, while still the mother of the future king, would give her back privacy or take away her obligations to a certain level of behavior says more about her. It's a little like Garbo wanting to be left alone. Well. Greta, you ought not have made a spectacle of yourself in the first place.

The rest of us have to sleep in the beds we've made ... and Diana, Princess of Wales was no exception and, in fact, had a greater obligation to that metaphoric bed.

I think, overall, her legacy is a cautionary tale.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Yes, she was. But if William decides otherwise, who are we to question the motivations of a son?

It was stated that William said that he would undertake the reinstatement when he became monarch, but whether or not he said this when she was alive, I can not recall.

It would be interesting to see if he does in any case.

I am ambivalent, but would say that her HRH was revoked for cause as were all other former HRHs. Any overly sentimental person would like the idea of reinstatement.

******************************

As for the young Wills assuring his mother that he would get her back the HRH when he was king just makes me cringe. Diana must have overburdened her two boys with her disappointments; now that's a shame.

 

[Renata4711]

Diana is still in many people's hearts and minds.

Her legacy will be with all those who loved her, and love her still.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Agreed. As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for..."

I think, overall, her legacy is a cautionary tale.

 

[olebabs]

A cautionary tale, yes. But a tale that seems to have worked out. Because of what happened in Britain, every royal house in the rest of Europe has accepted as a give in, that the heir to throne is allowed to marry for love and as a direct result, the press intrusion into the lives of the crownprincely couples is being managed much better.

Some people think she damaged the monarchy, but I don't think so. She definately rocked the boat, and I'm not trying to start the discussion of her actions again, but things has changed for the better. Just look at PoW and DoC.

Her legacy will always be the complexity of her short life. I just hope she has found peace.

 

[COUNTESS]

Diana's cautionary tale, is never marry a man who is married to someone else in his heart. Never marry a man who will envy any of your accomplishments. Never marry into a family that has no innovative thought, until it is screamed for. Never marry into a family that sees itself better than you.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...Some people think she damaged the monarchy, but I don't think so.

The fact that there are many in Britain and elsewhere, including people here, who regularly call for the succession rules to be put aside shows just how damaging her legacy is - to promote the popularity of the moment or even the individual over the institution itself is damaging to the institution and she put that on the agenda.

The very fact that people here and elsewhere want William to take his father's place shows how much she damaged the perception of the family relationship as well. William has two parents but most people seem to forget that - I even read comments in the lead up to the wedding asking why Charles should be having anything to do with it? That is also a large part of Diana's legacy - she set out to destroy her husband and even from the grave her supporters are still trying to bring about her desire - too bad if that desire might hurt and upset the sons she had with Charles.

 

[camelot23ca]

I think Diana's legacy is as complex as her life was. I do wonder how she would have adjusted to getting older. I think as much as she sometimes disliked the media attention and lack of privacy in her life a big part of her enjoyed the certain type of public adoration that only the young and glamourous can attract. The sort of behavior that seems charming and fascinating in someone in their twenties or even their thirties can look very different on someone a decade or two older. I think it would have been interesting to see what Diana would have done when she was no longer the most famous and photographed woman in the world. Would she have adjusted gracefully? I like to think she would have allowed her many good, deeper qualities to come more to the forefront - her devotion to her charities, her genuine compassion for those in need, and so on.

I also wonder how this change would have played out within the family, especially once William got married. I go between thinking she would have been mature enough at this point to act as a decent support system for her daughter in law(s) and thinking she would have been hell on wheels to deal with.

 

[COUNTESS]

Her husband destroyed himself. He was part and parcel of the big comedown. Philandering seemed to be an acceptable pastime for royals, (males), Diana turned a spotlight on it. Of course, she sullied it with her affairs to get even. As, for us Americans, we put down the idea of an "institution" over an individual with George III. There is nothing sacred about the institution if it didn't grow and change with the needs of the people. Charles critcized his parents for "lousy parenting". No warmth. Well, he was the same. Only afterward, he showed warmth and affection to his sons. I don't think he learned that from his mother. And that is too bad.