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

[Ish]

George being POW or William being King?

For something to go amiss with Charles.

William will, in time, likely be PoW and King. As will George: but I wouldn't wish for something to happen to Charles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George being POW or William being King?

I would have though that the comment 'something going amiss with Charles' - the first part of the quote is what Ish was referring to.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

This is true...

To me, the "footnotes" are the people who are mostly forgotten. The ones who aren't studied at all - the ones who only come up in a sentence or two when dealing with another topic or person. So... in my opinion, the British royals alive today that will be "footnotes" are the Gloucesters, Kents, Phillips, and York and Wessex children. They're people who aren't likely to ever be studied themselves and will only come up in studies of their parents, grandparents, or the Queen. Diana, in contrast, might not have any more of a lasting impact than the Queen's cousins or most of her grandchildren, but she's a figure who's going to be studied in her own right and along with her ex-husband and his second wife. The scandal of her marriage may not have had any lasting impact - and beyond whatever impact it has on Charles, Camilla, William, and Harry, I don't think it has any significant lasting impact - but it's something that has captivated the imaginations of people and as such has, in my opinion, ensured her legacy. She'll be studied by academics because of her marriage, not her impact. She'll be remembered in pop culture for the same reason.

Consider... Madame du Barry. She was a mistress of Louis XV and was not herself a significant character - she had no interest in politics, didn't birth an heir, etc. She had no lasting impact outside of her life. Yet we still remember her and people still study her - Wikipedia lists sources on her as recent as 2005. History continues to care about who she was not because of anything that she achieved but rather... well, because of who she "did". I think that's the kind of legacy that Diana will have. It's not about the things that she did that changed the world or impacted a significant number of lives, but how she captivated the attention of people.

I agree with you given this definition, although I wouldn't use this as a definition myself. It is undeniable that Diana's incredible popularity will inspire study for a long time. It is remarkable that people feel so strongly about her.

Diana did some great work publicizing AIDS, but ultimately it was the work of hundreds of medical researchers that truly changed the lives of AIDS patients. The average nurse probably provides more comfort and assistance to more people in six months than Diana did throughout her lifetime. But none of that matters. People were, and are, fascinated by her and that phenomenon will probably interest academics for years to come.

 

[scooter]

For something to go amiss with Charles.

William will, in time, likely be PoW and King. As will George: but I wouldn't wish for something to happen to Charles.

Kitty Atlanta said should something go amiss with CHarles. I was just replying.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Should something go amiss with Charles, then King William will have George invested as POW.

Goes without saying.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

eBay would indicate that Diana's importance to those who collected her memorabilia are now letting them go. There are over 18,000 items in the U.S. listings. She was important when the items were purchased, but not so much now.

 

[wyevale]

The Princess's legacy is now negligable.. my nieces and nephews [in their 20s] haven't a clue who she was [not even that she was William & Harry's mother, altho' they do know who the Princes are].

To people over 40 she is a face, and a name.. principally remembered for the extraordinary hoo-ha surrounding her death, and [less so] for the messy and acrimonious divorce.

So.. 'sic transit gloria mundi'...

 

[Ish]

Kitty Atlanta said should something go amiss with CHarles. I was just replying.

That is true. Point still remains; let's not wish it on him.

 

[Curryong]

I just don't think that Diana will be a footnote or forgotten. She will be remembered among those who worked for her charities and those who followed her through magazines.
She will come up whenever the history of popular culture in the late 20th century is studied, and in documentaries of the times. Diana will certainly be more than a footnote to those who write about British royalty, whether generally or about a specific royal, Elizabeth, Charles, William, Harry.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I just don't think that Diana will be a footnote or forgotten. She will be remembered among those who worked for her charities and those who followed her through magazines.
She will come up whenever the history of popular culture in the late 20th century is studied, and in documentaries of the times. Diana will certainly be more than a footnote to those who write about British royalty, whether generally or about a specific royal, Elizabeth, Charles, William, Harry.

For most that is a 'footnote'.

I would say Wallis Simpson is a footnote in history, too, although she caused a king to abdicate.

 

[scooter]

To me, the footnote on the family tree is where it says 'married 2nd Camilla Shand Parker-Bowles No issue'. As long as one is the mother of a king, one never is the footnote.

 

[Lady Nimue]

To me, the footnote on the family tree is where it says 'married 2nd Camilla Shand Parker-Bowles No issue'. As long as one is the mother of a king, one never is the footnote.

Camilla will be Queen. She will be the same 'footnote' as Prince Philip. IMO.

 

[scooter]

No. Prince Philip is the parent and grandparent of future kings. Camilla is NOT. Hardly the same.

 

[Roslyn]

But Philip is only a consort, even if he is the father of a future king. In my opinion it is the consort's personality and their deeds and achievements during their lifetime that makes them memorable or forgettable, not the mere fact they sired/bore a child.

I don't think either Diana or Camilla will be mere footnotes. Diana performed her job well while she was Princess of Wales, and Camilla is performing hers well now and will continue to do so when she becomes Queen Consort, however her position is officially described when that time comes. As wife of a king she will never be a mere footnote.

 

[scooter]

My point is if one is the parent of the future sovereign, one is never a footnote. One will be in every history book. If one is the later spouse and has not, for whatever reason, produced a child, for the purposes of a royal historian, one is historically superfluous. Just MHO, of course.

 

[Lady Nimue]

No. Prince Philip is the parent and grandparent of future kings. Camilla is NOT. Hardly the same.

I meant as a spouse of the reigning monarch. We tend to forget the spouses, they are footnotes. Though Prince Albert is an exception. There are others. When it comes to that, Diana will be the mother, which matters, of course, and Camilla will have been Queen. Surely you see that?

At any rate, it's not an area I am concerned with, certainly not enough to quarrel about. Hope you feel the same. I am aware that 'footnote' is a moveable marker. It's not a bad thing to be a footnote in history. It's something. I think it's meant as at least something, but not as much as our pride and hubris while alive would have it be so. Most of us have nothing in that regard, after all, but that is okay, too. Perhaps better in some ways.

"The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." - George Eliot, Middlemarch

 

[Queen Camilla]

A long term spouse is more important than a parent, especially when the parent died when the person was 15.

Catherine has been in William's life for 11 years.

We know more about Prince Albert than we do of Queen Victoria's mother even though Queen Victoria's mother also died in 1861. Victoria was married only 21 years, yet in all biographies of her Albert plays a significant role, her mother does not.

I know it is hard for some people to admit but Diana has no historical importance.

She was a mere footnote in William Shawcross biography of the Queen Mother.

She will continue to be just a footnote if she is even mentioned.

 

[Curryong]

The future Queen Camilla (or Princess Dowager Camilla) isn't consort to a King yet. If the Queen lives another ten years Charles's tenure on the throne may be very brief. Then William, the child of Charles and Diana, will be monarch.

 

[Roslyn]

And if Charles lives as long as his mother, he may have at least 20 years or more on the throne with Camilla by his side as Queen Consort.

 

[Curryong]

We shall see, or some of us will! At the end though it will be Diana's blood that will be in the future Royal family, not Camilla's.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Yes, Diana's legacy.

Brain Tumor
Brain Cancer
Brain Aneurysm

 

[Roslyn]

We shall see, or some of us will! At the end though it will be Diana's blood that will be in the future Royal family, not Camilla's.

Ah, good! You agree with me. I said the very same thing about Diana's blood on page 4 of this thread, more than six years ago.

 

[Osipi]

I think as far as history goes, the average person taking mandatory history classes in school will see Diana, Princess of Wales as data he needs to remember for next Friday's test and then is filed into the far recesses of his mind.

There will always be a sector interested in her probably. I'm sure there is quite a bit published out there about Constantine the Great but it is not knowledge the average Joe seeks out. As the years roll by, the general interest in Diana will fade.

 

[ladongas]

...

Diana did some great work publicizing AIDS, but ultimately it was the work of hundreds of medical researchers that truly changed the lives of AIDS patients. The average nurse probably provides more comfort and assistance to more people in six months than Diana did throughout her lifetime. But none of that matters. People were, and are, fascinated by her and that phenomenon will probably interest academics for years to come.

At the time that Diana helped soothe the panicked fears of those who were afraid of AIDS patients, it was an inevitably fatal disease. The medical researchers were doing their thing, and eventually made AIDS a manageable disease, but that was a long time coming. I was "there" when the stigma of AIDS was at its highest point, and I saw, and heard, and felt the difference in attitudes after Diana became involved. And I saw, and heard, and felt the gratitude of AIDS patients and their friends and loved ones and caregivers when the 'future Queen of England' made her poignant gestures.

Sadly, those I cared about did die before a 'cure' or disease management plan was developed. But I/we appreciated what Diana did all those years ago when there was no hope. It was no small thing that she did.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think as far as history goes, the average person taking mandatory history classes in school will see Diana, Princess of Wales as data he needs to remember for next Friday's test and then is filed into the far recesses of his mind.

Only in England.

There will always be a sector interested in her probably. I'm sure there is quite a bit published out there about Constantine the Great but it is not knowledge the average Joe seeks out. As the years roll by, the general interest in Diana will fade.

And there you have hit on it: it was Constantine's mother, the Empress Helena, who was one of the prime movers and shakers of her time (the power behind the throne), setting in motion the structures and doctrines of the Early Medieval Church. The fickleness of history: we hear plenty about Constantine, not so much about Helena. Most people would be startled to realize her impact. Diana comes no where close to being on the scale of Helena, who is indeed a footnote and yet had far more substance in her lived-life's impact on history than Diana.

History is littered with such personages like Helena, far more worthy of note than anyone like Diana. I know those who love her and have some pride wrapped up in her memory, wanting her to be significant to history but she won't be. Only to the social historian and even then it's dicey. Had Diana pulled down the British Monarchy, for sure she would be an historical footnote of some significance, if not an historical figure in her own right. As it stands, sadly, Madonna has had more social impact from the 1980's than did the very conservative Diana. Again, it's Diana's relationship to Charles, as his first wife and the domestic scandals attendant upon her as mother of the heir, that will always bring her forward.

Camilla will also, to assuage those who feel this is a contest, be a footnote to history, as the second wife of Charles and one of the Queens of England. Camilla will be in that list. Camilla will be a footnote in terms of importance but she will definitely be there as a personage in the roll call of English monarchs, assuming all proceeds as expected. IMHO.

 

[Osipi]

History is littered with such personages like Helena, far more worthy of note than anyone like Diana. I know those who love her and have some pride wrapped up in her memory, wanting her to be significant to history but she won't be. Only to the social historian and even then it's dicey. Had Diana pulled down the British Monarchy, for sure she would be an historical footnote of some significance, if not an historical figure in her own right. As it stands, sadly, Madonna has had more social impact from the 1980's than did the very conservative Diana. Again, it's Diana's relationship to Charles, as his first wife and the domestic scandals attendant upon her as mother of the heir, that will always bring her forward.

When you really think about it, Oliver Cromwell did bring down the British monarchy and other than scholarly, there's not that much interest in him either.

 

[COUNTESS]

Oliver Cromwell was not a knockout dresser and good looking. His face was not on millions of pieces of paper all over the world. There was no internet where his image could live forever. And he lived in a time where documentation which is visual, not that that mattered, was rife. She will be remember for many trite things, but that seems to be today's way and for many good things and the Mother of a King.

 

[Skippyboo]

When was the last time a new book was written about Diana? No one is writing new books about Queen Alexandria, Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth the QM. Even the Queen, had some new books written for the diamond jubilee but it is not a yearly event. There probably some after the Queen dies and maybe a new book about Charles then.

Thanks to historical fiction the Tudors remain popular and now it's the War of the Roses Kings & Queen that are being written about.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

When was the last time a new book was written about Diana? No one is writing new books about Queen Alexandria, Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth the QM. Even the Queen, had some new books written for the diamond jubilee but it is not a yearly event. There probably some after the Queen dies and maybe a new book about Charles then.

Thanks to historical fiction the Tudors remain popular and now it's the War of the Roses Kings & Queen that are being written about.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

April 2014 for Diana (according to an Amazon search). Amazon also has two books with 2012 release dates on the Queen Mother.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

The future Queen Camilla (or Princess Dowager Camilla) isn't consort to a King yet. If the Queen lives another ten years Charles's tenure on the throne may be very brief. Then William, the child of Charles and Diana, will be monarch.

No kiddin', Sherlock.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. When William becomes king, Diana will have been dead at least 2 decades, William's father will be dead, Camilla will have been married to Charles longer than William's mother was married to him and Diana will be a footnote in writings about the late king (Charles).

People who are interested in the BRF will read about Diana, and look at the photos of her walking around land mines and they will listen to the tapes of her berating the family that made it possible for her to go from a minor noble to the lady in the land mines. She is now just a memory, to her fans and most probably to her children. Kind of like Elvis. All his fans (incl. me) tried to keep him alive after his death and it didn't work. As fabulous a person as was King Hussein of Jordan, he is fading from memory, too. His wife is still around and she reminds those of us who were fond of the late king, that he was here.

Diana's the same. She's gone, there is no more to write about her, no more tapes, etc. There is only what was and most of that was superficial, just as the current working royal family does is superficial.