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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree, but knowing the Archbishop of Canterbury will say her name on Sunday when he christens Charlotte, is a sweet thought.
 
I agree, Marty91charmed. Memories are what we have, and they are enough.:flowers:


Marty91charmed said:
I just want to remember her and nothing more... I think too much has been said about her... and thinking at "what if" would happen it she still were here it is not use. R.I.P. That is enough IMO
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I agree, Marty91charmed. Memories are what we have, and they are enough.:flowers:
Click to expand...

Indeed:flowers:. I just feel uncomfortable when a human being who is not living any longer is discussed and analysed even after his/her death... :sad:
 
I didn't mean to go on about what Diana would be doing today had she lived. I just expressed my imagination. I can't help but think about how she would be enjoying her grandchildren on her birthday.
 
Marty91charmed said:
Indeed:flowers:. I just feel uncomfortable when a human being who is not living any longer is discussed and analysed even after his/her death... :sad:
Click to expand...

So obviously you don't study or enjoy history because that is what History is - the study and analysis of people who were once living.

It is what I do for a living.

Diana is now a figure from history to be debated, argued over, analysed, discussed etc for the rest of time - as far as historians and students of History are concerned - like Churchill, Henry VIII, Hitler, Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela etc etc etc.
 
What I don't care for is what I call 'weird history', an obvious example of which is the ongoing conjecture about what shadowy force was behind Diana's death. The hysteria has died down quite a bit, but it still rears its ugly head on occasion. I'm so tired of it.:sad:
 
Conspiracy Theories are a very real part of teaching history - often in order to educate people about the ridiculousness of them.


The theories around Diana's death are part of her legacy and will form a part of any study of her - particularly as many of them were expressed in the inquest, which is a main aspect of her legacy as well.
 
Last edited:
Mermaid1962 said:
What I don't care for is what I call 'weird history', an obvious example of which is the ongoing conjecture about what shadowy force was behind Diana's death. The hysteria has died down quite a bit, but it still rears its ugly head on occasion. I'm so tired of it.:sad:
Click to expand...


The conspiracy theories about Diana are touchy because they both are and are not history. Much like the theories about 9/11 they're historic events, but they've happened in recent memory. Ultimately it's not entirely different from theories about the cause of George III's madness or what happened to Edward V and his brother, with the exception being that we do actually know what happened to Diana (a car crash) and the theories about her are more related to the fringe elements of what can be considered a Cult of Diana than reality.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
What I don't care for is what I call 'weird history', an obvious example of which is the ongoing conjecture about what shadowy force was behind Diana's death. The hysteria has died down quite a bit, but it still rears its ugly head on occasion. I'm so tired of it.:sad:
Click to expand...
You and every logical person around. It is a sad fact that Diana will largely be remembered by her totally needless death and the mass hysteria that followed.

Most people look back and cringe at the excesses, the cruelty to the BRF and callous demands to "produce the princes" for "the people" and every media outlet, to fawn over and tell them they understood and felt their pain. No one can understand another's pain because it is personal.

To this day, the one event that remains indelibly imprinted in my memory is that of the family walking around the mountain of flowers, surrounded by wailing, sobbing and hysterical people. That William and Harry maintained their composure and didn't bolt for the palace is a measure of their strength and the family love encompassing them during a trial they should never have been forced to endure.

That is the UK's shame. As to the b**s*** crazy conspiracy theorists? Who cares anymore? Life does as it always will, it goes on.
 
:previous:Oh how I am tempted to print your comments and frame them MARG. I was shocked and saddened by what happened to Diana, but I was even more disgusted by the worldwide hysteria . It was shameful. The borderline irrational SHOW SOME EMOTION vulgarity of the London mobs reminded me of what it must have been like in Paris at the Fall of the Bastille with the enraged irrational crowds demanding that the cowering French Royal family show themselves to the people. The absolute nadir was the savage criticism leveled at QEII for daring to take her grandsons to church with her on the morning after the tragedy.

I mean, imagine the depravity of any grandmother doing such a thing!

Then there was the stupid uninformed American media, seeming to totally revel in all the drama and adding the meaningless two cents about the "cold" monstrous queen and the BRF.:bang:

And in a few years the same crowds and media who wailed and gnashed their teeth seem to have forgotten Diana.:cool:


[ just want to remember her and nothing more... I think too much has been said about her... and thinking at "what if" would happen it she still were here it is not use. R.I.P. That is enough IMO]// quote


Marty91charmed,
That is so succinct and lovely. And it's exactly how I feel now as well.
 
Last edited:
Rather than being a Cult of Diana though, many conspiracy theorists cannot look at the sudden premature death of any celebrity or prominent person (including Diana) without constructing some weird and convoluted 'explanation' for it.

This usually involves shadowy powers behind the scenes who decided the person knew too much or stood in the way of something or other. Look at the theories surrounding the death of Marilyn Monroe for example.

I except Dodi's grieving father from this although the poor man doesn't seem able to accept that the deaths of Dodi and Diana were just a terrible tragic accident.
 
Iluvbertie said:
So obviously you don't study or enjoy history because that is what History is - the study and analysis of people who were once living.

It is what I do for a living.

Diana is now a figure from history to be debated, argued over, analysed, discussed etc for the rest of time - as far as historians and students of History are concerned - like Churchill, Henry VIII, Hitler, Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll confess I am not into history at all. But I think that my age is an important factor too: I didn't live the "Diana phenomenon" and I barely have some memories of her, even though I recall well the day she died... I was only a kid but I rememember uttering these words:" Princess Diana is dead. She was that beautiful unhappy blonde princess, wasn't she mom?" And as all kids, I think I pretty well summarized what the main thought about Lady Di was at that time.:flowers: I don't know, I could be totally wrong but to me it is still too premature and almost excessive to compare Diana to character such Htiler, Mandela etc. I can see that Diana's links to them may be the huge impact on the masses and negstive or positive effects they caused to humanity... But to be fair, I think Diana's influence is going to fade slowly but progressively in the time, as the years pass, and people who "lived" her pass away... I also think it will be pretty interesting to see Diana being "analysed" by historians in the future, when a more objective take will likely be used. Now too many feelings and emotions still surround her image, for her to be properly "studied". JIMO of course and sorry if I sound presumptuos, but I think that the younger generations (who come after the Diana'era) may have the and better judgment, that is a better neutral view of her, to discuss her true persona (or many traits of it)in the years to come...

Please, don't be too harsh on me, I speak from my mid-twenties... and maybe I see the late Diana with new, too modern perhaps, and not expert eyes...:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Marty91charmed, I think that what you expressed to your mother on Diana's death encapsulates a lot of the story. It's interesting to hear the reactions of those who were very young when Diana died and those who still wish to discuss their memories of her after all these years. My own feelings are confused, because I'm nostalgic about the Diana years in many ways, perhaps because she was only a year older than I. She and I matured as young women during the same years, although our lives obviously had such different paths. I had her on such a pedestal, which is always dangerous. I was worried about her during the 90s, as her life was falling apart and there was so much bad stuff coming out about her. So now, I tend to concentrate on the nostalgic part of it, although I do get annoyed when people make excuses for her bad behaviour. So these are parts of her legacy as it affects me: nostalgia, disappointment, and annoyance. Quite a package.:)
 
Mermaid1962 said:
Marty91charmed, I think that what you expressed to your mother on Diana's death encapsulates a lot of the story. It's interesting to hear the reactions of those who were very young when Diana died and those who still wish to discuss their memories of her after all these years. My own feelings are confused, because I'm nostalgic about the Diana years in many ways, perhaps because she was only a year older than I. She and I matured as young women during the same years, although our lives obviously had such different paths. I had her on such a pedestal, which is always dangerous. I was worried about her during the 90s, as her life was falling apart and there was so much bad stuff coming out about her. So now, I tend to concentrate on the nostalgic part of it, although I do get annoyed when people make excuses for her bad behaviour. So these are parts of her legacy as it affects me: nostalgia, disappointment, and annoyance. Quite a package.:)
Click to expand...

I think that the ideal Diana was quite common in those years, and my mom almost worhsipped her and tried to make me think the same... With th eyes of a kid she was my princess... the one of the disney movies, so to speak... But even as a child I perceived there was something off or not right with her life... I think that contradiction is her legacy to me... Because she has always been define as a god/ perfect role model or as a very problematic/negative character... I believe it is those two opponent sides are her fascination and her true self was in between.. (eve though I think her good sides were those in the public display and that her natural behaviour was something impossible to detect...).:flowers:.
 
Queen Camilla said:
That is dreadful that your mother tried to force her way of thinking on to her child.
Click to expand...

Oh no! It is not like she threated me or anything! She simply coomented on how good and brave Diana was in her opinion, in front of me... So I grew up (at least in the childhood years" with that thinking... Seriously, "forcing her way of thinking" is a utter exageration! It is not like she forced me into some ethic ways of life, God... just an personal view of a princess... I find it rather offensive you think that :ohmy:
 
Last edited:
I read what you wrote and I thought of the cults that take their children with them and indoctrinate the children into the cult.

I cannot see why you would be offended as they were your own words.

There are others on this website who joined the Diana bandwagon because of their mothers.

JMO, a child should have the freedom to make their own opinions about people without being influenced by adults.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that most of us here would agree with you. During 1980 and, I would say, up to after William was born, her image was faultless. The rumours of her problems didn't begin until 1982, when it was thought that she might have anorexia. Nigel Dempster was one of the first to report some of the rumours about her private behaviour. I believe it was he who described her as a 'monster.' Then things quieted down again, and I don't remember much more controversy until around 1985. By 1987, no holds were barred on the speculation about her and Charles's problems.

Marty91charmed said:
Because she has always been define as a god/ perfect role model or as a very problematic/negative character... I believe it is those two opponent sides are her fascination and her true self was in between.. (eve though I think her good sides were those in the public display and that her natural behaviour was something impossible to detect...).:flowers:.
Click to expand...
 
QueenCamilla: it is just about Diana... a gossip area from my mom... she simply told me she adored her etc and was an inspiring woman... that's all... no big deal...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I'd say that most of us here would agree with you. During 1980 and, I would say, up to after William was born, her image was faultless. The rumours of her problems didn't begin until 1982, when it was thought that she might have anorexia. Nigel Dempster was one of the first to report some of the rumours about her private behaviour. I believe it was he who described her as a 'monster.' Then things quieted down again, and I don't remember much more controversy until around 1985. By 1987, no holds were barred on the speculation about her and Charles's problems.
Click to expand...

I think it is still too early for me to have an all-rounded opinion on her... but i am sure of one thing: I have some neutral thoughts, and try to form my take on her without the influx of the media or other opinions... (not easy i know)... I just watch videos of her without the comments, over the top claims etc... When I will be older, I'll dare talk about Diana:lol:
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I'd say that most of us here would agree with you. During 1980 and, I would say, up to after William was born, her image was faultless. The rumours of her problems didn't begin until 1982, when it was thought that she might have anorexia. Nigel Dempster was one of the first to report some of the rumours about her private behaviour. I believe it was he who described her as a 'monster.' Then things quieted down again, and I don't remember much more controversy until around 1985. By 1987, no holds were barred on the speculation about her and Charles's problems.
Click to expand...

Not true.

James Whitaker book published in 1981 did not portray Diana in a favorable light.

I remember the tabloids headline about the not so shy Di, including one from a former nanny.

There were several articles long before the wedding and some before the engagement.

Then there were the Stephan Barry books. There were major staff firings that were pointed as being caused by Diana.

There was the taking of two apartments at KP and merging into one, this too was directed at Diana.

I remember a lot of the negative articles because I remember her first public appearance with Charles in 1978 when she snatched the binoculars while they were still on his neck.

I thought her behavior was disrespectful to Charles and the RF.

From that point in 1978, I was against her being attached to Charles.

When she reappeared with the mirror my thoughts were 'run Charles run get away from her.'
 
Last edited:
This is not the thread to discuss Charles and Diana's relationship. Let's get back on topic.
 
Diana's legacy is her medical and biological DNA.

William is a perfect example.
He has the same long face, the same facial shape, the same forehead, brows, eye shape and mouth. His two year picture and Diana's two year old are the exact same face. As William got older his nose and chin developed but everything else except the teeth are still the same.

William even has Diana's mannerism and facial expressions.

People talk about the Windsor genes, in the future they will talk about the Spencer genes.
 
Yet a further number of posts have been deleted for being off-topic. This thread is not about Charles and Diana's marriage, nor is it an opportunity to speculate on William's relationship with Diana, what Diana would have been like as a mother-in-law or whether or not William would have married Catherine had Diana still be alive.
Members are also asked to comply with a Moderator's request to remain on topic.
 
Diana's legacy runs through William and Harry, George & Charlotte. It's even deeper than just with Diana, because it's both Diana and Charles that have great legacies to pass on to their children and grandchildren. Despite what happened to the Waleses marriage, Diana and Charles accomplished a lot and it's something for their children and grandchildren to draw some inspiration from.
 
Diana was under so much pressure, and she still went on her charity work with her whole heart. That is why I think she is a PURE humanitarian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
anbrida said:
Diana was under so much pressure, and she still went on her charity work with her whole heart. That is why I think she is a PURE humanitarian.
Click to expand...

A PURE humanitarian would show compassion and understanding and caring to each and every human being that entered into their world. That for sure didn't happen with Diana as she caused a lot of people a lot of grief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
anbrida said:
Diana was under so much pressure, and she still went on her charity work with her whole heart. That is why I think she is a PURE humanitarian.
Click to expand...


No she did not.
Her own words. She only did charity work because she had nothing to do. (Settelen tape.) William chimes in and say 'She's hopeless.'

What was her quote about her royal duties? It was something along the line that 70% was sludge.

Her private secretary said she had temper tantrums before doing her 'charity work'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: Wow, 2007, imagine what the same review will say in 2017?

Interestingly the view is only sociological with a hint of psychological analysis, being mostly that it was an isolated event. Moreover, while frightening, it showed how the "deep" feelings were mostly gone within a week and cringeworthy thereafter.

Nobody is negating Diana's death, but it was well in perspective 10 weeks after let alone 10 years. Just as the BRF learnt from the experience, so did the people of the UK.

What can we say? "Except on forums such as these?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
30K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
514
Tatiana Maria
T
soapstar
Diana Princess of Wales Jewels 3: 2022 -
Replies
23
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom