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

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Elizabeth made.documemtaroes aboit her family but it was Diana who leaked stories to the press and made friends with journalist and set up photo ops of her going to amusemt parks with her kids. Then there was the Morton crap, all of which I theorize gave certain people in the media the notion that they are entitled to juicy stories from the royals.
The walk abouts with the kids stopped after Harry was norn so its anyone's guess if it was Charles or Diana who invited them in. And for the record I don't think William and Kate should expose George and Charlotte anymore than they have. People have to realize they aren't entitled to access to these children and any images that they release are more than enough.

 

[duchessrachel]

I follow some 'fan' accounts on Twitter dedicated to Diana and one account in particular tweets a lot of 'on this day' type a things, old newspaper clippings and headlines.

What struck me is just how much attention was actually focused on her fashions and social life.

A lot of us have been conditioned to believe it was all about Diana's charities and good works but more often than not, the headline was about her new outfit or what social event she would be attending.

This was before the internet and social media so she was spared in a certain sense but it's still eye opening to look back at old newspapers and read headlines from the Diana days.

That celebrity aspect she brought to the monarchy, is one of her biggest legacies (good or bad)

I can't begin to imagine how strong the media coverage would be been if the internet had the function in her day as it does now.

 

[Dman]

She was a dear person and it's still hard to believe she's no longer with us. It's amazing that ,those who's old enough to remember her, continue to carry on her legacy through charity and just helping others. Her memory and name has not died and it continuously highlighted by her children.

 

[Pranter]

I've said it before...her boys are her legacy. She would be tremendously proud of them.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

I've said it before...her boys are her legacy. She would be tremendously proud of them.


LaRae

Yes, I'm sure she's smiling down on them. Her and Charles brought up very good kids. They could've been very spoiled and rude Prince's, but they turned out very well. Now the legacy will pass down to her grandchildren. I would've loved to see her with those adorable kids.

 

[soapstar]

I've moved posts discussing Diana's Panorama interview, to the Panorama Interview: November 20, 1995 thread.

 

[Dman]

Saying a prayer for the late Diana, Princess of Wales as today would've been her 55th Birthday.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I completely agree with you. My tone about those who write these books obviously didn't come through in my post.

And It is no justification. They all know when they work for the RF that they are not supposed to talk about the people they wrork for. and they certainly are not supposed to write books oar articles about them. Whether they sign a legal agreement or not, there is an honour bound thing that they are not supposed to reveal the secrets of their bosses' lives.
James Hewitt said that he was writing HIS books to tell about his lvoe affair with Diana, and that she wanted him to do it.. Nonsense. He did ti for money and attention. Same with these other people like Wharfe or Berry..

 

[Denville]

Thanks Mermiad. I really dont approve.. it is not so much even saying as Hewitt did that he was Di's lover, but his writing a book, giving a load of stuff about it, repeating other conversations that he had with her, sayng for example that shed told him that Manakee was her lover...

I suppose the problem is that we do read or hear about some of these books, like it or not.. And it colours what one thinks of Di or C or the RF. I dont approve of Berry's writing it...but it does give a picture of Highgrove life that ties in with what has come across from other people including C and DI themselves.. that their marriage was unhappy, that they were rowing, and that boht of them were difficult to work for at times

 

[Denville]

Nothingwas not thick, poorly educated perhaps but a university degree is not a measure of a superior intellect, merely a superior education.

Do you really think she was clever? I don't, I'm afraid. Of course there are young people of 20 who are at Uni, who love intellectual discussions and learning..but she wasn't one of them. She wasn't of the class that generally went to Uni, in the 70s, but if she had been upper middle, I don't think she would have gone.. She wasn't into learning, she had not done well at school and I don't think she would have enjoyed years of studying and discussing philosophy over cups of cocoa late at night.
I think that she DID admire Charles for being "clever" and deep thinking, as she put it, and at first I'd say she looked awed and listened when he talked ot her about these sorts of things, and that gave him the idea that she was receptive and interested in such issues and would enjoy listening to him and reading with him and learning about his "deep" interests. And possibly she half believed that too, that she'd learn from him...
But I feel that when she was married to him, she was somewhat scared that he was expecting her to participate in discussions and heavy reading, and she also found it boring. I think she feared that he and his friends and courtiers would laugh at her if she revealed how little she knew..so she would ntot even try..

 

[Mermaid1962]

She wasn't academic in one way, but I think that she was intelligent enough when something really interested her. I think it's Anthony Holden who mentions Diana discussing a biography of Tchaikovsky with him, and another biographer mentions how she had an unusual technical knowledge of the Rachmaninoff concertos. She was apparently quick to absorb her briefing notes before she visited a place. My opinion is that she didn't apply herself in school because of all her emotional confusion plus the expectation that she'd never have to have a real career. I think that her intelligence was a very practical one. She didn't study what she wasn't interested in, but she was quite clever with what absorbed her. Her social quick-witted-ness is, I believe, evidence of that.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Oh gawd, this is one of the worst things that has come out of the 70s, the idea that people who clearly aren't intelligent are somehow intelligent in ways we just don't see. Or this idea that street smarts is just as good as being able to count and balance a check book.
Just because Albert Einstein didn't go to college or didn't finish high school (don't remember which) does not negate the benefits of a formal education. There may be less than 1% of people who are too smart for school and can learn it on there own but the rest of us probably need someone to teach us what we need to know.
Princess Diana was no Einstein or Steve Jobs or anyone else who said screw education. She was clearly not smart and couldn't even finish finishing school. Blaming it on her emotional problems is just an excuse; another by product of the 70s...no one is ever at fault for their shortcomings.
Now back to Diana Charles and the media, it has often been said that Diana did no more good than Charles and Princess Anne especially. I recall someone saying that Anne may not be winning popularity contests and she didn't smile and take pictures for children, but she went to the administration and asked what did they need and how can she best get it for them. If someone is doing good work it shouldn't matter if they are pretty or dress nice and that is the point I am trying to make. We all know that there were many instances where the media ignored a speech Charles was giving to focus on what Diana's hair looked like. He may not be a politician but he is a prince who was speaking about subjects which have turned out to be relevant 25 yrs later. I am not bashing Diana for being pretty; but the coverage of her was shallow, with the exception of her touching AIDs patients in the 80s and those images being shown everywhere; focusing on how pretty she looks doesn't really do much.
I will say that Diana knew her strengths and weaknesses; she wasn't educated but she did bring publicity to the charities she cared about just by taking pictures; using the medias shallow obsession with her to good use.

 

[COUNTESS]

No, she wasn't educated. I am not sure if she was smart. But she cared about what she was doing. She knew what it was like to be the "other". Charles, is educated, not a genius, boring and stiff. Has done much good, but has no particular feeling for touching or knowing a person in trouble. He is a very spoiled. Has dozens of servants. Has made a nice life for himself. A good father and I assume a good grandfather. Though one, rarely, sees him with those children. He was raised in a stiff environment. She is dead for almost 20 years. He is alive and has been able to do things. You cannot equate the two, except until the moment she died. At that time, he was a nothing in the world of need. Yes, the Prince's Trust. He doesn't control it and he doesn't go to where it is needed. He has given up nothing of the life he lives for it's existence.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

And It is no justification. They all know when they work for the RF that they are not supposed to talk about the people they wrork for. and they certainly are not supposed to write books oar articles about them. Whether they sign a legal agreement or not, there is an honour bound thing that they are not supposed to reveal the secrets of their bosses' lives.
James Hewitt said that he was writing HIS books to tell about his lvoe affair with Diana, and that she wanted him to do it.. Nonsense. He did ti for money and attention. Same with these other people like Wharfe or Berry..

.

Honor bond my butt! Every RF member needs everyone who works for them to sign a legal document. But I'm paranoid like that.

 

[Curryong]

I thought they already did. I'm sure I've read that the Cambridges for example have every one of their employees, indoor and outdoor, sign an iron clad contract before they start work.

I'm sure that most people in Royal service do keep their mouths shut, otherwise we would have literally hundreds of these books coming out and there have been really only a few. IMO there have only been three, from senior members of staff, that have contained any real revelations about royals' private lives.

'Crawfie's' saccharine memoirs in the 1950's did give readers an overview of about fifteen years of the young Princesses' lives.

Then, decades later, came the much more explosive Berry book, (and don't forget, Mrs Berry's son had had several years working for the Queen at BP and Balmoral as a footman, and not a peep in print.)

Years later Diana's Secretary Patrick Jephson wrote 'Shadows of a Princess'. This was published, IIRC, after Diana's death, with more revelations about Diana and her character and behaviour and relations with the royals.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

Charles, is educated, not a genius, boring and stiff. Has done much good, but has no particular feeling for touching or knowing a person in trouble. He is a very spoiled. Has dozens of servants.

Boring and stiff? I take it you know him. Dozens of servants? I take it you've counted them all. No feeling for a person in trouble? I take it you've spoken to the thousands of people he's helped through the Prince's Trust. You must be intimately involved with the goings on at Clarence House to make such judgemental comments about the Prince of Wales.

Anyway, as for the late Diana, Princess of Wales, she had about as much substance as a soufflé. But when it came to manipulating the media she was a consummate professional. The Royal Family is pretty much the same today as it was before she came along. When all is said and done, she achieved surprisingly little. But to this day she is still credited for everything good about the Royal Family, which is a bit odd given she did her utmost to cause as much damage as she could in her final years.

Here's a great article that is as relevant today as it was in 2007 when it was published.

The Princess and Her Pea-Sized Legacy: Diana didn't change Britain

 

[Curryong]

Diana's legacy is her sons, and they were as much her children as they are Charles's. Whatever her achievements in life, and I feel there were many, it will be her blood as well as Charles that will go on through into future generations of royals.

It's just not true that the BRF weren't changed by Diana, by her informality and charm with members of the public, especially the very young and the very old. Whether you can see it or not, the woman had charisma, which Harry has inherited, by the way, and she touched many members of the public, who adored her.

 

[HistoryGirl]

I think she affected the monarchy in the sense that she helped create and then birthed two princes that are very popular and she is ingrained in both English history and culture. However, that article does not really go in depth as to where my thoughts initially went, which is how much did she change the way that the monarchy operates in terms of engagements, internal politics, and interactions within the family. And if changes occurred, were they directly linked to Diana or are they the cause of a natural progression that occurs through time because of cultural changes in society ie. technology.

I'm sure that's a topic not relevant to this thread so no need to go further, however I'd be very much interested if someone has any knowledge of a historian that might have done that type of research. Although it might simply be too soon to gauge.

 

[Denville]

i think it is very unkind and unfair to say taht Diana was "lightweight".. yes she had problems, yes she did behave very stupidly and selfishly at times.. But her legacy is a lot more than her 2 sons (who are nothing ot boast of IMO). She worked hard as a Princess, She showed compassion and charm to people. She was well loved by the people she met and helped through her chairties, and she raised hte profile of the monarchy enormously..
It is not a competition between C and Diana.
Both of them did a lot fo good, in their work, Charles' Princes Trust is a big thing and is helpful to a lot of people. yes he is stiff with people and he does lead a rather luxurous life which can be off putting to the person in the street.
. And he can be pretty stupid and selfish at times. THe problem was that he and Di coudl not work together and ended up fighting and making the War of the Waleses the story about their work and their life, instead of concentrating on their good work together...
Like it or not, and it isn't IMO always for the best, Diana DID change things. She did bring in a certain informality, She did rear her boys to be good hearted, to do their royal work, in a pleasant and cheerful and more informal way.. and others in the RF have become more relaxed in imitation of her.. (Im not sure it suits all of them)

I thought they already did. I'm sure I've read that the Cambridges for example have every one of their employees, indoor and outdoor, sign an iron clad contract before they start work.


ls.

I think so. But even if they haven't signed anything, I think that most of them DO regard themselves as honour bound. Beleive it or not, some people DO take the unwritten rules of their job seriously, without a legal agreement.
I think that after the various revelations from Di's staff the Cambridges are very hostile to the meida and they make sure that their staff dont talk..
However Curry I think that some servants have always sold a bit to the tabloids, but generally it is not that interesting what they had to say, so even though wages are low, most staff weren't all that tempted.. Why risk your job for a small pay off for a rather dull story that wont make much money or notice for you?
What made things happen in the 90s was that the press were eager for stories about Diana and C, and the marraige was in such a horrible state that there was plenty of exciting stuff to "sell" either in book or newspaper format, so staff who really should have been above it, like Jephson, Wharfe etc, wrote books...

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

If the late Diana, Princess of Wales, brought about a fundamental shift in the Royal Family from stuffy formality to loving informality, where is the evidence? The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh certainly haven't changed, nor has the Prince of Wales. I've not seen any evidence at all to suggest other members of the Royal Family are trying to be more relaxed in imitation of her. The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry transitioned into full-time royal duties long after she died, under the guidance, no doubt, of the Prince of Wales and the Queen. Is their informality really from their late mother, or is it simply a generational change that is occurring in most European Royal Families? Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are just as relaxed and informal as their cousins, but we don't see anyone lauding poor old Fergie for being a great mother. Clearly the late Diana, Princess of Wales had an impact on the development of her children's characters, but let's not get carried away. They are now grown men in their 30s making choices for themselves. They are changing the monarchy, not their long dead mother.

I also fail to see the evidence to support the claims of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, as a hard working princess and a devoted philanthropist. She raised awareness of AIDS, with a photograph of herself and an AIDS patient. She raised awareness of land minds, with a photograph of herself in a mine field. She raised awareness of heart transplants, with a photograph of herself in the operating theatre (though I seem to remember that one backfired a bit because of the heavy makeup). A few causes, a few carefully staged photos. It's not that much really.

To me she seemed entirely caught up in her own myth, the culmination of which was that awful interview and the resultant Queen of Hearts and, even worse, the People's Princess. In life she made people feel good about themselves. That's a nice gift, but let's not exaggerate it into something deeper than it really was. In death people projected onto her their own fears, disappointments, anger and general neurosis. She symbolised lost love, lost youth, lost hopes and lost dreams. But that is a construct, a chimera. Strip away the sickly sweet sentimentality, the empty cliches, the histrionics and hyperbole, and perhaps we get closer to the truth. Towards the end of her life, her public behaviour appeared to be manipulative and narcissistic. After the divorce, instead of walking away with her hefty financial settlement and a bit of dignity, she launched a vindictive and very public campaign of revenge against her ex-husband and his family. She didn't seem to give a damn about the wives, boyfriends or families of the men she chased after as part of her bitter game. By that stage she was a 36 year old mother of two sons, not some innocent, naive teenager, and she should have known better. That's why I have no time for the mawkish adulation that belongs in a romance novel, or a hagiography of the saints. It's all so bogus, I can't believe the squabbling that still goes on about every aspect of a doomed, toxic marriage and it's aftermath. As far as I'm concerned the Royal Family is better off without the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I do think that most Royal servants feel honour bound to not write about their employers. Even before the war though, a retired butler or two would venture into print about life in the Royal household.

These were very flattering portraits of the King, Queen, Princes etc., though, and generally consisted of such revelations as 'the Queen is very fond of oatcakes for her breakfast, which is served promptly at 8:30am' and 'the King often shoots rabbits at Sandringham in order to eradicate such pests.. '

There was certainly nothing earth-shattering, and the fact that King George and Queen Mary and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were happily married fed into this overriding narrative of glowingly happy Royal family life that was always pushed by the media.

It was only decades later that stories of David's petulance, Bertie's nerves, King George V's bullying quarter-deck manner, came out. Even Crawfie's memoirs were cloying by later standards.

I really do think that the War of the Wales period was a watershed. In the early 1980's some British families still clung to an idealistic view of perfect family life represented by the Royal family, including the Wales's.

After that protective veil was rent, the lives of this couple, who obviously couldn't stand each other, was laid bare by the media and people's attitude towards the Royal family did change.

Lots of stories appeared in the Press, of course. However, as we all know, sometimes newspapers get it very wrong. Books like Berry's and Jephson's were straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Denville]

true but they should not have written them. And certainly Jephon's book was written to an agenda, he wanted money and notice, and he also was bitter against Diana at the time..
But I think that most staff working fror the RF, tended to regard it as "honour bound" to keep things confidential, whether or not they had signed a legal agreement..

Oh gawd, this is one of the worst things that has come out of the 70s, the idea that people who clearly aren't intelligent are somehow intelligent in ways we just don't see. Or this idea that street smarts is just as good as being able to count and balance a check book.
, obsession with her to good use.

well for one thing I don't see anyone here saying that Di's street smarts were better than an education or intelligence..but they are different things. and differnet jobs require different skill sets.
Many people have said that Diana was good at practical things, she was quick at working out details of her engagements, she asked practical questions, she was good at getting her paperwork done quickly, which Chas isn't.
I don't see the need to rubbish her because she was pretty and because she could not discuss philosophy and would not have been able to do Uni at that time (now I think that a lot of Uni courses are dumbed down).
She had gifts that were just as important as being able to discuss philosophy or learn detailed stuff about the charities she worked with. She had staff who could help her with that, iwth the details, so that she asked the right questions and drew attention to the charity and what it needed.
And she had an ability to connect with people, cheer them up, make them feel that she cared and that other people DID care about their plight.. which is very important for someone whose job is to draw attention to a charity's work and to give hope to the people it helps..
When she died, so many people DID come forward and talk about how she had helped them with some problem, or met them at a difficult or tragic time of their life and given them help and hope...
Yes Charles was smarter, and he does do a great job with the Princes Trust, and he can do speeches.. but he often "sounds off" about things he does not know that much about, and he does often come across as very stiff and not knowing much about normal life. It isn't a competition. Boht of them had gifts and did good. As Di herself said, if she and he could have worked together, it would have been a great team, with her doing the charm and hand shaking and talking easily to people and him doing the serious speech making...

 

[royal rob]

well for one thing I don't see anyone here saying that Di's street smarts were better than an education or intelligence..but they are different things. and differnet jobs require different skill sets.

Many people have said that Diana was good at practical things, she was quick at working out details of her engagements, she asked practical questions, she was good at getting her paperwork done quickly, which Chas isn't.

I don't see the need to rubbish her because she was pretty and because she could not discuss philosophy and would not have been able to do Uni at that time (now I think that a lot of Uni courses are dumbed down).

She had gifts that were just as important as being able to discuss philosophy or learn detailed stuff about the charities she worked with. She had staff who could help her with that, iwth the details, so that she asked the right questions and drew attention to the charity and what it needed.

And she had an ability to connect with people, cheer them up, make them feel that she cared and that other people DID care about their plight.. which is very important for someone whose job is to draw attention to a charity's work and to give hope to the people it helps..

When she died, so many people DID come forward and talk about how she had helped them with some problem, or met them at a difficult or tragic time of their life and given them help and hope...

Yes Charles was smarter, and he does do a great job with the Princes Trust, and he can do speeches.. but he often "sounds off" about things he does not know that much about, and he does often come across as very stiff and not knowing much about normal life. It isn't a competition. Boht of them had gifts and did good. As Di herself said, if she and he could have worked together, it would have been a great team, with her doing the charm and hand shaking and talking easily to people and him doing the serious speech making...

Excellent post you are so right


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lady Nimue]

Amazing post, Chubb Fuddler!

If the late Diana, Princess of Wales, brought about a fundamental shift in the Royal Family from stuffy formality to loving informality, where is the evidence? The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh certainly haven't changed, nor has the Prince of Wales.

I am agreeing with the main points of your post. Your honesty is refreshing. In fairness, though, she did bring a very one-on-one parenting style to the public's attention, though it appears that Princess Anne was doing the same without Diana's modeling, but not in front of the cameras.

I think we can safely say that the current status quo with tightly controlled access (pictures and information) of the Cambridges (and Prince Harry) is a direct result of what they experienced as children with their mother. The 'opening up' that the Queen started, and Charles was following, clamped shut after Diana.

I've not seen any evidence at all to suggest other members of the Royal Family are trying to be more relaxed in imitation of her.

Would agree.

The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry transitioned into full-time royal duties long after she died, under the guidance, no doubt, of the Prince of Wales and the Queen. Is their informality really from their late mother, or is it simply a generational change that is occurring in most European Royal Families? Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are just as relaxed and informal as their cousins, but we don't see anyone lauding poor old Fergie for being a great mother. Clearly the late Diana, Princess of Wales had an impact on the development of her children's characters, but let's not get carried away. They are now grown men in their 30s making choices for themselves. They are changing the monarchy, not their long dead mother.

Good points.

I also fail to see the evidence to support the claims of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, as a hard working princess and a devoted philanthropist.

She definitely was not a philanthropist. She was getting perks from her charitable gigs, not giving them, except in-so-far as her presence was the 'perk' she was bestowing.

She raised awareness of AIDS, with a photograph of herself and an AIDS patient. She raised awareness of land minds, with a photograph of herself in a mine field. She raised awareness of heart transplants, with a photograph of herself in the operating theatre (though I seem to remember that one backfired a bit because of the heavy makeup). A few causes, a few carefully staged photos. It's not that much really.

Ouch! Plain talk. It was all about being present and being photogenic. It really was about the romance of a Princess. It was about her status. She doesn't actually wear well across the years imo. We live in a much more authentic time, I think. Diana was a reality show to rival the Kardashians in some respects.

To me she seemed entirely caught up in her own myth, the culmination of which was that awful interview and the resultant Queen of Hearts and, even worse, the People's Princess.

Dead-on. She was so badly deluded that she lost her authentic life imo. Very sad.

In life she made people feel good about themselves. That's a nice gift, but let's not exaggerate it into something deeper than it really was. In death people projected onto her their own fears, disappointments, anger and general neurosis. She symbolised lost love, lost youth, lost hopes and lost dreams. But that is a construct, a chimera. Strip away the sickly sweet sentimentality, the empty cliches, the histrionics and hyperbole, and perhaps we get closer to the truth. Towards the end of her life, her public behaviour appeared to be manipulative and narcissistic.

Well said. A good summation.

After the divorce, instead of walking away with her hefty financial settlement and a bit of dignity, she launched a vindictive and very public campaign of revenge against her ex-husband and his family.

Nail-on-the-head. This is the one aspect of her life that I find puzzling. She clearly did not want to be married (apparently) yet she wanted to hang onto all the perks of being married to the Prince of Wales. Instead of buying an estate and living a comfortable life, she kept the agitation around her at full pitch. Very telling.

I for one wish she had done exactly that, retired to private life, and left the BRF alone: do some discreet charitable work, raise her sons, perhaps remarry. She'd be alive.

She didn't seem to give a damn about the wives, boyfriends or families of the men she chased after as part of her bitter game. By that stage she was a 36 year old mother of two sons, not some innocent, naive teenager, and she should have known better.

Exactly so.

That's why I have no time for the mawkish adulation that belongs in a romance novel, or a hagiography of the saints. It's all so bogus, I can't believe the squabbling that still goes on about every aspect of a doomed, toxic marriage and it's aftermath. As far as I'm concerned the Royal Family is better off without the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Hard words for those who see Diana as somehow wronged, but I agree.

 

[Curryong]

Chubb, I'm out so I haven't got my books to hand. However, to answer your last post. I don't believe Diana is deified any more, if she was just after her death that has receded. However, many still recognise her good qualities and the good that she managed to do before her premature death, without concentrating solely on her mistakes and misjudgements, as those who don't like her seem to do.

I think she had a tremendous influence on her sons and they speak about her often, Harry only a few days ago. They have said that they want to continue her charity work in several directions. What greater tribute is there to a parent than that?

On the National AIDS Trust website there is a tribute to Diana's (in their words) 'tireless work as Patron both in front of the camera and behind the scenes' between 1991 and 1997. The Queen was apparently unsure that AIDS charities should be part of Diana's work. The very fact that Diana touched and hugged AIDS patients at a time when they were regarded by many with fear and loathing was lauded by many working in the field, both overseas in the US and in Britain.

The photograph of her holding a patient's hand went all around the world, and workers and patients alike stated that it did make a difference. She wasn't just floating around hospices and other places hoping to be photographed. When Harry visited a hospice a little while ago a woman remembered sitting on her knee as a little girl during one of her private visits and she told Diana's son how comforting it felt.

If it was/is all so easy, according to some, why didn't the Queen or Duke tackle this cause? I've read that Charles said to someone a few years ago that when speaking to small children he gets down to their level, and told the person. "It was something Diana taught me you know." Only little things, but they make a difference.

William was fifteen when his mother died, Harry almost thirteen. They weren't small children. They were able to absorb the ease people felt in Diana's presence, her warmth and humanity when dealing with members of the public.

Diana's personal support on the issue of land mines is said to have brought untold publicity to the cause and to have been a significant factor in encouraging Britain and other countries to support the Ottowa Treaty. Diana wasn't just swanning around having her photo taken. She made speeches, read up on the question as she did with all her charities.

Her sons say they want to 'make a difference' in the causes they take up. She said it first. In fact, when Robin Cook brought the second reading of the Landmines Bill to the House of Commons in 1998, he made made specific reference to Diana's commitment and paid tribute to her contribution.

Chubb, you can call Diana a lightweight if you like (you're entitled to your opinion) but I think it's quite wrong to seek to denigrate Diana's contribution as Princess of Wales, especially her fierce commitment to her most important charities and causes. She didn't always go for the most popular or glamorous amongst them, and I think that shows the best part of her as a person.

 

[Curryong]

Incidentally, ChubbFuddler and those who are quoting him, Diana did not 'launch a public and vindictive campaign of retribution against Charles and his family' at all, 'after her hefty divorce settlement'.

The Morton book, and the Panorama Interview, which I suppose you're referring to (let's not mention Charles's interview outing Camilla or the Dimbleby book, which happened first) occurred BEFORE the divorce and 'hefty settlement' (perhaps Diana should have been left with nothing?) not AFTERWARDS.

The couple weren't officially separated at the time of Morton and their divorce probably happened because of Panorama.

A few dates.
Morton book published May 1992
Charles and Diana formal separation December 1992
Charles's Dimbleby interview June 1994
Panorama interview Diana-Bashir November 1995
Charles-Diana divorce finalised August 1996.

Diana was dead just a year later.

 

[royal rob]

Excellent posts Curryong.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Denville]

Ireferring to (let's not mention Charles's interview outing Camilla or the Dimbleby book) which happened first) occurred BEFORE the divorce and hefty settlement (perhaps Diana should have been left with nothing?) not BEFORE.

The

Diana was dead just a year later.

Thanks Curryone, yes it is quite true that Diana's "vindictive attacks" on the RF took place before her divorce. Even had she wished to, I suspect that the terms of the divorce would have stopped her from talking publicly about her marriage, afterwards. I think that by the end of hte marriage, She wasn't as bitter and angry, I think she was worn out and while she still was unhappy and resentful, I think in thte last year of her life, she was relatively quiet, not quite sure what to do with her new life
ANd I think it is rather unkind to say that the RF are better without her, given that she is dead. Perhaps, had she lived, and C married Cam and things settled down, yes it coudld be said that in spite of hte great good that she did, overall things were calmer and the RF was ticking over well enough, and reasonably busy and popular, now that she had gone from them. But given that she has died, Im sure that Will and Harry dont feel that it is better that she's now out of the RF..

With regard to your other post, Curryong, I think that it is wrong indeed to deprecate the work that Diana did. A lot even MOST of royal work is "easy looking" by the standards of those of us who have "normal jobs". Its turning up, making a speech that's been written by someone else, being photographed, shaking hands etc. So why is only Di's work being denigrated as "easy" and "Just having her photograph taken"?

 

[AdmirerUS]

I just want to comment that I have always though public pleasing is the opposite of an easy job. It may look easy, but it is quite difficult to show up, in all weather and health, and make people feel like what they have going on is the most important thing going! And that those same people are quite fascinating.

A great example of this was in a video link someone here recently posted of the Prince of Wales uncovering a plaque. The covering stuck and the plague fell to the floor and there were laughs all around.
But not before the Prince could be heard saying something along the lines of "There is nothing I'd rather be doing right now than finding out what is under this covering." Clearly, The Prince had reached his fill of uncovering a while ago, but it's his job and he would shoulder on! But the tedium of it came through loud and clear.

That said, I also believe neither Charles nor Di, nor their staff behaved particularly wisely during the War of the Wales.

 

[Denville]

I think compared with a lot of jobs, it IS easy. But it is the same for all royals or people who do Public appearances. But some people disparage Diana's work for the RF as "just turning up" and looking pretty and "just having her photo taken". Not something of any real substance.. whereas for some reason Anne or Charles doing the same things are much more worthwhile. Its not Di's fault that she was pretty, or that she was capable of attracting people to look at her and then take some interest in the cause she was presenting. In fact, she was doing her job well by knowing how to look attractive and using her image and looks to attract interest..