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

[MARG]

Is it surprising if she acted like a child, she was barely older than one at the time they married.

She was twenty years old! That is 20 . . . . An age when everyone else is considered an adult and most are out there earning a crust or slogging away at University to gain a degree. Old enough to drink and old enough to die for their country.

Moreover with hindsight it is clear to most that she was badly affected by her own parents divorce and the impact it had on her. She was an emotionally stunted woman in many ways which cannot have helped her.

Diana was hardly the first person to have suffered the angst of her parents divorce. There were, and are, thousands in her shoes but they did not have the advantages that she had. The best boarding school, no dramatic plunge in her standard of living, Nanny's, Governesses, all to help ease her way. A fabulous apartment, and a part-time job at a childcare centre to fill in her time when she wasn't cruising Sloan Street spending obscene amounts of money with the rest of her Sloan Ranger friends.

And yet she chose to be portray herself as a victim and gloried in telling the world of her of her misfortunes, but what is worse so many people brought into the whole deal right down to the wicked stepmother and uncaring husband.

Diana was an adult. She did not remain 20. She like everyone is else grew older and hopefully wiser. Diana made her own choices, and she alone was responsible for the consequences of those choices.

Choices that led to her legacy.

 

[Mermaid1962]

When did Diana acknowledge that Charles and Camilla weren't carrying on during the engagement early days of the marriage? I'm not challenging you, Elspeth; I'd like to have this information. Thank you.

Not to say that things were all her fault, but it gets really annoying to read these justifications of her less admirable side based on the supposition that Charles and Camilla were carrying on during Charles and Diana's engagement and from day one of the marriage when Diana herself has acknowledged with hindsight that that wasn't the case.

 

[Elspeth]

During the Panorama interview she agreed with the interviewer when he said that the Dimbleby book had claimed Charles had gone back to Camilla in 1986, and when Martin Bashir asked her how she knew there was a relationship, she said (emphasis added): " By the change of behavioural pattern in my husband; for all sorts of reasons that a woman's instinct produces; you just know."

In the Settelen tapes she said (emphasis added): "By then I knew he had gone back to his lady but somehow we managed to have Harry"

You don't see a change in behavioural pattern as a symptom of something that's been happening all along, and the second quote is self-explanatory. This doesn't make sense in the context of an affair that continued throughout the engagement and marriage.

 

[sirhon11234]

could [/I]be viewed as purely playing to the audience.

On that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Odette]

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

Couldn't agree more - she was totally unsuitable to be Charles' wife and her paranoid behaviour about a relationship between Charles and Camilla simply drove Charles into Camilla's arms.

She walked down the aisle with suspicion in her heart and she looked for evidence of that and even if it wasn't there that suspicion grew until it did become a reality.

 

[Little_star]

She was twenty years old! That is 20 . . . . An age when everyone else is considered an adult and most are out there earning a crust or slogging away at University to gain a degree. Old enough to drink and old enough to die for their country.

And other 20 year olds are deemed to be immature, naive, sheltered etc.

Are you saying that you think a 20year old has had the same life experiences as a 33year old man and is on the same level emotionally?

Diana was hardly the first person to have suffered the angst of her parents divorce. There were, and are, thousands in her shoes but they did not have the advantages that she had. The best boarding school, no dramatic plunge in her standard of living, Nanny's, Governesses, all to help ease her way. A fabulous apartment, and a part-time job at a childcare centre to fill in her time when she wasn't cruising Sloan Street spending obscene amounts of money with the rest of her Sloan Ranger friends.

Just because some people are able to deal with divorce in a rational manner doesn't mean that those who do not are inferior. Moreover, material possessions are just that; possessions.

 

[sirhon11234]

I agree with Elspeth and Marg and Skydragon.
Unfortunately Diana may have been the perfect bride for Charles because she was a
virgin and that was a pre requisite.
In terms of every other aspect, they were not compatible on any level.
If it were not for Camilla it would have been someone else to take him away..

I agree, Charles was unsuitable for Diana as she was for him. They had different interests, were on two different intellectual levels. With their needieness and Diana's suspicions and Charles' self centered nature the marriage did not have a solid foundation.

 

[scooter]

The problem with this is - and I think we've had this conversation several times before so it's probably a waste of time saying it yet again, but whatever - that she had no actual evidence that Charles was carrying on with Camilla early in the marriage, just unsubstantiated suspicions. She said as much in the Panorama interview, when she said that in 1986 (I think that was the year) she realised that Charles had "gone back to his lady." You can't go back to someone you never left.

Not only did she have these unwarranted suspicions early on, but her reactions to them - tantrums, crying, yelling, refusing to do things - were deeply immature and almost calculated to drive a further wedge between them. The tragic irony is that by reacting like a thwarted child rather than like an adult, she helped make the later affair happen. If Charles really was missing Camilla, which he probably was, then Diana wasn't helping her own cause by making herself into someone he didn't want to spend time being with. And it wasn't just Charles - this pathological jealousy and insecurity had manifested itself in her childhood and continued for years after she and Charles split up.

Not to say that things were all her fault, but it gets really annoying to read these justifications of her less admirable side based on the supposition that Charles and Camilla were carrying on during Charles and Diana's engagement and from day one of the marriage when Diana herself has acknowledged with hindsight that that wasn't the case.

You can't base a true legacy on an untrue version of reality. Diana may very well have had so much empathy with suffering people because of the way she herself had suffered, but her suffering was to a large extent pathological.

Elspeth I dont mean to be disrespectful, but to state that the wife in the marriage did not know that her husband was misbehaving is at the very least unlikely. Life does not exist in a vacuum. Charles' own valet came right out and said that Charles spent the night before the wedding with Camilla, which statement was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother Richard in an interview in 1997. That, by definition, is from day one and hardly unwarranted suspicions. I dont know about you, but that would make me mighty PO'd. That's not pathological jealousy or insecurity. In science they say for every reaction there is an equal reaction.

 

[Elspeth]

The story about Charles and Camilla being together on the wedding night has been debunked; I think we've been through that in previous threads too. I'll take Sarah Bradford's opinion on that score over Stephen Barry's any day. Please refer to my post #453 for backup evidence to show that even Diana, at least with hindsight, knew that the affair was not active at the time of her marriage.

The sort of pathological suspicion she had as a newlywed would have been problematic enough if the affair had been a reality - no powerful and self-centred man wants to be yelled and nagged and cried at for any reason - but as long as the affair wasn't a reality it was simply poisonous. Biographers have documented this same sort of jealousy and insecurity in Diana's younger life too, so it didn't start with Charles. Nor did it end with him. And unfortunately, her destructive attitude toward the people close to her, whether husbands, lovers, friends, or family, will remain part of her legacy (especially when it's so much at odds with her empathy and ease of connection with strangers), and it's something inherent in her emotional makeup, not something that can be simply blamed on Charles.

 

[Skydragon]

Elspeth I dont mean to be disrespectful, but to state that the wife in the marriage did not know that her husband was misbehaving is at the very least unlikely.

The wife is always the last to know! I have a friend who believed her husband was devoted to her (as he appeared to be), it was only when he was rushed to hospital that she found out he had been having an affair for the last 22 years!

 

[Charlotte1]

Charles' own valet came right out and said that Charles spent the night before the wedding with Camilla, which statement was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother Richard in an interview in 1997.

Charles own valet did not come out and say that Charles spent the night before his wedding with Camilla. No matter how many times you repeat this, it does not make it fact! Nowhere in either of Stephen Barry's books does he say this, he died before Charles and Diana's marriage imploded, it's unlikely he would have said anything remotely scandalous or negative about them. What Stephen Barry did actually write in his book was that the night before his wedding Charles was at a private dinner at Buckingham Palace, (the Parker Bowles weren't there.) Andrew Parker Bowles has denied this story and his brother Simon (not Richard) wasn't at BP and is estranged from his family, hasn't been on speaking terms so he's not likely to be a reliable or accurate about Charles and Camilla. Other people were at the dinner at BP before the wedding and also debunked this myth. Charles spent time talking to Susan Hussey.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But we mustn't let the truth get in the way of a good story being told again and again and again even though it is false and has been proven to be false to the same poster again and again and again.

Charles has said that he returned to Camilla after the marriage had 'irretrievably broken down both of us having tried'. As they conceived two children the marriage obviously wasn't irretrievably broken down before the end of 1983 so for at least 2.5 years Camilla wasn't part of the marriage other than as a friend of many years standing.

Diana has also said that he went back to Camilla in a public interview also saying that they did try to make it work. The use of the words 'back to' clearly says that there was a period when Camilla wasn't part of the marriage. Diana was so careful in her choice of words in that interview that any other interpretation isn't possible. She knew what she was saying and made it clear - Camilla wasn't part of the marriage at first.

However, it it far better to say that Charles was lying and that he never stopped his affair with Camilla then to believe that the two people most affected (besides Camilla) actually stated the truth - that Camilla wasn't part of the marriage in the beginning.

When Charles returned to Camilla is not clear - before William was conceived - doubtful, before Harry was conceived - possible, after Harry was born - probably and by 1986 both Charles and Diana were cheating on each other so within five years both of them knew the marriage was over and were seeking love elsewhere - but of course that only happened because Charles did it first - but did he?

 

[TheTruth]

Diana has also said that he went back to Camilla in a public interview also saying that they did try to make it work. The use of the words 'back to' clearly says that there was a period when Camilla wasn't part of the marriage. Diana was so careful in her choice of words in that interview that any other interpretation isn't possible. She knew what she was saying and made it clear - Camilla wasn't part of the marriage at first.

I agree that some people who are so willing to convince themselves that Camilla was the true reason for the marriage breakdown, like to make Diana say things that never came out of her mouth. I do believe that even if Diana expressed great, and sometimes very unjustified hatred against specific persons (RF and Camilla), the part of responsibility of the public and people around "supporting her" is not negligible. She tended to be influenceable when people knew where to hit and the Panorama Interview is quite an example of that. Last minute before doing it, she hesitated and of course, "supportive" people convinced her: "You're doing the right thing". I'm not saying she doesn't have any responsibility in what she dared to do but many around her just pushed and pushed her will for revenge. Someone as unsure as Diana couldn't possibly have convinced herself, all alone and without any questioning, to keep alive this feeling of resentment without some entertaining this goal: revenge.

 

[MARG]

And other 20 year olds are deemed to be immature, naive, sheltered etc.

But by law in any country in the western world old enough to stand trial as an adult for anything at all, even murder!

Are you saying that you think a 20year old has had the same life experiences as a 33year old man and is on the same level emotionally?

Obviously not as I was only discussing Diana and her actions. The fact that you feel constrained to bring Charles into the equation indicates that, once again, Charles was responsible for what Diana did when he was 33, 43, 53, 63, 73, or until he dies of old age! But no, Diana was never responsible for anything she chose to do . . . . . . it's alway someone else's fault.

Just because some people are able to deal with divorce in a rational manner doesn't mean that those who do not are inferior. Moreover, material possessions are just that; possessions.

It is obvious the person who rises above their persional circumstances is to be admired. As to material possessions? It's a whole lot easier to aspire to improve ones self when you don't have to worry about the roof over your head, the food on the table, the clothes on your back, the money in your purse, the car in the drive, tuition etc.!

 

[Zonk]

I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but really!


Diana has been dead for 11 years and are we still talking about who cheated on who first?! Charles and Diana dated, married, had kids, cheated on each other, divorced and moved on.

Let's face it. For all intents and purposes there are people in the pro-Diana/anti Camilla vs. Pro Camilla/anti Diana camp that are always going to believe their verison of the facts. And are not open to the truth that Charles, Camilla and Diana were all flawed people who married the wrong people.

I have read this thread, and quite honestly have hesitated to get involved in this Charles cheated first, no Diana did, what is a good age to judge maturity, etc. These issues never get resolved.

Honestly, why aren't talking about the good and bad of Diana....what is her true legacy.......her death caused the world to know that Charles wasn't a horrible father, her relationship with the press and how her revelations (and her actions) destroyed any mystery regarding the British Royal Family and many more Britons question whether or not it will survive Elizabeth's death, her sons and how the mother/son relationship will impact the British Royal Family in the future, her public service with AIDS and landmines, etc. Thats what I think we should be talking about in this thread.

I have said it before and I will say again, I adored Diana. She was my favorite princess and to me, no Royal (with the exception of the Queen Elizabeth and Princess Maxima) have had such an impact on the ways royals are viewed, their public services, etc. But that is just me and I am sure everyone has their personal favorites and I am okay with that.

I loved Diana, cried BUCKETS OF TEARS when I found out she died and during the funeral. Taped the funeral on a VHS (I am dating myself) and to this day, I still can't watch. But this Diana, Charles and Camilla triangle is played. Its boring. Diana died. Charles is married to Camilla. And even though I hate to admit it, he looks happy. They look happy. I would have loved for Diana and Charles to have had their Happily Ever After but it wasn't meant to be. Instead they had a great couple of years and had two great kids. And yes, Charles and Diana did have some good moments. Lucky for their sons that these moments are captured by pictures.

Let's focus on the positive of Diana but not in the sense that we equate her with a Mother Theresa. Cause she wasn't perfect and I think (based on what I know) she would be the first to say so. Let us also focus on the negative side of Diana - both she and Charles could have been better and supportive partners of each other, she also should have not used the press to get back at Charles and the Royal Family. She (and not by herself...Charles and Fergie as well) opened a can of worms with the British press that live on today with the publication of stories of the York girls, Princess Michael of Kent, etc.

Some of the stories of yesterday and today are true and others play so loosely with the facts that sometimes the only thing they get write are the spelling of the names.

Okay, I am off my soap box. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinin and I hope my little rant doesnt' stop people from expressing their opinion. I just think at some point, we are just talking in circles.

 

[sirhon11234]

I couldn't agree more. This argument is long overdue and tiring.

 

[Leslie2006]

Actually, it's been 12 years since Diana's death. But I agree. Although Camilla and Charles have never been favorites of mine, enough is enough. And the press needs to leave it alone as well. Up until 2 years ago (and maybe even now, I am not sure) they were still investigating on who to blame for Diana's death! First it was the paprazzi who were chasing the car she was in, then it was Prince Charles, then it was Prince Philip who had supposedly planned to have her murdered, as accused by Dodhi's father and Diana's brother, the Earl Spencer. It's time to let things alone. All we can do now is look back on how much good Diana did and tried to do for the causes she so believed in and her for boys, Wills and Harry, and hope that they find happiness with a special someone the way their mother had with their father at least for a little while.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As this thread is about her legacy we can't ignore the bad aspects of that legacy and only focus on the good.

The good = charities, her sons
The bad = division among fans of the RF and harm to the RF itself

Both sides need to be looked at and weighed to decide her legacy.

From reading this thread the latter seems to outweigh the former as it is the negative that gets the most discussion and that would seem to indicate that her legacy seems to be the arguments she engenders meaning that the main legacy that she has left is division.

 

[sirhon11234]

her legacy seems to be the arguments she engenders are the main legacy that she has left.

I dissagree, it is one's choice to see only the good or the bad or both in her legacy. Her negative may be the most debatable but it is not the main legacy she left imo.

 

[TheTruth]

From reading this thread the later seems to outweigh the former as it is the negative that gets the most discussion and that would seem to indicate that her legacy seems to be the arguments she engenders are the main legacy that she has left.

In my mind, this division was mostly created by the fans and the press themselves. Working as connectors between both sides (Diana vs. Camilla, Charles or the RF), their speculation and hatred for the other camp was and is the main menu for each side to feed on. They are like lawyers dealing with a very difficult divorce: the two parties don't speak to each other and they eventually end up hating each other for what the other said via their lawyer (the press here, who, like a lawyer, always try to find the best way to win the case and not solve the conflict). Eventually, no reconciliation is possible.

 

[Lighthouse]

...All we can do now is look back on how much good Diana did and tried to do for the causes she so believed in and her for boys, Wills and Harry, and hope that they find happiness with a special someone the way their mother had with their father at least for a little while.

I see it already. I was watching the home page video on the royal family You Tube site and got thinking. Look at what the Wales' marriage brought to the future. Princes William and Harry are doing both their parents so proud with their charity work. When either becomes king they will be very in touch and have much compassion. They get this from both their parents and the Queen and from other members of the royal family.
Neither prince has rushed their girlfriends into marriage either. It also looks like Prince William and Kate Middleton are still going strong after years.

 

[Grace Angel]

I remember feeling the same way when Diana died, and I was quite young, but I must have seen some recent news stories about her jet-setting lifestyle and I remember being disillusioned with her. Also Prince Charles. I think I had read some biographies of Charles and Diana before she died, and the whole story was so sordid and sad and tangled that I lost any respect and admiration for either of them. And unfortunately I never got it back, for either of them.

But I do remember crying that Sunday morning when my mom told me Diana had died. Partly because it was tragic, but mostly I felt sad for her sons, who were close to my age. I was 11 and Harry was 12 when she died, and I think I felt how terrible it must be to lose your mother at that age.

Having just seen "The Young Victoria", one thing that has really stayed in my mind is that Victoria and Albert did not come together for the purest of reasons (the King of Belgium was interested in a political alliance) but then they truly fell in love and became a wonderful team, reigning together for 20 years. I'm not sure that Charles or Diana could have ever developed such a deep or passionate love for each other, but I do think that there was affection between them at first. Both of them were caring, compassionate people and they had many wonderful qualities. If both of them had just been less self-interested and more inclined to put the other person in the marriage first, I think they could have grown into a real team and become a respected king and queen together.

People have moved on now, but when I do think of Diana's legacy I get the very sad sense of wasted potential. Her story could have gone so differently--it didn't need to end prematurely in a Paris tunnel. I still don't like to read too much about Diana because inevitably I get so frustrated by the endless poor choices she made.

Victoria and Albert may have considered marriage in the first place mainly for political reasons, but the instant they met as young adults (I believe they had met when they were younger, too if I recall correctly), they felt a spark. Whereas, Charles and Diana certainly had some love in the early days although Charles pursued Diana because she was a suitable match too, but Charles always I think in public ( witness his remarks when they annouced their engagment to the press, and he was asked if he was in love), and in private perhaps, was cooler about their marriage, about Diana than Albert was about Victoria. Victoria and Albert were cousins and closer in age than Charles and Diana, and in my opinion, mutually had more affection for each other at the begining than Charles and Diana had, or at least Charles, as Diana was very in love. They were just different couples. Diana's legacy is complicated, so was she. But she will always fascinate people I feel.

 

[bertie5252003]

Grace Angel I agree Diana's legacy is complicated and as a Dianaphile from the first time I ever saw her and have loved her since, it is hard to say the world has moved on, but it has and that is life IMO. Maybe, the fascination itself is the legacy of her life..... a new generation will always talk about her in the same way we are still fascinated by Marilyn JFK that I think is just life. But I think I am going on a bit so enough from me on this subject.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Grace Angel I agree Diana's legacy is complicated and as a Dianaphile from the first time I ever saw her and have loved her since, it is hard to say the world has moved on, but it has and that is life IMO. Maybe, the fascination itself is the legacy of her life..... a new generation will always talk about her in the same way we are still fascinated by Marilyn JFK that I think is just life. But I think I am going on a bit so enough from me on this subject.

As many of you know I am a History teacher by profession.

One of the courses I teach is Elective History (Elective because all students have to study Australian History but my school also offers History as an elective or free choice subject to Years 9 and 10).

Yesterday I was given the list of names of the students who have volunteered to do Elective History next year and as is normal I asked them what they wanted to study under a series of headings. One heading is 'Biography'. I have had Diana on that list since the course was first introduced at the school in 1998 and I have usually had a couple of students want to study her but next year out of 15 students not one expressed any interest in her (eight asked me who she was as they had never heard of her).

I threw this in as there are obviously increasing more young people who haven't heard of her and aren't interested and this will grow I suspect over the coming generations. When I said she was Prince Charles first wife I was also greeted with incomprehension as they didn't know who he was and when I said 'Australia's next King' the reply was 'we don't have a King though' so we aren't getting our system of government through all that well either.

The numbers putting Diana down has decreased from 9/10 the first year I did this - the year after she died to 0/15 now so she will come off my list - she was only chosen by 1/17 last year and 2/13 the year before so she hasn't been being taught for a number of years as they just don't know who she is.

We are studying Abraham Lincoln, Rasputin and Henry VIII as they were the three most popular.

 

[sirhon11234]

Grace Angel I agree Diana's legacy is complicated and as a Dianaphile from the first time I ever saw her and have loved her since, it is hard to say the world has moved on, but it has and that is life IMO. Maybe, the fascination itself is the legacy of her life..... a new generation will always talk about her in the same way we are still fascinated by Marilyn JFK that I think is just life. But I think I am going on a bit so enough from me on this subject.

Oh I agree. I was reading an article once about Diana and my eight year old came into my room and announced "Oh that's Princess Diana!" And I asked her you know who this woman was and she said "Yes she was on the news."
Diana is still present among some my generation (I will be 20 next month). I remember when I was in high school a group of guys were debating on whether or not she was still alive, I thought it was amusing. She inspiried one of my friends to become a nurse.
To this very day we still talk about Elvis, Marilyn, Grace and Audrey. A lot of the girls I know have posters of Audrey Hepburn. One of my friends was born a year after Grace's death but she is a huge fan of her's.
So with the next generation there will be members who will have an interest in her and there will be some who will not have an interest in her or the British Royal Family.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Speaking for myself, the circles make me quite dizzy. I do agree with what you've said, Zonk, entirely. I decided awhile ago not to get drawn into the Charles/Diana/Camilla conversations. I enjoy my memories of Diana, but I'm not an apologist for her.

I just think at some point, we are just talking in circles.

 

[Thomasine]

As many of you know I am a History teacher by profession.

One of the courses I teach is Elective History (Elective because all students have to study Australian History but my school also offers History as an elective or free choice subject to Years 9 and 10).

Yesterday I was given the list of names of the students who have volunteered to do Elective History next year and as is normal I asked them what they wanted to study under a series of headings. One heading is 'Biography'. I have had Diana on that list since the course was first introduced at the school in 1998 and I have usually had a couple of students want to study her but next year out of 15 students not one expressed any interest in her (eight asked me who she was as they had never heard of her).

I threw this in as there are obviously increasing more young people who haven't heard of her and aren't interested and this will grow I suspect over the coming generations. When I said she was Prince Charles first wife I was also greeted with incomprehension as they didn't know who he was and when I said 'Australia's next King' the reply was 'we don't have a King though' so we aren't getting our system of government through all that well either.

The numbers putting Diana down has decreased from 9/10 the first year I did this - the year after she died to 0/15 now so she will come off my list - she was only chosen by 1/17 last year and 2/13 the year before so she hasn't been being taught for a number of years as they just don't know who she is.

We are studying Abraham Lincoln, Rasputin and Henry VIII as they were the three most popular.

I am not surprised at all. A teacher friend of mine here in Norway had the same experience. She have asked her students (senior high) to write a paper on persons (from 1900 to 1999) they thought had left a "foot-print" behind. She let them choose from a list of 12 names. She has done this excercise during the last five years and Diana-papers have decreased from 9/20 the first year to 0/20 2009.

When asked about their choice versus Diana (the only person on the list not choosed by anybody), most answered that they considered her unimportant and of no interest at all.

In my opinion, her legacy is the boost to fashion industry she created.

 

[Grace Angel]

Perhaps more people will know who Diana is once William is king. Just a thought. Obviously, she would perhaps be more relevant then, as the king's mother, although long dead. Also, William looks a lot like Diana, a visual reminder, and it could well be that future generations of the RF will look a lot like Diana too. Who knows? I think the biggest part of Diana's legacy, her sons, is an unknown quantity as of yet in many ways.

 

[Skydragon]

I'm not so sure about that, It would appear that not many people know who the present Queens parents were.