When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

I was during the Panorama interview. There was more of her personality coming through during that interview than perhaps even she was aware. Besides the general attitude of victimhood, something that really got to me was her statement that "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." It seemed to me that she was discounting the work done by doctors and nurses and social workers and volunteers and pastors and concerned neighbours, etc. It was like she thought that she was the ONLY person who could smile and love and hug and care for people. If she were referring to the Royal Family and not society as a whole--perhaps they're not the most touchy-feely lot in the world, but they've given a great deal of support to endeavors of all sorts of people who help others--from the Armed Forces to the people who volunteer in second-hand shops or help out with children's playgroups.

I thought at times that she seemed to think very highly of herself indeed, inspite of her problems with self-hatred. Overcompensation perhaps? I don't know. But I do know that I felt differently about her after watching that interview. I got a glimpse of things that had previously been hinted at about her emotional problems.

I think "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." , "there" means the palace.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by anbrida

I think "Someone's got to get out there and love people and show it." , "there" means the palace.

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

[Mermaid1962]

Katherine Kent was certainly one member of the Royal Family who was "loving" before Diana came along. Sometimes people show love simply by showing up and being involved.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by georgiea

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

I don't think the royal family is more touchy-feely; but then again, I didn't have a problem with the way the royals reached out to their subjects before Diana. I have a fond memory of the Queen during her Silver Jubilee chatting up a rather obese man with a bandana, beard, Harley-Davison jacket, and tatoos. It was priceless.

In my eyes, there was nothing wrong with the Queen and her relationship with her subjects in the years before Diana so Diana's influence has done nothing to alter my perception of the way that the Royal Family has interacted with the public.

I was surprised that the Queen invited some rock bands to her Golden Jubilee but I rather think that it was more the influence of her grandchildren, particularly Peter and Zara!

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by georgiea

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

The royal family are always what they are.

But, Georgiea, definitely Diana's life was not in vain. Why we only look for Diana's legacy in her sons, or the royal family or other people's life. Just look for it in youself. If she had an impact on your life or your mind to a better place, then there is her legacy. That is not arrogance, but contentment.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by anbrida

The royal family are always what they are.

But, Georgiea, definitely Diana's life was not in vain. Why we only look for Diana's legacy in her sons, or the royal family or other people's life. Just look for it in youself. If she had an impact on your life or your mind to a better place, then there is her legacy. That is not arrogance, but contentment.

Well said anbrida, how right you are. Her legacy lives on through her sons, her work and the many people she touched in life and death

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by georgiea

anbrida I got the the same idea that is what she was saying in the 1995 TV interview. Diana, Princess of Wales used strange grammar to explain the royal's actions to their public.

If anything, I think Diana's life was not in vain because she taught the royal family how to reach out to their subjects. I think from what we have seen after her death the royal family is more touchy-feely.

There was no change at all in the Royal Family after Diana's death, they are certainly not more touchy-feely. As already mentioned The Duchess of Kent has always been demonstrative, famously putting her arm around tennis player Jana Novotna when Jana was crying as she had lost the Wimbledon final.

Princess Anne, remained Princess Anne. At a visit to a Save the Children project ( after Diana's death) the photographers asked her to hold a child for the photo op. Anne replied "me being photographed holding a child will make no difference to this child's life, it's the work that I do when I go back to London that makes the difference" So no touch-feely stuff from Anne! A royal journalist once wrote about following Diana and Anne on 2 difference occasions in visits to orphanages in 3rd World countries. Diana upon entering the orphanage went straight to the children, with the photographers and had her picture taken. Anne when entering the orphanage went straight to the people who ran the orphanage and started discussing what sanitation procedures they needed help on.

Edward in the lastest TV program called Monarch at Work was interviewed about his work. He said he didn't like emotive causes, he focused on youth and sports, so he's hardly touch-feely.

Andrew focuses on trade and investment, no touchy-feely stuff here either.

Neither the Queen or DoE have started putting their arms around the people they meet, the Queen still wears gloves when she shakes people's hands. No touchy-feely here, no direct contact either!

Charles is intellectual and his charities reflect that, youth employment, architecture, the sustainable environment, education, no real emotive touchy-feely stuff here either.

Camilla is personable but she's also not going around hugging children, throwing her arms around people type photo ops so there's no much touchy-feely happening with her either.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

There was no change at all in the Royal Family after Diana's death, they are certainly not more touchy-feely.

But why should they? I myself am not a very demonstrative person except with my closest circle and I would have hated it when someone like Diana came and hugged me and then went away again with leaving me behind, so I'd prefer princess Anne's approach when I was in need. Diana's way to actually touch people is not anybody's piece of cake so there is no need to ask people with other habits to change theirs.

[georgiea]

Guys, maybe the words I used touchy-feely on the royal family was wrong to use. After Diana, Princess of Wales death didn't the BRF get a PR machine to change there perception to their subjects and also start paying taxes? And the movie last year, "The Queen" didn't that movie show the beginning of a change for the BRF and how they react to their subjects? I thought the movie show the Queen learned something from Diana's death. Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

I believe Prince Harry when he matures and has more royal duties will be Diana's REAL legacy. And my opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales is that I am still her fan after all these years.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by georgiea

Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

She's actually Dame Helen Mirren - "Dame" is the female version of "Sir" which means that Helen Mirren was ennobled by the queen - she is now a part of British aristocracy, even though not born into it. A "Lady" is either the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl or the wife of a Baronet or a titled nobleman. A "Dame" is a female "knight" in her own right.

BTW - Andrew Parker Bowles' mother was a "Dame", too. Born Ann de Truffaut from a very old and noble family, she was herself enobled to the title of Dame. I wish I'd know what she did to be honoured that way? Social works?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

Guys, maybe the words I used touchy-feely on the royal family was wrong to use. After Diana, Princess of Wales death didn't the BRF get a PR machine to change there perception to their subjects and also start paying taxes? And the movie last year, "The Queen" didn't that movie show the beginning of a change for the BRF and how they react to their subjects? I thought the movie show the Queen learned something from Diana's death. Also, I don't think the Queen minded the movie because she invited the lead Ms. Mirren (sp?) to the palace.

I believe Prince Harry when he matures and has more royal duties will be Diana's REAL legacy. And my opinion of Diana, Princess of Wales is that I am still her fan after all these years.

The paying of tax had nothing to do with Diana, nor do any perceived changes, not that I see any. The film was not a documentary, it was a few facts mixed in with a great deal of fiction.

Not everyone likes to be hugged by strangers, like Jo, I reserve that sort of thing for family and close friends. How can any of the royals reach out to people, except in a superficial way. They can't say 'I know what you are going through', they can't even say 'I can imagine the problems you have', they can't.

[ysbel]

The movie the Queen was good but I don't think we can say its true to life. So simply because Helen Mirren depicted the Queen as learning something from Diana's death, that doesn't mean that the Queen did learn something from Diana's death. As far as the Queen's opinions of the movies, well she has greeted a lot of actors from a lot of movies and so its hard to tell. I think its safe to say that since she met Helen Mirren she didn't hate the movie but other than that I think its hard to say what she thought of the movie.

As an aside, Helen's title is correctly Dame but so many entertainers get knighted now that I'm seeing their titles are getting left off in normal reference. The only actor I continually hear of with the Sir before his title is the late Sir Laurence Olivier. Occasionally you'll see a 'Sir Elton John' but these are usually in articles about his sexual preferences so I always wondered about why the title is so important when discussing Elton's sexual preferences. To validate them? Its curious.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The movie the Queen was good but I don't think we can say its true to life. So simply because Helen Mirren depicted the Queen as learning something from Diana's death, that doesn't mean that the Queen did learn something from Diana's death. As far as the Queen's opinions of the movies, well she has greeted a lot of actors from a lot of movies and so its hard to tell. I think its safe to say that since she met Helen Mirren she didn't hate the movie but other than that I think its hard to say what she thought of the movie.

As an aside, Helen's title is correctly Dame but so many entertainers get knighted now that I'm seeing their titles are getting left off in normal reference. The only actor I continually hear of with the Sir before his title is the late Sir Laurence Olivier. Occasionally you'll see a 'Sir Elton John' but these are usually in articles about his sexual preferences so I always wondered about why the title is so important when discussing Elton's sexual preferences. To validate them? Its curious.

The Queen I believe gave the title of Dame to Helen Mirren after she won many awards last year for her two movie roles as Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II. If the Queen did not like the movies, I don't think she would have given the "Dame title" to Mirren and invited her to the palace. Dame Mirren had to decline the invitation because she was in production of another movie and not in England at the time. I have read that she really wished that she could have met the Queen.

And what I got out of movie "The Queen" was that the BRF had to changed how they dealt with the public because of Diana and her death. I really believe that the BRF must have learnt something from Diana, Princess of Wales and how she successfully dealt with the public. I know I learnt. I became more aware of aids and landmines situations.

[BeatrixFan]

The Damehood was given to Helen way before "The Queen".

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I really believe that the BRF must have learnt something from Diana, Princess of Wales and how she successfully dealt with the public.

This is a so-so situation. When there is so many bad feelings behind the scene it is difficult to think that one party learned from the other. But of course time moved on and thus the way people of the upper classes deal with the people they meet changes (don't know how to put that any other way...).
Diana could well have been a focus person who through her own example showed others how things were/are changing. But the expression of "to learn" is implying a teacher's role for Diana and I don't subscribe to that because there were so many things the RF would rather not have found out ...