20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017

[royal rob]

A lot of people need to realize this is nothing absolutely nothing to do with them. Once again it's her sons and what they want so the anti lot need to get over it.
If you want to argue about something there is a fellow in US that you could have a good go about


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I had decided to stay away from these threads, but I'll make an exception with this post, since this is an interesting topic.

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane

An utter and complete waste of money. Money that could do so much more good if it were used for just about anything else.

Diana's legacy is so over-stated as to be laughable. I could name about 100 people more deserving of a statue than Diana. I despair, I really do.

I agree!

Diana was pretty controversial before her death (still is). She had turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, she attacked her husband on television, she embarrassed the Queen, she treated her staff/nannies badly and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. I'm not saying that Charles was innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

When it comes to her charity work: She did nothing more for charity than the other members of the royal family did (rather less).
I think it took her several years to become patron of approximately 100 charities and she accepted many of them to boost her popularity during the 90s. She then (I think) dropped most of them.

And I don't think this person deserves a statue, but I do understand that this is something William and Harry wants to do for their mother.

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane

Of course it's our business! William and Harry are going to have to cast around for the money, which will no doubt include giving face time to some less than desirable millionaires and billionaires. This leaves them open to all sorts of accusations, the kind that Charles regularly gets criticised for.

They're also going to put it in the gardens of KP which, last time I checked, is owned for all intents and purposes by the state. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if it's not public money that ends up maintaining this statue then it'll be up to Historic Royal Palaces to do so. HRP is a charity that receives no state subsidy. It would be a real outrage if they had to use their precious funds, intended to maintain and protect our nation's heritage, on this statue.

I do wonder, who's going to do the unveiling? The Queen? Or just William and Harry? Would other members of the family be required to attend? It would look bad if they didn't. Will Charles be there? Will Camilla? This is going to be incredibly awkward and lead to criticism for the RF one way or the other.

Yet another reason why this statue is a bad idea.

[Curryong]

Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

[Marty91charmed]

I think this announcement comes out as a lovely tribute from William and Harry. Diana was, before anything else, their mother. I was in a rush when I read the tweet, so I guess people complain for the cost? Will it affect the taxpayers?

[PetticoatLane]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

It doesn't matter who paid for it (I'd guess the Duchy of Cornwall or whatever entity develops Poundbury).

The reason it doesn't matter is that you simply cannot compare a statue of a Queen consort who played a huge part in the efforts of WWII when our nation's very existence was at stake, as part of an exemplary lifetime of public service, with a former royal who did some charity work.

Of course William and Harry love and miss their mother, like millions of people around the world whose parents have passed away. Those millions, however, don't erect statues of their parents at massive expense. What a statue will do that an enormous fountain, a huge pop concert and several charitable endeavours in her name can't do is beyond me.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by PetticoatLane

It doesn't matter who paid for it (I'd guess the Duchy of Cornwall or whatever entity develops Poundbury).

The reason it doesn't matter is that you simply cannot compare a statue of a Queen consort who played a huge part in the efforts of WWII when our nation's very existence was at stake, as part of an exemplary lifetime of public service, with a former royal who did some charity work.

Of course William and Harry love and miss their mother, like millions of people around the world whose parents have passed away. Those millions, however, don't erect statues of their parents at massive expense. What a statue will do that an enormous fountain, a huge pop concert and several charitable endeavours in her name can't do is beyond me.

If the statue is being paid for with private funding, I don't see it as anyone else's business other than the royal family's.

[Duke of Marmalade]

The family can do what they want in private, but nobody needs a public Diana statue right now. Even more so as the family used to do everything to keep the hysteria down and make the public craving for the semi-goddess Diana go away (eg by burying her outside the public eye).
Why now a statue is beyond me, as old wounds/controversies will be opened up again.

[Curryong]

^ Why now is obvious I think. It will be twenty years in August this year since Diana died in Paris. We had the concert on the 10th anniversary and this tribute comes on the twentieth. Judging by the public ranters in DM the reaction has not been good, and perhaps it may have been better on reflection to have endowed a children's cancer ward or a scholarship instead. However, it's done now, and I'm sure people will visit the statue.

[royal_sophietje]

For those who think a fund is more appropriate: the Diana Memorial Fund already exists :)

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Royalbooks

For those who think a fund is more appropriate: the Diana Memorial Fund already exists :)

Right, the royal foundation now owns it, but let's take it to new heights.

[Skippyboo]

The Diana Memorial Fund got run into the ground with the suing of the Franklin Mint wasting millions on legal fees and then having to pay the Franklin Mint a large quantity of money. It basically exists in name only because they legally can't shut it down because it's a unincorporated trust.

The statue of the Queen Mother in Poundbury is an exact copy of the statue of the QM that's in London. It's there because the landlord of Poundbury (Charles) wanted it there not because the people who lived there want it there. Thirty years from now if George Duke of Cornwall wanted to replace it with a statue of his beloved first dog Lupo he can.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Can anyone remember who paid for the enormous bronze statue of the Queen Mother which was unveiled by the Queen in Poundbury last year?

The answer has been deleted because the information is wrong

[Skippyboo]

If you actually read the article the part quoted was referring to the original statue in London not the copy in Poundbury.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

The family can do what they want in private, but nobody needs a public Diana statue right now. Even more so as the family used to do everything to keep the hysteria down and make the public craving for the semi-goddess Diana go away (eg by burying her outside the public eye).
Why now a statue is beyond me, as old wounds/controversies will be opened up again.

Right you are. Prince William, Prince Henry and those, who advise them, seem to fail to grasp it.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Right you are. Prince William, Prince Henry and those, who advise them, seem to fail to grasp it.

I think everyone else fails to grasp it's nothing to do with them. It's what William and Harry want


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Curryong

^ Why now is obvious I think. It will be twenty years in August this year since Diana died in Paris. We had the concert on the 10th anniversary and this tribute comes on the twentieth. Judging by the public ranters in DM the reaction has not been good, and perhaps it may have been better on reflection to have endowed a children's cancer ward or a scholarship instead. However, it's done now, and I'm sure people will visit the statue.

I'm wondering now if perhaps the Diana exhibit at Kensington Palace got this much criticism when that opened. Checking around, last November it was announced that a "style" exhibit in relation to Diana was in the works.

Its obvious her sons want to commemorate their mother by a statue and by putting it in the KP public gardens, its there for all those who want to see it. It also goes well with the public exhibit focusing on Diana which generates revenue for the Historical Royal Palaces organization.

[sthreats]

I think it's a good idea and long overdue

[Curryong]

Diana was indeed a marvellously elegant woman. Tall, slender, chic and beautiful. Still missed.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

I couldnt agree more. Putting aside those early outfits which her mother helped her choose which had those awful collars, most of her clothes withstood the test of time to look as elegant today as they were then. I think that is because she seldom wore patterned clothes. The solid colors look great no matter when and provided a backdrop that really showcased her jewels.

[Valerie Rose]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Diana was indeed a marvellously elegant woman. Tall, slender, chic and beautiful. Still missed.

Totally soignée.

I still recall my daughter, then aged only 8, observing that "even when Princess Diana is wearing jeans and a cotton shirt, she still looks beautiful."