Diana's Charity Work and Patronages

[zembla]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Charity isn't all about giving money. Anyone can give money to a charity but are some willing to go to these third world countries in which the charities support? The Princess did.

True...that's why people like Angelina Jolie get so much attention for their work, she actually goes in the thick of the problem and sheds a bigger light.

Giving money is a great option but it takes a special kind of person to take it to the next level.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zembla

True...that's why people like Angelina Jolie get so much attention for their work, she actually goes in the thick of the problem and sheds a bigger light.

Giving money is a great option but it takes a special kind of person to take it to the next level.

Whilst this isn't a discussion about Charles, as such, It is worth remembering all the charity work he has done over the years, in the UK and elsewhere.

Taking it to the 'next level', to me, means a hands on approach, not just posing for pictures and then going back to a nice 5 star hotel or residence! Angelina Jolie is hardly associated with charity work over here but I maintain that the cost to some of the charities of flying Diana out for a photo opportunity was wasted money.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I only remember that after she ceased to appear as "The Princess of Wales" in public, she send most of her charities down the drain. Okay, then I thought that's understandible because her position had changed but in the meantime I heard so many things about how the RF still supported her or payed for people to support her and would have done so in the future,IMHO if she had continued, so I haven't bought that argument for a long time. Or just look at Countess Alexandra of the Danish Royal family - she still get support for her charities and the people there still want her, even though she left the family to marry again. There is even talk of naming her the Secretary Gerneal of the Danish Red Cross, so I don't think her move away from the prince matters that much when it comes to support for charities.

Diana got a divorce settlement and not a stipend from the government as Alexandra is doing. I don't think there was the expectation that she would keep up her charities when she stopped being Princess of Wales.

Actually initially I thought dropping the charities was a good idea. I often thought that Diana focused so much on helping strangers because she didn't know how to have healthy relationships with the people closest to her. It sounds generous but I think her time would have better been spent mending the relationships closest to her - like the Spencers, the Windsors, her children, trusted friends.

It would have been nice if Diana had taken the lead of the late, great Audrey Hepburn who had done so much for UNICEF. Audrey, like Diana, had been a face for UNICEF, she didn't get down in the trenches but she provided an awareness to a cause that previously had gone unnoticed. Audrey also had a failed marriage - in fact she had two failed marriages, the first marriage failed due to several miscarriages she had and the second marriage due to her second husbands continuous unfaithfulness towards her with several women. But she persevered; and with dignity and decorum, got herself out of that disastrous second marriage while seeking to secure her children against kidnapping threats at the time. Finally she found a man who was her soulmate and was as supportive of her and her children as she was to him.

What does this have to do with Diana, you might ask? Well Audrey put her priorities on fixing her own life first before she put much effort into helping others. As a result, she's left a wonderful legacy with her widower and two sons who have continued her legacy with UNICEF. Their efforts are some of the most respected today. So all of the work that she started with UNICEF is still going strong with her children with whom she shared a close and healthy bond.

Diana on the other hand has no one who was close to her to carry on her legacy. Her brother was the closest one to her in childhood but by the time of her death they were no longer speaking and that has reflected in the terrible mismanagement of her charities. Her sons William and Harry have their own problems as you can see from their threads here. William is the heir to the throne (or heir to the heir) so that must be his first priority, he doesn't have the liberty of picking up any charitable cause he wants. Harry has more freedom but he seems to flit from one thing to another with no real purpose. Has anyone heard of Lesotho since he said he was going to team up with the prince there?

However, the disagreements and mismanagement of Diana's charities is a direct result of the terrible state of Diana's personal relationships and this is where she differs from Audrey Hepburn. Her brother has two many conflicting emotions towards his ex-sister to do a good job with her charities (I think he wanted to blacken the eye of the Royal Family rather than truly help people)

I also think William and Harry are hampered with their conflicting relationship with Diana. Even Diana's friends said that she was jealous if anyone tried to befriend her sons and that she did use her sons in ammunition against Charles. One of the results was that she carried out a vendetta against Tiggy Legge-Bourke the boys nanny, who the boys were very close to and who comforted them during the worst times of the War of the Waleses. She also asked William for advice that was well beyond his years to give. These elements of Diana's real relationships to her sons and her family have an impact on how well they carry out Diana's legacy. Diana's sons will forever be labelled the children of a marriage where their father so cruelly treated their mother no matter what they try to do to up the profile of her charities. So they have to balance the inevitable backlash against their father and the Royal Family if they want to honor their mother's charities. Audrey Hepburn's sons had no such problems. Audrey's second husband cheated on her non-stop but she hasn't gone down in history as the woman that that man so cruelly treated so her sons can honor her legacy without wondering what it will do to their relationship with their father.

So I think that if there is a lesson to be learned from these two women's lives, its that charity truly does begin in the home and if one wants to set a legacy that lasts, its best to make sure the closest relationships are healthy and strong so that the people after your death protect your legacy and life's work. Right now there is no one who is protecting Diana's life work with her charities and I think it is the fallout from her personal relationships.

[TheTruth]

I think that the creation of "The Diana, Princess of Wales Foundation" was a bad idea. They should have stuck with her choice which was to help a few charities and not create a new one. If they have feared to loose funds because she died, they could have join her name to their own association banner like : "The Leprosy Mission : supported by the Late Princess of Wales, etc.". It would have been more appreciated I think and much more serious because, honestly, we don't hear about The PoF foundation and their work, do we ?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I think that the creation of "The Diana, Princess of Wales Foundation" was a bad idea. They should have stuck with her choice which was to help a few charities and not create a new one. If they have feared to loose funds because she died, they could have join her name to their own association banner like : "The Leprosy Mission : supported by the Late Princess of Wales, etc.". It would have been more appreciated I think and much more serious because, honestly, we don't hear about The PoF foundation and their work, do we ?

That is so true, we only hear about the Diana Foundation when we hear how badly managed it is. Well I think her brother's actions with the Foundation was to make sure that The Royal Family played no part in it, and on that level he succeeded.

I believe Diana didn't leave someone who believed enough in her and her legacy to make sure that the best of what she tried to achieve was carried out. I get the feeling that her family and her closest friends were not that committed to her charitable causes - except maybe Harry but he's more associated with his temper and his drunkenness rather than for his charity work.

Without the strong healthy relationships to those close to you, its hard for other people to carry on your legacy when you die.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

That is so true, we only hear about the Diana Foundation when we hear how badly managed it is. Well I think her brother's actions with the Foundation was to make sure that The Royal Family played no part in it, and on that level he succeeded.

I believe Diana didn't leave someone who believed enough in her and her legacy to make sure that the best of what she tried to achieve was carried out. I get the feeling that her family and her closest friends were not that committed to her charitable causes - except maybe Harry but he's more associated with his temper and his drunkenness rather than for his charity work.

Without the strong healthy relationships to those close to you, its hard for other people to carry on your legacy when you die.

Unfortunatly that's true. I can't understand why, with so many people who admire her, no one was able to manage the foundation and do some good PR so people would hear about the work they're doing and help them. What this foundation needs is someone who won't let it down and who will forget about his anger for the sake of the needy. I've always believed in her work for people and I'm sure I'm not the only one so why can't we do something about it ? It's so sad that this charity drowns because of a bad management.

[zembla]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Whilst this isn't a discussion about Charles, as such, It is worth remembering all the charity work he has done over the years, in the UK and elsewhere.

Taking it to the 'next level', to me, means a hands on approach, not just posing for pictures and then going back to a nice 5 star hotel or residence! Angelina Jolie is hardly associated with charity work over here but I maintain that the cost to some of the charities of flying Diana out for a photo opportunity was wasted money.

I brought up Angelina because Diana did a similar thing to her. She actually went into these desperate situations and shed a huge light with her celebrity. And people actually paid attention...

I'm sure plenty of other famous people attempt the same thing, but a select few are able to draw the world's attention. So if the photo opportunity did cost like you said, it still did so much better in the long run. Everyone has their own motives when it comes to charity work...but some get more praised more than others for various reasons.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Unfortunatly that's true. I can't understand why, with so many people who admire her, no one was able to manage the foundation and do some good PR so people would hear about the work they're doing and help them. What this foundation needs is someone who won't let it down and who will forget about his anger for the sake of the needy. I've always believed in her work for people and I'm sure I'm not the only one so why can't we do something about it ? It's so sad that this charity drowns because of a bad management.

That is true, TheTruth.

The Spencers and the Windsors, alas, were not able to let go of their anger, unfortunately and I think that it because Diana chose to make two public legacies; one which hurt the other.

She chose the legacy of the caring princess who looked after those less fortunate but in her collaboration with the Morton book that villified the Royal Family and the Panorama interview which threatened to shake the monarchy and the well publicized fallouts with the other members of her family, she also chose the legacy of the avenging princess threatening to use the great adoration she received from the masses to wreak vengeance and avenge any wrongs that anyone did against her. The public's adoration of Diana was a powerful weapon that she used often and it hurt some people close to her as severely as it gave comfort to those responding to her charitable works. In her close relationships, there were a lot of people who were on the receiving side of this vengeance.

Diana was very conscious of both legacies that she left; in fact she said that you can't comfort the afflicted without afflicting the comfortable and her life's work bore out that. She was renown both for the joy she gave people she met only a short time and the pain and anguish she caused those that were close to her and I rather think she was proud of her ability to afflict the comfortable.

Unfortunately I don't think she was right; I do think you can comfort the afflicted without afflicting the comfortable. And if she could have managed to comfort the afficted and have healthy relationships with the ones closest to her, the legacy of her charities and her good works would have never been in doubt.

Going back to Audrey Hepburn, I don't think she was a perfect mother and wife. Certainly she had faults, she was paranoid about her children, I'm sure she didn't always treat her husbands well and she tended to be anal-retentive. But when we hear about her legacy, we don't hear about these things, just her caring and her life's work. That is because Audrey Hepburn made a conscious decision not to let the hurt and the anger that she experienced over her life to be part of her life's legacy.

Two caring and loving women, both experienced pain, and both made conscious choices in response to that pain, and left two very different legacies.

[TheTruth]

You're comparison with Hepburn is quite right. Audrey was a great lady that I admire alot for her kindness and humanitarian help. The 2 women have many things in common but Hepburn died at 64. I believe wisdom comes with age and experience but by saying that I'm not trying to excuse Diana's behaviour and mistakes due to her youth. Although, in spite of her terrible errors like Morton's book and the Panorama Interview, I firmly think that time would have done her some good and that she would have time to really invest herself and leave behind the gossips of tabloids. And, eventually, when she would die, people would remind more of her as someone who helped more than someone who made the front page everyday.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

You're comparison with Hepburn is quite right. Audrey was a great lady that I admire alot for her kindness and humanitarian help. The 2 women have many things in common but Hepburn died at 64. I believe wisdom comes with age and experience but by saying that I'm not trying to excuse Diana's behaviour and mistakes due to her youth. Although, in spite of her terrible errors like Morton's book and the Panorama Interview, I firmly think that time would have done her some good and that she would have time to really invest herself and leave behind the gossips of tabloids. And, eventually, when she would die, people would remind more of her as someone who helped more than someone who made the front page everyday.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to compare Audrey at 64 with Diana at a younger age but more of the choices the women made when they were about the same ages. Audrey's marriage to Mel Ferrer was extremely rocky from the time she was young but she never sought to expose the pain from that first marriage and instead chalked it up to her miscarriages. At the beginning she wanted her legacy to be her work in film, later in her thirties, she wanted her legacy to be her relationship with her children and focused only on that, finally in her forties and fifties when her relationship to her children and her comfort with her legacy in film was secure, did she focus on her charities. She did everything in the right order. In her twenties, she took care of herself, in her thirties, she took care of her children and in her forties she took care of people less fortunate than her. If Audrey had done anything in any other order like work on her charities in her twenties, I don't think she would have been as successful.

By the same token, I don't think Angelina Jolie will leave any lasting legacy with her charity work. She's got too many loose hanging threads with her relationship with her father and her relationship with Brad Pitt crowding out her work with charities. If Angelina Jolie died today, I don't think any of her nearest and dearest would take over her charity work.

[TheTruth]

I know you didn't mean to compare both by their age but it may be one reason why Diana's help wasn't really supported after her death. She didn't get the time to settle down and think of of what she really want to do.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I know you didn't mean to compare both by their age but it may be one reason why Diana's help wasn't really supported after her death. She didn't get the time to settle down and think of of what she really want to do.

Oh dear, theTruth, I must be really bad at explaining myself. What I meant is that Audrey had time to settle down because she made the right choices when she was in her twenties; she focused first on her career in the movies that gave her a sense of self-worth and self-esteem that she could carry over in her relationships with her children and later to her charities. Audrey didn't start to work on her charities in her twenties and in her biographies one sees that she really didn't have a grasp on her relationship with her children then. That came later.

If Diana had focused first on her role in the Royal Family and getting comfortable with that in her twenties and then in her thirties if she had focused on having a healthy relationships with her children then I think she would have lived to well past 40 and had time to think about her legacy

[PrincessofEurope]

Diana's work with her charities and the causes that were close to heart such as Aids and landmines was amazing work. apart form Anne no-one in the royal family has ever gone close to the work that she did to bring awareness to causes that needed to be in the public limelight. no-one will ever have the same effect that she did for charities.

Anne whilst doing a massive amount of charitable work never gets the public credit or the attention of the media that she deserves yet Diana could use her glamour and natural ease with the people to bring awareness about Aids, landmines, bulimia and other whorthwhlile causes

[zembla]

Originally Posted by PrincessofEurope

Diana's work with her charities and the causes that were close to heart such as Aids and landmines was amazing work. apart form Anne no-one in the royal family has ever gone close to the work that she did to bring awareness to causes that needed to be in the public limelight. no-one will ever have the same effect that she did for charities.

Anne whilst doing a massive amount of charitable work never gets the public credit or the attention of the media that she deserves yet Diana could use her glamour and natural ease with the people to bring awareness about Aids, landmines, bulimia and other whorthwhlile causes

So true...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by PrincessofEurope

Diana's work with her charities and the causes that were close to heart such as Aids and landmines was amazing work. apart form Anne no-one in the royal family has ever gone close to the work that she did to bring awareness to causes that needed to be in the public limelight. no-one will ever have the same effect that she did for charities.
Anne whilst doing a massive amount of charitable work never gets the public credit or the attention of the media that she deserves yet Diana could use her glamour and natural ease with the people to bring awareness about Aids, landmines, bulimia and other whorthwhlile causes

Anne may not get public credit or media attention, but she still gets the job done and helps the charities to put themselves in the limelight.

I will agree that she brought awareness to the AIDS and Landmine issues at the time. But since the AIDS charity has not floundered in the wake of her death, thanks to all the celebrities involved, one cannot help but think it would have gained momentum without Diana. I don't recall her support for an eating disorder charity.

I wonder how many people, without refering to notes or web sites could actually name more than the 2 charities normally touted.

[Little_star]

Centrepoint-support for the homeless
Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital in Pakistan.

Both are causes Diana supported, I cannot comment on the former but I do know that her support was very welcome for the hospital.

My cousin worked there at the time and he recalled how much of a boost her support gave, not just from the Pakistani people or Pakistani diaspora abroad but internationally. They had donations coming in from all over the world thanks to her visits.

[VuMom]

I was reading "The Diana Chronicles". The author talks of how Diana loved being around others who worse off than her and basically says this is why she did charity work. Do you think she truly cared for the needy or do you think it was an ego boost?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by VuMom

I was reading "The Diana Chronicles". The author talks of how Diana loved being around others who worse off than her and basically says this is why she did charity work. Do you think she truly cared for the needy or do you think it was an ego boost?

I believe she did for both. Some reproached her to use the needy to be on the front page and gain popularity but I don't think it's entirely true. She was famous and used her image to help. If she hadn't proposed her image for their publicity, charities wouldn't have collected so much money . But she obtained a lot from her investment : popularity and certainly ego boost. For charities : No Diana (or famous figures) = no money ; for Diana : No publicity = no sympathy from the public.

Moreover, Diana seemed to be a very hesitating and shy person. When people encouraged her to keep doing her patronage, she was proud and gained confidence. I think she found some strength with her associations and the public approval. Her engagement, IMO, was ruled by many factors.

[Mermaid1962]

I do believe that she did find a genuine vocation in drawing attention to social problems. At the beginning, she might have done a lot because it was expected of her as the Princess of Wales; but later she found what she really excelled at and did that. She wasn't good at sitting through long meetings, but she was great with people.

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I believe she did for both. Some reproached her to use the needy to be on the front page and gain popularity but I don't think it's entirely true. She was famous and used her image to help. If she hadn't proposed her image for their publicity, charities wouldn't have collected so much money . But she obtained a lot from her investment : popularity and certainly ego boost. For charities : No Diana (or famous figures) = no money ; for Diana : No publicity = no sympathy from the public.

Moreover, Diana seemed to be a very hesitating and shy person. When people encouraged her to keep doing her patronage, she was proud and gained confidence. I think she found some strength with her associations and the public approval. Her engagement, IMO, was ruled by many factors.

[pinkie40]

I have been involved in charity work for a long time and what I find absolutely amazing is the impact she has had on just "regular people" to get out and "do something". It used to be that only women who had the means to have household help and husband who needed promoting made up the majority of "trained volunteers". It wasn't until Diana came along to show that we could all make a big difference in the world with our voices and passions. I have been a member of the American Junior League and we used to do "fluff" work and now, because of women like Diana walking through minefields and holding hands of AIDS patients, we as ordinary women feel like we can venture out of our comfort zones...