The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2041  
Old 11-24-2017, 07:46 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,542
I've edited and deleted a number of posts regarding the Charles/Diana marriage and 1920's Hollywood stars. Let's stay on topic....Diana's legacy. If you wish to discuss Diana's marriage to Charles, please take it to the appropriate thread.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2042  
Old 11-24-2017, 09:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
To be sure, Diana was the superstar of her time.

Will Diana endure? Who knows, and if she does what will her image be? A couple of people who've popped up in my mind are Anne Boleyn and Edward VIII / Duke of Windsor.

Back to the superstar thing, to me it is indisputable that Diana was a superstar, and the extensive coverage of the 20th anniversary of her death indicates that she has achieved the kind of cultural eminence that Marilyn Monroe has.

Now here's the rub, I don't see that having a superstar like Diana boosted the institution of the monarchy. If I were the courtier tasked with setting the course for the BRF, having another Diana in the midst would not be on my radar.

P.S.
Just to be clear I am not in any way overlooking or diminishing Diana's good works and the contributions she made to the BRF.
Diana definitely boosted the monarchy!! She made it even more popular.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2043  
Old 11-24-2017, 09:41 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitty1224 View Post
Diana definitely boosted the monarchy!! She made it even more popular.
OK. I am going to ask for credible sources that back up this statement. Otherwise, this is just another off the wall statement that has absolutely no credible facts behind it.

This is how things are done here. We are expected to be able to back up our statements with credible sources and references. Otherwise, these off the wall statements add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation.

Thank you.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2044  
Old 11-25-2017, 04:20 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
of course she boosted the monarchy initially. She was so popular, she was beautifiul, she was loved by the public. She was in the papers every day. Magazine editors have said that her photo on the cover boosted circulation. But in time of course her difficulties with her marriage and gradual alienation from the RF DID cause problems and she did consciously begin to use her popularity and charm against the RF. I think that is blindingly obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #2045  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:08 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,330
I think you've mentioned before, Denville, that Diana with Charles could have been such a wonderfully, powerful team together if only they had been able to sort out their private life and live and love happily together but that wasn't to be. They were just two very different people.

The media quickly discovered that they had a cash cow on their hands with Diana and used that to every purpose possible and it didn't help when Diana started to feed into them for her own purposes. All the good that she ever did for the BRF and the monarchy went right out the window as she used her "star" power against rather than for the good of the royal family. Sometimes I think she got a little too big of a swelled head with her fame and in the long run, that turned against her.

For the most part, Diana used her fame and popularity to work against the BRF and the monarchy. She ended up biting the hand that fed her and spent the rest of her short life trying to put her life back together. Sadly, it ended too soon for her to truly find any happiness.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2046  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:14 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2047  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:31 AM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850

Pranter, that is the best insight into Diana yet that I have seen here. HM made big changes within the monarchy since then and the other members of the family are getting to chose whom they want to marry instead of being told whom to marry, that to me makes a huge difference in one's life and how they are going to go forward with someone they actually love.
Reply With Quote
  #2048  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:44 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae
What we saw happen with Kate was a result of learning from what happened with Diana. William and Kate were treated first and foremost as a married couple rather than senior royals working for the "Firm". William also did not go the route of his father and marry out of duty or because all the suitable for a princess boxes were checked off. The stable relationship was there first with William and Kate to build on in the first place which was sorely lacking between Charles and Diana. William also had the advantage of not being in the prime role of heir to the Crown.

This is one of the best changes to the way marriages in the BRF are looked at today and definitely a positive part of Diana's legacy. Its sad that Charles and Diana's union was wrong from so many different aspects but sometimes the best lessons are learned from the worse mistakes made. A positive is created out of a negative.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2049  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:49 AM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850

Totally agree with you my dear and one thing I want to put in with the BRF is that the negative aspect so the marriage between Diana and Charles has become an *education* for all those involved. An *negative* becomes an *education* in how to make changes in life which they surly have done and the results are great to see today.
Reply With Quote
  #2050  
Old 11-25-2017, 09:51 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Oh I firmly believe one of the reasons Kate and William were 'allowed' to keep a relatively low profile for so long was because of the fiasco of Diana and the media/BRF combined.

Very smart to have W&K slowly building up to where they are now over several years time. I fully expect something similar for H&M...although I suspect by the time they marry they will not wait long to start a family and pregnancy/childbirth will naturally give them more space.

That all said. I remain convinced if Diana and Charles had been allowed to actually spend more time together and date for at least a year they would of never married.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2051  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:23 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
That all said. I remain convinced if Diana and Charles had been allowed to actually spend more time together and date for at least a year they would of never married.
I agree. The reported 13 dates they went on before getting engaged was not conductive to a lasting relationship. It was more of a "checking off the suitable aspects" in choosing a bride than really forming a relationship.

Without Diana though, so much would be different. Most likely we would never have had her on our radar if she hadn't married Charles all those years ago and the face of the royal family would look so totally different. A lot of changes for the good did come out of the Diana years and her two boys, I think, carry the best part of both of their parents with them into the future.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2052  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:29 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
It's an interesting 'what if'....Charles hadn't married Diana (who would he of married..no one on the radar that I recall) ....Diana would of been totally unknown to us, most likely married to someone of similar background and lived the life of a Sloane.

Charles caved to pressure from the media and when his father told him to make a decision due to how Diana was being hounded...well we know that outcome.

The boys have made up for that disasters era of the Wales marriage. Much more positive outcome from them so far.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2053  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:34 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,330
So, then, I think perhaps part of Diana's legacy is a lesson in "how not to make a royal marriage". Its also a lesson to the everyday couple too. Look before you leap.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2054  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:46 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Certainly that is not the type of marriage to rush into...I think lots of discussion and research would be advised. Most people, IMO, are not going to be willing to live that type of life.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2055  
Old 11-25-2017, 10:48 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,110
Pranter, M Payton and Osipi..great posts and observations. Totally agree with your words
Reply With Quote
  #2056  
Old 11-25-2017, 11:15 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Or simply...marry in haste, repent at leisure.....as trite as that is.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2057  
Old 11-25-2017, 11:54 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,110
Can you imagine after 13 dates someone saying “mum I’m engaged”. My parent antenna would go into overdrive to say the least. I bet lessons have been learned.
Reply With Quote
  #2058  
Old 11-25-2017, 12:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missjersey View Post
Pranter, M Payton and Osipi..great posts and observations. Totally agree with your words
I agree Missjersey that these posters have summed up exactly what I believe regarding the BRF and introducing new members to royal life. I believe that Sophie, Camilla and Kate have all benefited from this new policy. I also believe that other European royal families have opted for a gradual introduction for their new consorts too after observing what their UK counterparts encountered in the 1980's and 1990's. IMHO Diana would have also supported this type of slower introduction for William and Harry's spouses. Should Harry and Meghan announce their engagement in the coming weeks/months, I sincerely hope that Meghan will also have a gradual introduction to her royal life and duties. It is far better to establish their relationship as husband and wife before being handed a busy schedule of royal duties IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #2059  
Old 11-25-2017, 12:19 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Or simply...marry in haste, repent at leisure.....as trite as that is.


LaRae

I don't think there's any chance that we'll see a return to the tragedy that was Diana and Charles. Their boys have seen to that. We must wait, now, to see what is the Royal marriage format when it's George and Charlotte's turn.
Reply With Quote
  #2060  
Old 11-25-2017, 12:48 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae
But a problem with that was she married the heir to the throne. He was already a full time working royal with a busy schedule. It worked for William and Kate because they were in a different position.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, legacy, memorial, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Grace's Legacy HMTLove23 Princely Family of Monaco 165 12-07-2017 04:59 PM
Left Or Right-Handed Royals? Peggy Royal Life and Lifestyle 49 02-03-2016 01:34 AM
The Legacy of Elizabeth II vkrish Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 21 12-18-2012 06:45 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism biography british brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up emperor fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent king salman list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima monaco history nepal nepalese royal family nobel 2019 norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn prince daniel princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress saudi arabia spain startling new evidence stuart swedish queen swedish royal family taiwan thailand tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×