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

[sirhon11234]

No, I quoted the comment I agreed with the most. And how is the person a conspiracy theorist he said she was unlawfully killed which the inquest concluded in.

 

[Skydragon]

No, I quoted the comment I agreed with the most. .....

Are you saying you are not going to play fair or there are not many more comments?

 

[sirhon11234]

Are you saying you are not going to play fair or there are not many more comments?

Well if you insist:

The difference between the Late Queen Mother, and the Late Princess, is that one represented all possible hopes fulfilled across many decades, and the other the absolute reverse.

Queen Elizabeth was mourned with restraint and her life appreciated for longevity and happiness, as the Queen herself said in her address before the funeral "this is what my mother would have understood".

Diana was remembered, not it seemed by those closest to her, two families who squabbled over the minutia of flags and protocol, venues and guests - long after the milk was spilt - but by ordinary people who saw only 16 years of public life, not almost eight decades and felt short changed of Diana as much as she was in the end short changed by life itself.

Heffer, again siding tacitly with Charles, fails to see what Diana did other than as beyond the pale in her walk of life, but in the end cooperating in the book was all she had to reverse the destruction of her life at the hands of her husband and his mistress, their friends and PR machine - and even the Establishment which protected the institution, not the players by marriage.

The Queen Mother would have understood women who had a place and a position, and in return ignored their husband's attentions being elsewhere - for this is hardly a new thing in the world she knew or even within the Royal Family. This is what she did not understand about Diana's choice to do otherwise.

Perhaps the Princess of Wales was too modern, too bourgeois, in that she did not accept the role of an aristocratic wife in the breeding department beyond which she was mere set dressing. God knows her own mother bucked at it.

I suspect most modern women, understanding the nature of their marriage from the outset as hollow, have respect for Diana in that. Marital breakdown, divorce, has featured in my own family but Nana, married long before the war, was of the same school as Queen Elizabeth: you do not discuss your marriage; you make your bed and you lie in it. That has been the great change in attitudes since the war years - we should not contrast the two women, as here, for being of generations 60 years apart.

or

It is obvious that Mr Heffer is a fan of the Queen Mother. So was I. I was more a fan of Princess Diana though and I believe much of the public grief expressed was due to the fact that she was young and killed before her time. The Queen Mother by contrast died over 100 years old.
I am sad to say that I did not mark her death, though I do and did respect her. Princess Diana's death though moved me. I still remember being moved to tears by the sea of flowers at Kensington Palace when I visited there. It was unsurpassed and a historical moment. If it was a "disgusting incontinent display of sentiment" (by old guard standards obviously), I'm glad to have been a participant and I am still moved by the image this day.
Whilst women of the Queen Mother's generation made their marital bed and stayed in it, silent, I wonder if the Queen Mother would have been so patient with her darling Bertie if he had had the same womanising habits as her son-in-law Phillip and her grandson Charles? Probably, but is that better? I don't think so.
I'm glad to belong to Diana's generation.

The often said idea that the reaction to Diana'a death was some freak moment in British society that showed a radical change in culture is bull and shows that one doesn't know their royal history.

When the 17 year old eldest son of Henry II drowned England freaked, when the eldest son of Edward III, the black prince, died England freaked, when the eldest son of James I died Britain freaked, when the daughter of George IV died in childbirth...you guessed it...Britain freaked. This is nothing new. If you study royal history you'll see that anytime a popular member of the RF dies a young tragic death the nation mourns badly. Then they forget they did so the next time it happens people think it's the first time.

Both of them were morons. One was a racist, colonial, class-ridden alcoholic and the other was a spoilt brat.

 

[Skydragon]

I expect we could go on and on choosing posts from the 83 comments made so far. Apart from the, IMO, silly comments expected from the ex wives club, this sums it up.

.... Shock was the prevailing emotion, but nobody of our group of around 30 burst into tears...
We were horrified when we arrived back the following morning at the hysteria which had overtaken the country, pumped up by Blair and his acolytes for their own ends.
Whilst I disagreed with a lot of the archaic "traditions" of the Royal Family ( such as sending the children to Gordonstoun, which Diana very sensibly vetoed), it is not so much in the character of the Windsor family to rein in emotions at a death; this stoicism is - or rather, was - one of the chief characteristics of the British people, and is to be applauded, not viewed with suspicion of an uncaring family.
That was the moment when the British lost their self-respect, and their respect in the eyes of other countries.

I would alter the bolded section to read 'some of the British'. I haven't shown the posters name, she might not want it associated with a forum she didn't choose to write on.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There was only one time that I shed a few tears after Diana's death, and that was when I was in my car driving into town for groceries. I think that it was the Wednesday after she died. There was an item on the radio about her death, and I remember thinking, "My princess is gone," and weeping a bit. But that was it. I think that by the time of those last holidays in St. Tropez, I had become disillusioned by Diana. I do look back nostalgically on the early 80s, when she was a brand-new, beautiful and stylish Princess of Wales possessing a wonderful ability with crowds and people who were ill. Once the stories of her affairs came out, particularly the ones that were verifyable, and the Panorama interview happened, I had lost my trust in both her and Prince Charles. Diana's life seemed to be spinning out of control that last year, in spite of the high-profile visits on the world stage and the stories from her friends about how she was moving on and finding a role for herself. On the day of her funeral, my sadness was mostly directed toward her family, both the Spencers and the Windors, but most especially toward her sons.

I think that Diana did become an object of worship for many. Even now, it's possible to run into those who still see her as some kind of a secular saint, those who can't see her actions as contributing to her loss of respect and trust by those who once looked up to her. I don't think that Diana was evil, but I don't think that she was sweetness and light either.

Her legacy is mainly her children; but another part of her legacy will be division.

 

[sirhon11234]

Even now, it's possible to run into those who still see her as some kind of a secular saint

I've encountered one. It was one of the most scariest moments of my short life.

To be honest I never saw that her life was spinning out of control that year. All I remember is seeing this woman enjoying her last months of life. She looked happy, not blissfully happy, (I don't think anyone is) but she appeared to be.

 

[Warren]

To be honest I never saw that her life was spinning out of control that year.

Things started to become unstuck towards the end. The association with the Al Fayed family raised more than a few eyebrows, as did the "cutting off" of her mother. More tellingly, at least in terms of popular culture, the week prior to her death Hello! magazine published a very rare editorial column where the writer expressed concern that Diana's life appeared to be erratic and spinning out of control. I remember this well as two days after reading it she was dead.

 

[sirhon11234]

When some of you say spinning out of control what comes to my mind is Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin and Lindsay Lohan, but the Princess was nowhere close to that route.
I ado agree that she made a poor choce in vacationing with the Fayeds causing that summer to be hectic. Here was a lady who was already making her plans for the next month. I remember reading that Diana was planning to visit Cambodia for her Landmine's Campaign and that week of Aug 31st she was planning to meet Hasnat again.
Richard Kay, Lady Annabel Goldsmith, and Rosa Monckton who all spoked to Diana hours and days before the accident, they all have said how happy she was over the phone and very excited to see her kids again.
But I do agree that during the last couple of days things were getting out of hand. The secruity team did not know how to handle the press.

 

[Mermaid1962]

It's rare for Hello! to have serious editorial content. Do you remember who the writer was? I know that Judy Wade writes quite a bit for Hello!

Things started to become unstuck towards the end. The association with the Al Fayed family raised more than a few eyebrows, as did the "cutting off" of her mother. More tellingly, at least in terms of popular culture, the week prior to her death Hello! magazine published a very rare editorial column where the writer expressed concern that Diana's life appeared to be erratic and spinning out of control. I remember this well as two days after reading it she was dead.

 

[rmay286]

There was only one time that I shed a few tears after Diana's death, and that was when I was in my car driving into town for groceries. I think that it was the Wednesday after she died. There was an item on the radio about her death, and I remember thinking, "My princess is gone," and weeping a bit. But that was it. I think that by the time of those last holidays in St. Tropez, I had become disillusioned by Diana. I do look back nostalgically on the early 80s, when she was a brand-new, beautiful and stylish Princess of Wales possessing a wonderful ability with crowds and people who were ill. Once the stories of her affairs came out, particularly the ones that were verifyable, and the Panorama interview happened, I had lost my trust in both her and Prince Charles. Diana's life seemed to be spinning out of control that last year, in spite of the high-profile visits on the world stage and the stories from her friends about how she was moving on and finding a role for herself. On the day of her funeral, my sadness was mostly directed toward her family, both the Spencers and the Windors, but most especially toward her sons.

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.

 

[Skydragon]

------ If both of them had just been less self-interested and more inclined to put the other person in the marriage first, -------

The commitments/appointments already made by Charles had to come first, this was something Diana failed to understand. He couldn't just cancel because he wanted to.

... but another part of her legacy will be division.

Sadly I think this is true.

 

[sirhon11234]

The Princess's legacy mirrors her life they're both complicated. But one thing that will never change is that Diana has touched the lives of some people and inspired them.
Quote from Jean Sasson's Princess Sultana's Circle:

In her tremendous kindness, Princess Diana proved that one person can make a real difference. Every act of kindness generated by this one person resonated as a pebble dropped in water, as a ripple which then spread far beyond the original gesture.

 

[rmay286]

Sadly I think this is true.

I agree. Division unfortunately became a big part of Diana's public legacy.

 

[TheTruth]

I've moved a post concerning the news about the so-called "passionate affair" between Valérie Giscard d'Estaing and Diana in the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...of-wales-news-thread-8-june-2008-a-17342.html thread. Please post over there on that matter.

 

[scooter]

The commitments/appointments already made by Charles had to come first, this was something Diana failed to understand. He couldn't just cancel because he wanted to.

Especially certain 'commitments/appointments' Charles had which 'came first'. How unreasonable of Diana to 'fail to understand'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Especially certain 'commitments/appointments' Charles had which 'came first'. How unreasonable of Diana to 'fail to understand'.

Actually Diana didn't understand that being Prince of Wales was more important than being Diana's husband.

You, of course, are referring to your constant refrain that he cheated from day 1 which I don't believe but rather that she drove him away with her refusal to understand the obligations of his position.

 

[sirhon11234]

What does Charles' affair have anything to do with the legacy of the Princess, which is the point of this thread.

 

[Elspeth]

I found this statement reflecting some of my own thoughts about people's view of Diana and her death.

"Yet that is, I suppose, the encapsulation of what had changed in our national temper between 1952 and 1997. The generation that lived through the Blitz – as Queen Elizabeth did – got up out of the ruins, mourned their dead quietly and with dignity, and simply carried on. Perhaps Dr Williams would reflect – and he is more qualified to do so than I am – that the reaction to the late Princess's death was that to be expected of a secular society, or at least of one far more secularised than it had been half a century earlier. Society struggles to believe in a God it cannot see in these times. A god, or goddess, that can not only be seen, but is also role model, catwalk model, media personality and celebrity is not merely tangible, but far more credible. Sadly for those who believed in her, she was also mortal."

I seriously disagree with this. I'm not sure why some religious people are so certain that secular societies and non-religious people are "struggling to believe in a God..." but as an atheist I run across this attitude all the time, and I must say I find it annoying. Many of the people I know who were devastated by Diana's death were religious or spiritual or whatever; a lot of the people I know who were detached about it were secular or atheist. I don't think emotional involvement with celebrities has anything to do with religious or secular cultures in particular, it has to do with the way the media in certain societies are fixated on celebrities to the point where it's very hard to avoid being saturated by it.

 

[Elspeth]

What does Charles' affair have anything to do with the legacy of the Princess, which is the point of this thread.

Because some people believe that everything bad about Diana was caused by Charles's affair with Camilla and that said affair is therefore the reason why Diana's legacy is any degree short of being perfect.

 

[Skydragon]

Especially certain 'commitments/appointments' Charles had which 'came first'. How unreasonable of Diana to 'fail to understand'.

Iluvbertie has answered you perfectly, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Actually Diana didn't understand that being Prince of Wales was more important than being Diana's husband.

You, of course, are referring to your constant refrain that he cheated from day 1 which I don't believe but rather that she drove him away with her refusal to understand the obligations of his position.

What would be a tragedy is for Diana to be constantly portrayed as a victim, her legacy deserves to be more than that.

 

[sirhon11234]

Because some people believe that everything bad about Diana was caused by Charles's affair with Camilla and that said affair is therefore the reason why Diana's legacy is any degree short of being perfect.

I disagree with that. Yes his affair with Camilla did hurt and didn't help her emotional problems but that wasn't what caused everything to be bad for Diana. Her legacy is so much more than that marriage imo.

 

[Mermaid1962]

So true. The 1990s seemed to be a time when a lot of people were going on television and talking about what terrible lives they had. Feeling like a victim was very much encouraged. Oprah tapped into this very well and had enormous success, at least in part, because famous and not-too-famous people got on her show and talked about their problems. So in a way, I think that Diana's tell-all behaviour was similar to what other people were doing at that time. However, other those other people weren't future Queens Consort.

What would be a tragedy is for Diana to be constantly portrayed as a victim, her legacy deserves to be more than that.

 

[scooter]

Because some people believe that everything bad about Diana was caused by Charles's affair with Camilla and that said affair is therefore the reason why Diana's legacy is any degree short of being perfect.

Elspeth I dont believe that every bad choice Diana made was as a result of Charles' affair with Camilla......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress...I would be very suspicious of where he was going when he went out. If for example her home was only a few miles from ours I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her. I would also be very suspicious if he was spending the night at certain friends' houses. Which, as a certain tape has provided us with evidence from their own lips, they were carrying on their adultery.

How is this relevant to her legacy? Quite a few people with their own axe to grind like to say 'Oh Diana was unreasonable and then she had an unexplanable and irrational fit'. She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, this is an important part of her legacy--the way she got involved with things that affected peoples' lives in a major way. She got involved with huge social issues. AIDS is a horrible way to die, and I'm sorry that your family went through having a member suffer from it, Scooter.

She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . . . . She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people.

I'm sorry scooter, Diana dished out far more than her fair share. Her contribution to Andrew Morton's Biogaraphy of herself was supposed to vinicate her. Her vicious and vindictive glee at the way she helped orchestrate the hands-on eviction of her Stepmother, Raine, immediatedly following her father's death, was enough to curl your toes. Stuffing all her clothes in rubbish bags and hiffing them down the stairs. Coming as it did, right on the heals of her husband's death it is mind-blowing in it's sheer cruelty.

Not the actions of "humanitarian" nor even a half decent human being, but it did show her prefered way of handling things she did not like. She displayed a very real and not very nice nature. This did not in any way contradict her public "Princess of Wales" persona. She handled herself very adeptly, so much so that she was likened to Mother Theresa!

Things started to become unstuck towards the end. The association with the Al Fayed family raised more than a few eyebrows, as did the "cutting off" of her mother. More tellingly, at least in terms of popular culture, the week prior to her death Hello! magazine published a very rare editorial column where the writer expressed concern that Diana's life appeared to be erratic and spinning out of control. I remember this well as two days after reading it she was dead.

I well remember the news of those weeks immediately preceeding her death. She was nobody's darling and verging on becoming a social parasite. With her death all that was negative was conveniently discarded and behold . . . . "Saint Diana", with enough miracles to seriously contend for official sainthood.

Like it or lump it, that is what people had to deal with. A media propaganda "Blitz" to ensure we all looked elsewhere for the cause of her death.

think that Diana did become an object of worship for many. Even now, it's possible to run into those who still see her as some kind of a secular saint, those who can't see her actions as contributing to her loss of respect and trust by those who once looked up to her. I don't think that Diana was evil, but I don't think that she was sweetness and light either.

Her legacy is mainly her children; but another part of her legacy will be division.

Well said Mermaid, neither evil nor sweetness and light and as a result division must surely be her immediate legacy. However, I believe her children will become her most enduring legacy.

 

[sirhon11234]

I'm sorry scooter, Diana dished out far more than her fair share. Her contribution to Andrew Morton's Biogaraphy of herself was supposed to vinicate her. Her vicious and vindictive glee at the way she helped orchestrate the hands-on eviction of her Stepmother, Raine, immediatedly following her father's death, was enough to curl your toes. Stuffing all her clothes in rubbish bags and hiffing them down the stairs. Coming as it did, right on the heals of her husband's death it is mind-blowing in it's sheer cruelty.

You forgot to mention that after the incident Diana apologized to Raine and Raine forgave her.

After all the years of turmoil, she decided to extend an olive branch to Raine Spencer.

A quote from the tape transcripts.

Morton: "They had this very emotional lunch at Kensington Palace, where Diana said; I want to thank you for looking after Daddy. That's to say, Earl Spencer. And they embraced, and Diana cried. And there developed, over time, a very close friendship between Raine Spencer and Diana.”

At Earl Spencer's memorial service Diana walked out of the church holding Raine's hand. Diana by Sarah Bradford "She did a very moving thing at Johnnie's funeral. Raine was on that side and Diana was on this side, and when they left their seats she went over to Raine and held her hand and walked down the church with her."

Of course this doesen't change the fact that Diana treated Raine badly in the past but she did the "grown up" thing by mending her relationship with her stepmother which would last till the end of her life.

Diana was surely no "Saint" I don't think anyone would dissagree with me on that.

 

[MARG]

My point, not very made, was that Diana had a very nasty temper and, unlike the vast majority of adults, was not averse to indulging her passions in tantrums or orgies (any act of immoderate indulgence) of malice, as discribed by herself in Andrew Morton's book as well as other publications.

That Diana actually apologised to Raine is terrific. However, the hurt and grief while forgiven, will never be forgotten, as will her many other less stirling actions.

Diana by Sarah Bradford "She did a very moving thing at Johnnie's funeral. Raine was on that side and Diana was on this side, and when they left their seats she went over to Raine and held her hand and walked down the church with her."

In light of her knowledge of handling the media this could be viewed as purely playing to the audience.

I guess the most relevant point is that she was not a child when she behaved in this way and Princess Diana, like every other adult, became responsible for her own actions.

 

[Skydragon]

......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress... I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her

One of the tantrums I was referring to happened when he had to go to an event, in London where he was the main speaker. As for the hunting.. I say again it is obvious you have never been on an English Foxhunt, to be under the impression there is any opportunity for private conversations let alone anything physical, is ridiculous! However those that believe all there was to Diana was victim, they are doing her a disservice, IMO.

That Diana actually apologised to Raine is terrific. However, the hurt and grief while forgiven, will never be forgotten, as will her many other less sterling actions.

What is terrific is the fact that Raine forgave her for the years of spite that culminated not with Diana pushing her down a set of stairs, but with throwing her possessions out of the house whilst the woman was still in mourning for her husband.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth I dont believe that every bad choice Diana made was as a result of Charles' affair with Camilla......However, If when I married my husband, I first began to suspect, and then evidence became obvious that my new husband was carrying on with his long term affair with his mistress...I would be very suspicious of where he was going when he went out. If for example her home was only a few miles from ours I would be concerned when he went off 'hunting' with her. I would also be very suspicious if he was spending the night at certain friends' houses. Which, as a certain tape has provided us with evidence from their own lips, they were carrying on their adultery.

How is this relevant to her legacy? Quite a few people with their own axe to grind like to say 'Oh Diana was unreasonable and then she had an unexplanable and irrational fit'. She put up with a lot for many years and did a lot of good for a lot of people. As someone who had a family member die of AIDS in 1990, she made a difference to me and mine.

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.

 

[Little_star]

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.

Suspicion can be just as upsetting as actual proof imo. In many ways it could be said to be worse as it breeds mistrust and uncertainty.

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.

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

I always thought that Charles represented a "father figure" to Diana and when she didn't get the attention she craved she lashed out.