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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Andrew Morton, Diana was trying to build public anger against Charles so that he would be forced to renounce his right to the throne, he and Camilla would leave the country, and Diana would be left to groom William for the throne.

I'm sure she convinced herself that it would be best for William, but she failed to consider whether William and Harry wanted their father to leave the country.
"

If this is true, she also failed to consider that what she was doing was actually treason under the 1702 Treason Act and I would be very surprised if her advisors did not tell her that.
 
I'll remember her has a great person. Diana wasn't perfect but she did great things while she was here by being supportive to Charles, being a good and loving mother and using her royal status to raise awareness for very worthy causes.
 
According to Andrew Morton, Diana was trying to build public anger against Charles so that he would be forced to renounce his right to the throne, he and Camilla would leave the country, and Diana would be left to groom William for the throne.
Thankfully we were spared that.
 
I'll remember her has a great person. Diana wasn't perfect but she did great things while she was here by being supportive to Charles, being a good and loving mother and using her royal status to raise awareness for very worthy causes.

Well at least on one of your three points we can agree.
 
Well at least on one of your three points we can agree.

Lol, it's okay to agree to disagree but I think Diana did her part in supporting Charles, especially early on in their marriage. They travelled across the UK and Commonwealth representing The Queen and the people. There were great times and laughs along the way. I think despite the problems, the Wales's did their duty.
 
I was thinking the same.

Ditto.

To be fair, I think she was incapable of good parenting - she just had too many issues.

I believe, from everything I've read, every reputable source, that she had some sort of mental illness. Yes, I AM an armchair psychiatrist, so take it for what it's worth. But you can no more blame a person for being mentally ill than you can blame a person for being born without a foot. I have seen this condition up close and personal too many times. At times the best that can be said is that a person did the very best they could. It might just be that Diana did the very best she could, even though some of her decisions regarding parenting were questionable indeed. Some of her other decisions were questionable as well. If she thought she was going to oust Charles and Camilla by star power, that smacks of grandiosity.

I don't have a problem with those who want to see Diana in a good light, but I do wish that people would see her in an honest light. She was not some sort of saint. People see her as larger than life. She wasn't. People are idolizing (not saying people HERE, people out there) a woman who I believe was mentally ill. I don't think it's productive or good for society to idolize a mentally ill woman (or anyone for that matter).

JMHO, of course.
 
Diana was starry eyed about being in love with a Prince. I think it was a juvenile way of looking at life, Added to that, Charles was in love with Camillia and had been forbidden to marry her, because she wasn't considered good enough and she wasn"t a virgin. He was trying to do his duty. Added to that was Diana's mental illness or whatever you want to call it. The Bishop that married them said it was an arranged marriage. Diana, herself, even said she didn't think the marriage would work, but thought it was too late to back out. That whole story should be put to rest, as we will never know the entire truth. May she rest in peace.
 
Ditto.

To be fair, I think she was incapable of good parenting - she just had too many issues.

I believe, from everything I've read, every reputable source, that she had some sort of mental illness. Yes, I AM an armchair psychiatrist, so take it for what it's worth. But you can no more blame a person for being mentally ill than you can blame a person for being born without a foot. I have seen this condition up close and personal too many times. At times the best that can be said is that a person did the very best they could. It might just be that Diana did the very best she could, even though some of her decisions regarding parenting were questionable indeed. Some of her other decisions were questionable as well. If she thought she was going to oust Charles and Camilla by star power, that smacks of grandiosity.

I don't have a problem with those who want to see Diana in a good light, but I do wish that people would see her in an honest light. She was not some sort of saint. People see her as larger than life. She wasn't. People are idolizing (not saying people HERE, people out there) a woman who I believe was mentally ill. I don't think it's productive or good for society to idolize a mentally ill woman (or anyone for that matter).

JMHO, of course.

i agree with your opinion, but I want to add that in idolizing Diana, they have demonise Charles and that is not right. I read that people think he has done nothing compared to Diana but he has. he has given his own money in £millions to good causes and to people in distress, the Princes Trust has given opportunities and work to thousands, and he has been a good father.

Agree mistakes on both sides, but with Charles keeping v quiet whenhe must have wanted to shout from the rooftops, especially with the negative comments about Camilla.

But it should be over. DIana allowed to rest in peace, Charles and Camilla to build their lives in service to the country and love their children and grandchildren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
Poor, Poor Charles. Gave so much, got so little. What crap. He was in his 30's, she was 19. His press force has really been at work since her death. Oh, Camilla, barely knew her. Never was her "tampon", etc. Diana should have run. The BRF has only one ideal and that is themselves. Although, I see Kate making a space for herself and child. Would not be possible without her mother-in-law. Spending the first 2 weeks at her mother's house. Wow. Charles was spoiled person, to this day he has someone crack his egg in the morning, yuck!!! He has never earned a dime, and I doubt he has given much away, on a personal level. But I do respect his trust. And, please tell me what is Camilla's big contribution?
 
Poor, Poor Charles. Gave so much, got so little. What crap. He was in his 30's, she was 19. His press force has really been at work since her death. Oh, Camilla, barely knew her. Never was her "tampon", etc. Diana should have run. The BRF has only one ideal and that is themselves. Although, I see Kate making a space for herself and child. Would not be possible without her mother-in-law. Spending the first 2 weeks at her mother's house. Wow. Charles was spoiled person, to this day he has someone crack his egg in the morning, yuck!!! He has never earned a dime, and I doubt he has given much away, on a personal level. But I do respect his trust. And, please tell me what is Camilla's big contribution?

No surprise here then. :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
Giraffe and Cepe, you both bring up really good points.

I will disagree with two things. For starters, Diana is a historical figure so I don't think it's really fair to say that we should simply leave her to rest in peace. That's not what happens with historical figures. If it's alright for us to debate the life and personality of Mary of Teck and George V, Alexandra of Denmark and Edward VII, David and Wallis, etcetera, then it reasons it's also alright for us to debate Diana (and Charles). As a historically inclined individual I believe we can learn a lot through such debates.

I also have a hard time with excusing Diana's behaviour by saying she had a mental illness an therefore can't be blamed. Yes she was mentally unstable, but she should also be held accountable for her actions. They should be explained (in part) by her illness(es), but not excused. To excuse them is to ignore the people that she hurt through her behaviour.

And Countess, you just keep on drinking that koolaid.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not at all. Just the continuing saga about how he suffered and what he gave up. The BRF is hard to fight, they can spew any invective and make it sound true. She is dead, so who cares and a lot of the junk now is many years after the those who are too young have no idea. It doesn't matter any longer. Her sons know the truth. Which is why they have included her in what they do. Her ring on Kate is a huge symbol. Could have been reset. She was no saint, too young, too insecure, fighting selfish and controlling.
 
I also have a hard time with excusing Diana's behaviour by saying she had a mental illness an therefore can't be blamed. Yes she was mentally unstable, but she should also be held accountable for her actions. They should be explained (in part) by her illness(es), but not excused. To excuse them is to ignore the people that she hurt through her behaviour.

.

Bingo !!! I agree 100%
 
Giraffe and Cepe, you both bring up really good points.

I will disagree with two things. For starters, Diana is a historical figure so I don't think it's really fair to say that we should simply leave her to rest in piece. That's not what happens with historical figures. If it's alright for us to debate the life and personality of Mary of Teck and George V, Alexandra of Denmark and Edward VII, David and Wallis, etcetera, then it reasons it's also alright for us to debate Diana (and Charles). As a historically inclined individual I believe we can learn a lot through such debates.

I also have a hard time with excusing Diana's behaviour by saying she had a mental illness an therefore can't be blamed. Yes she was mentally unstable, but she should also be held accountable for her actions. They should be explained (in part) by her illness(es), but not excused. To excuse them is to ignore the people that she hurt through her behaviour.

And Countess, you just keep on drinking that koolaid.

We will have to agree to disagree - but that's ok

Going over this again and again does not change a thing. I don't sit in any particular Diana camp but her life was marred by poor decisions (not only hers) and possibly mental health issues (never been confirmed by medical sources).

I feel that she should be allowed to rest in peace, appreciated for her positive impact on causes such as fighting AIDS and the HALO TRust; and not deified or made greater than she was.
 
The "mentally unstable" stuff comes from the BRF press office. Diane was insecure, stupid and much too young. She was bulimic for a period of time, so say what you will. And she is dead, so the powerful living can make whatever out of her. Sorry. Charles was selfish, self-serving and a reprobate. He hardly can claim the better half. Actually, in this marriage there was no better half. Each as so absorbed with themselves, they gave little time to the marriage. It was the usual royal marriage, i.e. Edward and Alexandra, but it hit the wrong times for Charles.
 
Poor, Poor Charles. Gave so much, got so little. What crap. He was in his 30's, she was 19. His press force has really been at work since her death. Oh, Camilla, barely knew her. Never was her "tampon", etc. Diana should have run. The BRF has only one ideal and that is themselves. Although, I see Kate making a space for herself and child. Would not be possible without her mother-in-law. Spending the first 2 weeks at her mother's house. Wow. Charles was spoiled person, to this day he has someone crack his egg in the morning, yuck!!! He has never earned a dime, and I doubt he has given much away, on a personal level. But I do respect his trust. And, please tell me what is Camilla's big contribution?

Indeed. Poor Prince Charlie T! The Charles and Camilla claque LOVE to gloss over the whole Camillagate tape. CHarles is incredibly spoiled, having way more staff than QEII.
 
Last edited:
The "mentally unstable" stuff comes from the BRF press office. Diane was insecure, stupid and much too young. She was bulimic for a period of time, so say what you will. And she is dead, so the powerful living can make whatever out of her. Sorry. Charles was selfish, self-serving and a reprobate. He hardly can claim the better half. Actually, in this marriage there was no better half. Each as so absorbed with themselves, they gave little time to the marriage. It was the usual royal marriage, i.e. Edward and Alexandra, but it hit the wrong times for Charles.

My post was referring to Diana's legacy - which is what this thread is about.
 
Perhaps ultimately Diana's legacy will best be summed up by that absolutely maudlin ballad performed by Sir Elton at her funeral.
 
To be fair, I think she was incapable of good parenting - she just had too many issues.

I'm glad William & harry have no problem making it known that she was a good mother who loved them very much and they loved her right back.
 
Perhaps ultimately Diana's legacy will best be summed up by that absolutely maudlin ballad performed by Sir Elton at her funeral.

If that's true then I find it interesting that it's stolen from another woman....
 
William & Harry have been honest (countless times) about their feelings (publically) about their mother. They talk about how she was a great mother, her funny side and how she cared about other people and taught them to care for the less fortunate.
 
Its easy to love the dead, they make so few mistakes.
 
On the other hand, they don't have the opportunity to explain or to atone, either.

Unfortunately that is very true. Perhaps one of Diana's legacies is to remind us to try and let go of anger and vindictiveness. It can be terrible to leave children with painful memories.
 
I'm glad that her and Charles were on their way to patching up their relationship before her passing. It was painful but she did go on to accept reality and Charles's relationship with his current wife.

I never try to make excuses for Charles & Diana's past inappropriate actions but I do understand that when there's infidelity involved on both sides, that can cause a great deal of pain and anger and sometimes it causes the spouses to act out their anger and pain. That's just reality and when it's being done in public, whether you're famous or not, it can be an ugly site.

I don't try to put one person down and try to make the other look good or even less responsible but I hold both their feet to the fire and try to be fair as possible.
 
They were having similar problems like any regular commoner might have- with a divorce-rate of ca 50% many people know how it feels to have that sort of problems Diana & Charles had to go through. They only did not have the media to publicise their issues & arguments and they also did not have to represent a royal family...
 
Which is why I always point out that the royals are just like everyone else. They are born or married into an old institution but they are normal human beings like us all and they aren't perfect and go through family and personal issues like the rest of us. We on the other hand, have the privilege of not having everyone in our business and blowing up our issues as if it's the worst thing in the world.
 
Yes, you make a good point. There are treatments for mental illnesses, and perhaps she should have investigated those more rather than indulging in new-age therapies and occult practitioners. But then isn't denial a huge part of serious mental illness? I realize that her having a mental illness has never been "medically confirmed", but it wouldn't be. That will be up for the historians to discover when things are unsealed some time in the future.


I also have a hard time with excusing Diana's behaviour by saying she had a mental illness an therefore can't be blamed. Yes she was mentally unstable, but she should also be held accountable for her actions. They should be explained (in part) by her illness(es), but not excused. To excuse them is to ignore the people that she hurt through her behaviour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom