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.
No, not thousands but the meaning was clear: apparently the late Diana was obsessed with how she was portrayed in media (articles and pictures) and a negative comment or a poor picture could destroy her good feeling for the day. That sounds plausible and very recognizable. How often do we not hear from an actor, a sportsman, an author, a politician that out of the dozens of positive reviews, only the negative one sticks in their mind?

:flowers:

I can imagine that the late Diana, despite reading many positive reviews, "completely went from her à propos" (as we say in France) when she was confronted with negative comments or unflattering photos. This easily can result in an obsession.

I agree. In an earlier post (#1353), anbrida alleged that despite all the positive publicity Diana received from she received from the landmine photo ops, she decided to stop all public duties and move abroad because she was criticized by two Tory ministers--which is a pretty extreme reaction to a little criticism.
 
Diana cared less to the criticism she received over her landmines pictures. She knew tackling bigger issues like that would bring on the critics, and she accepted it.
 
I agree. In an earlier post (#1353), anbrida alleged that despite all the positive publicity Diana received from she received from the landmine photo ops, she decided to stop all public duties and move abroad because she was criticized by two Tory ministers--which is a pretty extreme reaction to a little criticism.

On the surface, it seems she was just being "criticized", who know under the surface, what kind of "warning" she had received. For an instance, when she was on the trip in Angola, the Tory ministers accused her being "loose cannon" and blah, blah. Okay, it looks like people just "criticized" her. Under the surface, in Feb, she got a phone call which warned her "Drop the anti-landmines campaign, you never know when an accident is going to happen". That is from the someone's testimony in the court, not only a story.

And when she decided to go to Bosnia, similar things happened.

"She really needed to help people, but instead I feel that she was 'used' by a couple of institutions and groups. And there was a falling-out with a couple of British charities. When you think about it, when she decided to visit Bosnia she was going with two Americans who were not really part of the so-called `official' circuit. Some people didn't approve and virtually tried to stop her coming. But she ignored them all. As far as she was concerned, she was going to Bosnia as ordinary citizen and no-one could stop her" -- Ken Rutherford

On Aug 21st, she did her last interview with Le Monde, in which she said

"I feel close to people, whoever they are. We're immediately at the same level, on the same wavelength. That's why I upset certain circles. It's because I'm much closer to the people at the bottom than the people at the top, and the latter won't FORGIVE me for it"

Who is the people at the top, who is the people at the bottom? Here is a hint, when she was in Anglo, she said "You have to talk to people at the top to help people at the other end".

You might not believe that, when I write this, I am risking my ID's life. If this can happen to me, how can anyone be so sure that Diana was not under any pressure in private when she did her campaign. So it was possible that she made those decisions because she tried to be obedient, so that they would not harm her.
 
Anbrida, I do understand that people in certain parts of the world can be put in danger when they criticize or upset their governments. However, if the arms manufacturers wanted to kill anyone they would have targeted people who were making serious progress in the ban on landmines: A partial list includes: Jody Williams of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (which later won the Nobel Peace Prize); Shawn Roberts, who wrote a best selling book on the issue; Cambodia's Prince Sihanouk who was one of the first world leaders who spoke out on the issue; Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy who actually negotiated the wording of the treaty; and UNICEF's Jim Grant who was essential to coordinating efforts. Diana's two photo ops and a few letters didn't make nearly the impact of the contributions of the people listed above and many others not mentioned here.


All of the above would have been higher on any "hit list" than Princess Diana. She may have received a crank call or two but if she was so worried, she should have contacted the police and accepted the Queen's offer for royal protection services. The fact that she didn't do either indicates that she didn't take the calls (if they occurred) seriously
 
Last edited:
She was analyzing them, I believe. Early in her years as Princess of Wales, she didn't make many speeches. Even as she made more speeches in later years, her appeal was still largely visual. She used photos as a communication tool. If she was trying to communicate something in particular, and there was a bad picture, she'd be upset about it. She was like a silent-film actress in a way. This didn't apply to the people who saw her or dealt with her in person, but it did apply to those who largely 'knew' her through newspapers and magazines.


So the newspapers did not publish thousands of photos of Diana each day, then how come she had to spend hours and hours each day to go over her photos. Such a blunt lie, and you can not tell. :bang:
 
Not to mention on the last day, Aug 30, the charity for mine victims which Mr Al Fayed Senior had agreed to finance. I don't think people would simply believed Mr Al Fayed Senior would be so angel to finance such a charity for free. Actually he was not, otherwise, after Diana died, if he was such an angel he would continue to set up this charity himself. If Mr Al Fayed Senior had "agreed to" finance this charity, what Diana had "agreed to" in return. Look at the things happened on that day -- the telephone talk with Paul Burrell, Dodi's conversation with other people, tour in the Windsor Villa, the "tell-me-yes" ring -- I don't think I need to be too explicit about what she had "agreed to" in return.


So you see, Diana's involvement was much deeper than two photo "ops".


I simply cannot believe that Diana would ever have agreed to marry a man like Dodi Fayed.

(I always thought she took up with him in the first place as a show of defiance to Charles and the RF. But MARRY him? No way!)
 
:previous: I agree with you on this one, Mirabel. I think that Diana was very idealistic, in her own way. I don't think she'd marry someone as some sort of a quid pro quo. She seemed to see all her relationships with men as great affairs of the heart.:flowers:
 
She told her friend (the Spanish Woman who's name I can't remember) she had no intention of marrying Dodi. That she needed a marriage like a bad rash on her face.


LaRae
 
No, Diana wasn't planning on marrying Dodi. That story came from Dodi's father.
 
There seems to be little appreciable legacy left by the Princess, other than the genes in her sons..

As the years pass, the memory fades, and she becomes a photo of a beautiful woman, just as Marilyn Monroe has..
 
Oh yes that's her....she saw Diana not long before her death.


LaRae
 
Diana cared less to the criticism she received over her landmines pictures. She knew tackling bigger issues like that would bring on the critics, and she accepted it.

I personally don't believe that is true. Diana did care a great deal about public criticism. But, I can truly understand as she was young still fairly immature even though a mother and did enjoy the bright limelight. Nothing wrong with any of that at times, but I don't believe she had the mental attitude to handle at the time. There was just too much going on in her life and not all pretty and to her liking. She was just a very complex girl that should never have married who and when she did. She never found the place we wanted. Shame.
 
There seems to be little appreciable legacy left by the Princess, other than the genes in her sons..

As the years pass, the memory fades, and she becomes a photo of a beautiful woman, just as Marilyn Monroe has..

Aren't fading memories what most people leave? Future kings of England will still have her blood in their veins. Also, I think leaving two sons who love and remember her is a notable achievement.

Anyway, Diana and her achievements in her lifetime are still remembered and discussed today, as we are doing now. As for Marilyn, there are posters and books, and documentaries are still being made about her life and death.
 
She is still be discussed here and in other places. Her photo still appears now and again in some publications. Her son will be King of England, if there is such a thing at that time. She has a grandson, who will also be king. What great legacy will most leave. Queen Mary is remember for the great style and the way she wore jewels, which was beautiful.
 
There seems to be little appreciable legacy left by the Princess, other than the genes in her sons..

As the years pass, the memory fades, and she becomes a photo of a beautiful woman, just as Marilyn Monroe has..

Marilyn Monroe is the very last person Diana would want to be compared to. According to her brother Charles, she hated the comparison and found it incredibly insulting. (I don't blame her one bit.:sad:)

The woman she most identified with was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and during her ill-fated fling with Dodi Fayed she had begun to feel that he could become her Ari Onassis. There are several problems with the Diana/Jackie comparison, among them the fact that Dodi was NO Aristotle Onassis.

Diana and Jackie: Maidens, Mothers, Myths auth. Jay Mulvaney.

For the record, I don't see the slightest similarities in the lives of Diana and Marilyn either, other than that they were attractive blondes who both died tragically at age 36.
 
Last edited:
I always thought Diana and Marilyn were very much alike. They had the same negative personality traits, and the same positive personality traits. They both projected a very human vulnerability, that underlied something darker. They both had the "IT" factor. They both had messy love lives.

I don't think the BRF has ever had a Jackie Kennedy. The Duchess of Cambridge on the other hand, is more a Ethel Kennedy.
 
Kate Cambridge is about as unlike Ethel Skakel Kennedy as is humanly imaginable. Ethel in her heyday was a madcap livewire...hyperactive, blunt to the point of rudeness, wild, fearless, fun loving and extroverted. She was an expert equestrienne, and a risk taker.

She was and still is a devoutly religious Catholic who celebrates Mass daily.

In her youth, Ethel was more like a religious version of Sarah Ferguson(without Sarah's avarice and tendency to adultery)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call Ethel wild. She is definitely quirky and fun, but she always tried to take a more supportive, back seat role to her husband. She didn't chase the limelight the way some of the Kennedy women did. Living in the countryside with her family and pets was her comfort zone.

As for her being devoutly religious, well there sure was a lot of rumours about her and Bobby Darin after Robert's death. Just saying...

She was accused of stalking the Kennedy brothers, the same way Catherine was accused of stalking William. There's more evidence against Ethel.

With their love of skiing, family, supporting roles, and sequestered silliness - I happen to see a lot of similarities between the two women. We have to agree to disagree.

Just like we won't agree on the Diana vs. Marilyn front.
 
I personally don't believe that is true. Diana did care a great deal about public criticism. But, I can truly understand as she was young still fairly immature even though a mother and did enjoy the bright limelight. Nothing wrong with any of that at times, but I don't believe she had the mental attitude to handle at the time. There was just too much going on in her life and not all pretty and to her liking. She was just a very complex girl that should never have married who and when she did. She never found the place we wanted. Shame.

I think this is only your personal opinion. Did Diana really care a great deal about public criticism. No one can speak for her rather than herself. Here is her own words in the Le Monde interview on Aug 21st, 1997.

"Over the years, I had to learn to ignore criticism. But the irony is that it gave me strength that I was far from thinking I had. That doesn't mean it didn't hurt me. To the contrary. But that gave me the strength I needed to continue along the path I had chosen"

She did receive some unfriendly press coverage over her trip to Bosnia. Here is one article published right after her Bosnia Trip (Aug 8-10, 1997). Basically it said her trip to Bosnia was merely a "photo op"

Di's poison rose of Cairo

She may have thought going to Bosnia and doing her touchy-touchy, huggy-huggy, weepy-weepy bit with landmine victims would show up the Windsors yet again.

Not so. All she managed to do was turn it into a horror-chic fashion shoot in her pretty pink Ralph Lauren shirt and Armani jeans.

Her fleeting visit can't have done much for the Bosnians who've had bits of their bodies blown off by these barbaric weapons. Most of them had to be told who she was and seemed bewildered by the attention she brought.

The attention, sadly, had little to do with them - and everything to do with those snogging snaps.

Di's poison rose of Cairo. - Free Online Library


After reading this, I really understand why she said those words in the La Monde Interview.
 
Last edited:
I simply cannot believe that Diana would ever have agreed to marry a man like Dodi Fayed.

(I always thought she took up with him in the first place as a show of defiance to Charles and the RF. But MARRY him? No way!)

Diana took up with Dodi as a show of defiance to Charles and the RF? Do you have any evidence to suggest this, for example, her personal letters, her conversation with people, etc?
 
Just a personal opinion. But after many days of discussion here, I found the biggest problem of this board is people just express their own opinions without providing or only providing very little substantial evidence to support them. I read in another thread that a member said "it seems we know so little about the Royal". I personally think, of course we would know little if we are here just reading other people's opinions instead of real information.
 
Last edited:
Surely that's the difference between opinion and fact? You don't have to provide evidence for your opinion.

Stating your opinion as fact is a different matter.
 
.. to think that having offsprings and giving your genes to another generation is an 'achievment'... oh well, that is the most basic thing a living thing does in this world. I wouldn't call that an 'achievment' in itself ;) - is it such a great achievment in the parents of 18 kids of the 'great unwashed'? mhhh I wonder.

I fear she left pretty little, apart from a little gossip for futur generations - her 'good heart' and her mines activity's .. I doubt there will be much talk about that after our generation, who 'knew' her and her dramas has passed away... In history books she will be mentioned as mother of King William; and disgraced wife of King Charles who died tragically young. In her familys history she will live on longer - just as much as anybody is living on in the familys mind of a history-concious family. Probably much more cherrished in the Spencer-history than that of the Windsors.
 
Last edited:
Surely that's the difference between opinion and fact? You don't have to provide evidence for your opinion.

Stating your opinion as fact is a different matter.
Hostory does not depend on people's opinion. but historical facts. Even 1000 people share the same opinion, without the backup of hiatorical facts, this opinion will has null cintribution to the hiatory.
 
I personally don't believe that is true. Diana did care a great deal about public criticism. But, I can truly understand as she was young still fairly immature even though a mother and did enjoy the bright limelight. Nothing wrong with any of that at times, but I don't believe she had the mental attitude to handle at the time. There was just too much going on in her life and not all pretty and to her liking. She was just a very complex girl that should never have married who and when she did. She never found the place we wanted. Shame.

When Diana first arrived on the royal scene, she was unable to handle the criticism, but after many years of being a HRH The Princess of Wales, she developed confidence over time. She knew some of the issues she was tackling would stir up some critics. Diana wasn't as fragile as some would like to make her out to be. She didn't like harsh criticism, but she didn't let it stop her from helping others.
 
.. to think that having offsprings and giving your genes to another generation is an 'achievment'... oh well, that is the most basic thing a living thing does in this world. I wouldn't call that an 'achievment' in itself ;) - is it such a great achievment in the parents of 18 kids of the 'great unwashed'? mhhh I wonder.

I fear she left pretty little, apart from a little gossip for futur generations - her 'good heart' and her mines activity's .. I doubt there will be much talk about that after our generation, who 'knew' her and her dramas has passed away... In history books she will be mentioned as mother of King William; and disgraced wife of King Charles who died tragically young. In her familys history she will live on longer - just as much as anybody is living on in the familys mind of a history-concious family. Probably much more cherrished in the Spencer-history than that of the Windsors.

Why would Diana be 'a disgraced wife'? Surely if that were true (and in my opinion it's far from the truth) she would not have received the very public funeral that she did.

Disgrace --adultery? Did Charles not commit adultery, and we won't mention Camilla? Disgrace--taped conversations? Well, at least not about sanitary products! Disgrace--giving interviews? Does Charles's interview with Dimbleby not count? Disgraced? I don't think so!
 
Why would Diana be 'a disgraced wife'? Surely if that were true (and in my opinion it's far from the truth) she would not have received the very public funeral that she did.

Disgrace --adultery? Did Charles not commit adultery, and we won't mention Camilla? Disgrace--taped conversations? Well, at least not about sanitary products! Disgrace--giving interviews? Does Charles's interview with Dimbleby not count? Disgraced? I don't think so!


Exactly , and I wonder how Charles will be remembered in a 100 years


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
This is about Diana's legacy - not Charles's or Camilla's. Keep them out of this thread.
 
Why would Diana be 'a disgraced wife'? Surely if that were true (and in my opinion it's far from the truth) she would not have received the very public funeral that she did.

Disgrace --adultery? Did Charles not commit adultery, and we won't mention Camilla? Disgrace--taped conversations? Well, at least not about sanitary products! Disgrace--giving interviews? Does Charles's interview with Dimbleby not count? Disgraced? I don't think so!


Definitely disgraced - read The Treason Act.

On less evidence of treason than Diana provided Anne Boleyn was executed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom