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

[US Royal Watcher]

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..

I think Diana still has an appreciable legacy but it is only natural that memories of Diana will fade over time. When people study the 1980's and 1990's people will discuss her impact on fashion, tabloid journalism, her charity work, and her influence on the reigns of King Charles and King William.

What some people don't understand is that when they exaggerate the impact of her charity work, they actually minimize it. They are basically saying that the truth isn't impressive on its own, so they have to argue that Diana was so much more compassionate and loving than everyone else.

Diana could be compassionate and loving with people who were in physical pain. But, frankly, it isn't hard to show compassion to very sick children and their families. Her gift was being able to convey that compassion through a camera because she was very videogenic. I don't call that an accomplishment.

Diana did little on AIDS prevention but she helped demonstrate that AIDS is not spread by casual contact, which was important at the time. The campaign to ban landmines was actually quite successful before Diana got involved, but she did bring a lot of publicity, which generated new energy to the drafters of the treaty. I'm sure the photo ops helped international relief organizations raise money, which is always a great accomplishment.

I hope that over the years, people will accept the truth about Diana, that she was mentally ill--through no fault of her own. She tried to overcome it and was able to make some very positive contributions but her dark moods also hurt a lot of her friends of family. It's the extremes in her personality that make her so interesting.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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.

She never had an affair with Bobby Darin. She had a widely reported romance with Andy Williams, but in the end refused to marry him because she said she "could see Bobby looking at me from Heaven" and she still considered herself his wife.(her EXACT quote by the way)


The fact that a woman has a brief romantic involvement after the death of her husband has no bearing on the fact that she is deeply religious. Ethel attends Mass and receives the Sacrament daily, something I am willing to wager has never been Kate's custom.(daily church attendance)

Nor did she ever "stalk the Kennedy brothers". She didn't have to. She first met Bobby in Mont Tremblant, Canada on a ski holiday in the late 1940's and he fell for her sister Patricia first. The feelings were not mutual. Ethel sat miserably in the wings and had decided to become a nun. Bobby's sister Jean played matchmaker for the two, and Bobby finally fell in love with Ethel and persuaded her to forget about being a nun and marry him instead...which happened June 17, 1950.

Mission accomplished in about 3-4 years... no stalking required.

She wouldn't have bothered with Jack...she wasn't his type and she was sensible enough to know it.

I'm not sure where you get your information or your sources, but I've been reading about Ethel and the Kennedys since I was a small child and with all due respect miss whirley your information is completely incorrect.

"The Kennedy Women" by Laurence Leamer
"Ethel, Jackie, and Joan" by Randy Taraborrelli
"The Other Mrs. Kennedy-The Story of Mrs. Robert Kennedy" by Jerry Oppenheimer
"A Woman Named Ethel" by Lester David
"Ethel"....HBO documentary nominated for awards at the Sundance Film Festival

As for Diana vs. Marilyn, I am not denying that there are a few surface similarities. But I am just reporting that it's a comparison that Diana found unflattering and I have had quoted at least one source for that information.

 

[Mirabel]

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?

Although I don't recall where I read this, I know some of Diana's intimates thought she was through with Dodi, and planned to end their relationship once she was back in England.

Let's face it, Dodi was a sleazy sort. Diana had to have known that.

As for why I believe she took up with him as a show of defiance, it is because the Fayeds have tried for years to enter the upper echelons of British society. I think it became something of a joke that they were shut out.
Your views may differ.

 

[Dman]

I think Diana still has an appreciable legacy but it is only natural that memories of Diana will fade over time. When people study the 1980's and 1990's people will discuss her impact on fashion, tabloid journalism, her charity work, and her influence on the reigns of King Charles and King William.

What some people don't understand is that when they exaggerate the impact of her charity work, they actually minimize it. They are basically saying that the truth isn't impressive on its own, so they have to argue that Diana was so much more compassionate and loving than everyone else.

Diana could be compassionate and loving with people who were in physical pain. But, frankly, it isn't hard to show compassion to very sick children and their families. Her gift was being able to convey that compassion through a camera because she was very videogenic. I don't call that an accomplishment.

Diana did little on AIDS prevention but she helped demonstrate that AIDS is not spread by casual contact, which was important at the time. The campaign to ban landmines was actually quite successful before Diana got involved, but she did bring a lot of publicity, which generated new energy to the drafters of the treaty. I'm sure the photo ops helped international relief organizations raise money, which is always a great accomplishment.

I hope that over the years, people will accept the truth about Diana, that she was mentally ill--through no fault of her own. She tried to overcome it and was able to make some very positive contributions but her dark moods also hurt a lot of her friends of family. It's the extremes in her personality that make her so interesting.

I think a great deal of people have come to understand the truth about Diana, and not the twisted stories and false diagnoses that's been placed on her.

Diana wasn't a mentally ill woman. Sure she had a messed up childhood, and as young woman, she had an eating disorder, but Diana wasn't mentally off the rails. She was a young lady that was thrown into an extraordinary situation and struggled to find her place for several years. Over time in her new lifestyle, she grew into a nice young woman; wife, mother and princess. Due to her and her husbands terrible mistakes, her marriage fell, but she continued on serving the people by supporting numerous charities and other organizations.

Diana, Princess of Wales wasn't a saintly public figure. That's the stamp that was placed on her memory by the world's press after her tragic death. She didn't try to come off as perfect, but as a person who was human, and she did her best to use her position to help other people.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think a great deal of people have come to understand the truth about Diana, and not the twisted stories and false diagnoses that's been placed on her.

Diana wasn't a mentally ill woman. Sure she had a messed up childhood, and as young woman, she had an eating disorder, but Diana wasn't mentally off the rails. She was a young lady that was thrown into an extraordinary situation and struggled to find her place for several years. Over time in her new lifestyle, she grew into a nice young woman; wife, mother and princess. Due to her and her husbands terrible mistakes, her marriage fell, but she continued on serving the people by supporting numerous charities and other organizations.

Diana, Princess of Wales wasn't a saintly public figure. That's the stamp that was placed on her memory by the world's press after her tragic death. She didn't try to come off as perfect, but as a person who was human, and she did her best to use her position to help other people.

An eating disorder IS a mental illness. She also admitted that she suffered from depression, which is also a mental illness. Many people, including me, believe that she suffered from a personality disorder, which is true for about 60 percent of people who suffer from bulimia.

Unfortunately, some of her fans continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or negative personality trait. It is not. It is a medical condition, not an insult.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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.

I don't think that accepting Diana's word at face value proves or disproves anything. First of all, there are few tapes, so we have to rely on the memory and honesty of the person who relays the quote.

Also, we have to judge people not just by their words, but by their actions. If I claim that I don't like to shop, my husband can present evidence that I do. Diana may have claimed that she didn't care about her own publicity, but when several observers--including her friends--say they observed behavior that suggests otherwise, such as pouring over her daily news clips and calling reporters.

 

[soapstar]

This thread is not about Ethel Kennedy or Kate. If you wish to discuss the Kennedy's please do so in the Kennedy Family thread. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

[Dman]

An eating disorder IS a mental illness. She also admitted that she suffered from depression, which is also a mental illness. Many people, including me, believe that she suffered from a personality disorder, which is true for about 60 percent of people who suffer from bulimia.

Unfortunately, some of her fans continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or negative personality trait. It is not. It is a medical condition, not an insult.

She had some issues that took some time to work out, but she wasn't mentally ill. Diana wasn't no longer suffering from an eating disorder in the late 80's and early 90's. It was an issue she studied on and got under control. There's no proof that Diana had a personality disorder. She went through a tough time in her personal life, but there's no proof of Diana having a personality disorder.

I was a Diana fan, but I know how to face facts about her, and I don't make it a habit to misdiagnose her and dismiss her as a total mental case.

 

[Nice Nofret]

'disgraced wife' because life isn't fair, and memories arent fair. She lost in the end (early death, cheating, not beeng Queen, ongoing doubts about the paternity of Harry - (IMHO Harry is very much Charles Son - he has enought Windsor in his looks to show that) so YES, I believe she will be remembered in not too far a distance as a disgraced wife.... That Charles cheated - oh well - you know, he is a man ...

This is not what I wish for, but this is the normal working of time - do look back in history, how other people and there memories faided away.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

She had some issues that took some time to work out, but she wasn't mentally ill. Diana wasn't no longer suffering from an eating disorder in the late 80's and early 90's. It was an issue she studied on and got under control. There's no proof that Diana had a personality disorder. She went through a tough time in her personal life, but there's no proof of Diana having a personality disorder.

I was a Diana fan, but I know how to face facts about her, and I don't make it a habit to misdiagnose her and dismiss her as a total mental case.

I have a lot of facts about Diana too. She was on anti-depressants in the last few years, which help control the symptoms of the eating disorder, but she remained mentally ill. Diana admitted she was mentally ill and she continued to be treated up until the day of her death. We can dispute the efficacy of some of the healers she consulted, but she was in treatment.

Diana was prone to mood swings throughout her life. She was not the joy to be around that you described. This was demonstrated by the fact that she had cut off most of her friends, mostly without without warning, which is a symptom of mental illness. For example, she hadn't spoken with her good friend Fergie because Fergie accused her of having warts. Her actions disprove your theory that Diana didn't care about her public image or publicity.

You claim that she was passionate about her charities, yet she drastically cut back on her charitable work the last few years of her life and left no money to them in her will. I don't have the number of public appearances she made for charities in 1997, but I am confident that the actual numbers will prove that she spent more time on vacations and shopping.

You deny her illness because you think it reflects negatively on her. In fact, I think one of Diana's greatest achievements is that she started to destigmatize eating disorders. Unfortunately, she sought to cast blame for her illness instead of accepting that it was beyond her control. I tend to think that had she lived, she would have accepted that her illness didn't make her weak.

 

[Dman]

I have a lot of facts about Diana too. She was on anti-depressants in the last few years, which help control the symptoms of the eating disorder, but she remained mentally ill. Diana admitted she was mentally ill and she continued to be treated up until the day of her death. We can dispute the efficacy of some of the healers she consulted, but she was in treatment.

Diana was prone to mood swings throughout her life. She was not the joy to be around that you described. This was demonstrated by the fact that she had cut off most of her friends, mostly without without warning, which is a symptom of mental illness. For example, she hadn't spoken with her good friend Fergie because Fergie accused her of having warts. Her actions disprove your theory that Diana didn't care about her public image or publicity.

You claim that she was passionate about her charities, yet she drastically cut back on her charitable work the last few years of her life and left no money to them in her will. I don't have the number of public appearances she made for charities in 1997, but I am confident that the actual numbers will prove that she spent more time on vacations and shopping.

You deny her illness because you think it reflects negatively on her. In fact, I think one of Diana's greatest achievements is that she started to destigmatize eating disorders. Unfortunately, she sought to cast blame for her illness instead of accepting that it was beyond her control. I tend to think that had she lived, she would have accepted that her illness didn't make her weak.

I'm not saying that Diana's personal issues made her weak. I'm saying, Diana had an eating disorder, but she got it under control and publically admitted that she was no longer suffering from it. She did her homework on bulimia nervosa and took some over her situation.

Diana had a nice group of friends, but like all friendships, the relationships have it's ups and downs.

Diana spent a great deal of her time working with her charities and other organizations. She made a great deal of public appearances, but she also made a great deal of unofficial private visits to her charities, hospitals and centers. She cut back on a hundred of patronages, to focus on a select few that she could really be hands on with. Diana also auctioned off many of her famous dresses for charity. Many of the dresses continue to raise money for worthy causes.

Yes, Diana had some mula and could afford to go shopping and take a nice vacation when she could. That's not a crime. I think many people do this.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm not saying that Diana's personal issues made her weak. I'm saying, Diana had an eating disorder, but she got it under control and publically admitted that she was no longer suffering from it. She did her homework on bulimia nervosa and took some over her situation.

Diana had a nice group of friends, but like all friendships, the relationships have it's ups and downs.

Diana spent a great deal of her time working with her charities and other organizations. she made a great deal of public appearances, but she also made a great deal of unofficial private visits to her charities, hospitals and centers. She cut back on a hundred of patronages, to focus on a select few that she could really be hands on with. Diana also auctioned off many of her famous dresses for charity. Many of the dresses continue to raise money for worthy causes.

Andrew Morton's book, Diana, Her New Life, revealed that she took anti-depressants. One cannot overcome bulimia by simply doing homework--it is a mental illness. Some people can control their symptoms but that doesn't mean they are cured. Some people go into remission and others remain actively ill throughout their lives. We don't understand why. Diana was taking anti-depressants and she was seeing a counselor because she knew she was mentally ill and needed the assistance.

Most friendships have ups and downs but most of us don't cut off our friends without warning. It can be a symptom of mental illness when a person cuts off many friends in a short period of time.

I think that using the dress auction to claim that Princess Diana was passionately involved in her charities is almost silly. Most people donate old usable clothes to charity but, like Diana, we expend little energy doing so. What else was she going to do with the dresses? She certainly wasn't planning to wear them again.

Diana's clothes raised money because of who she was, not the amount of time she spent going through her closet. It wasn't even her idea, it was William's. The auctions raised a lot of money and she got some great publicity--something she craved. I would be more impressed if she had left some money to charity in her will.

 

[Dman]

Andrew Morton's book, Diana, Her New Life, revealed that she took anti-depressants. One cannot overcome bulimia by simply doing homework--it is a mental illness. Some people can control their symptoms but that doesn't mean they are cured. Some people go into remission and others remain actively ill throughout their lives. We don't understand why. Diana was taking anti-depressants and she was seeing a counselor because she knew she was mentally ill and needed the assistance.

Most friendships have ups and downs but most of us don't cut off our friends without warning. It can be a symptom of mental illness when a person cuts off many friends in a short period of time.

I think that using the dress auction to claim that Princess Diana was passionately involved in her charities is almost silly. Most people donate old usable clothes to charity but, like Diana, we expend little energy doing so. What else was she going to do with the dresses? She certainly wasn't planning to wear them again.

Diana's clothes raised money because of who she was, not the amount of time she spent going through her closet. It wasn't even her idea, it was William's. The auctions raised a lot of money and she got some great publicity--something she craved. I would be more impressed if she had left some money to charity in her will.

I have friends who cut me off without a warning, and I don't believe they're mentally ill. Friendships come and go, that's called life!

Yes, William gave the idea to Diana to auction off her dresses for charity. Yes, her being a famous member of the royal family helped with the auction. One of the main reasons why many of the royals charitable patronages do so well, is because of the enormous attention the royals have and they use their public platform to shine light on worthy causes.

I notice some people like to dismiss Diana's love for her charities and for the people to pretty much nothing. I think that's very much unfair and very unnecessary. One doesn't have to like Diana, that's your prerogative, but let's not try to tarnish her memory and the great things she did while she was here. Her life was short, but it meant something. She was a great mother and did her thing as HRH The Princess of Wales. She wasn't perfect and she had her own personal issues, but she cared for others who suffered from aids, cancer, homelessness, landmine victims, leprosy and other countless issues. She used her royal position to help shine some light on others who needed it, and no one on the internet can take that from her.

 

[anbrida]

I don't think that accepting Diana's word at face value proves or disproves anything. First of all, there are few tapes, so we have to rely on the memory and honesty of the person who relays the quote.

Also, we have to judge people not just by their words, but by their actions. If I claim that I don't like to shop, my husband can present evidence that I do. Diana may have claimed that she didn't care about her own publicity, but when several observers--including her friends--say they observed behavior that suggests otherwise, such as pouring over her daily news clips and calling reporters.

I think you are talking about Diana's words with respect to "criticism from press". Here is my opinion.

First, she had openly talked about this. That means she had thought about the issue of "criticism from press" on a CONSCIOUS level. She had consciously expected that some of her actions would draw criticism on herself. Unconsciously, sure she would be hurt. But consciously she knew she should draw strength from this criticism and continue on the path she had chosen for herself. If a people had already realized the existence of a certain issue and consciously knowing what was the right way to deal with them, then we can not totally dismiss this person's state of mind to the otherwise.

Second, sure, even if she was consciously knowing what was the right way to do, it doesn't mean she would follow it strictly. We always need our actions to back up our words. Diana said those words on Aug 21st, 1997. I think she had a specific reason to say them at that moment. We all know, during that period, she had openly started a relationship with Dodi. Now, with much more information available to us, especially her three thank-you notes, her co-workers' memoirs, her own words during the Mid-August trip to Bosnia,

"The reporters and photographers have made my life horrible, so I would like to make their life horrible by taking them to places they normally otherwise would not visit and covering issues they normally otherwise would not cover"

and her tipping paparazzo herself to take intimate photos of her and Dodi. We can reasonably deduce that she did that on purpose to draw attention in order to make her voice louder when she attended the Landmine conference.

However, her relationship with Dodi had drawn a great deal of criticism on her. But had these criticism deterred her? No, even Kelly Fisher's didn't. What such actions had showed us was definitely not a mentally weak person, but a very strong person who was extremely focused on her own goal.

 

[anbrida]

The concept of including victim assistance language wasn't particularly controversial. Common sense would tell you that no one involved in drafting the anti-landmine treaty was opposed to assisting victims--the drafters were involved because they against the use of landmines because landmines hurt people.

I would agree with you that Diana had few contribution to the "Ban" issue. But that was not her focus, because it was a political issue. What exercised Diana most was victim assistance, which was a humanitarian topic. Load Deede's article (Oct 1997) had already told us about that

However, I couldn't agree with you that victim assistance topic was not controversial. The LSN report gave two fundamental reasons why policy makers were reluctant to include victim assistance language in the treaty.

(I) Most wealthy countries were reluctant to take on that kind of responsibility for the effects that many of their landmines had caused in developing countries -- LSN report

First of all, we should know that the victims got injured through no fault of their own. Most landmine accidents happen in peaceful time; most victims are not combat forces but civilians. However, since landmines are triggered by the victims themselves, there is no direct liability to their injures. They have to take on all their suffering by themselves. Among them a lot of victims were farmers, the lost of limbs had a more severe effect on their lives. That is why the mine victims' situation were particularly miserable.

Why these tragedies would happen? Fundamentally, they happened due to the lack of self-destruct mechanism of landmines. Therefore, mine manufacturers should assume some form of liability to pay damages consequent upon their defective product. The LSN report and a couple of professional papers have studied on this issue on behalf of mine victims.

Reference:
[1] Hoover, Reynold N., "Landmine Liability: Holding Manufacturers Responsible for the Cost of Victim Compensation", 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 121 (1997-1998)
[2] Tara Ashtakala, "Landmine Monitor Report 2000: Producer Liability", Landmine Monitor, 2000.
[3] Richard R. Murray, Kelly L. Fabian, "Compensating the World's Landmine Victims: Legal Liability and Anti-Personnel Landmine Producers", Seton Hall Law Review, Vol 33, Issue 2, 2003.

Here are some arguments why the manufacturers and their states have obligation to compensate mine victims.

Strong argument can be made that states are legally obliged to assist or compensate mine victims. The use of mines violates two basic principles of international humanitarian law. Landmines scattered over large areas likely to be used by civilians during or after a conflict do not distinguish between military and civilian targets. This violates the principle of discrimination, which holds that weapons must be able to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Landmine injuries also inflict much more severe injuries than other conventional weapons and often result in excessive injury or suffering to civilians. This violates the principle that prohibits attacks that produce “unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. Violations of humanitarian law trigger a duty to compensate or assist victims of those violations. Therefore, the unlawful use of landmines generates a legal obligation to assist mine victims -- LSN report.

None of these products could distinguish between combatants and civilians, and most landmine producers made no effort to reduce the threat to post-conflict civilians by including simple and readily available mechanisms to self-destructor self-deactivate the landmines after a certain time period reasonable for their intended uses.

A landmine is no different than most other products —- it is a good supplied to others for use. Manufacturers of landmines should be held liable, just as other manufacturers are held responsible and accountable, for the dangerous condition of or defects in their products. In order to compensate innocent civilian victims and prevent future injuries, producers of landmines must take responsibility for the damage their products have caused and continue to cause. [3]

Moreover, 1997 is a sensitive year to talk about manufacturer liability. A worldwide lawsuit against tobacco producers was on the show in the same year. On 20 June 1997, the "Global Settlement Agreement" was proposed. It called for payment from tobacco producer to the states of $368.5 billion. The general theory of these lawsuits was that the cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems among the population, which in turn resulted in significant costs to the states' public health system. The same logic can be applied to landmines. Due the defectives of land mines, they causes unnecessary injures to the innocent civilians during peaceful time, which in turn resulted in significant costs to the affected countries. This on-going event would make the policy makers more wary about the talk of legal obligation to assist landmine victims.

Fundamentally, the mine victims were not asking mercy from the international society, they were asking for their justice and their legal right to be represented in the Treaty. It seesm Diana herself have a similar idea

Even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons, this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the Globe. "The evil that men do, lives after them." And so, it seems to me, there rests a certain obligation upon the rest of us. -- Princess Diana

However, even though mine victims were absolutely entitled to some form of compensation for their rehalibilation, they were too weak and their voice was too low, chance was very slim if there wasn't huge press coverage about their situations. That is why it is necessary to use some manner to bring press coverage on them.

(II) Because it would then be a precedent in international law -- LSN Report.

The advanced countries take it as self-granted freedom to sell, or not rarely at all, to give for free their weapons to the poor countries to support their representatives there in all kinds of wars, without needing to worry about taking any responsibility for the casualties or injures their advanced weapons will cause to the civilians there. Landmine is just one type of these weapons. Since as the LSN report put it, ``the inclusion of mine victim assistance language would require states to accept certain affirmative duties toward towards individuals", this would set up a precedent of manufacteruer countries' responsibility towards individuals' loss caused by their weapons, which would fundamentally harm their ``freedom" to dump weapons anywhere without taking any responsibility of the consequence.

On the surface, it looks like the talk of assistance to mine victims is so charitable that it would not be a sophisticate issue at all. However the potential legal liability issue and the precedent it would set make it a forbidden topic in the treaty. The topic of victim assistance wasn't less controversial than the "Ban" itself.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

It's very difficult to discuss the complicated process of drafting treaty language in a forum like this, but I will try. First, the issue of liability for the injuries arising from tobacco use is irrelevant to the landmine issue. You are comparing apples to parsnip.


The liability of tobacco companies was decided by the court system, not treaty obligation. The courts ruled that the tobacco companies misled consumers about the safety of their product. Landmine manufacturers did not suppress evidence that their product was dangerous.


As I indicated in one of my posts, there were concerns about including victims' assistance language in the treaty, but the concept was not particularly controversial among the people who drafted the treaty. Some people were concerned that creating a treaty obligation to assist victims of landmines would have required that landmine victims received priority over virtually everyone else, regardless of need. I'm not sure Diana understood that was an issue.


The people who were drafting the treaty did not need to be reminded about the victims. This issue was raised by some NGOs in 1996, before Diana got involved in landmines. There were some objections but no one was drastically opposed. The compromise language would have been included even if Diana had never gotten involved.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It's very difficult to discuss the complicated process of drafting treaty language in a forum like this, but I will try. First, the issue of liability for the injuries arising from tobacco use is irrelevant to the landmine issue. You are comparing apples to parsnip.

The liability of tobacco companies was decided by the court system, not treaty obligation. The courts ruled that the tobacco companies misled consumers about the safety of their product. Landmine manufacturers did not suppress evidence that their product was dangerous.

As I indicated in one of my posts, there were concerns about including victims' assistance language in the treaty, but the concept was not particularly controversial among the people who drafted the treaty. Some people were concerned that creating a treaty obligation to assist victims of landmines would have required that landmine victims received priority over virtually everyone else, regardless of need. I'm not sure Diana understood that was an issue.

The people who were drafting the treaty did not need to be reminded about the victims. This issue was raised by some NGOs in 1996, before Diana got involved in landmines. There were some objections but no one was drastically opposed. The compromise language would have been included even if Diana had never gotten involved.

Amazing that TRF has someone with your background, US Royal Watcher, to make all this clear. I find myself being engrossed in this aspect of the conversation. I've learned a lot, and you are, of course, exactly right in your analysis. Many, many thanks.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Amazing that TRF has someone with your background, US Royal Watcher, to make all this clear. I find myself being engrossed in this aspect of the conversation. I've learned a lot, and you are, of course, exactly right in your analysis. Many, many thanks.

I hope I haven't left the impression that I was someone important. My background is that I worked for an international relief organization. Landmines were not its only focus, but we were one of the members of the the coalition that made up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I was assigned to represent my employer at conferences where these issues were discussed and I helped to forge compromises. The most controversial issue was whether the treaty would include a ban on cluster bombs.

During my employment, I travelled to countries who were affected by landmines, including Cambodia, Mozambique, and Somalia. I was privileged to met some incredible aid workers who lived and worked in primitive conditions, sometimes risking their lives to help others.

I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I hope I haven't left the impression that I was someone important. My background is that I worked for an international relief organization. Landmines were not its only focus, but we were one of the members of the the coalition that made up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I was assigned to represent my employer at conferences where these issues were discussed and I helped to forge compromises. The most controversial issue was whether the treaty would include a ban on cluster bombs.

During my employment, I travelled to countries who were affected by landmines, including Cambodia, Mozambique, and Somalia. I was privileged to met some incredible aid workers who lived and worked in primitive conditions, sometimes risking their lives to help others.

I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.

Fascinating work. You make excellent points. You never came across as putting yourself forward as someone important. Just so you know.

IMO there is a big difference between 'the talent' out front drawing attention to a problem, or trying to spark interest for donations, and those who do the nitty-gritty work 'in the trenches'. 'The talent' knows that they are inconvenienced (if at all) minimally, or for a few hours, maybe a day. Often there are perks associated with doing such work, in fact: travel to exotic locations, being well-housed if not actually receiving an honorarium, meeting fascinating people doing exceptional work. 'The talent' can even start to be seen as an 'expert', someone to speak for the cause - a two-edged sword.

Anyway, thank you yet again for sharing your knowledge in the matter.

 

[Mermaid1962]

My impression is that Diana's effectiveness in the matter was drawing attention to it. For myself, I'd never really thought about landmines until Diana made her visit to Angola. (Why would I have? I've never lost a limb or a person to a landmine. I don't live in a country that's littered with them. I knew someone involved with the Ottawa Accord process but never talked about it with him.) For that reason, I do tend to connect Diana with the landmine issue. But that's the only reason. She was a mouthpiece for the Red Cross to publicize the problem, and I think that she understood that. We saw what she could do when given a real-life issue to publicize. I thought her work on the documentary was professional and very much focused on the victims and the conditions in Angola. I have no doubt, however, that putting a spotlight on the issue in the public mind--simply because of who she was--was the largest part of what she did. I don't believe that she performed a great humanitarian act, and she didn't seem to think of having her will amended to include funds for landmine victims. Her trip to Bosnia, sadly, was her 'swan song'.

I always think of them when I read about "Diana's campaign to ban landmines." She was played a part, but a small part--but I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was a major player. It was a privilege to be involved.

 

[Dman]

My impression is that Diana's effectiveness in the matter was drawing attention to it. For myself, I'd never really thought about landmines until Diana made her visit to Angola. (Why would I have? I've never lost a limb or a person to a landmine. I don't live in a country that's littered with them. I knew someone involved with the Ottawa Accord process but never talked about it with him.) For that reason, I do tend to connect Diana with the landmine issue. But that's the only reason. She was a mouthpiece for the Red Cross to publicize the problem, and I think that she understood that. We saw what she could do when given a real-life issue to publicize. I thought her work on the documentary was professional and very much focused on the victims and the conditions in Angola. I have no doubt, however, that putting a spotlight on the issue in the public mind--simply because of who she was--was the largest part of what she did. I don't believe that she performed a great humanitarian act, and she didn't seem to think of having her will amended to include funds for landmine victims. Her trip to Bosnia, sadly, was her 'swan song'.

Diana also bought landmines to my attention. Anytime, I hear or see anything to do with landmines, my first thoughts are with Diana and the images of her walking through the landmines field.

I think the 'Concert for Diana' did a great job in highlighting her humanitarian work. Her refforts had a major impact.

 

[Osipi]

This has been a very interesting and informative discussion.

What comes to mind for me is the saying "there are no small parts only small actors". Everyone that contributes to a cause is important. Without the dedication of those that work tirelessly to make things happen, there would be no need for a spokesperson and without a spokesperson, the dedicated workers have a harder road to travel.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. Each needs the other.

"Without the dedication of those that work tirelessly to make things happen, there would be no need for a spokesperson and without a spokesperson, the dedicated workers have a harder road to travel."

 

[anbrida]

As I indicated in one of my posts, there were concerns about including victims' assistance language in the treaty, but the concept was not particularly controversial among the people who drafted the treaty. Some people were concerned that creating a treaty obligation to assist victims of landmines would have required that landmine victims received priority over virtually everyone else, regardless of need. I'm not sure Diana understood that was an issue.

The people who were drafting the treaty did not need to be reminded about the victims. This issue was raised by some NGOs in 1996, before Diana got involved in landmines. There were some objections but no one was drastically opposed. The compromise language would have been included even if Diana had never gotten involved.

First, I am not sure whether this is the only concern the drafter had, and I am not sure whether all their concerns were totally selfless. They wouldn't tell us everything right? And I am not sure whether the compromise language would have been included if Diana had never gotten involved, because we see, in the first draft of the treaty (June 24-27, 1997), there was not one word about victims assistance at all. The things you told me doesn't match the history I know.

Here is a piece of real history. When the first draft came out in June 1997, there was no one words about victim assistance in it. However some language of victim assistance did appear in the final draft which was negociated in from Sep 1-18 in Olso. Nevertheless, charity was the only form of assistance the treaty promised, which means no party has to bear any form of obligation towards mine victims. Time would tell us whether such soft language would be helpful. In Sep 2009, a groundbreaking report "Voice From the Ground" by Handicap International showed that "despite progress in stockpile destruction and landmine clearance, governments around the world are not living up to their promises to treat and reintegrate landmine survivors into society. Ironically, the preface of the report reads "When asked if they had a final comment, survivors most often said that this survey was an opportunity to get people to finally...LISTEN TO US". Pratically speaking, those soft languages on victim assistance in the final draft is only a placebo. And according to Jerry White, Diana, who just died several days before the conference, wanted STRONG language on rehabilitating mine victims in the treaty. She was preparing her speech right before she died. Actually, according to Simone simmon's testimony in the court, she had been even secretly gathering information of landmine producers herself.

"She did a lot of research on landmines asking questions of people on the ground, checking with those in authority whom she had met as the Princess of Wales, cross-examining anyone she met who knew something about the subject. She compiled a dossier which she claimed would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from their proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS, which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names', she declared. She intended to call her report 'Profiting Out Of Misery'" -- Simone Simmons

References:
[1] "Landmine Survivors Call on Governments to Live Up to their Mine Ban Treaty Promises", ICBL Report, 26 Aug 2009.
[2] "Voices From the Ground", Handicap International, 2009.
[3] "Hearing of Inquest into the Deaths of Diana and Dodi { Simone Simmons", 10 Jan 2008
morning.

Second, even though the policy makers had their concerns, whatever they were, so what! Other people also have their own concerns, for example the welfare of the victims, and these people had very strong arguement to suppor their appeal too. Just because they were policy makers, their concerns were primary, while others' were secondary? It is not a ditatorship system right? At the end, it all depends on which side could recruit more support.

Third, on whether the topic was controversial or not. Well, I don't want to use such a subjective word, because it all subject to personal opinion. All I know is the fact that before the landmine conference in Olso, there were two groups of people who had a totally opposit appeal on one issue. Both had their own concerns, and both had their reasonable arguements, and one group was obviously trying very hard to attract attention and press coverage, and then suddenly ...

Forth, about the worry that the mine victims would have priority over other, why not? The priority just should be put on the mine victims. Why it is necessary to ban landmine, not any other weapons? It is because landmine was a very inhuman weapon. They stayed in the ground decades after the war had ended (because of the neglection of mine manufacturer to put an self-destruct mechanism in it), and therefore it will injure innocent civilians for many years. In a word, the ultimate goal to have such a treaty is to protect potential mine victims. However, as what Diana said in her speech, only ban was not enough, because there were already millions of landmines in the ground. Inevitablly, there would be more victims sufferring from these reamaing weapons even after they were banned. It is very reasonable, morally and legally, to put some language to ensure the assitance for these potential mine victims.

Even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons, this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the Globe. ``The evil that men do, lives after them."

And so, it seems to me, there rests a certain obligation upon the rest of us...

If an international ban on mines can be secured it means, looking far ahead, that the world may be a safer place for this generation's grandchildren.

But for this generation in much of the developing world, there will be no relief, no relaxation. The toll of deaths and injuries caused by mines already there, will continue.

Fifth, of course the case of mine producer liability was not exactly identical to the Tobacco producer liability. But public would not have such knowledge to distinguish them. Plus the tobacco lawsuit was a big event in 1997, it drew a lot of press coverage. Therefore it would help to bring press coverage to mine victim's case too. See who would get more sympathy? The victims or the weapon producers?

 

[AdmirerUS]

anbrida - thanks for this wonderful non-revisionist research.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

There are many reasons that some people had concerns about prioritizing aid for landmine victims over other victims. Funds are limited and prioritizing one set of victims over another is not always good policy. Losing a limb is very traumatic, regardless of whether a person is the victim of a landmine, an earthquake or the Revolutionary United Front. I know some people only care about landmine victims but there are a lot of people suffering all over the world.

About 26,000 people a year are injured by landmines, less than 10% of the estimated 300,000 people who die as a result of violent conflict and war. There are also 2.5 million children who die of hunger related causes annually and 1.5 million children who die of diseases that could be prevented with vaccinations. Why do you believe that Diana would have believed that landmine victims should be prioritized ahead of all others? International aid agencies need flexibility in order to ensure the people most in need receive services regardless of why they need assistance.

It was not a surprise that the first public draft did not include the victims' assistance. The first draft is often, if not always, changed during negoation. No prior treaty had included a victims' assistance clause. The concept wasn't particularly controversial but the drafters wanted to get feedback from the participating governments.


Regarding the issue of charities using celebrity spokespeople, I agree spokespeople have their place but I am not sure that they are essential. The largest charities in the world include the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Doctors without Borders, and Catholic Relief Services, don't rely on celebrity spokespeople--although they sometimes use them. UNICEF uses celebrity spokespeople like Audrey Hepburn and Alyssa Milano, but I think they could operate without them. They might not raise quite as much money but I don't think it would make a huge difference.

I also disagree with anbrida's post (#1455) that Diana's real focus was victims' assistance. If that were the case, she could have just posed for a few pictures with landmine victims, but it was her walk through a cleared minefield that helped people understand the need for the Ottawa Accords. It was very effective because people had a strong emotional bond with Diana.

Diana's photo ops were memorable but it is revisionist to claim that they made any substantive difference. The effort to draft a treaty was underway before Diana was involved. Diana supported the idea of including victims' assistance in the treaty but it wasn't her idea. There is nothing to say to posters who insist that a few letters from Diana succeeded and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which consisted of the largest international aid agencies in the world, would have failed. http://www.icbl.org/media/342067/icb009_chronology_a5_v4-pages.pdf

 

[anbrida]

I think it is quite lame to say that because there are other types of suffering in this world, so we should not try our best to help this type of people. And I didn't expect Diana to be a super woman who could solve all the world's problems at one time.

Second, since it is arguable that those who profited from landmine production should take some form of responsibility to rehabilitating mine victims. The money could come from them instead of the "fund", whatever it is. There was no confliction between mine victims and other suffering people.

Third, it was hard to speculate if Diana could attend the meeting whether the history would be different all not. But since it was argueable that mine producers should take some form of liablity upon damage and suffering caused by their the defective products, if this topic can be discussed on a global stage, history might be changed. Actually, LSN, the organization Diana had been working with, had hired an law consulting company Arnold & Porter to draw up a memo regarding mine victim assistance proposals could be legally be included in the treaty. And there were strong arguements. In a word, it was not because Diana had any political power which could changed policy makers' mind single-handedly, it was because the mine victims were completely entitled to such compensation. But their voices were too weak to be heard. Diana's role was to draw attention and press coverage on them, as a MESSENGER.

Forth, Diana's main focus in the campaign was very clear. There were speeches, articles, conversation, interviews and letters and PHOTOS for references.

(1) March 19, Diana attends the Daily Star Gold Awards ceremony in London to presents an award to former Royal Marine police captain, Chris Marine police captain, Chris Moon who lost a leg when trying to clear a landmine in Mozambique. This is the first time she's accepted the invitation to attend the event. Diana tells guests at the award, "Chris truly symbolises what selfless bravery is". At the lunch afterwards they talk about landmines:

"We had a long chat about every aspect of the landmines issue. She was very interested in the detail of what was going on in different places to clear mines and to assist victims. We were discussing the best strategy for helping people and she knew it was not always straightforward. She was looking seriously at where the money was going and what was going to be the most effective and efficient course of action" -- Chris Moon [1]

(2) June 12, Diana gave her first speech on landmine issue in a conference in London, in which she said "even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons, this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the Globe. `The evil that men do, lives after them'" [2]

(3) June 18, Diana gave a short speech at a Red Cross gala in Washington D.C.. She emphasizes again "even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons, this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the Globe. 'The evil that men do, lives after them'"[3]

(4) Aug 8-10 Diana went to Bosnia to meet the mine victims there. About her real motivation for that trip, her trip organizer Ken Rutherford told ITN in a TV interview during the trip:

"Right now I think it is a forgotten issue that people get hurt by landmines is forgotten. There are many speeches, but there isn't reaction. And she is showing she wants actions for the victims. They are smart, intelligent, if you give them a leg, they have a life." -- Ken Rutherford [4]

(5) Article by Lord Deedes, who accompanied Diana to Bosnia, Aug 8-10

She decided to keep out of the minefelds on this trip, and instead spent most of time visiting the many victims. Sensibly, she insisted on setting at least 30 minutes for each sojourn. People who have experienced tragedy in their lives need time in which to tell their tale.

Apart from demonstrating her already well-known humanitarian qualities, what did Princess Diana hope to achieve by the Bosnia mission? That is a serious question, to which there is a serious answer.

Much of the world suddenly hopefully towards an international ban on the use of anti-personnel mines. To attribute this to the Princess of Wales would be a mistake. The main thrust behind the movement comes from Canada, where to date 110 nations have joined what is called the Ottawa process.

For victims of anti-personnel mines, past, present and future, a ban will achieve nothing. That is one factor that exercised the Princess Wales. The move towards a ban on mines is mainly a political matter. Raising more support for crippled victims is a humanitarian mission and expensive. [5]

(6) Diana's three thank-you letters after the Bosnia Trip Aug 11

Diana's letter to Jerry White, co-founder of Landmine Survivors Network, Aug 11, 1997.

I was so pleased to be able to gain some insight into the issues facing victims and their families.?Their tragic stories are a desperately sad reflection of man's inhumanity to man.?The victims I met and their senselessly inflicted injuries have stiffened my resolve to ensure their needs for care and support are not overlooked in the search for an agreement to outlaw landmines"[6]

Diana's letter to Keneth R. Rutherford, co-founder of LSN, Aug 11, 1997.

I hope that you felt that all your hard work was worthwhile in raising awareness of the plight of survivors and helping to ensure that they are not forgotten in the framework of negotiations for a ban on anti-personnel landmines. I could not help but be intensely moved by the needless and senseless of the injures of the victims I met and, no less so, by the sensitive care and support they receive from their families. You should be justifiably proud of the wonderful work you are doing to bring hope and a sense of personal values to those who have suffered so much at the hands of these terrible weapons" [7]

Diana's letter to humanitarian campaigner Dilys Cheetham, Aug 11, 1997

Thank you very much for writing to tell me about the wonderful work you are doing by taking aid to the refugee camps around Mostar and in arranging for children to go abroad for prosthesis.

There was not enough time for me to visit the Mostar area whilst I was in Bosnia, but I was able to visit a number of anti-personnel landmine victims and their families. I could not help but be deeply moved by the experience which hardened my resolve to ensure that the world does not forget that those who have been so needlessly maimed by these terrible weapons will need care and support for many years to come" [8]

Reference:
[1] "ONE YEAR SINCE ANGOLA THE LANDMINES CAMPAIGN; Princess Diana's inspirational campaigning for a ban on landmines will never be forgotten - especially by one man who has now lost his best ally in the ght for peace.", The Mirror, 17 Jan 1998.
[2] Diana, Princess of Wales, "Responding to Landmines: A Modern Tragedy and its Solutions", June 12, 1997.
[3] "Princess Diana in Washington DC, 1997", Youtube, 18 Jun 1997.
[4] "Princess Diana arrives in Bosnia- August 1997", Youtube, 8 Aug 1997
[5] Lord W.E.Deedes, "The Last Crusade", Majesty Magazine, Oct 1997.
[6] "Diana 1961-1997: Remembering: Landmines Vow In Her Last Letters; Princess: I'll fight for ban", The Mirror, Sep 10, 1997.
[7] Keneth R. Rutherford, "Disarming States: The International Movement to Ban Landmines", 2011.
[8] "Diana's last official letter", Daily Mail, April 24, 2014.

 

[sirhon11234]

An eating disorder IS a mental illness. She also admitted that she suffered from depression, which is also a mental illness. Many people, including me, believe that she suffered from a personality disorder, which is true for about 60 percent of people who suffer from bulimia.

Unfortunately, some of her fans continue to believe that mental illness is a weakness or negative personality trait. It is not. It is a medical condition, not an insult.

Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.

I will forever be eternally grateful to Diana for publicly admitting to her mental illnesses. For many people suffering from mental illness, there is so much shame and self loathing felt. Society, family, consider you selfish, abnormal, and say hurtful things, like "you should be locked up in a padded room for your foolishness," having someone like her come out and say I suffered from it and you aren't selfish, foolish, or weak, meant a lot then and still means a lot today.

Recently on Tumblr, I saw a gif of one of her speeches on HIV/AIDS. In short Diana basically said, people with the disease aren't dangerous, you can interact with them, hug them they need it. And yet what she said is simple and profound. That post has more than 420 thousand reblogs and likes. Out of those 420 thousand people, who responded to that post, I'm sure that a certain number of them have the disease, but to hear such positive words, must give them some comfort I hope.
A Place for my Random thoughts | willcub: So many of you are too young to remember...

I remember reading a blog of a teenage girl who was a cutter. She recently learned that Diana was a cutter as well, and felt not only surprised but also solaced that someone like Diana not only understood what she was going through, but was also like her as well.

I haven't posted on these boards in a long time as my interest in royalty has waned, but I had to add my 2,3,4,5 cents in. I will always be thankful to Diana for publicly campaigning and talking about issues and people that society preferred to ignore.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Unfortunately many of her detractors have used her mental illness as a way to degrade her... and as I suffered from depression myself and have a dear close friend who suffered from anorexia and self harm, I find that deplorable, ignorant, and just plain and simple mean.

I am young(ish) in the age bracket of William and Harry. I had a mother who was very much into the BRF and I knew a lot about Diana 'in passing' though she was never an interest of mine. This does not make me an 'expert', only that I have been around 'Diana stuff' a lot, and likely had a teenage reaction against it all, too. My teenage impressions and opinions of Diana are better left unspoken. I like to think I have a more balanced view now.

This statement, however, that detractors have used Diana's 'mental illness' to 'degrade' her, I have never seen, and I have read a lot. This is the kind of inflammatory statement that fuels the fire for those who are on some level devoted to the image of Diana, rather than the reality of who she was as a human being: flawed, as we all are, and no more nor less deserving of regard as anyone else. She was not unique. It's this insistence that Diana was somehow unique and special that can grate and needs looking at imo. We all have our story to tell, but there are points by which we have to accept that we make choices in how we will react to the pressures of the world. We're in charge. For me, Diana was never a very solid role-model in how to handle one's life.

I also know a great deal about the anorexia/bulimia situation as it swirled around in those days. In the 80's, what Diana was doing was not fully understood, but the BRF (Charles, and I would guess the Queen) understood enough to make psychological help available to Diana, which she did not fully accept. She clearly did not like being labeled (who does) but she never accepted that she had a problem, lashing out at others as the excuse for her unusual behavior. It was never her at fault. It was always others who were the cause. Even her mother. Then her husband. Then the whole BRF as the in-laws from hell (apparently). It's all there in the record for anyone to read, unfortunately. Diana made sure of that.

I have at no time experienced anyone as mean-spirited who has seen Diana for the troubled woman she was. Diana exhibited a lot of mean-spiritedness, but in the face of it, I have never heard/read one person who really knew her and had to deal with her say anything mean about her. She seemed to have most people's compassion, even in the face of how difficult it was to deal with her.

 

[wyevale]

VERY well put, Lady Nimue.. I couldn't agree more !