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.
Well I dont quite see that it was her idea that the boys shoul go to boarding school.. most royals had done so in the previous generation so why not Will and Harry? I think she got her way about what school they went to, she favoured Eton and Charles having not enjoyed Gordonstoun was willing to back her on that. But yes any family would be angry to find that their problems had been splashed all over the papers and a book had been written to publicise their troubles. Even if they disapproved of C's affair, they weren't going to like di's putting it out there publicly, NOT mentioning her own lovers and into the bargaining hinting that she hoped charles woudld not become king.
 
I think that Di was a bit disingenuous at times... either that or she really could be very foolish. She would do things and say "but I never intended such and such to happen" from that..Like the Bashir interview. Did she realy not think that that would infuriate the queen?
I would add the words hubristic and fickle. I don't think that she wanted to destroy the monarchy per se, but at intermittent times she wanted Charles to go away with his lady and let William be heir and eventually King. I think that she thought that she would be the power behind the throne and she would reshape the monarchy and this would all be accepted because of her popularity. I think that she also harbored resentment against the Queen and other royals and was fine with at a minimum throwing them under the bus if not turning the public against them.

The fickle part is that I don't think that Diana had these feelings all day/every day, but I think that she had them long enough that she would do things like set up the Panorama interview and carry it out behind the backs of her top staffers because she did not want to be talked out of doing these things or thwarted.

I also think that there was a part of her that recognized that she and Charles were a good team, and perhaps even harbored romantic feelings for him, and at times hoped for some kind reconciliation/rekindled romantic relationship.
 
Last edited:
Apparently Princess Diana didn't always think before she did or said something. A lot of what she said especially at the Panoroma interview was done out of anger or trying to get at Prince Charles and other royal family members. Anyone who watched that interview on TV knew that the royal family would be angered by things that were said. The old saying that you can't take back what you said is certainly true in this case. If she had really thought about the entire picture which she didn't (especially how it would impact her children), she might have done things differently

I imagine when Prince Charles was interviewed after the Panoroma Interview, he could have done the same thing to her or aired her dirty laundry further or told other tales about her, but he didn't do this. He took the high road on this issue.
 
I think that it was her rather self regarding nature.. I mean she coudl be very selfish.. but also I think she always tended to live in a little bubble and only see what she wanted to see. So she lashed out because she was hurt and angry with the RF and her husband, and didn't really see perhaps that attacking her in laws was one thing but in attacking the RF, she was (a) going to make them very angry and they would retaliate..and (b) that by damaging the RF's reputation she might well cause the end of the monarchy which was of course the future of her sons. As many have said, she thought in the short term and didn't see the long term consequneces of her behaviour.

And I think that's a side of her that has been given more attention now that she's been dead for some time. That's why it's difficult to really blame one side or the other for the breakdown of the marriage. Charles was absolutely selfish and ridiculous in some instances; however, I think Diana's neediness and desire to always be the center of attention also didn't help matters.

I guess you'd have to understand the BRF better than I do to understand one thing though. Some have said that she didn't expect a divorce after that interview. I mean seriously? I totally agree that she was hurt and she didn't think things through, but the one thing she knew about the RF was that they do not tolerate people that blab to the public. How on Earth could she have expected to remain part of the family after that?

That being said, I think her legacy will always be that of a victim in the whole scenario and in many she was. It's a narrative that I think she successfully portrayed to the public and she had enough goodwill with them that they sympathized with her. So many lasting episodes from that horrible situation.
 
Its hard to say HistoryG.. I think she was often rather stupid. and just didn't seem able to work things out... or perhaps there was a chance that since The Queen had tried to keep them as a married couple in spite of everything that she would still just ignore Di's firing yet another shot in the war...
I DO think, without disliking Di, that honestly the marital failure was more her fault than his.. In the sense that I think he DID try to make it work, he DID intend to be faithful, but poor Di wasn't very stable, and was driven to breaking point by the massive media attention, a lack of sympathy in some ways from the RF as a whole, and Charles not understanding her very well.. Plus her bulimia making her moody and volatile.
I think that the RF did n't NOT sympathise in a general way - and did give her help but their attitude was that she had joined the army and she had to learn how to wear the boots.. Charles was a bit the same and felt increasingly irritated/ worn out by her moods, ad soon thought longingly of the uncomplicated cheerful Cam....
I agree that she DID manage to make a lot of people though see her as a completely helpless cruelly treated victim, who wasn't responsible for anything that had happened during the marriage and that the RF had been completely heartless towards her and that Chas and Cam had been brutally cruel...and many people will never get over that impression...
 
Q Claude I think that she did have moods, yes. She was angry with C and his family, and she did hit out at them.. but at times I think she realised perhaps that she wasn't entirely in the right of it and pulled back a bit.. or did hope, that maybe she and Chrles COULD still make things work and in some of these moods she was willing to try again, or have at least a partnership with Chas where they worked togheter for the good of the monarchy and tired to be friendly.. but when she had outed their extra marital affiars and quarrels, that was not possible. If she had kept quiet, she would have possibly managed a friendly relationship with him, done some work together and been parents to the children.. and the RF would have kept her within the fold.. but they could not do it once the public KNEW (as opposed ot suspecting) that both of them were having affairs and didn't have a normal marital relationship... so yes.. SHe didn't think that once you've said something in public, like the Morton book or the Interview, you can't really take it back and say "oh no, neither of us is having an affair" and expect the public to believe this
 
In my opinion, just not the smartest way to go about things. That just opens up the floodgates and then the information about her affairs was up for tabloid fodder as well.
 
I do agree with a lot of what you have said (question that the boys really will honour their father in any way - but that is just me - they don't seem to ever really mention him, unless they are doing a specific interview about him it is always their mother and not their father who is mentioned as influencing them. They never voluntarily mention him.)

Just thought I'd mention that I have read Harry mention both parents recently (or was it William?). :flowers: Anyway, whichever it was, the speaker seemed quite natural, referencing first his father, then his mother. Can't recall where I read it but it was recent.

You may be right, Iluvbertie, in how you see it, but I have never seen the omission (if it is as you say) as a deliberate snub. Rather, the omitted parent is very much alive (so why gild the lily?) and the one mentioned is deceased, so it makes sense.
 
I cant remember off hand but I'm sure that they boht mention their father quite often.. obviously yes he's alive so they aren't going to speak of him in the same way. I'm sure that Harry talked of his father calling him when he got back form service abroad..
 
I'd have to look for it, but I've definitely read an interview where Harry praised his father's intelligence and how calls him up to ask for his advice because he knows more than anyone what to always do. Also courtiers have mentioned that though Harry is often compared to his mother by the press, he is actually a lot like his father.
 
They have both made positive comments when interviewed directly about their father but when talking casually it is always their mother and never their father who they mention. Unless directed to talk about Charles they don't do so. They talk about the Queen more easily than their father.
 
I think newspaper editors feel the Diana effect is still important and many of the times the brothers mention Diana is in answer to questions from journalists. That doesn't mean they don't think of her every day, I'm sure they do, it's just that a lot of the time when they speak of their mother it's inexorably tied to charities that Diana associated with Diana, and about how and why they are continuing her work.

Most of the time when the Princes speak of their father (and of course there are exceptions) it's to do with conservation of land and animals about which both William and Charles are particularly identified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They have both made positive comments when interviewed directly about their father but when talking casually it is always their mother and never their father who they mention. Unless directed to talk about Charles they don't do so. They talk about the Queen more easily than their father.

But if they are being interviewed how is that talking casually about their mother any more than when they are asked about their father?
 
I think we should not assume that everything they say to reporters is published...
 
Papa is around, day in, day out. No news. Iconic mama is gone, so logically the questions are again and again about the person no longer amongst them. It is only logical. One realises one is missing when the one indeed is no more...
 
A lot of the recent interviews with Harry where with American press such as People and the various morning tv shows. Who is the target audience for People and GMA etc - it's women. American women are more interested in Diana than they ever were in Charles.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I think William and Harry have talked about both their parents, but it is clear that they wish to keep their mother's memory alive and often speak about her, for instance in connection with a particular charity or referencing her such as "our mother would have be proud of this" or "my mother used to say that" etc etc.

I don't think there is much value in trying to analyse what is or might be behind it - especially as it seems only natural for one to comment of a deceased parent in a different way or under different circumstances that one might do so with a parent who is still alive.
 
I think you're right, If they are interviewed esp in the US i think that they are going to be asked or expected to talk about Diana, as the one who is sadly gone and the more charismatic of their 2 parents. And its natural that they want to talk about her and keep her memory alive, whereas with their Dad he's still there and they still have an ongoing relationship with him. But i dont see any sign that they dont talk about their fahter or that they dont have a good relationship with him and are proud of what he's acheived as well as what their mothter acheived.
 
The media were baying for blood and headlines such as "Who's Paying for This", were common. Diana was behaving the way she always had, wilfully and with no thought for the consequences, that is why she didn't understand why the media had "turned against her".

As for the notion that she would have been in any position to affect the monarchy, she may have survived a divorce but not the increasingly bad publicity. Had Charles been dead and William a minor, a Regent would have been appointed and Diana's "influence" severely constrained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the media actually turned against her in the end? They seem to have collectively forgot about that, possibly they feel guilty because of the accusations the media drove her to her death (i don't remember much about that time, wasn't a Diana-follower, but the accusations towards the media i remember)
 
There was still coverage of her charitable works, particularly of her trips re the landmines campaign. In general, though, she was getting more and more bad publicity. There were newspapers (tabloids) that were removed from shelves after she died. It's as though she became saintly overnight. It was a strange time. Things are a lot more balanced now.

So the media actually turned against her in the end? They seem to have collectively forgot about that, possibly they feel guilty because of the accusations the media drove her to her death (i don't remember much about that time, wasn't a Diana-follower, but the accusations towards the media i remember)
 
They hadn't "turned against her" but they had become more critical. Most royals have up adn down periods with the press, the public and press get bored with totally "gooey" coverage, and there are always going to be critical stories. Diana had largely had the press on her side during the war of the Waleses so that wasn't going to go on forever. And her own behaviour seemed a lot more erratic in the last few years and the public were beginning to be less sympathetic towards her so the coverage reflected that.
She had had a lot of sympathy at first, but when it emerged that she was complaining about Charles having an affair with Camilla, but that she herself had had 2 relationships with married men which had led to the mens' wives getting very fed up, sympathy began to cool. And the vicious rows and mud slinging between herself and Charles had begun to disgust and bore people and they were tired of the story..
 
I don't mean to bad mouth the dead but one unfortunate legacy of hers that the RF is trying to get rid of is the access she allowed the media. She opened a door to them that everyone seems to be trying to close.
I don't want to make this a blame Diana thing, but media access and intrusion is part of her legacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again we are veering further and further away from the topic and so some posts have had to be deleted. Whilst it is recognised that part of Diana's legacy will undoubtably be carried on through her sons, comparing the Princes' work ethic against one against the other or with their father's is not what this thread is about.
 
Last edited:
I hope it is OK to reply to Xenia as it is about Diana's legacy.. I have to agree. I think she did, without meaning to, let the meda in too much, and now her sons, while they do carry on some of her work, are trying to get rid of the Meida. Im not sure that's a bad thing.
 
Diana re4alized they were not in step with the times. The media figured out that other than celebrity, what is there.
 
I hope it is OK to reply to Xenia as it is about Diana's legacy.. I have to agree. I think she did, without meaning to, let the meda in too much, and now her sons, while they do carry on some of her work, are trying to get rid of the Meida. Im not sure that's a bad thing.

I think its telling that William doesn't put Charlotte and George on display in front of 12 photogs like Diana and Charles did when he was young. First at 9 mos them toddling around in the blue snow suit then right before Harry was born. The cute piano photo shoot with all 4 of them was more intimate than the previous 3.
Granted William and Harry have been burned by the press even after their mom died; but they and all the royals seem to want to keep them at more of a distance.
 
I do think that the Cambridges could have one video session like the one for little William and Harry without it being too disturbing for their children. However, looking at the bigger picture I do feel the younger royals believe, as Harry said once, 'There is no private life any more'.

Since Leverson there has been less and less pouncing by a dozen or more papparazi. However, replacing that more and more are ordinary people with cameras/cell phones. They weren't around really in Diana's day (goodness knows how she would have coped) but her children and other members of the BRF have had to contend with people tweeting about them on the Internet, 'You wouldn't believe who I just saw...!' and also taking photos of them out walking, shopping, going to work, having a cup of coffee, even sitting in the cinema.

I'll never forget seeing a photo taken by someone of Harry, Cressida, Eugenie and their friends sitting in a cinema, and all around them were pinpoints of light from cell phones held up by other patrons. Who would want to live life every day like that? Diana never lived to see it but I don't think she would have been able to stand it. It's bizarre.
 
I follow some 'fan' accounts on Twitter dedicated to Diana and one account in particular tweets a lot of 'on this day' type a things, old newspaper clippings and headlines.

What struck me is just how much attention was actually focused on her fashions and social life.

A lot of us have been conditioned to believe it was all about Diana's charities and good works but more often than not, the headline was about her new outfit or what social event she would be attending.

This was before the internet and social media so she was spared in a certain sense but it's still eye opening to look back at old newspapers and read headlines from the Diana days.

That celebrity aspect she brought to the monarchy, is one of her biggest legacies (good or bad)
 
Last edited:
I don't actually think media access to the royals is Diana's legacy. Allowing media access is something the Queen seems to have started in the late 60's, and Charles continued the 'tradition' in the 80's with his young family. It's something he continues, in fact. I've seen a couple of television documentary-like films now centering on Charles and his work (Highgrove gardens, Scotland restorations) that are very interesting. Diana never did that kind of media except when she was connected to Charles as his wife.

Diana's media legacy is hard to pin-point imo. She was a celebrity (by virtue of her social position, age, and looks) who decided to use the media for her own purposes, and was magnificently adept at doing so. When that started is hard to say as there are hints that she was 'in on the game' as early as the pre-engagement flurry. None of the Dodi Fayed summer activity would have been tabloid fodder had not Diana actively worked with the press.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom