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.
I always found the accusations of Diana's charity work to only be a ploy to boost her image far-fetched. Since she was a child she had a knack for helping others.

The "accusations" weren't all made made by fanciful writers. The man in charge of AIDS Trust was among those insiders who went on record about how he felt Diana used AIDS patients during engagements on behalf of the cause. I don't recall his name, but here is a photo of him at the last engagement he invited Diana: Getty Images - Diana Aids Trust (he was standing behind the girl presenting flowers)
 
True. But she did take away the stigma associated with AIDS at the time by shaking hands with AIDS patients publicly, and she also had a friend of hers who died from AIDS ( can't recall the name) who she was genuinely compassionate to when he was dying. So there is that.
 
The "accusations" weren't all made made by fanciful writers. The man in charge of AIDS Trust was among those insiders who went on record about how he felt Diana used AIDS patients during engagements on behalf of the cause. I don't recall his name, but here is a photo of him at the last engagement he invited Diana: Getty Images - Diana Aids Trust (he was standing behind the girl presenting flowers)

Well that's how he felt. It doesen't make it true though imo.
 
The "accusations" weren't all made made by fanciful writers. The man in charge of AIDS Trust was among those insiders who went on record about how he felt Diana used AIDS patients during engagements on behalf of the cause. I don't recall his name, but here is a photo of him at the last engagement he invited Diana: Getty Images - Diana Aids Trust (he was standing behind the girl presenting flowers)
I posted a couple of links on the forum about 18 months ago, where a senior member of the British Red Cross said they had not wanted Diana involved in the Land Mine Campaign, but she needed some good publicity and insisted on joining the cause. She did however bring publicity, not just to herself but to the campaign.
 
I posted a couple of links on the forum about 18 months ago, where a senior member of the British Red Cross said they had not wanted Diana involved in the Land Mine Campaign, but she needed some good publicity and insisted on joining the cause. She did however bring publicity, not just to herself but to the campaign.

I remember Diana, Princess of Wales did not want to associated with the British Red Cross, but changed her mind. She was just getting back to public work and did not know which few charities to sponsor at the time. I don't think Diana only did the Land Mine Campaign for just good publicity. And if it was to reinvent herself, Diana brought good publicity to the campaign and herself.

I think the reason the British Red Cross did not want Diana, Princess of Wales to get involved with land mines was the British Red Cross didn't want to go against the American and British governments and the very lucrative business of land mines.:rolleyes::):rolleyes:
 
But she did take away the stigma associated with AIDS at the time by shaking hands with AIDS patients publicly, and she also had a friend of hers who died from AIDS ( can't recall the name) who she was genuinely compassionate to when he was dying. So there is that.

While her handshake in 1987 was considered groundbreaking, for a royal family member, it didn't take away the widespread social stigma. I think it would do the thousands of health and service individuals involved in the care of AIDS patients since discovery of the illness in early 1980's to give all credits to one person. There were a lot of high profile people, especially in the entertainment industry, who had spearheaded the fight to change the pariah status accorded AIDS patients long before Diana's involvement. History has a funny way of being revised as time passes.

The friend with AIDS was Adrian Ward-Jackson.


Well that's how he felt. It doesen't make it true though imo.

Only if you discount every evidence contrary to your opinion.
 
I haven't discounted every evidence that is contrary to my opinion that paints the Princess in a negative light. Its just that some of these accounts are hard to believe than others.
On the issue on whether Diana was either genuine or not with her charity work, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
On the issue on whether Diana was either genuine or not with her charity work, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Like most things in life, I don't think it's a black or white issue. She could very well had the best intention early on. And as she gained experience in public life, she was smart enough to recognize the opportunities for her to gain public affection as her personal life disintegrated. I just don't care for the whitewashing done since her death that skips over her less than edifying aspects.
 
You could be right and that could be argued for some other members of the royal family and public figures. But I do think that the Princess genuinely cared about the charities she supported. I think if we focus so much on whether or not a public figure is genuine or dishonest with the charities he or she supports, we miss out on what's really important, the charity and the people it supports. :flowers:
 
Since the thread is about Diana's legacy, not about the worthiness of charities she supported, her actions do call into question her true intentions behind her involvement. Take landmine issue, its political controversy cannot be separated from the human tolls. For her to join the campaign and then claim political ignorance, the "I'm a humanitarian figure" speech in a self-promoting documentary, showed poor judgement at least and disingenuousness at worst.
 
I think after she was no longer a member of the royal family by marriage, she thought she was outside politics, especially after she lost her HRH title. So that could be why she disregarded politics.
 
:previous: As the mother of the future King, it would not have been disregarded, IMO. I saw it more as a way of saying to the Prime Minister, give me a worthwhile job or watch what I will get up to!:eek:
 
Since the thread is about Diana's legacy, not about the worthiness of charities she supported, her actions do call into question her true intentions behind her involvement. Take landmine issue, its political controversy cannot be separated from the human tolls. For her to join the campaign and then claim political ignorance, the "I'm a humanitarian figure" speech in a self-promoting documentary, showed poor judgement at least and disingenuousness at worst.

This thread is about Diana, Princess of Wales legacy. I think she would want us to call her a humanitarian as apart of her legacy.

Her life was lonely without a marriage and her children at school. I believe Diana after her divorce became what she thought a humanitarian should be.

I don't think a person in their right mind would walk in a field of landmines like Diana did not really support this cause. Would you? Let's get on topic again.:rolleyes::):rolleyes:
 
I don't think a person in their right mind would walk in a field of landmines like Diana did not really support this cause. Would you?

First of all the mind field was already cleared when she visited. There were marked sign posts for where it was safe for her to walk. Even if you discount the idea that Red Cross would rather not have Diana become a casaulty in front of the press, there were mind clearing personnels on the premise that did the real work. There was a theatrical element planned into the setup to maximize publicity. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but the news organizations around the world wouldn't be bothered to pick up the piece if she was walking in a garden.

Second, human beings rarely act on something with a single motive. For seasoned public figures, there are more reasons for them to consider different outcomes and scenarios. No one can say for sure the public appeal of the cause didn't matter to her. I'm not saying she was completely Machiavellian for joining the cause, just that appearances can mask complex issues behind the scene.

Let's get on topic again.:rolleyes::):rolleyes:
Where did I get off topic? Just because someone doesn't agree with you 100% doesn't entitle you to deride their opinions.
 
This thread is about Diana, Princess of Wales legacy. I think she would want us to call her a humanitarian as apart of her legacy.
IMO no! Google's definition of a humanitarian is "someone devoted to the promotion of human welfare and to social reforms." While she may have been a patron of many causes she chose to downsize dramatically after her divorce.
georgiea said:
Her life was lonely without a marriage and her children at school. I believe Diana after her divorce became what she thought a humanitarian should be.
No, for quite some time she chose to party and behave more as a socialite than a socialist. People tend to forget or were too young to remember that the Princess Diana "brand" had tarnished dreadfully with the War of the Wales and her high profile lifestyle was the subject of many critical articles. They call it "Tall Poppy Syndrome", and she gave them plenty of ammunition. Thus her selection of the topically hot issue of the elimination of landmines to help restore her to the much vaunted "Peoples Princess" of the past.

georgiea said:
I don't think a person in their right mind would walk in a field of landmines like Diana did not really support this cause. Would you? Let's get on topic again.:rolleyes::):rolleyes:
Walk in that minefield . . . yes, in a heartbeat. The land had already been cleared and double cleared before the new poster lady for the elimination of landmines took one little step on it. Getting blown up would have been counterproductive.

So, whatever else she was she was definitely no "humanitarian". She was definitely aware that public opinion is fickle but at the time of her death she was still swinging wildly from "good works" to "good times". It was only after death that she suddenly became this saintlike person, untouchable, perfect, unreal.

And yes, all these posts both for or against are "on topic". To me, when all is said and done, her legacy is her two boys. I have no doubts that she tried to be the very best mother she could be, both in front and behind the cameras.
 
:previous:Well said MARG.
I don't think a person in their right mind would walk in a field of landmines like Diana did not really support this cause.
As has been pointed out, the land had been cleared of mines. The unsung heroes who cleared the area should be praised for putting their lives on the line, to ensure a trouble free photo op!:rolleyes:
 
Well to me Diana's legacy is her two boys whom she tried to be a good mother and her work as a humanitarian.
I do agree with Incas, its possible that maybe Diana had two motives in her landmine campaign and some other charities she supported. She probably did want to raise her profile but she also wanted to shed light on the charities she supported. I believe that she did care about the landmine issue.
 
:previous:Well said MARG.

As has been pointed out, the land had been cleared of mines. The unsung heroes who cleared the area should be praised for putting their lives on the line, to ensure a trouble free photo op!:rolleyes:

A few previous posts all claimed that Diana, Princess of Wales' walk in a clear mine field and that it was easy. I will disagree with all of you because no clear mine field is 100% sure that it is totally free of land mines. So there was a chance that she took for her documentary and the landmine cause.

Also the summer of her death she did vacation a lot, but doesn't all of Europe vacation for a month in August?. I don't think to Diana fans interest in her was diminished. At that time Diana was trying to make meaning for her life and reinvent herself. I know with this recession a lot of people are reinventing their careers. If she lived she would have made a career in documentaries and HUMANITARIAN CAUSES, because she was someone devoted to the promotion of human welfare and to social reforms.

Jespson who accompanied her on numberless public occasions and charitable duties said that not even the best actress could sustain such a convincing show of compassion for so long; nor would those on the receiving end be so easily fooled. page 202 Ms Bradford book. So I guess he would know if Diana, Princess of Wales was just play acting guys!!!

And to get back on topic her tragic, short life, her sons, and her humanitarian causes are her legacy.:rolleyes::):rolleyes:
 
It is pretty difficult to act like a caring person for a sustained period of time, particularly when you're battling your own issues.

It's been a long time but we shouldn't forget the work the Princess did for people dealing with HIV/AIDS. After all, people were afraid to touch these patients, when Diana shook hands and hugged them. Changing the way the media and the public perceived people with HIV/AIDS was an achievement that shouldn't be forgotten.

I think we all have pluses and negatives in our life history, and in the end I hope we're left remembering the good things about people.
 
A few previous posts all claimed that Diana, Princess of Wales' walk in a clear mine field and that it was easy. I will disagree with all of you because no clear mine field is 100% sure that it is totally free of land mines. So there was a chance that she took for her documentary and the landmine cause.

Also the summer of her death she did vacation a lot, but doesn't all of Europe vacation for a month in August?. I don't think to Diana fans interest in her was diminished.
I think we can be certain that the minefield had been cleared, thoroughly for the photo op. The men who clear the land of such things would have made doubly sure of that and yes once they have worked a particular area, it is clear. How many cases of people being caught by a mine, in a cleared area, have you ever heard of?:rolleyes: The press were certainly turning against her and I am afraid, the fickle public.

I can't say I have ever heard of Britain taking the whole of August as a holiday, even now. Schools close for some of July and August, companies on the whole do not!:rolleyes:
It is pretty difficult to act like a caring person for a sustained period of time, particularly when you're battling your own issues. ----- Changing the way the media and the public perceived people with HIV/AIDS was an achievement that shouldn't be forgotten
It is easy I would imagine to continue an illusion for the hours needed for each appearance.:flowers: She brought publicity to the HIV cause which helped but sadly many people still treated sufferers as pariahs, some still do.

As sirhon said, she tried to be a good mother!:flowers:
 
It is easy I would imagine to continue an illusion for the hours needed for each appearance.
Not when one is around deathly ill people.
 
I'm' sure that she knew charity work improved her image, but it seems to have been geniuine, in that she was that way in childhood, and before she was ever royalty or a well known public figure. She had the knack of relating to people in general, and that defintely helps in charity work. She was photographed yes, but she does seem to have been interested too in charity work itself, which is a traditional royal duty, but which she did more with than most royals. Jephson was critical of her in other ways, wasn't he? I remember his book being more critical than not, or perhaps just realistic. I believe what he said about her charity work as the Bradford book says because his book didn't romanticize Diana.
 
Having had a job where I had to act, it is very difficult... and some people suck the life right out of you (I call those "emotional vampires").

I would agree with sirhon and skydragon... if you have children, they should be your priority, and I think these young men were. Was she an ideal parent? Probably not, but I bet few of us would say any of our parents were ideal.

In regards to her last summer, I'm sure she would have made some different choices had she known the end was coming. But who could have expected things to go so wrong (I sort of figured the Dodi relationship would end badly, but didn't expect death for Diana)?
 
Yes, nobody expected what did happen- it was basically collective shock at her death. I'm sure that we would view the last part of Diana's life differently had she lived since we can't put her last summer in any sort of context, at all, except that of her past, and that context is limited, because she had just gotten divorced in 1996, and clearly was moving onto a new stage of her life.
 
Diana's legacy

In my own case, Diana's legacy is shelves and shelves of photo-books, biographies, and magazines. Even with all we know now about her private live, I still find it fascinating to look at pictures of her and find the rare untold story about her dealings with ordinary people.:flowers:
 
Yes, she does leave quite a legacy in print, and in pictures. She was a natural both in fashion photos and also when she was photographed with ordinary people when she was doing charity work and otherwise. I've read every book ever published about her I think, except one or two.
 
Having had a job where I had to act, it is very difficult... and some people suck the life right out of you (I call those "emotional vampires").
A dear friend was an oncologist and she always seemed to be able to present a cheery face, even after hours on duty. She did this, day in day out for years. Even when she was diagnosed with cancer herself, after the shock, she continued her work for some time. She felt it was her duty for the sake of her patients and their families. I am not trying to belittle Diana's actions, but this, IMO, is real caring unlike a short orchestrated visit.:flowers:
 
Your story reminds me of our former family doctor. He was diagnosed with ALS during his fifties. Even when he was too ill to do his rounds or go into the office, he'd meet with medical students in his home. :flowers:

A dear friend was an oncologist and she always seemed to be able to present a cheery face, even after hours on duty. She did this, day in day out for years. Even when she was diagnosed with cancer herself, after the shock, she continued her work for some time. She felt it was her duty for the sake of her patients and their families. I am not trying to belittle Diana's actions, but this, IMO, is real caring unlike a short orchestrated visit.:flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom