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

[PrincessKaimi]

Diana is the only one of the royal clan who is remembered by my own children or most of my students (and I have about 700-800 per year and have a chance to ask them about their cultural knowledge). I am living in America. We're either a significant part of the world's population or not - you decide.

Kate and William are recognizable to many Americans as well. But Diana's image is nameable and recognizable by far more (own research, California, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico - obviously not a random sample, but still significant).

...I'm also concerned that the portrayal of Prince Charles will be similar to that in "The Queen." I have a friend who strongly believes that Charles wanted to deflect public anger toward his mother because he was afraid he would be physically attacked.

This is a fascinating and deeper analysis of opinion outside England. I suspect that Americans are not the only ones who might want to see it this way. I don't think people necessarily blame Charles, btw, it's more complicated than that. But it certainly seemed (to many people I know in the western U.S.) that Charles did indeed try to deflect anger toward a larger entity - like the Crown (whether or not he feared being personally attacked).

Since the actual attack on their car, a couple of years ago, Charles and Camilla have not seemed to appear quite so frequently going out and about like regular people. Must be a drag.

Of course, I'm certain of correction if I'm wrong about their life going out and about.

 

[COUNTESS]

Her legacy is simply, 2 sons who love her and now a grandchild, who may resemble her or her family and I am sure be told of her. You don't need a lot more.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think the media and the public knew that The Queen and family stayed at Balmoral to help comfort William & Harry. I think the media and public got the wrong impression that The Queen and family didn't care about what happened to Diana in Paris and it caused outrage. With hard feelings about the divorce, the public took things the wrong way, IMO.

The media knew why The Queen etc stayed at Balmoral but in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death - the first couple of hours or so - the people were actually turning on the media leaving the media having to choose which group to paint as the villains - the Diana fans, the media or the royal family. The obvious group were the royal family because the media needed the money from the public.

 

[Ish]

The media were the ones who got to spin it too. When you have to chose between being mad at yourself for supporting the media, the present media who's providing a scapegoat, or the royals themselves who were the scapegoat people tend to go with the scapegoat.

 

[VictoriaB]

Nice retrospective video, Dman. Does anyone wonder why no one is trying to take pictures of Camilla with a long lensed camera, running after her, and upsetting her? How many of you posters think she will be remembered 16 years after her death? At least Diana has children she left behind, one of whom will be King of Great Britain one day. He is the greatest of her legacies? What will be 'Ga Ga Grammy Cammy's'?

William will be King because of who his father is not because of Diana, No matter who Charles had married his eldest son would have been King assuming the monarchy survives that long. That's not Diana's legacy, it's his.

 

[Roslyn]

William will be King because of who his father is not because of Diana, No matter who Charles had married his eldest son would have been King assuming the monarchy survives that long. That's not Diana's legacy, it's his.

William might be king because of who his father is, but that father was not capable of asexual reproduction. He needed a woman to be the mother of his children, and Diana was the woman he chose, and her genetic material flows through William's veins and will flow through the veins of future monarchs. That is her legacy as much as Charles'.

 

[VictoriaB]

I agree that William & Harry are Diana's legacy but not their royal status. That comes from Charles.

 

[Roslyn]

I agree that William & Harry are Diana's legacy but not their royal status. That comes from Charles.

On this issue we appear to be ad idem.

 

[Nico]

Her legacy is simply, 2 sons who love her and now a grandchild, who may resemble her or her family and I am sure be told of her. You don't need a lot more.

Amen to that...
Speaking about "genetic material" seems a little bit far fetched though. I know some people are simply terrified at the idea of Diana being forgotten but bringing the "blood in their veins" into that is a little bit ridiculous.
She was their mother and will be forever in their mind and their heart, they don't need to expose a perpetual grief on their faces to reassure the masses about the state of the legacy of the late Princess.
Cherishing the memory of their mother is maybe one of the few intimate things they are able to do without the indecent scrutiny of the media and the so called "fans".

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The media were the ones who got to spin it too. When you have to chose between being mad at yourself for supporting the media, the present media who's providing a scapegoat, or the royals themselves who were the scapegoat people tend to go with the scapegoat.

I agree with both Ish and Iluvbertie regarding the actual events. My original comment was referring to the way Charles was portrayed in the movie "The Queen." In the movie, one of the advisors to Tony Blair stated that Charles was afraid that some of Diana's fans would turn violent, so he was trying to deflect their anger towards the Queen to protect himself. It was absolutely ludicrous, but I know at least one person who is convinced that this fictional scene was based on fact.

The Diana movie will probably not be that bad, but since it is from Diana's point of view (or the point of view of her friends), I suspect it will show Diana courageously standing up to the cold, out-of-touch and uncaring royal family. In particular, Charles will probably be portrayed as weak, selfish, and jealous of his ex-wife. Unfortunately, a lot of people who see it will believe this was the reality. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

It is unfortunate that for all her efforts to be seen as a humanitarian and healer, many people will remember Diana's anger, bitterness, and vindictiveness for the royal family. There is no question that Diana "won" the battle for public affection and Charles's reputation was hurt more than Diana's. But her memory has not survive unscathed. Many Diana fans will never forgive Prince Charles but, similarly, many supporters of the royal family will never forgive Diana.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...Since the actual attack on their car, a couple of years ago, Charles and Camilla have not seemed to appear quite so frequently going out and about like regular people. Must be a drag.

Of course, I'm certain of correction if I'm wrong about their life going out and about.

I think Charles and Camilla continue to go out and about, both separately and together. There was at least one article about Charles and Catherine being seen together because they both enjoy art.

Obviously they have security when they go out. Charles has lived with threats all his life. We don't hear about it like we heard about Diana going out because the media doesn't follow Charles and Camilla the way they did Diana. That's a good thing.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I agree with both Ish and Iluvbertie regarding the actual events...

Well said!

 

[Roslyn]

Amen to that...
Speaking about "genetic material" seems a little bit far fetched though. I know some people are simply terrified at the idea of Diana being forgotten but bringing the "blood in their veins" into that is a little bit ridiculous.

I don't understand why "genetic material" is far fetched in this context. Diana got her blood into the Royal Family. Fact. It is therefore part of her legacy in the objective, long term, sense, rather than the short term, subjective sense of what she taught her sons and what they remember of her.

And lest you for one second think that I might be one of those people who are simply terrified at the idea of Diana being forgotten, I most certainly am not, as a perusal of the older Diana threads should make quite clear.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

As always, it depends on your definition. Most people don't think of their genes or blood type as a 'legacy' from their parents.

Similarly, if some people want to argue that Diana's legacy includes William and Harry's title because she married Charles, then Charles's legacy includes their Spencer heritage and the way they interact with people, which many people apparently incorrectly have given sole credit to Diana.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I don't know whether any of the Windsors will even be depicted in this latest film.

The Diana movie will probably not be that bad, but since it is from Diana's point of view (or the point of view of her friends), I suspect it will show Diana courageously standing up to the cold, out-of-touch and uncaring royal family. In particular, Charles will probably be portrayed as weak, selfish, and jealous of his ex-wife. Unfortunately, a lot of people who see it will believe this was the reality. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Queen Elizabeth II = Queen Victoria
Prince Charles = Edward VII
Prince William = George V
Prince George = Edward VIII

If Prince George abdicates, is that part of Diana's legacy or does that becomes just Charles?

If Diana's legacy is her DNA, then we must include the Fermoys, Spencers Hamiltons, Gills, the Works.

Diana DNA wasn't exactly stellar. Both parents died at age 68 after long illness.

John Spencer had a brain aneurysm at age 54, which he never recovered and died of a heart attack.

Frances Roche had Parkinsons and died of a brain cancer.

Cynthia Hamilton died of brain tumor.

Diana's legacy to William and Harry might be an inherited diseases. Brain aneurysm, Parkinson and heat disease are said to be inherited.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I had a laugh when I saw this post came from "Queen Camilla"

 

[Dman]

I like that William & Harry are trying to keep Diana's legacy going and keeping her memory alive. Right now Harry is in Angola touring minefields and meeting beneficiaries of The HALO Trust.

 

[Osipi]

I like that William & Harry are trying to keep Diana's legacy going and keeping her memory alive. Right now Harry is in Angola touring minefields and meeting beneficiaries of The HALO Trust.

And we have to remember that Princes Seeiso and Harry named their endeavor to help children in Lesotho "Sentebale" which means "Forget Me Not" in honor of their mothers. HALO and Sentebale have an international status and I expect it to gain more and more momentum in the years to come. William has been very actively involved in Centrepointe which was also a favorite patronage of his mother.

To take a concern that one person has worked towards making a difference in the world and making it grow and prosper and reach more and more people, to me that's a huge legacy.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I don't know whether any of the Windsors will even be depicted in this latest film.

They probably won't be portrayed on screen, but we know the film includes a recreation of the Panorama interview. Since it covers the last two years of her life, I assume the Diana character will be shown reacting to various events, i.e., the loss of her royal status and the party Charles gave for Camilla in his own house (for those who might forget, James Hewitt often saw Diana at Highgrove).

I suspect these scenes will be portrayed from Diana's point of view and, therefore, will not show the royal family in the best light. I think it is safe to assume the film will not include Diana's harassment of Tiggy Legg-Bourke, Will Carling's divorce, etc... In fairness, it would be impossible to include the whole story in a film.

I do expect that the film will at least touch on Diana's resignation from over 100 charities in a childish snit over losing her royal status and her inappropriate tendency to use her 14 year old son as a confident. But I suspect that these negative aspects of Diana's character will be dealt with swiftly and the film will devote more time to events that offer a more positive view of Diana, such as the two landmine photo ops because those are very memorable.

I am not sure how the film will portray Diana's relationship with the media. I expect it will touch on Diana's use the media, but I am betting that the media, particularly the paparazzi, will be the major villains in the film.

...To take a concern that one person has worked towards making a difference in the world and making it grow and prosper and reach more and more people, to me that's a huge legacy.

I agree. It is one of the things Diana did best.
.

 

[Ish]

I doubt the film will go into her dependency on William all that much. I've read reports that say William and Harry only have one scene in the film, where they're saying goodbye to her for the last time before the accident.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I wonder if the film will note, at least in the final moments, that Diana left not one red cent (or shilling, I should say) to all these beloved charities, nor did she contribute her personal money towards them during her lifetime. In fact, I believe she made money off them.

 

[Osipi]

I wonder if the film will note, at least in the final moments, that Diana left not one red cent (or shilling, I should say) to all these beloved charities, nor did she contribute her personal money towards them during her lifetime. In fact, I believe she made money off them.

I don't believe I've ever heard of any British royal bequeathing donations from their personal wealth to different charities and patronages but I'm sure I'll be corrected in this matter.

I do believe Charles has been known to put his own money into various endeavors but for the most part, I think if a royal would have donated out of their own pocket, it would have been kept as an anonymous donation.

Just my take on it.

 

[Dman]

I won't be going to see the film but will wait for the DVD.
There's a lot of false accusations out there about the late Princess.

I don't believe I've ever heard of any British royal bequeathing donations from their personal wealth to different charities and patronages but I'm sure I'll be corrected in this matter.

The royals contributions are usually private.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The royals contributions are usually private.

The reason the lack of charitable donations is an issue is because: 1) Diana was not a royal at the time of her death, and 2) she urged others to make donations and bequests. She may have privately donated some money to charity, but it couldn't have been much. We know that her estate was worth $35.6 million and she received between $25 million and $33 million in the divorce. So she couldn't have donated that much to charity.

 

[Dman]

According to palace officials, Diana remained a member of the royal family, despite her divorce. The Princess of Wales did her job in help raise a great deal of money for her charities that she was royal patron or president.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

According to palace officials, Diana remained a member of the royal family, despite her divorce. The Princess of Wales did her job in help raise a great deal of money for her charities that she was royal patron or president.

I meant that she had lost her HRH title, so she may have been a member of the family, as Zara and Peter are, she was no longer a royal.

Regarding the fact that she raised money. She certainly did, but I think it is hypocritical for people to raise money from other people but not contribute themselves--especially when they have $35 million.

It's just another indication of how deeply she truly felt about her charities. I think she cared about them, but not as much as she's given credit for.

 

[Dman]

I'm sure Diana contributed to her charities privately. I'm sure other current members of the royal family contribute to their charities privately as well, although I don't see anyone asking about it.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

...It's just another indication of how deeply she truly felt about her charities. I think she cared about them, but not as much as she's given credit for.

Yes, indeed. It was always claimed that Diana did more than the BRF, cared more for her causes than they did. I tend to believe people should put the money where there mouth is, and there are many Hollywood celebrities, for instance who do. So I'd say she was no better than the royals it is always claimed she was better than.

P.S. As for false accusations about Diana, for every false accusation about Diana, I think there's at least two for Charles.

 

[Dman]

If they are claims that Diana did more for her causes than the other royals, then that's a false statement. All members of the royal do a great deal for their causes. It's not fair to put that blame on Diana though. I'm sure she did her thing privately.

I'm sure there are false accusations about the Prince of Wales too. Although I think some people have figured out the way to stick up for Charles is to put Diana down and place a great deal of blame on her. I think that's very unfair to Charles and Diana. None of them are/were saints.