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

[Queen Camilla]

Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/trim/audrey_hepburn_materials/doc/doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.

As someone who worked on this issue, I will say that we were very happy when Diana's photo ops made a lot of headlines. But you are right, the anti-landmine campaign was in place for years before Diana's involvement.

The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Catholic Relief Services, and Church World Service were all actively working these issues before Diana was involved. There were segments highlighting this issue on 60 Minutes and 20/20 (two major US news programs) and BBC also ran several programs. There were also prominent articles in major U.S. newspapers and magazines.

By 1997, the landmine ban was gaining a lot of steam. Belgium had passed legislation in 1995 and Canada scheduled the talks for the Ottawa Treaty in 1996. Every country (including the UK) that signed the treaty indicated they would do so BEFORE Diana made her famous photo ops. I would be happy to be proven wrong if anyone can provide the name of one signatory of the treaty who wouldn't have done so without Diana's involvement.

She certainly helped bring more awareness to the issue among the general public, but its ludicrous to suggest that she was murdered by weapons manufacturers.

 

[anbrida]

Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/trim/audrey_hepburn_materials/doc/doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.

The only intention I quote another person's article is to argue the saying that Diana had no infulence on anything serious. I definitely have no intention to undermine any other people's contribution on the landmine issue. So please let the debate stop here.

I agree; however, keep in mind that Diana did have insecurities. She often thought some friend was betraying her in some way, and then she'd drop that person. So she may have sometimes fancied she was in danger, whether or not there was any foundation for that belief.

One of her friend gave a testimony in Diana's inquest confirmed that Diana did receive a phone call from a man who warned her to drop the landmine campaign, otherwise "an accident might happen." So it is not a total fancy.

After Andrew Morton's book come out, she once told a friend "After this they are gonna kill me". It is around that time she made a will. Yes, I believe she made a will because she worried about her life.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana was very powerful in her own right. I think she was killed because if she was alive she would have made sure Charles never become king!!! She was the number one threat to Charles and she had made it clear she didn't think he should become king on TV.

1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana was very powerful in her own right. I think she was killed because if she was alive she would have made sure Charles never become king!!! She was the number one threat to Charles and she had made it clear she didn't think he should become king on TV.

1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?

 

[Curryong]

Diana, had she lived, would have remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family and specifically Charles. I certainly don't believe that she was assassinated, by the way, nor was such a thing planned, by Prince Charles, Prince Philip, security services, or anyone else.

Nevertheless, Diana did have power, the power of people's love and admiration, not just in Britain but all over the world.

Yes, by 1997 there were critical articles written in the Press, but nobody seeing those mountains of floral tributes, condolence books in British Embassies overseas, people's spontaneous reactions at the shock of Diana's death, could have denied the impact.

The Queen, the Head of State, was forced by the strength of public opinion to broadcast a tribute to her ex daughter in law, and bow her head outside Buckingham Palace as the funeral cortège passed by.

Diana was loved and mourned all over the world and in that lay her power.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nobody who remembers that week should underestimate the power of the press in manipulated the people's 'affection' for Diana.


The press were initially blamed, by people at KP, of killing Diana. I am talking within those first couple of hours where the press were yelled at and words such as 'killers' and 'you killed her' were directed by the public to the press.


The press then had to react:


1. blame Diana's fans (after all they were the ones who fuelled the presses interest as she made the press money and it was because they would buy the magazines etc with the photos in it that triggered the demand that the paparazzi were able to exploit) - not going to happen as that would mean losing money and the press weren't going to do that


2. blame the royal family - they had treated her badly etc etc and she had already set up a 'they are dysfunctional', 'they are hard and unloving' type stories that many people still prefer to believe - easy targets as they wouldn't fight back and really couldn't fight back.


As a result the media stories focussed on the non-appearance of the monarch and the taking of the boys to church etc etc rather than on the paparazzi and who would have bought the photos OR on Diana's own poor decision making that lead to her death.


The public were manipulated big time over Diana - first by her and then by the press.


Many people are more aware today of the way that people can be manipulated but many others still fall for the stories - not only about Diana but a range of figures, incidents etc.


The press wee turning on Diana over that summer and had she lived that would have continued. Headlines like 'just how many holidays does one person need in a year?' come to mind.


I have spoken to many British people who now are ashamed of the way they were manipulated that week - and ashamed of how they badgered The Queen into doing what she did. They have been able to go review their actions and realise that they were victims of the press and that in reality they didn't care that much for Diana.


In many ways we are seeing something similar this week in Sydney - everyone who goes near the city is expected to lay flowers outside the café but how many of them are doing so because they actually are connecting with what happened or is it more 'it is the thing to do this week?' Some people will have been affected - having known people or been in the place etc but many simply are doing it because 'it is the thing to do' and the Diana week was the same thing - it was the thing to do if you were in London that week.

 

[MARG]

Landmines were an issue long before January of 1997.

Prince Charles swept for landmines in the 1970s.

Clearing landmines from war torn countries was always in the news. Showing children who were disable because of landmines was also covered.

Landmine placed in Cambodia and Vietnam are still being cleared today. Cambodia has the highest number of amputees in the world.

Audrey Hepburn campaigned against landmines. Here's her speech from 1991.http://www.unicef.org/about/history/trim/audrey_hepburn_materials/doc/doc401484.PDF

It is simply a matter of people seeing and remembering what they want.

No one did any good works, charity works, loving gestures, etc. before the advent of Diana. She was soo terrific she had to be stopped. Yeah right!

Diana, had she lived, would have remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family and specifically Charles. I certainly don't believe that she was assassinated, by the way, nor was such a thing planned, by Prince Charles, Prince Philip, security services, or anyone else.

The press were just warming up on the excesses of The Perfect Princess.

Nevertheless, Diana did have power, the power of people's love and admiration, not just in Britain but all over the world. Yes, by 1997 there were critical articles written in the Press, but nobody seeing those mountains of floral tributes, condolence books in British Embassies overseas, people's spontaneous reactions at the shock of Diana's death, could have denied the impact.

You are kidding aren't you. The articles of Diana and her behavior were in a state of almost hate. "How many holidays . . . " type headlines with her in bathing suits and bikinis were becoming virilent. Her halo had officially slipped the year before her death. That sea of flowers is more a tribute to the power of the press.

The Queen, the Head of State, was forced by the strength of public opinion to broadcast a tribute to her ex daughter in law, and bow her head outside Buckingham Palace as the funeral cortège passed by.

Diana was loved and mourned all over the world and in that lay her power.

Ah the power of the press. The first reports came in that she had died while being chased by the media and there was a groundswell of anger and hatred toward the paparazzi. The media, realising they were "in the gun" swung the spotlight on the royal family. The rest is history . . .

Nobody who remembers that week should underestimate the power of the press in manipulated the people's 'affection' for Diana.

The press were initially blamed, by people at KP, of killing Diana. I am talking within those first couple of hours where the press were yelled at and words such as 'killers' and 'you killed her' were directed by the public to the press.

The press then had to react:

1. blame Diana's fans (after all they were the ones who fuelled the presses interest as she made the press money and it was because they would buy the magazines etc with the photos in it that triggered the demand that the paparazzi were able to exploit) - not going to happen as that would mean losing money and the press weren't going to do that

2. blame the royal family - they had treated her badly etc etc and she had already set up a 'they are dysfunctional', 'they are hard and unloving' type stories that many people still prefer to believe - easy targets as they wouldn't fight back and really couldn't fight back.

As a result the media stories focussed on the non-appearance of the monarch and the taking of the boys to church etc etc rather than on the paparazzi and who would have bought the photos OR on Diana's own poor decision making that lead to her death.

The public were manipulated big time over Diana - first by her and then by the press.

Many people are more aware today of the way that people can be manipulated but many others still fall for the stories - not only about Diana but a range of figures, incidents etc

The press were turning on Diana over that summer and had she lived that would have continued. Headlines like 'just how many holidays does one person need in a year?' come to mind.

I have spoken to many British people who now are ashamed of the way they were manipulated that week - and ashamed of how they badgered The Queen into doing what she did. They have been able to go review their actions and realise that they were victims of the press and that in reality they didn't care that much for Diana.

In many ways we are seeing something similar this week in Sydney - everyone who goes near the city is expected to lay flowers outside the café but how many of them are doing so because they actually are connecting with what happened or is it more 'it is the thing to do this week?' Some people will have been affected - having known people or been in the place etc but many simply are doing it because 'it is the thing to do' and the Diana week was the same thing - it was the thing to do if you were in London that week.

Harsh, but I cannot find a anything to rebutt your post. It is all an ugly, unforgettably cruel memory. Proof that we are fallable, we are easily manipulated and proof that we can be as mean as Diana was.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, there were many people who were manipulated by the Press, mass hysteria, whatever you like to call it, and there were many who weren't. I happened to be in England the week that Diana"s funeral was held, and I walked around among those crowds.

I was born and brought up in England, at a time when respect for the monarchy was probably at it's highest, and I am telling you that the mood that I felt among the crowds was a very, very strange one. It was one that I have never before experienced, and I have been among huge crowds that have greeted the royals over the years.

The public isn't one big homogenous lump. There were some who did blame the Press. I was told of death threats made to magazine editors and photographers following Diana's death.

Others identified with Diana in her troubles and that included people from all over the world. I was speaking to someone only the other day who came from a small village in India. We spoke about the royals and he recalled his mother and other village women weeping when they heard of Diana's death. They would hardly have been manipulated by the British media. Another friend remembered mourning with others in a small town in Czechoslovakia. They weren't either.

No-one can say Diana's power was or is negligible. If it was why are threads devoted to her in forums like this years after her death? And why is Camilla the only wife of a Prince of Wales in recorded history who took one of her husband's subsidiary titles because royal advisers were worried about public reaction should she be named Princess of Wales?

 

[Valerie Rose]

Yes, there were many people who were manipulated by the Press, mass hysteria, whatever you like to call it, and there were many who weren't. I happened to be in England the week that Diana"s funeral was held, and I walked around among those crowds.

I was born and brought up in England, at a time when respect for the monarchy was probably at it's highest, and I am telling you that the mood that I felt among the crowds was a very, very strange one. It was one that I have never before experienced, and I have been among huge crowds that have greeted the royals over the years.

The public isn't one big homogenous lump. There were some who did blame the Press. I was told of death threats made to magazine editors and photographers following Diana's death.

Others identified with Diana in her troubles and that included people from all over the world. I was speaking to someone only the other day who came from a small village in India. We spoke about the royals and he recalled his mother and other village women weeping when they heard of Diana's death. They would hardly have been manipulated by the British media. Another friend remembered mourning with others in a small town in Czechoslovakia. They weren't either.

No-one can say Diana's power was or is negligible. If it was why are threads devoted to her in forums like this years after her death? And why is Camilla the only wife of a Prince of Wales in recorded history who took one of her husband's subsidiary titles because royal advisers were worried about public reaction should she be named Princess of Wales?

Great post

 

[lucymae88]

1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?

Diana was very powerful, People loved her and admired her. I'm not saying she could have stopped Charles from becoming King. But she could have made it really difficult for him and made people really not want him to be king. I don't think Charles had anything to do with her death, I think he did care about her in his own little way. It would have been easy for anyone to had followed them and to know were they were going/doing that night. You don't have to no someone's plans to try and kill them. Will never no what happen that night.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana was very powerful, People loved her and admired her.

popularity does not equal power

Popularity fluctuates as we have seen with The Queen - she was at her least popular in 1997 and is back up to almost universal popularity.

Diana's popularity was beginning to wane in 1997 which may have continued or she may have been able to stage a comeback - but the basis of her position had been taken away from her - her position as the future Queen. Charles was getting on with his life and doing his royal work while she was becoming a lose cannon and had to work on a world stage as she wasn't able to work inside Britain.

Power in Britain rests with the politicians, the businessmen and since 1999 the aristocracy has lost a lot of their power and influence since the hereditary peers largely losing their seats in the Lords - so where did she have the means to actually exercise power.

She couldn't force the government of the day to disinherit Charles, although the Labour Party might have been willing to disinherit him - if they could also remove the entire royal family and set up a republic - thus removing William's rights of inheritance as well. She could have stood for election to the House of Commons as she was always a commoner and so eligible to do so (like the rest of the royal commoners she didn't exercise that right or the right to vote but that doesn't mean she didn't have that right) but she would only have been one voice - so again not really powerful.

She was popular and that is all.

 

[anbrida]

I think we would never come to an agreement whether there are more people love Diana or more who hate her. There is never such a survey done around the world. So whenever I come into this kind of debate, I totally surrender. Why do we spend so much energy into this kind of debate which we know there won't be any universal conclusion. So only let the truth speak for itself. That is what I am trying to do right now -- finding more untold stories about her and make our own conclusion. To the end of day, only God can judge you. Other people's opinion just opinion.

popularity does not equal power

Popularity fluctuates as we have seen with The Queen - she was at her least popular in 1997 and is back up to almost universal popularity.

Diana's popularity was beginning to wane in 1997 which may have continued or she may have been able to stage a comeback - but the basis of her position had been taken away from her - her position as the future Queen. Charles was getting on with his life and doing his royal work while she was becoming a lose cannon and had to work on a world stage as she wasn't able to work inside Britain.

Power in Britain rests with the politicians, the businessmen and since 1999 the aristocracy has lost a lot of their power and influence since the hereditary peers largely losing their seats in the Lords - so where did she have the means to actually exercise power.

She couldn't force the government of the day to disinherit Charles, although the Labour Party might have been willing to disinherit him - if they could also remove the entire royal family and set up a republic - thus removing William's rights of inheritance as well. She could have stood for election to the House of Commons as she was always a commoner and so eligible to do so (like the rest of the royal commoners she didn't exercise that right or the right to vote but that doesn't mean she didn't have that right) but she would only have been one voice - so again not really powerful.

She was popular and that is all.

Two things I have to disagree with you. First, popularity can bring power. She was popular, so her voice can be heard by more people, her opinion can reach more places. That doesn't mean we just listen to her and don't think for ourselves. But at least attention can be drawn to some unnoticed issues and people will think over them and make their own conclusion.

Another thing I don't agree with you is her basis of popularity come from her position as future Queen. Well, even she would be a Queen, she would only be a British Queen. This position is quite irrelevant to the rest of the world outside Britain. She was phenomenal person, she must have something special.

If Diana was still alive, I think Charles would have married Camilla earlier than 2005. From the fact that Charles actually dare to intent to bring Camilla to Diana's memorial service in 2007 (actually he was quite stubborn on this for a long time), one can tell that at the bottom of his heart, he believed Diana wouldn't mind his marriage with Camilla. You know, all human being would sort of fear about anything unknown to them, for example the deceased. If he believed Diana would be offended by the presence of Camilla in her memorial service, he wouldn't do so.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Two things I have to disagree with you. First, popularity can bring power. She was popular, so her voice can be heard by more people, her opinion can reach more places. That doesn't mean we just listen to her and don't think for ourselves. But at least attention can be drawn to some unnoticed issues and people will think over them and make their own conclusion.

You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.

Another thing I don't agree with you is her basis of popularity come from her position as future Queen. Well, even she would be a Queen, she would only be a British Queen. This position is quite irrelevant to the rest of the world outside Britain. She was phenomenal person, she must have something special.

If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.

 

[anbrida]

You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.


If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.

There are two kinds of power, soft power and hard power. She didn't have any hard power, but she did have some substantial soft power, that is called influence.

Yes you are right, she was known to the world because of her marriage to Charles. But that is only the precondition. You can not deny her own merit--her extraordinary compassion -- in the establishing of her good image to many people.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Here is one more incident about her fear, told by her bodyguard when she was in the first holiday with Al-Fayed family.



You know, if there is only one single incident about her fear, then I will believe it is just due to some soothsayer' saying. However, she had showed this kind of fear for quite a period, like the morbid quotes from "The little Prince" to her friends, and those secret tapes, and the story above. It seems to me she had some true fear for her life.

BTW here is the link to the transcript of the hearing of the bodyguard
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 9 January 2008 - Afternoon session

The testimony includes assumptions and conclusions about what Diana meant. There is no evidence that the assumptions are correction.

Any sane celebrity would reconsider his or her security after a high profile murder of another celebrity. The murder of Rebecca Schaffer by a deranged stalker helped fuel the explosion of companies that provide security for celebrities in California. Most non-celebrities have similar reactions when dealing with the death of a loved one. My husband was very shaken up by the sudden death of a friend several months ago. He was more cautious driving for a few months but has gradually returned to his normal routine.

We can't take a few conversations she had about her security (particularly after the death of a loved one) and make generalizations about Diana's whole outlook on life and death. She certainly was concerned about her own safety at times but the vast majority of her actions indicated that she wasn't obsessed by the thought of her own death. It's possible that she believed the royal family or the arms manufacturing industry would kill her but I don't think so. Her overall actions are not consistent with someone who was in fear for her life. She was often seen around London without a bodyguard. If she was so worried about a car accident, she would have worn a seat belt on the night she was killed.

We have no idea when the tapes were made--if they were made at all--or what prompted them. If they were made shortly before her death, perhaps it was Versace's murder that inspired them.

I will agree that she thought that she was safe while with Dodi and surrounded by Dodi's security. It's tragic that she was so wrong. Unfortunately, Dodi's father has spent the last 15 years trying to distract from his company's negligence and the bad decisions made by Dodi and Diana that night.

 

[cepe]

You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.



If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.

She would never have had access - you make really good points here.

As she said herself - "thick as a plank" but manipulative. She had sexual chemistry (I do not mean that she used this physically) and it obviously influenced people such as Tony Blair. HMQ had the same impact on Churchill. But the Queen had real power; Diana, had she lived, would have seen her fragile power fade.

 

[anbrida]

She would never have had access - you make really good points here.

As she said herself - "thick as a plank" but manipulative. She had sexual chemistry (I do not mean that she used this physically) and it obviously influenced people such as Tony Blair. HMQ had the same impact on Churchill. But the Queen had real power; Diana, had she lived, would have seen her fragile power fade.

If you know the truth why she did those thing in her last month, and how she sacrificed her reputation and risked her own life to help the mine victims. You would know that her power would not fade at all. The real power comes from her HEART. She was powerful because she had a BIG heart.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The late Diana indeed was an excellent ambassador for a ban on the use of land mines. The phrase "she risked her own life to help mine victims" however is popular nonsense.

It is known that both the British and the Angolan authorities carefully checked and double-checked that there was no any danger for Diana. The area was zoomed with media and lots of public. The Angolan (and British) authorities would not take ANY risk on seeing Diana, Princess of Wales being blown-up, live before international television and media.

So the result: Diana, Princess of Wales walked into a cleared mine-field, wearing spic-and-span new protective equipment, all carefully staged to gain attention for the horror of those forgotten minefields, all over the world. Also politicians use this sort of publiclity, see US Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Elizabeth Frazer walking in a similar minefield in Angola: picture.

 

[Winnie]

As far as Diana's legacy, I don't think much will be impressive in years to come. Most young people {teens through early 20s} don't remember her and could care less. They might read about her in school or watch the infrequent documentary on history channel of Queen Elizabeth II which will mention Charles and his first wife. There are just so many more people that are now doing brilliant things for our world.


Yes, I still think of her and wonder what she would be like today, but that is just the older generation. Only the media brings her up constantly due to William's life and children, etc. If she had actually made it to queen, then she would always be a strong part of history. Now she will be only a footnote to future generations of historical scholars. Read your history and you will see that many queens and princesses have done great things [some going against their customs] to bring better living and working conditions to their citizens and parts of the world, yet we now rather over-look their accomplishments. I am not saying that this is right, it is just the way we are. Most people could just care less about history.

 

[Jacknch]

Off-topic posts, together with incidental responses, have been deleted. Further controversial or disruptive posts will be deleted without notice.

Jacknch
British Forum Moderator

 

[MARG]

Some things can be true, but a great deal of it where lies, but stuck over the years as the truth.

Often things we do in life come back to bite us and in Diana's case it did and, with her death, will continue to do so ad infinitum.

Diana's suspected but uncredited involvement in Morton's book "Diana, Her True Story, published in 1992 opened up the "idea" that "if she was, what else did she do". The release of 'Diana, Her True Story - In Her Own Words" with it's six C90 tapes, gallies with additions and corrections in her own hand and 69 new pages of her own to back it up, proved that she had.

After her death, that circumstance seemed to take on a life of it's own and reduced Diana to a resource to be exploited, a previously untapped well of "inside" information. Unlike all the other books and articles, Diana participated in Morton's book and Bashier's interview and the lines were forever blurred, if it was true, who was there to prove it wasn't and vice versa. The BP stance of "never complain, never explain" played into the media expose game. The floodgates were open and, to coin a hackneyed old phrase, no one can "put the Genie back in the bottle".

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wonder how future generations will view "Her True Story" and the Bashir interview? When I look back on the 90s (which at times feel like they were just a few weeks ago), I remember it as a time when telling a story of victimisation was very popular. It was the time of the public confessional in which people like Oprah Winfrey were host to any number of celebrities or unknowns who went through terrible things and went on TV to talk about it. The way that Diana created her public story fit this narrative. She took what was a bad decision on her part (marrying the Prince of Wales) and made it into a story of martyrdom and heroism. This resonated with people at the time, I think, because it was the same story that we were hearing on TV talk shows: "Yes, I did that, but it was because I was victimised in this way." Will future generations see Diana's outpourings as self-absorbed drivel, I wonder? It will be, I think, largely academics who will be interested in studying her as an icon of her time and why she 'clicked' with so many people. There will always be people who are interested in Diana and her story, but there will be much fewer of them.

 

[Jacknch]

I think future generations will be surprised at the frankness and openness of the interview (and the subsequent one that Charles did), because there will never be interviews like that again from members of the Royal Family. I myself look back in horror at the revelations, but at the time people revelled in the drama, like watching a soap-opera - none of it seemed real somehow.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I know what you mean, Jacknch. We forgot sometimes that Charles and Diana were real human beings. On occasion, I see clips of "Diana Her True Story" on YouTube and am struck by how the Charles presented there is like a caricature of the actual man--and that by a good actor! The interviews were awfully frank, yes.

 

[Nico]

These interviews showed the level of despair reached by both sides. It's incredible how two smart and educated people, parents of two small boys, married for 14 years were able to fight like this so publicly.
It's a miracle that the Queen didn't die of apoplexy seeing all this mess ...

 

[Lady Nimue]

...I remember it as a time when telling a story of victimisation was very popular. It was the time of the public confessional in which people like Oprah Winfrey were host to any number of celebrities or unknowns who went through terrible things and went on TV to talk about it. The way that Diana created her public story fit this narrative...

I think you've offered an explanation that makes sense, as the whole thing completely puzzles me. You've made an excellent point about the social times being amenable to 'confessions'. Methinks it all went over-the-top and we are less inclined in that direction now. Pendulum swing. As a consequence, we're less sympathetic to such 'confessions', too, especially with someone who was so clearly socially privileged and living in the lap of luxury.

I was never drawn to her and to watch her now she comes across as painfully askew (I don't want to use the word phony). I haven't seen one interview where it feels good to watch her and listen to her, so for me the puzzle about her popularity is a deep mystery. Though I will say this: where she doesn't speak, in the videos of her, she does look natural and appealing, and could be stunningly turned out. There was something about her speaking, however, and especially in interviews, that grates (for me).

 

[anbrida]

Her popularity comes from her true heart. If one doesn't bear their head in the sand like an ostrich, they can see that she was genuine to care about people.

However, one thing is very interesting to study. Actually, before she died, the press she got was very terrible. No one can deny that, because many people said had she not died, her popularity would wind down very quick. However, even though she died at such an unfavorable moment, the spontaneous grief over her death expressed by people were phenomenal. In history, such level of collective grief seldom happened. On conscious level, that is irrational. However, the truth is she deserved every bit of tear people shed for her (if one is willing to open their eyes to see the truth).

So this might prove one psychology myth -- Human being are not only able to recognize goodness using their brain (consciously), but we might also have another mechanism built in us genetically, which make us able to recognize things unconsciously. We called this "collective unconscious" in psychology.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Her popularity comes from her true heart. If one doesn't bear their head in the sand like an ostrich, they can see that she was genuine to care about people.

Dear anbrida I sense that you are someone who was touched by Diana. I would say that's good. We all have our idols (for me, growing up, it was Queen Silvia of Sweden). My mother and I had conversations about Diana when I was older so I understand a lot about the fascination, but it just never was there for me. One of those things.

I don't think my head is in the sand. I perhaps know more about her than I care to know, in fact. She was not an easy person. I think she came across in public, as I mentioned, better than she did in her personal life or when she spoke. That explains some of it. She was an actress, in a way, and I have known some. True heart? I will always have a hard time going that far as I think that raises her in a way beyond the normal, and I think she was normal. I think she suffered.

even though she died at such an unfavorable moment, the spontaneous grief over her death expressed by people were phenomenal. In history, such level of collective grief seldom happened. On conscious level, that is irrational. However, the truth is she deserved every bit of tear people shed for her (if one is willing to open their eyes to see the truth).

Well, she was young and in her stride. It was a shock even for those not interested in her, I would guess. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'the truth'. What truth? Care to say?

So this might prove one psychology myth -- Human being are not only able to recognize goodness using their brain (consciously), but we might also have another mechanism built in us genetically, which make us able to recognize things unconsciously. We called this "collective unconscious" in psychology.

By her own words she admitted to a friend that she did the charity work because 'what else is there to do?' She was making the best of an unhappy situation, I think. In doing so, she did good, and when she was 'on' she was brilliant, but I would not ascribe to Diana a goodness that is in any way above the norm for any of us. Even I don't put Queen Silvia on that kind of pedestal though I feel she is about as decent a woman as there is, and likely good.

I'm curious: why do you seem to elevate Diana to a level of 'goodness' as a 'true heart' over any other royal? We have pretty grim evidence that Diana was a very difficult woman to deal with, more so than any other royal princess. How does that translate into goodness and a pure heart?

 

[COUNTESS]

But she did interesting kind things, she could have avoided. She touched AIDS patients and treated like human beings. She didn't walk around with gloves on. And not touching. She may have done charity work, because, truthfully, there was nothing else open to her, but she seemed to care about what she was doing. Charles on his interview just made a fuss that Camilla does work for Osteoporosis. Remember, that these people don't work, what they call work is charity time and appearances.