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.
Maybe she did do the same things as P.Alexandra or Q.Victoria in their time (though i find it hard to compare her to Ann Boleyn, whose legacy wasn't really her charity work) but all the people who knew them are dead by now and we can only judge with hindsight knowledge

Diana touched many people's lives who are still here today; and she made a big difference for many individuals across the world. With all these posts of comparisons, continiously ending with "she did what lot's of royals do" it feels like you're trying to tell a person who was touched by Diana "what she did for you was nothing special".
Why is that necessary in this thread? (There are loads of threads about the various aspects of Diana)

What the real question is; why is there a thread like this for Diana's work and not for other royals?

just my 2 cts..

ETA: i'd say that one of her great accomplishment was that she not only did things herself but was an inspiration to others to follow up on it, from two people i'm almost sure (even though i didn't ask them) that she inspired them for years to come: her two sons :flowers:
 
Last edited:
It is not bringing own Diana at all. It is seeing things in the right proportions with the conclusion that her efforts for causes and charities to her heart fit in a long-standing tradition which still continues these days. In 1964 the Fondation Princesse Grace was established in Monaco. Princess Caroline of Hannover is the current president, continuing her mother's work. Thousands and thousands and thousands of children have been helped, quietly but efficiently, by this foundation. This is just an example. It is not about bringing Diana down. It is about seeing things in a wider perspective.

I agree Duc_et_Pair. Too often we don't hear about the work that royals do on a regular basis in the English language media so the public's image might be that they're not that involved.

I can only discuss Diana's legacy as I experience it as a normal UK citizen. I am in my late 20s and I only barely remember her. I remember the day she died and my parents being non-plussed at the totally over the top few days that followed. I remember seeing pictures of her lounging around on a fancy boat in the Mediterranean before her death.

I suppose her legacy for me is that she did some charity work, had a tumultuous marriage to say the least, wore some nice clothes which now look super dated, and died young. Not much more than that.

I work with a lot of people in their early 20s who just don't remember her at all. When the world was waiting for Kate to give birth earlier this month we discussed it every day at lunch, we occasionally chat about William and Harry and what they get up to. Diana simply never comes up - she's just not a relevant part of any of our lives. They know who she was, but that's about it.

Which is what I'd expect from your generation. The emotional connection to this person isn't there. As time moves on this will be the norm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is what I'd expect from your generation. The emotional connection to this person isn't there. As time moves on this will be the norm.

Indeed. We are already almost nearing the second half of 2015, going to 2016. Time moves fast...
 
This isn't Diana's fault, but when I watch specials on William, Harry or Kate and they talk about the charity work William or Harry does they always say they got it from Diana or it is Diana's legacy that makes them do it. I hate that they are allowed to portray this false image by ignoring the other members of the Royal family and their charity work and acting like it all started with Diana. Yes she did good things but why pretend she is the only one who did good things?
Another aspect is that anything to do with Will and Kate then they have to throw in Diana. When George and Charlotte were born their were glossy magazines devoted to it and at least 10 pages devoted to Diana. Remember the comparisons because Kate wore a polka dot dress after the birth? And the worst of it is when they have comparisons of Kate and Dia a because they word an outfit that had some similarity; Kate wears blue, red, green then lets dig up a picture of Diana in blue, red, green etc. The media won't let her go even if the younger generation don't have much knowledge or interest.
 
I do believe that Diana's charity work inspired William and Harry a lot in their younger years. William most definitely continued Diana's work with the homeless with Centrepoint as Diana took a young William there with her to see first hand to experience what young homeless people faced day to day quite a few times. With Harry, one of his earliest endeavors into charity work was forming Sentebale with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho for HIV infected children. Sentebale means "forget me not" and was named in honor of both the Princes' mothers. For the past two years, we've seen Harry participate in entering a display in the Chelsea flower show portraying Sentebale (and winning the silver gilt award). To me, that shows not only Harry continuing Diana's work with HIV/AIDS but also incorporating Charles' influence with the love of gardening. Both boys reflect very positively on aspects they've inherited from both of their parents.

I was able to catch the PBS documentary of "Diana vs. The Queen" late last night and although I do feel it was biased, there was a good point brought up. At first when Diana wanted to do charity work with people suffering from AIDS, it was shut down as being too political and controversial by the Queen as she needed to approve all engagements and representations. From this report, it stated that Diana went ahead with it anyways. What we'll never really know is if that action was taken out of altruistic motives or if Diana was starting to buck the system at that point. Doesn't really matter now as what does matter is the good that those visits brought.

The important thing is that the work Diana did affected many people that still remember her fondly today. AIDS and HIV and homelessness still present a problem to our societies. Perhaps in 300 years they will be problems that have been conquered and eradicated and her work will be relegated to the history books along with other problems humanity has solved such as no more need for Save the Children near and dear to Anne's heart.
 
She touched people ,physically, like the Aids patient. That was very important. The Queen, certainly, has done her job, both always wears gloves, which gives you the sense that she is not going to touch skin. No one wears gloves, today.
 
She touched people ,physically, like the Aids patient. That was very important. The Queen, certainly, has done her job, both always wears gloves, which gives you the sense that she is not going to touch skin. No one wears gloves, today.

But they should. IMO there is no virtue in shaking so many hands with one's own bare hands. :sad:
 
This isn't Diana's fault, but when I watch specials on William, Harry or Kate and they talk about the charity work William or Harry does they always say they got it from Diana or it is Diana's legacy that makes them do it. I hate that they are allowed to portray this false image by ignoring the other members of the Royal family and their charity work and acting like it all started with Diana. Yes she did good things but why pretend she is the only one who did good things?

I understand what you're saying and though I, too, find it a bit irritating, I also don't find it at all surprising. She was their mother and she was taken from them in tragic circumstances at a vulnerable time in their lives. Their memories of her are bound to be biased.

But Diana was only one in a long line of royal and aristocratic women who devoted their lives to charitable works. How many people today know anything about William & Harry's ancestor, the original "people's princess"? Yes, Diana was not the first to be given that moniker. HRH Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, later HRH The Duchess of Teck, the mother of Princess May of Teck (Queen Mary), was a tireless worker for charity and took on many patronages.
 
With a disease such as AIDS that was just starting to take hold in global awareness during the Diana years, there were many fallacies surrounding just how it could be communicated. With Diana being photographed touching and hugging those affected with AIDS, I think it did disprove to the general public that you could catch it by touch. Some of the AIDS patients became quite close to Diana and if IIRC, she rushed to the hospital to be with one close to her as he approached his final hour. There were many reports that came out that Diana did do what she could off the clock because she wanted to.

As far as gloves go, I think it was around the 70s and 80s that a lady's attire complete with hat and gloves started to go out the window. Growing up in the 50s and 60s, I remember well that one always wore a hat and gloves to church according to my mother. It was the fashion and style of the times.

I do agree that pressing the flesh with a hoard of people is generally not a healthy idea. We pick up things most commonly through our hands. Its normal these days to see a lot of ads for antibacterial soaps and disinfectants and I do think the norm now is to wash hands frequently with antibacterial soap. What they don't tell you though is that to be effective, a thorough wash for 2 minutes at least is needed. But I digress...
 
She touched people ,physically, like the Aids patient. That was very important. The Queen, certainly, has done her job, both always wears gloves, which gives you the sense that she is not going to touch skin. No one wears gloves, today.

Eeerh..... your statement "no one wears gloves, today" is really not true....

Queen Mathilde

Queen Máxima

Princess Charlène

Etc.
 
Diana touching her friend's hand did not have world wide repercussions.

Most of the world did not even know Diana existed.

In 1987, the most populous nations were China and India. Billions of people in the world did not have access to clean drinking water. They could hardly be wasting their time and energy buying western celebrity magazines.

I never saw the image or heard of Diana touching a person with AIDS until long after she had been dead.

I hardly think most people in China, India and most of Asia, Africa, South America and Central America ever heard or cared about Diana.

When Diana's supporters say world wide it must mean their own small circle of acquaintances and not the real world of several billions of people.
 
It was very big news in most Western Countries when Diana touched/hugged and worked with those people who had AIDS. I remember it being talked about on the news and in magazines of the day here in the U.S.

Just because you somehow were cut off from the rest of events doesn't mean it didn't happen and people didn't know about it. I live in small town USA and heard about it.


LaRae
 
It's interesting that whenever anbrida states something see post #1500), it is not just an opinion. But if anyone says anything to the contrary--even people who actually knew Diana--it's only an opinion.


We all have our opinions. As was stated before, no one can deny that Diana did charitable work and got a lot of publicity for her causes. However, it's going to create controversy when someone states that Diana was a pure humanitarian--which, is by nature an opinion. Only Diana knew her true motives.


There is a lot of evidence that Diana's motives for charity work were mixed--including the fact that she resigned from 100 of her charities and made few charitable appearances during the last few years of her life. I believe that she did want to help others, but she also liked the publicity--a lot.


I am sorry that all you read just my "opinions" instead of all the facts, letters, quotes and articles I posted on this thread and other thread like the thread of "Diana's charity work" to support my opinions.

Someone say a person who actually knew Diana said her motivation for charity work was not pure, but I notice that the same person said some quite different words too. So you see, using opinion, no matter whose, to support claim is quite lame.

That is always my point, if one only state one's opinion without supporting evidences and facts, I wont take it very serious. Just like you state that Diana mix motives for charity work including her lurk for publicity. And you said she dropped her 100 charities was because she was lazy, and always refused another possible interpretation that it is because she wanted to be more focus and more involved in some particular causes. For all of these I don't see you have any evidence to support your claim.
 
Diana touching her friend's hand did not have world wide repercussions.

Most of the world did not even know Diana existed.

In 1987, the most populous nations were China and India. Billions of people in the world did not have access to clean drinking water. They could hardly be wasting their time and energy buying western celebrity magazines.

I never saw the image or heard of Diana touching a person with AIDS until long after she had been dead.

I hardly think most people in China, India and most of Asia, Africa, South America and Central America ever heard or cared about Diana.

When Diana's supporters say world wide it must mean their own small circle of acquaintances and not the real world of several billions of people.


Bias much? Like Diana or not, it had enormous impact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/charities-devastated-after-diana-quits-as-patron-1329108.html in 1995: "Derek Bodell, director of the National Aids Trust, one of the charities the Princess will continue to work with, said they were thrilled: "We believe she has done more than almost anyone else to combat the stigma and misconceptions that still surround HIV and Aids.""

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-02-04/news/mn-1517_1_aids-patient
 
Bias much? Like Diana or not, it had enormous impact:

Charities devastated after Diana quits as patron - News - The Independent in 1995: "Derek Bodell, director of the National Aids Trust, one of the charities the Princess will continue to work with, said they were thrilled: "We believe she has done more than almost anyone else to combat the stigma and misconceptions that still surround HIV and Aids.""

7-Year-Old AIDS Patient Shares Hug With Princess - latimes


Thank you. She touched what would have been a pariah, at a time when only those with education, knew it could not be spread by social contact. It was enormously important. I think, that those in South America, China and Central America heard of her. I, personally, hate shaking hands, with numerous people. That being said, Diana's move was extremely important to those with AIDS. And they acknowledged it. And for the few times you can show me pictures of some of those lovely queens with gloves and I acknowledge that you did. Most of the time they do not wear them and they touch people and do not have press when they are touched like they are a holy icon. The queen is a lovely woman, but all this he touched her or put his hand on her shoulder is nonsense. Diana had a good instinct. He sons know better.
 
It's always interesting to read articles from the time Diana was alive. Here is the Vanity Fair piece from 2007: "Excerpted from The Diana Chronicles, by Tina Brown, to be published this month [July 2007] by Doubleday; © 2007 by the author."

EXCERPT - JULY 2007
Diana's Final Heartbreak
LINK: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/07/diana200707
 
Looked like a nice article but as I don't subscribe I can't read it.
 
I wonder if the gloves provide a bit of cushioning for their hands when they're shaking hands with dozens of people at engagements? For an elderly lady like QEII it might be very helpful if you're dealing with arthritic joints and thinning skin.
 
I am sorry that all you read just my "opinions" instead of all the facts, letters, quotes and articles I posted on this thread and other thread like the thread of "Diana's charity work" to support my opinions.

Someone say a person who actually knew Diana said her motivation for charity work was not pure, but I notice that the same person said some quite different words too. So you see, using opinion, no matter whose, to support claim is quite lame.

That is always my point, if one only state one's opinion without supporting evidences and facts, I wont take it very serious. Just like you state that Diana mix motives for charity work including her lurk for publicity. And you said she dropped her 100 charities was because she was lazy, and always refused another possible interpretation that it is because she wanted to be more focus and more involved in some particular causes. For all of these I don't see you have any evidence to support your claim.

I don't think I have ever said Diana was lazy. Regarding her resignation from over 100 charities after her divorce, Diana had stop doing work for those charities in 1993. When she announced her partial withdrawal from public life, she said that she wanted a more meaningful private life, including spending more time with William and Harry.

It is an undeniable fact that Diana drastically cut down her charity work in the last few years of her life. Some of the appearances she made had a huge media impact, but that doesn't mean that she was a "pure humanitarian." The media impact only proves that she was very good at getting publicity.
 
If HM didn't wear gloves, I expect that she would have caught many more colds and/or other viruses over the years. These days, there are antiseptic hand lotions and towels. Those didn't exist years ago.

But they should. IMO there is no virtue in shaking so many hands with one's own bare hands. :sad:
 
If HM didn't wear gloves, I expect that she would have caught many more colds and/or other viruses over the years. These days, there are antiseptic hand lotions and towels. Those didn't exist years ago.

I understand and agree but I don't think that is why the Queen wore gloves. I think it was the fashion in the 50s. I don't think Diana ever wore gloves during her royal engagements--perhaps with evening gowns.

Regardless, she intended to make a point when she shook hands with people who were infected with AIDS. It was memorable, particularly in the western world. She wasn't the only person who was helping AIDS victims but she was among the first.
 
How's that controversial memorial fountain/drain thing in London faring? Is it still there? Is it popular? Do people think of Diana when they go there?
 
Yes it is still there. Whether people who use it connect it to Diana I don't know - maybe they do and maybe they don't. I am sure that there are people who make the effort to see it just because of the connection to Diana while others may just see it or use it without realising it has something to do with her.
 
About gloves: Queen Elizabeth II is almost the only European royal offering a gloved hand for a handshake. The other British royal ladies then keep the gloves on, then take the gloves off. On the Continent etiquette says that always a bare hand is offered for a handshake. This is an ancient tradition going back centuries and means: "Look, I offer you my bare hand, I have no bad intentions, I come as a friend."

The late Queen Elizabeth with ungloved right hand

Queen Máxima with an ungloved right hand

Queen Mathilde and Queen Letizia with ungloved right hands

Crown Princess Mette-Marit with ungloved right hand

Crown Princess Mary with ungloved right hand

Grand Duchess Maria Teresa with an ungloved right hand

Empress Michiko and Queen Sonja with an ungloved right hand

Three royal sisters with an ungloved right hand

So all the hullabaloo about *grasp* a royal touching someone without gloves *shudder* was pretty weird in continental eyes. Offering a gloved hand was (and is) seen as a faux pas. Queen of England or no Queen of England. Her very own mother showed how it should be done.

Another picture of the late Queen Elizabeth with an ungloved right hand

And another one

:flowers:
 
How's that controversial memorial fountain/drain thing in London faring? Is it still there? Is it popular? Do people think of Diana when they go there?

What is it? :ermm: Is there a picture we can see? Why controversial?


About gloves: Queen Elizabeth II is almost the only European royal offering a gloved hand for a handshake. The other British royal ladies then keep the gloves on, then take the gloves off. On the Continent etiquette says that always a bare hand is offered for a handshake. This is an ancient tradition going back centuries and means: "Look, I offer you my bare hand, I have no bad intentions, I come as a friend."

[...]

So all the hullabaloo about *grasp* a royal touching someone without gloves *shudder* was pretty weird in continental eyes. Offering a gloved hand was (and is) seen as a faux pas. Queen of England or no Queen of England. Her very own mother showed how it should be done.

I, too, was raised with this sensibility when among a small, modest group. One would remove one's glove as it's considered rude to take someone's hand gloved. :flowers: I was just thinking of one person glad-handing a large crowd. I see no virtue in doing so un-gloved.

There is also this: if someone (who has to do all the glad-handing) has a sensitivity, or a 'deformity' (perhaps a wart?) I could see wanting to use a glove as a courtesy. In any case, gloved or un-gloved, I never seek to shake a 'celebrity's' hand in a public place, unless they make the first move to do so. I've been taught it's an intrusion otherwise.

BTW I don't see much massive handshaking by royals (or celebrities). I'm trying to think when such happens. Is it a British thing? Do other royals do it?
 
Last edited:
It's always interesting to read articles from the time Diana was alive. Here is the Vanity Fair piece from 2007: "Excerpted from The Diana Chronicles, by Tina Brown, to be published this month [July 2007] by Doubleday; © 2007 by the author."

EXCERPT - JULY 2007
Diana's Final Heartbreak
LINK: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/07/diana200707

As much as I know, there are a lot of false facts in this article. The most critical one the following paragraph.

Resolved to do that, Hasnat met Diana in an agreed-upon spot in Hyde Park at 10 o'clock one hot night in the second week of July. Knowing she was to be rejected, Diana reproached him with scalding words and tears. She could not really accept that it was over. But Khan was not a man who played games. In August the Khan family, returning to Lahore, gave Hasnat gifts for the beautiful princess who had visited them. He told them to mail them to her instead. He wouldn't be seeing Diana anymore. -- Diana the Chronicle by Tina Brown

That is completely wrong. It was Diana who took the initiative to break up with Hasnat Khan, not the vise versa. Here is the statement of Hasnat Khan to the inquest:
When Diana went to St Tropez with Mr Al Fayed,everything was fine between us. I said goodbye to her the day she went as I had stayed with her the previous night at Kensington Palace. ...

When we did meet up in Battersea Park, she was not her normal self and she kept looking at her mobile phone. I told her that I thought she had met somebody else and it must be someone from Mohamed Al Fayed's contingent. I had no idea who it could be. As far as I knew, it could have been a bodyguard or anyone, but I just knew that she had changed since she had been away with Mr Al Fayed, so I guessed it must have been someone in his party. I knew that Mr Al Fayed had children, but at that stage I did not know of his eldest son, Dodi. I was surprised when she denied to me that there was anyone else. At the end of our meeting in Battersea Park we arranged to see each other again, the following day, at Kensington Palace. I can't remember the exact date, but we met in Battersea Park within a couple of days of her returning from Paris. It was at this second meeting that Diana told me that it was all over between us. She denied there was anyone else involved. I told her that I strongly suspected there was someone else and I remember saying to her at the time 'You are dead', meaning her reputation was dead. I said this because I was sure that it was someone from Mohamed Al Fayed's group and that was how I felt about anyone involved with him. I did not know him personally, but I had read in the press about his business involvements and Diana had given me a general impression of him in the past. It was only when I heard the news on the radio that I learned about Dodi. I think she wanted to be with someone who was happy to be seen with her in public and she could do that with Dodi.

Here is a timeline of other events happened around the time.

July 26 Diana and Dodi had dinner in Paris. Dodi brings Diana to tour Villa Windsor for around 40 minutes. Diana thinks it is more like a museum, and how can anyone possible live there.[1]

July 27 afternoon, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford, co-founder of LSN, were invited to KP to update Diana their recent activities and future plan. Diana asked them to plan her Bosnia trip in secret. Because she wants to meet the victims and their families herself [2,3].

July 27/28 night, Diana met Hasnat Khan in Battersea Park. Here is Paul Burrell’s account of the event:

“The Princess came home that night very distressed and said that she had had it, she had tried everything she could to bring this man out into the public spotlight and he was having none of it. He did not want to become a public name, he didn’t want to become known, and they had reached a stalemate situation” [1].

July 30, Diana told Photographer Jason Fraser her impending cruise on the Jonikal.[4]

Aug 4, the “kiss” photo was taken by Mario Brenna (Fraser’s work partner) [4].

References:
[1] “Hearing of Inquest into the Deaths of Diana and Dodi – Paul Burrell”, 14 Jan 2008 morning.
[2] Jerry White, “Travels with Diana: A Landmine Survivor’s Tale,” Christian Science Monitor. 3 Sep 1997.
[3] Jerry White, “Jerry White’s Survivor Corps Mission”, Ability Magazine, Vol 2009 Aug/Sept.
[4] “ ‘I was always nearby ready to photograph her and that suited us both’: Photographer Jason Fraser opens up on his special relationship with Princess Diana”, Daily Mail, 20 Dec 2013.

The problem with Tina Brown's book is, it barely has any direct quote from anybody, a.k.a., no reference at all. Take this story for example, without any quotes from Diana and Hasnat Khan nor anybody else, the writer just imagined a story and wrote it down as a matter of fact. And then based on this imaginary story, the author came up with more new imaginary stories and reached to an conclusion that Diana was heartbroken and became emotionally unstable again. And use this to explain everything happened in that summer.
 
Last edited:
What is it? :ermm: Is there a picture we can see? Why controversial?




I, too, was raised with this sensibility when among a small, modest group. One would remove one's glove as it's considered rude to take someone's hand gloved. :flowers: I was just thinking of one person glad-handing a large crowd. I see no virtue in doing so un-gloved.

There is also this: if someone (who has to do all the glad-handing) has a sensitivity, or a 'deformity' (perhaps a wart?) I could see wanting to use a glove as a courtesy. In any case, gloved or un-gloved, I never seek to shake a 'celebrity's' hand in a public place, unless they make the first move to do so. I've been taught it's an intrusion otherwise.

BTW I don't see much massive handshaking by royals (or celebrities). I'm trying to think when such happens. Is it a British thing? Do other royals do it?


From what I have noticed, QE2 only shakes hands gloved when out and about. When doing investitures, she does not wear gloves. I am not crazy about shaking hands either. They have a cold, they scratch their nose, you shake hands, you scratch your nose, tag, your it.
 
It looks beautiful to me, I remember hearing there were problems back in the 90s but I've heard nothing since then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom