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

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Memorial statues are to mark the passing of someone of importance. Both Diana's boys are hale and hearty and it would be downright creepy having them immortalised in a memorial statue.

She was someone of importance, just not to you. Those arent William and Harry, its from when she worked at the Young England Kindergarten.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. King George V and Queen Mary had a great deal to do with the development of the idea of members of the BRF being seen out and working among the people. George VI and Queen Elizabeth were tremendous symbols of the fight against the Nazis. They had the first attempts at what's now taken for granted, the Walkabout. There's innovation with every reign.

Yes, I think that Diana will be remembered as a glamorous, tragic figure as well.

The late princess of Wales may have been ground breaking in her charities. But charities and royalty come hand in hand and things that were ground breaking at the time will be regarded as normal in the future. Many royals have done good deeds in the past and will do so in the future. She will probably mostly be remembered as a glamourous royal figure with an eventful and tragic life, much as Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Charlotte of Prussia and perhaps Marie-Antoinette.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Although she is indeed the Queen of the UK, she isn't a saint. And like all humans I am sure that also QEII has made one or two mistakes in those 90 years. Her role as a constitutional monarch has prevented her from wielding too much powers and from participating actively in government. She will therefore probably be remembered by the time she ruled and will symbolise post-war Britain. The same can be said of Queen Victoria, who is mostly remembered by the period that was named after her and not by her personal achievements - which I am sure were many.

The late princess of Wales may have been ground breaking in her charities. But charities and royalty come hand in hand and things that were ground breaking at the time will be regarded as normal in the future. Many royals have done good deeds in the past and will do so in the future. She will probably mostly be remembered as a glamourous royal figure with an eventful and tragic life, much as Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Charlotte of Prussia and perhaps Marie-Antoinette.

I agree. Even now the things remembered about her is her fashion sense and the whole Charles/Camilla bit. That doesn't mean that she didn't mean a whole lot more to other people but that's what sticks in the minds of the general public; especially those who, like myself, were not old enough to grasp the charity work aspect of her job.

I asked about her AIDS work because at the time she did it, other celebrities had done work with AIDS patients and had taken on the cause. So she wasn't the first to have close contact with AIDS patients. That's not to take away from what she did, but more to put it in perspective.

I agree that her biggest legacy comes from her boys. Every time W and H do anything they're asked about their mother. So her lasting effect is of a tragic figure that left behind her beloved boys.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I agree. Even now the things remembered about her is her fashion sense and the whole Charles/Camilla bit. That doesn't mean that she didn't mean a whole lot more to other people but that's what sticks in the minds of the general public; especially those who, like myself, were not old enough to grasp the charity work aspect of her job.

I asked about her AIDS work because at the time she did it, other celebrities had done work with AIDS patients and had taken on the cause. So she wasn't the first to have close contact with AIDS patients. That's not to take away from what she did, but more to put it in perspective.

I agree that her biggest legacy comes from her boys. Every time W and H do anything they're asked about their mother. So her lasting effect is of a tragic figure that left behind her beloved boys.

As someone old enough to remember it, being in college at the time, it WAS a big deal her shaking an AIDS patient hand. She was the first big celebrity to be seen touching an AIDS patient, im sure someone, somewhere on the net can find a D list celebrity doing it before her, maybe, but it made a huge impact on how people viewed people with AIDS.

 

[HistoryGirl]

The story of Elton John and Ryan White; a boy who was bullied for being HIV positive The Story of Elton John and Ryan White

Didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said she wasn't the first for the sake of fact checking. I'd heard about the Ryan White case while I was studying the history of AIDS in the developing world. He actually met a whole lot of stars after a high profile lawsuit against the school who kicked him out. Alyssa Milano even gave him a kiss.

That was a big case but I'd say the biggest impact on how people viewed AIDS came when celebrities themselves admitted to having the illness ie. Magic Johnson and Freddie Mercury.

 

[AdmirerUS]

As someone old enough to remember it, being in college at the time, it WAS a big deal her shaking an AIDS patient hand. She was the first big celebrity to be seen touching an AIDS patient, im sure someone, somewhere on the net can find a D list celebrity doing it before her, maybe, but it made a huge impact on how people viewed people with AIDS.

I don't agree about A, B and C list celebs having not ever touched someone with HIV Aids. There were A, B and C list celebs with HIV, for heaven's sake. But as a Princess, well, there were rules about touching UK royals. So for her to touch patients was a big deal to do with royalty more than celebrity as I experienced it. And yes, the impact was huge.
The handshake was 1989.
Here is a general Aid/HIV timeline. https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

 

[Skippyboo]

Elizabeth Taylor was an early AIDS supporter started in 1984. Testifying to Congress, creating amFAR pre Diana handshake. Raised more $270 million during her lifetime. Certainly not a D list celebrity.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lee-Z]

Elizabeth Taylor was an early AIDS supporter started in 1984. Testifying to Congress, creating amFAR pre Diana handshake. Raised more $270 million during her lifetime. Certainly not a D list celebrity.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Funny, i was thinking about her too

 

[COUNTESS]

How celebrities got into the AIDS discussion on this page is confusing. Yes, of course, many came out and did wonderful things, including touching. The point missed, is that Diana did it from this position where things like this weren't done. Whether she was told to touch someone or not, she did and continued to. That was in 1989. No many years later when the all clear had been sounded, so to speak.

 

[HistoryGirl]

The point to me was that she wasn't the first to do that. Personally, I like to have the exact picture of what was happening not just the impression that that's how it was. Those people did do it before her which is what we were pointing out.

Overall, I was talking about it in terms of legacy. For those that lived through hearing about her touching an AIDS patient that will always stick in their memory because it was in every newspaper. But speaking as someone that didn't live through that (and when it comes to considering legacy, most people will not have lived through it), when I think of Diana 'AIDS activist' is not what I remember her as.

That doesn't mean she wasn't involved in that particular field or that what she didn't wasn't important. But we're discussing how she will be remembered. I think the things that have lasted regardless are that she was a pretty, stylish girl; she was cheated on by her husband; and she died tragically and left behind two sons.

It happens to all famous people. The public picks and chooses what to remember about them. No one's legacy is ever the complete list of everything they ever did or accomplished in their life. Maybe if she had founded various charities, constantly given speeches, and continuously raised funds for AIDS she would have that moniker, but she didn't really do that. To me, Magic will forever be considered an AIDS activist because of how long and how synonymous he is with the cause. Again, this is not an indictment on her and I'm not saying she wasn't a good person or a charitable person. I'm just saying, in my opinion, that's likely not what will be her main legacy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I always remember reading about the Queen going into a leper colony at a time when that was still highly contagious and shaking hands, yes with gloves on, but still she did that. That did a lot to remove the stigma around lepers and that was before Diana was born. That has been the way of royals - go to the contagious and show that things can be better.

As for Diana - her biggest legacy is William and Harry and their determination to finish what she set out to do (Harry's recent words say exactly that - unfinished business) but what is that business - modernising the BRF or destroying it????

 

[royal rob]

I always remember reading about the Queen going into a leper colony at a time when that was still highly contagious and shaking hands, yes with gloves on, but still she did that. That did a lot to remove the stigma around lepers and that was before Diana was born. That has been the way of royals - go to the contagious and show that things can be better.

As for Diana - her biggest legacy is William and Harry and their determination to finish what she set out to do (Harry's recent words say exactly that - unfinished business) but what is that business - modernising the BRF or destroying it????

If the Queen wore gloves it's a totally different thing I think most people can see that. And as for Harry comments of course the BRF has to move with the times and it always has think back to the first christmas message being aired.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Zonk]

Please note that off topic and inflammatory posts (as well as the subsequent responses) have been deleted.

Let's stay on topic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Queen wore gloves it's a totally different thing I think most people can see that. And as for Harry comments of course the BRF has to move with the times and it always has think back to the first christmas message being aired.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

You are missing the point about the gloves.

In the 1950s going near lepers was seen as a big deal - let alone touching them at all, even with gloves.

That was a huge deal then and the Queen did it - she touched lepers, she was in their community.

A lot of the information about leprosy as a disease was still to be learnt when she did that.

The point is that she went there, she touched lepers and made a stigma go away in the process (if the Queen of Britain can touch lepers - a disease that has been around since biblical times - then maybe these people shouldn't be social outcasts).

 

[royal rob]

I won't reply as it's off topic


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

I certainly don't think that Diana's intention was to destroy the British monarchy at all. She was well aware that her much-loved elder son was an heir to it. And how can finishing Diana's unfinished business destroy a monarchy of which William and Harry are a part?

 

[Rudolph]

I think her biggest legacy is her sons. They each in their own way continue her work and build on it.
Yesterday William visited the Passage charity, he was presented with a photo taken 23 years ago of him, Harry and his mother when they made a private visit.

Centrepoint tweeted this early today, it shows the continuity between Diana and her boys.

Centrepoint @centrepointuk
Did you know: before Prince William became Patron of Centrepoint, the role was held by his mother, Princess Diana!

https://twitter.com/centrepointuk/status/731447753126121472

 

[Curryong]

It's lovely to see how natural Diana was with everyone. No awkwardness, stiffness or woodenness. People really responded to her in a big way.

 

[Denville]

I certainly don't think that Diana's intention was to destroy the British monarchy at all. She was well aware that her much-loved elder son was an heir to it. And how can finishing Diana's unfinished business destroy a monarchy of which William and Harry are a part?

she may not have consciously intended to do so, but her actions DID nearly destroy the monarchy....

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

she may not have consciously intended to do so, but her actions DID nearly destroy the monarchy....

I agree. It was most likely never her intention, but the best intentions can cause World War III. What started as a detoriating marriage became a monarchy rocking on its foundations, even so that the Queen publicly classified it as an Annus Horribilis in her long reign.

 

[Osipi]

she may not have consciously intended to do so, but her actions DID nearly destroy the monarchy....

I wouldn't go as far as to say her actions nearly destroyed the monarchy as when we really think about it, all this was played out on a stage where the private and personal lives of the people that make up the royal family were the players. We sat back and watched the show. Crown and government went on with business as usual.

With being given a keyhole to peep into their private lives, it did however, change the perspective on how the public saw the royal family. Some aspects we saw were the good, the bad, and the very ugly. On the positive side of all of this though, the public came to see that the "mysterious" and "mystical" and "untouchable" royals were actually human beings capable of having all the negative kind of things that everyday people have. In a way, it made the royal family more "real" to the people. People started to identify themselves with certain members because they had something in common with them they didn't have before. Proof is right here and seeing these threads on the BRF continuing on and on and on for a very long time.

Along with Diana's legacy living on in her two sons and their families, I think we need to include that perhaps by doing things that she did, it did change forever our perspective of the royal family.

 

[Pranter]

I agree. It was most likely never her intention, but the best intentions can cause World War III. What started as a detoriating marriage became a monarchy rocking on its foundations, even so that the Queen publicly classified it as an Annus Horribilis in her long reign.

That statement by the Queen wasn't just about Charles and Diana's marriage.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

That statement by the Queen wasn't just about Charles and Diana's marriage.


LaRae

Anne and Mark divorced in 1992
Charles and Diana separated in 1992
The fire at Windsor Castle happened in 1992

There might be more but it doesn't come to mind at this point.

 

[Countessmeout]

Anne and Mark divorced in 1992
Charles and Diana separated in 1992
The fire at Windsor Castle happened in 1992

There might be more but it doesn't come to mind at this point.

Fergie and Andrew separated in March.

Fergie's toe pictures and the Diana tell-all book came out.

Queen had to start paying income tax.

The last African commonwealth declared independence.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Anne and Mark divorced in 1992
Charles and Diana separated in 1992
The fire at Windsor Castle happened in 1992

There might be more but it doesn't come to mind at this point.

Andrew and Sarah separated.
The Morton book
Charles and Diana's disastrous Korean tour
Diana at the Taj Mahal alone.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks folks. I knew there was stuff I was forgetting about. '92 was a bad year all around for the Queen and she named it aptly. It wasn't only Diana but a conglomeration of a whole lot of things. With Diana at the forefront and dishing out "tell all" scoops of her marriage, she was perhaps the most memorable and with this, brought in a new era of the public wanting to know and see every aspect of a royal's life. That was before social media too.

 

[Denville]

I agree. It was most likely never her intention, but the best intentions can cause World War III. What started as a detoriating marriage became a monarchy rocking on its foundations, even so that the Queen publicly classified it as an Annus Horribilis in her long reign.

I think that Di was a bit disingenuous at times... either that or she really could be very foolish. She would do things and say "but I never intended such and such to happen" from that..Like the Bashir interview. Did she realy not think that that would infuriate the queen?

 

[Osipi]

I think that Di was a bit disingenuous at times... either that or she really could be very foolish. She would do things and say "but I never intended such and such to happen" from that..Like the Bashir interview. Did she realy not think that that would infuriate the queen?

The keyword is "think". Although, to Diana, at the time the course of actions that she took seemed to be a good idea at the time, when in battle, one is more apt to strike out rashly and without clearly weighing the implications it might have on other people, the future, or even her own self.

People do odd things when they're hurting.

 

[Denville]

I think that it was her rather self regarding nature.. I mean she coudl be very selfish.. but also I think she always tended to live in a little bubble and only see what she wanted to see. So she lashed out because she was hurt and angry with the RF and her husband, and didn't really see perhaps that attacking her in laws was one thing but in attacking the RF, she was (a) going to make them very angry and they would retaliate..and (b) that by damaging the RF's reputation she might well cause the end of the monarchy which was of course the future of her sons. As many have said, she thought in the short term and didn't see the long term consequneces of her behaviour.

 

[MARG]

I think that Di was a bit disingenuous at times... either that or she really could be very foolish. She would do things and say "but I never intended such and such to happen" from that..Like the Bashir interview. Did she realy not think that that would infuriate the queen?

I think any family that had their dirty laundry aired in public would be the same. Whether it's being embarrassed in front of the country, social set, neighbours, friends or even family, nobody likes it and Diana may as well have pulled the pin and yelled grenade.

As to her long-term ideas, she wanted the boys to go to Public Schools and she achieved her aim which was admirable, but she forgot that once they were in public school they were beyond her or the Palaces' ability to protect them from scandal and kids that would taunt them.

William had only been at Eton for a few months or so before she heaped humiliation on him via the Panorama Interview. She obviously thought that William should know before it aired so she arranged to visit and tell him, to rub salt in the wound she was even photographed telling him in the garden, yet she totally failed to understand the effect she was going to on his and Harry's lives.

The immediate humiliation, the long-term embarrassment because boys will be boys, especially at boarding school. HM calling time on the 'Separation' and pushing for divorce proceedings, and the increase of paparazzi once the divorce was announced. I truly believe none of these possible consequences occurred to Diana.